You've not heard of scientific 'laws', like the 'law of gravity'? Gravity is observable; evolution is not. You doubt that gravity is a 'law'?
That you pull the "only a theory" line despite having told over and over again that a "theory" implies an explanation that has withstood rigourous testing and has amassed significant amounts of evidence demonstrates that you are fundamentally dishonest.
And just who has conducted this rigorous testing of evolution? No one has observed evolution actually occurring, especially macro evolution.
Something isn't true just because you claim it to be so; is it? What makes you so sure you are not the one who is being 'fundamentally dishonest'? Either that, or you are simply ignorant of the principles of logic.
There is considerable speculation involved weith evolution. evolutionists can provide any proof of transitional life forms (BTW, why would a 'transition form not be a 'new' life form?). Evolutionists can only predict that they will be found at some point. Talk about faith, or eould that be wild speculation?
And just who has conducted this rigorous testing of evolution?
Well, it started with Aristotle so you have a lot to catch up on.
You've not heard of scientific 'laws', like the 'law of gravity'? Gravity is observable; evolution is not. You doubt that gravity is a 'law'?
This demonstrates your ignorance. A law is merely an observation of fact. A theory is the explanation of the facts. Theories are generally held in higher regard than laws. This is partially because many scientific "laws" don't always hold true. Newton's laws are a good example of this, including Newton's "law of gravity".