At least you are honest about evolution not being testable.That is the very reason neither of them are really theories; they are models. it is the evolutionist who has had to twist the meaning of theory over the past several decades in order to claim that evolution is a theory. It also seems they have twisted the meaning of the word 'fact'.
A “model” of how something works is a “theory”.
Evolution is no longer just a “theory”, but a science. There are various theories contained within evolutionary science, such as the bird from dinosaur hypothesis – but that is pretty well proven.
The facts of evolution are in evidence. Read the literature.
No it isn't. A model is a suggested explanation of how some system came into being or how said system works. Once a model is established, people can look for evidence that supports or contradicts the model and make adjustments that take those observations into consideration. It cannot be considered to be a theory until it is tested and those tests can be duplicated. Since evolution cannot, or at least has not, been duplicated, it is not a theory.
Evolution is no longer just a “theory”, but a science.
See above.
There are various theories contained within evolutionary science, such as the bird from dinosaur hypothesis – but that is pretty well proven.
I believe that there are relatively recent, within the last 3-5 years, admissions by some well-known evolutionists that admit this suggestion is incorrect.
The facts of evolution are in evidence. Read the literature.
No it isn't; and I have read the literature. The 'literature' is riddled with words such as 'possible', 'might', 'could', 'likely', etc. These words suggest nothing more that conjectures and guesses; not facts.