If you are going to create a forced binary, it's a lot more accurate to say it's a fact than to say it is not. IOW, you will actually be far more misleading and dishonest to say it is NOT a fact than to say that it is.
So no, I'm not going to manipulated into playing your game beyond what I've already allowed. This part of the discussion has been manufactured by you. If you don't like my answer, then don't force a binary. You're actually allowed to see evolution as the most viable alternative (by far) without thinking it is perfect and unflawed.
Yes. See above. The problem is with your forced binary AND with your implied insistence that if something is not 100% proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (which, of course, nothing can be), then it is equivalent in probability to all other ideas that one might present without testing. It's like playing Powerball with one ticket while someone else has bought 50 million tickets and saying you both have equal odds to win because, after all, "no one knows what will happen."This is ridiculous though, theory and a fact? are you serious?
At the moment, there is no other viable alternative to evolution, scientifically, and it is constantly being refined by experimentation and data. So it best describes the data we have, just as Newtonian physics best described the data at the time... and was never really "wrong," it just could not explain all potential situations that might arise and it could not explain WHY things worked as they did.
And no, I'm not required to engage you in a detailed discussion of evolution, I have a life outside this forum. I've found enough to satisfy my own curiosity on the topic and have no vested interest in winning you over to believe in evolution -- why should I care? My complaints in this thread have pretty clearly been about the lack of rigor in your logical process, as I have noted above for the third or fourth time above; that has been my concern. You muddy the definition of what a scientific theory is and suggest that points of view unsupported by the same copious quantity of data are equivalent.
If you want to understand why I hold this view on evolution, go read books by people who work in the field daily -- I doubt I could present a case to a level that would convince you of anything. There's a plethora of books out there explaining how science views evolution, the positives and the flaws, the areas of uncertainty, and the like, and what "other options" there are and to what degree those hypotheses are probable.