wesr, I didn't want to leave your post without a response. I unfortunately won't have time to get into too much detail at the moment, however I can offer some recommended reading for some points and some clear refutations at others. I have broken your post down into quotations. I hope this does not offend, but helps you see why your argument is not overly helpful to any discussion of scientific merit
"Evolution is a theory" Theories hold the highest degree of scientific evidence. Words can have multiple meanings. "Theory" in a scientific forum does not mean the same as "theory" as used in colloquial speech. If you are capable of recognising that a woman can be "hot" without having a high temperature, you should be capable of recognising the distinction between different meanings of the word "theory" in scientific and colloquial language. See also; the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, the atomic theory, the theory of radioactivity (nuclear theory), the theory of quantum mechanics, the theory of special relativity, etc.
"not a true science like physics" This is incorrect. The multiple fields which deal with the theory of evolution are certainly "true science". I can recommended scientific fields which involve evolutionary concepts, hinge on evolution by natural selection to make sense, or actively research and contribute to our understanding of evolution by natural selection: biochemistry, genetics, zoology, archaeology, palaontology, evolutionary biology, microbiology, anatomy, parasitology, radiobiology, toxicology, developmental biology, botany, virology, molecular biology, epigenetics, medical biology, biomechanics, ecology, biostratigraphy,
"that makes claims that can be tested and thus potentially falsified." Evolution is quite falsifiable. If you have evidence of anything falsifying evolution, please present it. You would certainly win a nobel prize.
"There are a growing number of non religious scientists who are questioning this theory not just in principle but in practice." Can you name many members of this "growing number" of non-religious scientists (I assume you mean biologists?) who contest the evidence for evolution? Can you cite their works?
"This is due to the fact that the ongoing growth of biological knowledge keeps producing facts that contradict rather than confirm evolution!!!" I disagree. Can you present this knowledge contradicting evolution, so that we may peruse it? I will advise that citing anything other than peer-reviewed scientific journal articles is not likely to help your argument.
I hope this has been helpful. Kindest regards, and I hope this was not seen as overly contentious. I unfortunately can't allow such unfounded claims go uncontested.
Also, thank you UniversalTrader. I hope I was at least somewhat helpful!
