Do atheists know what the word "fact" means?

Question

I know I will receive many irrelevant answers from angry atheists, but if one more tells me that evolution is proven I am going to cry out of frustration, which I know will probably make them happy. There is a reason it is called a THEORY; there is supporting evidence, yes, concrete proof, no. (There is also plenty of supporting scientific evidence for creationism, but it is ignored or dismissed by most).

I Chong: I have seen this information before. Everyone: When I say evolution I am speaking of the Theory of Evolution which says that we evolved from monkeys, which evolved from the primordial ooze, similar to the ninja turtles. I know that the concept of evolution exists, but also know that we evolved, in a sense, from Adam and Eve, over a period of 8-10 thousand years, not 100 billion.

SkunkGreat: you are one of the people who inspired me to post this question. Refer to my previous add details, but I am assuming that you mean that the Theory of Evo is fact, which it is not. You can say it is, but is not. It is that simple.

Ok, supporting information for creation is unreliable simply because it comes from Christians? While supportin evidence for evolution is reliable when it comes from evolutionists. I thought Christians were supposed to be the hypocrites?

Asker: actually many atheists said tha a theory is a fact, just scroll up above your post. Hmmmm....

EmmyDuck: Can you see Gravity? or the wind? no, only it's effects, similar to my God.

Answer 1

your right, you will get many angry atheists spewing their venom @ you for this LOL

Answer 2

The facts are: there are many species with similar attributes
The theory is: they evolved from each other

A fact is something we observe (many species with similar attributes) A theory is something used to explain the facts (they evolved from each other)
A theory can never become a fact, by nature a theory must always be falsifiable - no matter how much evidence there exists to support that theory it is always possible that there exists evidence to disprove that theory, though some scientists may be reluctant to give it up. I do not understand how some people who consider evolution a FACT come to that conclusion.

Answer 3

So if we proceed from your position, what is the supporting evidence for God? The miracles of Jesus? Noah's Ark? Eden?

There are far more people treating ENTIRELY faith-based stories as facts, then there are people subscribing to EVIDENTIAL based concepts like evolution, the big bang, etc. Nobody seems to be worried about this, or the general poverty of critical thinking skills that proliferate in our schools, country and world.

If your complaint is that people are too quick to adopt unproven theories as fact, then 90% of the theistic world has been guilty of this crime since the beginning of recorded history (sigh.)

As for the so-called "scientific evidence" for creationism, well... suffice to say only the most naive and gullible people can not see through these delusional claims, which is probably how it should be. We really don't want flat-earthers influencing people either.

Answer 4

You just wish it was a theory. It's only a theory by name. There is no scientific theory that as been proven that is CALLED "Fact". The degree of evidence you want to "prove" evolution makes as much sense as trying to say that the Earth as not been proven to revolve around the sun. One thousand years from now the world will still see the fact of evolutionary theory, and your pathetic religion will be as widely believed as greek mythology is today. That will be a good thing, because what your doing is ethically wrong. People like you willingly lie about the nature of reality. The reason you do it is because your too weak to face the truth. Then you try to make other people just as delusional as you are. Do you REALLY care ? I didn't think so.

Answer 5

I know the difference, and I find it interesting to read statements made by Christians who say things like, "I know God exists because He told me." "God created..." and "The Bible proves..."

If the only thing that atheists are guilty of is accepting evolution as fact (although I have always considered it a theory), then they're doing pretty well. Christians still have the market cornered on not knowing the difference between fact and theory.

Answer 6

Proof there is A GOD::

93 million miles from the blistering surface of the sun hangs the planet earth.
A rotating sphere perfectly suspended in the center of the universe. The ultimate creation from an infinite mind. An unbelievably intricate complex design. A supernatural testimony, an irrefutable sign that there is a God.

The size, position and angle of the earth is a scientific phenomenon to see.
A few degrees closer to the sun we'd disintegrate, a few degrees further, we'd freeze.
The axis of the earth is titled at a perfect 23 degree angle and it's no mistake that it is.
This allows equal global distribution to the rays of the sun making it possible for the food chain to exist.

Or take for example the combination of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere we breathe every day. It just happens to be the exact mix that life needs to prosper, it doesn't happen on any other planet that way

You see, the Bible says the invisible things of God are seen through His creation, to believe this is not hair. If there's a design, there's a designer, if there's a plan, there's a planner and if there's a miracle, there IS a GOD.

Answer 7

You are right! There is a difference between a theory and a fact. Believing in evolution has the same rational basis than the religious one: it's faith. Because it is nosomething we can directly proof by means of empirical method. It is something that is inferred from observation (which doesn't make it false). We simply must aknowledge this irrefutable point: Theory vs fact. many theories attempting to explain the way the world works have been overthrown for other ones, but while those first ones were in force they enjoyed the full privilege of being correct! That is the very nature of science: All knowledge achieved by its methods is provisional at best and is as reliable as our capacity to understand and sense is. Science is a great way to achieve knowledge but we fail if we give it more weight than it should have

Answer 8

Before you get all condescending, you should probably know what a theory is. you should probably also understand what evolution is.

but, then again, research and knowledge are not exactly the hallmarks of creationists.

"Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
- paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould

Answer 9

Evolution is back up by evidence, concrete evidence. Nothing scientific supports creationism, its not how it works, science and religion do not go hand and hand, if it did, there wouldn't be an ongoing argument between creationsim and evolution. The bible isn't proven.

Just live your life and get over yourself. People are going to believe what they want. And just because someone doesn't believe in YOUR god doesn't make them atheist. It just means they believe in THEIR own beliefs and god or gods. Leave people be and believe your own beliefs. The world would be a much better place.

Answer 10

Do you know what a scientific THEORY is? Here's an overview of "law, hypotheses and theory" in scientific terms:

In concise terms, a law is a statement of fact meant to explain an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

A hypotheses is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

Creationism, on the other hand, is NOT a scientific theory by any stretch of the imagination. It also is NOT supported by concrete proof, empirical evidence or rigorous testing (how on earth could it be tested, anyway?).

Answer 11

You obviously don't understand what the word "theory" means.

hen non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983