Theory vs. Fact: Why don't people get the difference?

Question

Why do evolutionists say evolutionology is a "fact" when it's called the Theory of Evolution? Other scientific theories don't pretend to be facts the way evolution does. Theories are wild guesses made by scientists that have no basis in fact.

(Actually, a theory is a set of propositions with empirical support that both explains and accurately predicts phenomena, and is not a guess. I'm ignoring point because it hurts my argument)

For example, there's a branch of math called number theory that deals with properties of numbers. For example, "5 is prime" is a statement of number theory, and therefore it's only a theory that 5 is prime.

Another mathematical theory is that 2+2=4. Nobody in their right mind would call this a fact, because it's just a theory.

However, since there's nothing called "the Theory of Creationism" creationism is not a theory. Since it's not a theory, it must be a fact. So creationism is fact.

The second paragraph should read "I'm ignoring THAT point because it hurts my argument." I left out the word "that".

I just claimed that 2+2=4 is not a fact and people are agreeing with me? Did people not read that far down or do they actually agree with that claim?

Answer 1

I'm sori, but I have to say that I agree with thet theerey thing thet 2+2=4, cause I ciphered thet out a cople a times miself when i was doin recirch at the Univircity of Alabamma.
Axually, I magered in Ingliche, but I had me a fonness fir matheematix.-----and I also hav to tell ye, thet 5 reely is 5.
Sori,-- not trien ta be a smart a ss, --but sumbudi had ta tell ye.

Maebe yoo bin spindin two mutch time in the sity. Yoo need ta git out inta the cuntri an git sum fresh aere.

After I came ta be a profesir, I did sum studyen on Evlooshun, and ya got me thair, cuz thet stuff's a hole bunche a crapp.
Hope this hellps.

Answer 2

H. Stephen Stoker's college textbook defines theory as, 'a hypothesis that has been tested and validated over a long period of time'. A theory is the best answer anyone has come up with so far.

Based on this definition, Evolution isn't even a theory. It is a hypothesis. Evolution has been tested over a long period of time. But it has NOT been validated by all of those tests. Each time one of the supporting so-called "facts" for evolution is discredited, Evolutionists dimiss or cover up the inconsistency.

Scientists are supposed to form hypothesis, experiment on them, reject the ones that are proven wrong, make predictions about the ones that cannot be dissproven, experiment on said predictions. Then and only then, if the hypothesis is validated, it becomes a theory.

If more scientists took an unbiased look at the world around them, they would find all sorts of evidence that the world was inteligently designed. But, they are afraid of the truth, and so they choose not to believe it, and spend lifetimes tying to dissprove it. But in the end we will all see how wise these scholars are when they stand before the Creator.

However, I must caution you to not give such flimsy argument as, "since there's nothing called "the Theory of Creationism" creationism is not a theory. Since it's not a theory, it must be a fact. So creationism is fact". Evolutionists will dismiss this argument as the ramblings of a bible-thumper.

I encourage you to continue studying about creation and evolution. Read your Science textbooks, then see what the Bible says on the same subject.

Answer 3

All science is essentially theory - even facts can be disproved. That's the wonderful thing about science - we're constantly discovering new things.
The reason it's called Theory of evolution is because all scientific facts are theories - just that most of them are theories that we know to be true, like evolution. These theories, which are consistently proved to be true, are accepted as the basis for how we understand our world.
That's why we're always testing scientific theories. Remember the atom? Well, there have been many theories about what an atom looks like - theories which are constantly being changed and tweaked.
All of science is a work in progress, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Answer 4

Look up the SCIENTIFIC definition of "Theory" (capital "T" is deliberate). Then you will realize that what you have said about it being a "wild guess" is wrong. Gravity has a "Theory" too - is it a wild guess or are you superglued to the planet Earth? Go back to school - your explanations and comments show that you are ignorant of what the words REALLY mean.

You are wrong about the numbers too. Using proofs, you can verify that 5 is a prime number - no "Theory" is necessary - only mathematical laws and rules.

Btw: as Creationism has no EVIDENCE it can't even be considered a "Theory", let alone a "fact".

And if you are ignoring the point of what "Theory" really means, then aren't you just wasting your time... and ours? Your "argument" falls apart based on this statement alone.

Answer 5

You obviously did not take enough biology classes. How can you call creationism a fact when you have not one tiny bit of evidence to back it up? And yes, something CAN be a theory and still be fact. The THEORY of evolution is what is called a WORKING THEORY, meaning there is ample evidence, but there are still pieces that are being looked for.
From your 'logic' existence of atoms MUST be a theory, because we cannot see them. Also, according to your 'logic' gravity must also be wrong, since we cannot 'prove' it and cannot see it.
I'd also suggest you take a philosophy class and learn how to present a proper argument, yours is very weak.

Answer 6

There is no Theory of Intelligent Falling either. Now THAT would be an interesting fact to teach students as an alternative to the Theory of Gravitation, which is just a mere theory. (I choose to ignore the definition of the word "theory" for exactly the same reasons as you do.)

If you want to claim that 2+2=22, who am I to argue with you? After all, number theory is just a theory.

I must admit that your questions are consistent, to say the least.

Answer 7

"However, since there's nothing called 'the Theory of Creationism' creationism ... must be a fact."

Excuse me, but I need to go throw up now. Logic like this make me nauseous.

Do everyone, yourself included, a favor. Look up "non-sequitur".
Also, look up the definition of "theory", as it applies to science. And don't make arguments like this any more.

Answer 8

"However, since there's nothing called "the Theory of Creationism" creationism is not a theory. Since it's not a theory, it must be a fact. So creationism is fact."
LMAO!!ROTF!!! You actually expect your statement to stand up all by itself? Sounds like a little kids argument.

Answer 9

No, listen carefully, evolutionists believe that evolution is a THEORY which is based on FACTS. Got it?

Meanwhile you have divided everything in the world into "theory" and "fact". If it's not a theory it's a fact. Are you George Bush?

Answer 10

people do not get the difference because they are blind to simple truth and please understand this fact also.......I used to be an atheist before but thankfully not now, 100 % believer now and the atheists here that have not converted yet are only here for one reason, to learn more about God because they are fence sitters still not sure if they want to jump in. REAL atheists like I used to be would never hang out in a place such as this that is full of religion. in their questions and answers they will deny it but that is only so their friends that see their questions an answers will not make fun of them.they will put up a very strong anti-God front but a front is all it really is.....100 % here are secretly fence sitters,..no true atheists here so keep preaching, they really do want to hear it.....HOWEVER if you see violations of yahoo guidelines please report 100% of the abuses, they can sit on the fence but only decently !