Theory vs Fact

[BluePriest]

This is in religion instead of science because the main time this comes up is when christians are talking to someone about evolution.

Person A:Evolution is just a theory, its not a fact
Person B:In a scientific sense, a theory is higher than a fact as a theory is a collection of facts.
A:Derp

This is an argument that I see a lot. And although person B is correct, their argument is flawed. Person A also doesnt quite understand what himself is saying, and therefor cant see the flaw in person Bs argument. Answers in Genesis(henceforth recognized as AiG) itself concedes that this is an argument that person A should never lose. I dont like AiG too much as they dont seem to support what they say very well, and ignore some of the stronger evidence that is against it (along with seeming extremely biased, which I understand their bias, however, if you want to help people you have to be able to explain things to someone in a way that a non biased person would believe) See here.
/anti-AiG-rant
Theories are not facts. This is the key point. This isnt to say that theories havent been researched of course, but it instead states that we should not treat a theory as a fact, as since it is a collection of facts, it can change based on the facts that arise. A theory may be higher than a fact, but at the same time, it CAN change and this is what people should emphasize. A theory can be proven wrong, but a fact can not because if it is wrong, then it was never a fact.

[The Devourer King]

Wow yes agree,  interesting to read because I was just discussing the very same issue, it quickly went into intelligent design afterwards .  My eyes are so perfect right now.

[OldTrees]

Fact is a sound used to symbolize multiple different concepts.

1) What is true
2) What there is extremely good evidence for such that it is accepted as true

Scientific theories start with less evidence than number 2 and either accumulate evidence or are discarded. Eventually they equal and then surpass the lower bound of number 2.

[mypetmachine]

In your hypothetical discussion, person B's response may or may not be too facile, but person A's argument is irredemably flawed. In addition to (knowingly or not) conflating multiple connotations of the word theory, he is also conflating multiple deotations of the word evolution. Evolution, meaning the gradual change of existing species into new species over time is, in even person A's logic, a fact. There are multiple ways of demonstrating this fact: molecular genetics, fossils, comparative anatomy and physiology, embryology and developmental biology, etc. Evolution can also refer to the theory of evolution by natural selection, which is a scientific theory that attempts to explain the mechanism behind the fact of evolutionary change in species.

In this light, perhaps the only proper response to person A is to tell him that his terms are poorly defined.

[russianspy1234]

And my response is generally "So is gravity."

[Drake_XIV]

And my response is generally "So is gravity."

But that's assuming that because one theory is true, that all others, despite being founded on different facts, are true as well.

[russianspy1234]

And my response is generally "So is gravity."

But that's assuming that because one theory is true, that all others, despite being founded on different facts, are true as well.

No, it's simply stating that saying that something is "only a theory" does not ipso facto invalidate it's truth.

[Drake_XIV]

And my response is generally "So is gravity."

But that's assuming that because one theory is true, that all others, despite being founded on different facts, are true as well.

No, it's simply stating that saying that something is "only a theory" does not ipso facto invalidate it's truth.

Of course, but even then, you can't use the inverse to say it is, which is implied when you compare it to something held true.  In this case, gravity.

[russianspy1234]

And my response is generally "So is gravity."

But that's assuming that because one theory is true, that all others, despite being founded on different facts, are true as well.

No, it's simply stating that saying that something is "only a theory" does not ipso facto invalidate it's truth.

Of course, but even then, you can't use the inverse to say it is, which is implied when you compare it to something held true.  In this case, gravity.

Indeed, it's simply said to refute the validity of person A's point.  It doesn't have to directly prove my point, simply show the statement as absurd.

[OldTrees]

And my response is generally "So is gravity."

But that's assuming that because one theory is true, that all others, despite being founded on different facts, are true as well.

No, it's simply stating that saying that something is "only a theory" does not ipso facto invalidate it's truth.

Of course, but even then, you can't use the inverse to say it is, which is implied when you compare it to something held true.  In this case, gravity.

Yes, we should not imply Gravity is true merely by relating it to another Theory(Evolution).

A Theory has a body of evidence that supports it. In this manner Theories are similar. Therefore you should review the evidence of a Theory in order to estimate the confidence level of the Theory.

[AnonymousRevival]

Well, after all the term' theory' is from the Hellenic term 'θεός' for God.

[furballdn]

Well, after all the term' theory' is from the Hellenic term 'θεός' for God.

Is that really relevant?

Also:

As an everyday word, theoria, θεωρία, meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding", but in more technical contexts it came to refer to contemplative or speculative understandings of natural things, such as those of natural philosophers, as opposed to more practical ways of knowing things, like that of skilled orators or artisans.

Source: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&lookup=qewr&lang=greek