a scientific proof that GOD existes ... ( long read )...

[QUOTE="ToppledPillars"]

This is far from scientific

gubrushadow

HAHAHA oh manhydratedleaf

Thanks for your 3 words. The other person gave an explanation in why he agree's with TC, while you gave three words that was not a rebuttal or an explanation.

his points are valid especilly the matter cant be created or destroyed part. this is perhaps what bugs me most about people being evolutionists. that we all came into existence out of nothing and then they try and tell me matter cant be created nor destroyed. it just doesnt connect as logical or possible at least the first one i dont know enough about the we are all spinning into a chaotic state if left alone theory or how well its been proven or tested.kayoticdreamz

PRO TIP: There is no such thing as an evolutionist. Otherwise you would have to say that about every scientific theory. You don't call people Gravitists, cellists, relativatists, etc. just because they accept the theories or gravity, cells, and relativity. There are people that except scientific fact and people that don't. Calling people evolutionists makes you look like an idiot.

PRO TIP: There is no such thing as an evolutionist. Otherwise you would have to say that about every scientific theory. You don't call people Gravitists, cellists, relativatists, etc. just because they accept the theories or gravity, cells, and relativity. There are people that except scientific fact and people that don't.

laughingman42

This poster, who has feelings and is every bit as smart as you, gaming25

I beg to differ.

PRO TIP: There is no such thing as an evolutionist. Otherwise you would have to say that about every scientific theory. You don't call people Gravitists, cellists, relativatists, etc. just because they accept the theories or gravity, cells, and relativity. There are people that except scientific fact and people that don't.

laughingman42

[QUOTE="laughingman42"]

PRO TIP: There is no such thing as an evolutionist. Otherwise you would have to say that about every scientific theory. You don't call people Gravitists, cellists, relativatists, etc. just because they accept the theories or gravity, cells, and relativity. There are people that except scientific fact and people that don't.

gaming25

[QUOTE="laughingman42"]

PRO TIP: There is no such thing as an evolutionist. Otherwise you would have to say that about every scientific theory. You don't call people Gravitists, cellists, relativatists, etc. just because they accept the theories or gravity, cells, and relativity. There are people that except scientific fact and people that don't.

gaming25

It can't get any higher than a theory, almost by definition.

[QUOTE="laughingman42"]

PRO TIP: There is no such thing as an evolutionist. Otherwise you would have to say that about every scientific theory. You don't call people Gravitists, cellists, relativatists, etc. just because they accept the theories or gravity, cells, and relativity. There are people that except scientific fact and people that don't.

gaming25

Just like the Theory of Gravity, Cell Theory, Germ Theory, the Theory of Electromagnetism.

And evolution is both fact and theory. It is a fact that organisms evolve over time, the scientific Theory explains how, thus why the full name is the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection.

[QUOTE="laughingman42"]

PRO TIP: There is no such thing as an evolutionist. Otherwise you would have to say that about every scientific theory. You don't call people Gravitists, cellists, relativatists, etc. just because they accept the theories or gravity, cells, and relativity. There are people that except scientific fact and people that don't.

gaming25

[QUOTE="gaming25"] But yet you took the time out and comment.... Please, I am not 5 years old. And you "i'm afraid"you missed the point that I was trying to make. This poster, who has feelings and is every bit as smart as you, gave his opinion, and you laughed at him. You did not add to the discussion, yet you wanted everybody to see how "laughable" you thought his post was. "Frankly" you need to respect everyone's opinion especially if they never personally said anything about you.hydratedleaf

[QUOTE="laughingman42"]

PRO TIP: There is no such thing as an evolutionist. Otherwise you would have to say that about every scientific theory. You don't call people Gravitists, cellists, relativatists, etc. just because they accept the theories or gravity, cells, and relativity. There are people that except scientific fact and people that don't.

gaming25

[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="laughingman42"]

PRO TIP: There is no such thing as an evolutionist. Otherwise you would have to say that about every scientific theory. You don't call people Gravitists, cellists, relativatists, etc. just because they accept the theories or gravity, cells, and relativity. There are people that except scientific fact and people that don't.

xaos

Everything is a theory. :o

[QUOTE="hydratedleaf"][QUOTE="gaming25"] But yet you took the time out and comment.... Please, I am not 5 years old. And you "i'm afraid"you missed the point that I was trying to make. This poster, who has feelings and is every bit as smart as you, gave his opinion, and you laughed at him. You did not add to the discussion, yet you wanted everybody to see how "laughable" you thought his post was. "Frankly" you need to respect everyone's opinion especially if they never personally said anything about you.gaming25

PRO TIP: There is no such thing as an evolutionist. Otherwise you would have to say that about every scientific theory. You don't call people Gravitists, cellists, relativatists, etc. just because they accept the theories or gravity, cells, and relativity. There are people that except scientific fact and people that don't.

[QUOTE="hydratedleaf"][QUOTE="gaming25"] But yet you took the time out and comment.... Please, I am not 5 years old. And you "i'm afraid"you missed the point that I was trying to make. This poster, who has feelings and is every bit as smart as you, gave his opinion, and you laughed at him. You did not add to the discussion, yet you wanted everybody to see how "laughable" you thought his post was. "Frankly" you need to respect everyone's opinion especially if they never personally said anything about you.gaming25

[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="hydratedleaf"]No I don't. I'm not obliged to respect anyone's opinion, and I'm especially not obliged to respect someone's opinion when it amounts to flagrant, casuist abuses of scientific knowledge.hydratedleaf

[QUOTE="hydratedleaf"][QUOTE="gaming25"] First of all quote me so that I know that you are talking TO me (or kayo). Secondly, you want me to get the "facts" straight but you have given your "biased" opinion as saying that "There are people that except scientific fact and people that don't." I am sorry, but as much as you want it to be "fact, the theory of evolution (I got that right, didnt I) is still a THEORY.gaming25

[QUOTE="laughingman42"]

PRO TIP: There is no such thing as an evolutionist. Otherwise you would have to say that about every scientific theory. You don't call people Gravitists, cellists, relativatists, etc. just because they accept the theories or gravity, cells, and relativity. There are people that except scientific fact and people that don't.

gaming25

I was talking to anyone who uses the term. and that brings me too...

PRO TIP #2: A scientific theory is not the same thing as the laymans theory. A scientific theory is an explination of a series of FACTS, observations, and quantifiable measurements. It is a FACT that evolution happens. Saying otherwise is outright wrong and now that you know this if you state it again you are a liar. Don't make yourself a liar.

[QUOTE="hydratedleaf"][QUOTE="gaming25"] I asked you to do something very simple, which is decent respect, its as simple as that. Doesnt matter if he was wrong or right, you talk to someone, you talk to them with respect. gaming25

Old destroyed arguments and misunderstanding of science, come on creationists come up with something new that will be debunked.

[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="hydratedleaf"]No I don't. I'm not obliged to respect anyone's opinion, and I'm especially not obliged to respect someone's opinion when it amounts to flagrant, casuist abuses of scientific knowledge.xaos

[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="laughingman42"]

PRO TIP: There is no such thing as an evolutionist. Otherwise you would have to say that about every scientific theory. You don't call people Gravitists, cellists, relativatists, etc. just because they accept the theories or gravity, cells, and relativity. There are people that except scientific fact and people that don't.

I was talking to anyone who uses the term. and that brings me too...

PRO TIP #2: A scientific theory is not the same thing as the laymans theory. A scientific theory is an explination of a series of FACTS, observations, and quantifiable measurements. It is a FACT that evolution happens. Saying otherwise is outright wrong and now that you know this if you state it again you are a liar. Don't make yourself a liar.

[QUOTE="laughingman42"]

[QUOTE="gaming25"] First of all quote me so that I know that you are talking TO me (or kayo). Secondly, you want me to get the "facts" straight but you have given your "biased" opinion as saying that "There are people that except scientific fact and people that don't." I am sorry, but as much as you want it to be "fact, the theory of evolution (I got that right, didnt I) is still a THEORY.gaming25

I was talking to anyone who uses the term. and that brings me too...

PRO TIP #2: A scientific theory is not the same thing as the laymans theory. A scientific theory is an explination of a series of FACTS, observations, and quantifiable measurements. It is a FACT that evolution happens. Saying otherwise is outright wrong and now that you know this if you state it again you are a liar. Don't make yourself a liar.

let me add my 2 cents to the whole "condescending" that is happening in this thread. I'm not going to behave that way because I simply don't think it's needed, when I get frustrated I have learned to just move on. Heres the deal though, and It always seems to play out the same way... When a religious view-point is trying to be shoe-horned into a scientific law to prove anything about the supernatural or "God" people love to make claims when it suits their viewpoint. In these cases it's always a misunderstanding of (or in some cases a willful disregard of) said scientific fact. When others point out the fallacies in the argument the trump card is always "theory" or "blind science" or a thousand other similar responses... you can't have it both ways, you can't claim science on post #1 and then say how flawed science is on post #30. People get condescending and upset because doing so if the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and saying "I CAN'T HEAR YOU". It annoys people, you can't start a scientific debate and then say science doesn't matter later as a means to get around the flaws in the argument.mfp16

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed within a closed system. The universe is a closed system. What's your point? It doesn't prove God exists...

[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="laughingman42"]

I was talking to anyone who uses the term. and that brings me too...

PRO TIP #2: A scientific theory is not the same thing as the laymans theory. A scientific theory is an explination of a series of FACTS, observations, and quantifiable measurements. It is a FACT that evolution happens. Saying otherwise is outright wrong and now that you know this if you state it again you are a liar. Don't make yourself a liar.

hydratedleaf

That may be true. But only in certain instances. The POINT is that the whole theory is not a fact which is why it is not called a "law" (excuse me if I dont have the correct term). So your "pro tip" never proved me wrong.

I'll give you props for saying more than "God exists! Prove me wrong?!"

[QUOTE="hydratedleaf"][QUOTE="gaming25"] I never said that evolution has not occured in things. We were talking about the theory of evolution. Which is interesting, because why didnt you say "It is a FACT that the theory evolution happens"??? Please dont say that I would be a liar or something like that, its a very ridiculous route that I have proven wont work.gaming25

That may be true. But only in certain instances. The POINT is that the whole theory is not a fact which is why it is not called a "law" (excuse me if I dont have the correct term). So your "pro tip" never proved me wrong.

You most certainly don't have the correct term. As I said before, the theory of evolution can't go any "higher" than that - a THEORY.

[QUOTE="gaming25"]

it IS a fact that the theory of evolution happens u_uhydratedleaf

That may be true. But only in certain instances. The POINT is that the whole theory is not a fact which is why it is not called a "law" (excuse me if I dont have the correct term). So your "pro tip" never proved me wrong.

You most certainly don't have the correct term. As I said before, the theory of evolution can't go any "higher" than that - a THEORY.

[QUOTE="hydratedleaf"][QUOTE="gaming25"] I never said that evolution has not occured in things. We were talking about the theory of evolution. Which is interesting, because why didnt you say "It is a FACT that the theory evolution happens"??? Please dont say that I would be a liar or something like that, its a very ridiculous route that I have proven wont work.gaming25

That may be true. But only in certain instances. The POINT is that the whole theory is not a fact which is why it is not called a "law" (excuse me if I dont have the correct term). So your "pro tip" never proved me wrong.

Doesnt matter, because it still doesnt mean that in its entirety its a "fact". gaming25

A scientific theory is a scientific theory.

[QUOTE="gaming25"]

That may be true. But only in certain instances. The POINT is that the whole theory is not a fact which is why it is not called a "law" (excuse me if I dont have the correct term). So your "pro tip" never proved me wrong.

You most certainly don't have the correct term. As I said before, the theory of evolution can't go any "higher" than that - a THEORY.

[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

You most certainly don't have the correct term. As I said before, the theory of evolution can't go any "higher" than that - a THEORY.

hydratedleaf

Then tell me how am I wrong.

The First Law of Thermodynamics

What is the truth of modern science regarding the origin of all matter in the universe? Do scientists tell us that it has always existed? Or have they determined that there was a moment in time in which all matter came into existence? The answer to the second question is, yes! But what is the proof that this is true?

The First Law of Thermodynamics is stated as follows: Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. There are no natural processes that can alter either matter or energy in this way. This means that there is no new matter or energy coming into existence and there is no new matter or energy passing out of existence. All who state that the universe came into existence from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics, which was established by the very scientific community who now seem willing to ignore it. In summary, this law plainly demonstrates that the universe, and all matter and energy within it, must have had a divine origin—a specific moment in which it was created by someone who was all-powerful.

With the coming of the Atomic Age, beginning with the discovery of radium in 1898 by Madame Curie, came the knowledge that all radioactive elements continually give off radiation. Consider! Uranium has an atomic weight of 238.0. As it decomposes, it releases a helium atom three times. Each helium atom has a weight of 4. With the new weight of 226.0, uranium becomes radium. Radium continues to give off additional atoms until eventually the end product becomes the heavy inert element called lead. This takes a tremendous amount of time. While the process of uranium turning into radium is very long, the radium turns into lead in 1,590 years.

What are we saying? There was a point in time when the uranium could not have existed, because it always breaks down in a highly systematic, controlled way. It is not stable like lead or other elements. It breaks down. This means there was a specific moment in time when all radioactive elements came into existence. Remember, all of them—uranium, radium, thorium, radon, polonium, francium, protactinium and others—have not existed forever. This represents absolute proof that matter came into existence or, in other words, matter has not always existed!

This flies directly in the face of evolutionary thought—that everything gradually evolved into something else. Here is the problem. You cannot have something slowly come into existence from nothing! Matter could not have come into existence by itself. No rational person could believe that the entire universe—including all of the radioactive elements that prove there was a specific time of beginning—gradually came into existence BY ITSELF!

Through your own efforts, try to build something—anything—from nothing. Even with your creative power engaged in the effort, you would never be able to do it. You will not be able—in a hundred lifetimes of trying—to produce a single thing from nothing! Then, can any doubter believe that everything in the entirety of the universe, in all of its exquisite detail, came into existence completely by itself? Be honest. Accept facts. This is proof that the existing natural realm demands the existence of a Great Creator!
The Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is best summarized by saying that everything moves toward disorder—or a condition known as entropy. This bears some explanation and we will consider several examples.

Remember that evolutionists teach that everything is constantly evolving into a higher and more complex order. In other words, they believe things continue to get better and better instead of worse and worse.

If water being heated on a stove is at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the burner is turned off, the temperature will drop instead of rise. It will move toward colder rather than hotter. If a ball is placed on a hill, it will always roll downhill and not uphill. Energy used to perform any particular task changes from usable energy to unusable in the performing of that task. It will always go from a higher energy level to a lower energy level—where less and less energy is available for use.

When applied to the universe, the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the universe is winding down—moving toward disorder or entropy—not winding up or moving toward more perfect order and structure. In short, the entire universe is winding down!

Even evolutionists admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are completely incompatible with each other. Consider: "Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, 'It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous) Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true'" (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967, p. 35).

Like a top or a yo-yo, the universe must have been "wound up." Since the universe is constantly winding down, the second law of thermodynamics looms before us in the form of a great question: Who wound it up? The only plausible answer is God!

EVOLUTION

The theory of evolution is shot full of inconsistencies. Evolutionists have seized on many theories, within the overall theory of evolution, in an attempt to explain the origins of plants, animals, the heavens and the earth.

Over and over, these "theorists" try to explain how life evolved from inanimate material into more complex life forms until it reached the pinnacle—human beings.

Yet, as one geologist wrote, "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as student…have been debunked" (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Dept. of Geology, Imperial College, London, The Nature of the Fossil Record, Proceedings of the Geological Assoc., Vol. 87, 1976, pp. 1132-1133).

Perhaps the biggest reason that so many theories within the overall theory of evolution collapse is because they contain terrible logic requiring great leaps in faith to believe. Here is one example of a "debunked" theory: "Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people's closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: 'Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man's closest relative.' 'Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man's closest relative.' 'Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man's closest relative.' 'On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man's closest relative'" (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967).

oh no its too long , well have fun :P

gubrushadow

Sweet zombie Jesus, another one of these. First off, can we get one thing straight about theories and never have to talk about it again? Seriously, we need to like imprint this on like every kids' brain coming out of grade school and take every idiot who tries to tell anyone otherwise, stick them in an unmarked crate, and ship them off to a government warehouse, because they are just wrong. This is how the scientific method works, you begin by OBSERVATION. You observe the physical world and take note of natural phenomena (e.g. the fact that white squirrels survive in snowy environments and dark squirrels survive in more polluted environments). From those observations you develop a hypothesis, such as the squirrels are white because god doesn't like his creations to clash, or because they adapted to their environment through selective breeding facilitated by the death of the squirrels who didn't blend in i.e. natural selection. When you criticize evolution as being just a theory you are not referring to a theory, you are referring to a hypothesis, a general conclusion based on minimal observation and lacking support. A theory is formulated after extensive testing and observation of actual phenomena and requires the hypothesis to be verified in order to be considered a theory, therefore a theory is not a theory in the way you imply, but really a hypothesis that has been extensively tested and proven to hold true to real world phenomena, such as the observable and empirically verifiable phenomenom of natural selection. Furthermore, theories are not mutually exclusive and can be used in conjuction with one another to better understand natural phenomena. Having multiple thories relating to one phenomenom does not invalidate them, if anything it makes them stronger. I will go back to the theory of evolution, we can observe scientifically that natural selection is a very real phenomena, we can observe that all fomrs of life adapt to their natural environment, and we can observe that these physiological changes take extended periods fo time to manifest themselves and even longer to become the norm for a species. From these observations we can scientifically conclude that all the species on this planet have evolved over extended periods of time. From other observations of speci DNA, similarity of certain physiological structures, and unearthed bones of common ancestors we can determine that the multitude of species living on this planet came from a relatively small group of ancestors, going back far enough. All this and other pertinent science suppor the theory that life evolved from primordial organisms into the forms of life we know today. Do we know this for sure? No, but all evidence and logic supports it. We may not be able to explain all the specifics, but that doesn't invalidate the theory, that's not how science works. If science can't explain something it doesn't look for a deus ex machina to solve all of its inconsistencies, it searches for solid answer based on more observations, more research, and more facts.

Going on this thought, the laws of thermodynamics apply to the observable world, what we can see and test with our eyes and equipment. Just because it is a scientific law within this realm does not necessarily mean it applies within all realms of existence. Scientists are now becoming aware of a phenomenom which is currently all but immeasurable called dark matter. We know absolutely nothing about this dark matter, we only know of its existence through the failure of measurable matter in this universe to explain the total mass of the universe. There is no way to say that what we can observe as a species is indicative of how the rest of the universe works. We know only of a minute portion of the entire galaxy, much less the universe. Just because we can observe something in our small little corner does not make it universally true.

Furthermore, no one says the universe came from nothing (except for creationists, of course). What adherents to the big bang believe is that it is responsible for the formation of our universe as we know it. It speaks only to formation, not to the origin of matter or energy. Again, science deals only with what we can explain, if there is something currently beyond our capacity to explain it does not mean that god did it, it simply means we are not YET capable of explaining it.

As to the second law, the universe does not know perfect. It is not as if someone was at a used car lot looking at a car in decent condition and a beater and decided to go with the first car, the universe does not work like that. The universe just acts, it's nothing but pure causation. The laws that "govern" the universe, as we like to say, really just describe the observable aspects of the universe, it's not like we make these laws and then the universe is obliged to obey them, quite the opposite, the universe acts as it does and we alter our perception of it as we come to better understand it.

The second law does not have anything to do with evolution, organisms are not compelled to move to a less perfect state from our perception. Rather, organisms simply adapt to their environment through no fault of their own. Where the second law does apply in the biotic sphere is in death and decay. Living organisms use more and more energy as time goes on and begin to decay. They eventually cease facilitation of chemical exchange processes and become abiotic material. This is where the second law is applicable, not in evolution. Evolution is, like the second law, a way to describe an observed natural phenomenon. The second law was written to explain thermodynamics, not breeding patterns over an extended period of time.

[QUOTE="hydratedleaf"][QUOTE="gaming25"] Doesnt matter, because it still doesnt mean that in its entirety its a "fact". gaming25

Then tell me how am I wrong.

his points are valid especilly the matter cant be created or destroyed part. this is perhaps what bugs me most about people being evolutionists. that we all came into existence out of nothing and then they try and tell me matter cant be created nor destroyed. it just doesnt connect as logical or possible at least the first one i dont know enough about the we are all spinning into a chaotic state if left alone theory or how well its been proven or tested. meanwhile my faiths teaching of God merely organized all the matter into its current form and then gave it life makes far more sense and is far more in line with matter cannot be created nor destroyed because God who made the universe and its laws isnt going to break those laws that hold the universe together else he would never of made the laws and created the universe in the first place. this however does not mean he cant part a red sea because he obviously knows just a tad bit more about physics than anybody on earth does and there could in fact be a very scientific within the laws of the universe reason or way he the red sea was parted. perhaps God has some power some force he executes to perform said miracles and by applying this force the universe complies with it because he is the master therefore he knows full well how to bend it to his will. which is no different than humans and inventing technology we are merely bending forces of nature to our will to create things. that also explains further how the earth can appear to be billions of years old if it was simply organized at some point rather than created. it also would hold further truth that God must of always existed by the very nature of matter was never created nor destroyed. personally i agree with that train of thought far more than big bang theory we evolved and came from nothingness and what do you know it still doesnt violate the matter c annot be created nor destroyed law and in fact applies perfectly.kayoticdreamz

EXCEPT evolutionists DO NOT contend how the unvierse was created.. The big Bang is not the creation of the universe, just the earliest point, and the leading factor of what formed the universe in its current shape.. No where do "evolutionists" which is not even a term ever claimed how matter was created..

Wow, the TC is really getting ridiculed in this thread...

I almost feel bad asking what I'm sure is going to be an ignorant question, but hey, if ignorant questions aren't asked, we will forever remain ignorant, right :P

I'm going to ignore all but the first argument, because it's the only one that really makes any sense to me.

The first argument essentially states, from what I gather, that the matter in the universe could not have existed forever because matter with an infinite existence could not have any radioactive elements (since they have a half-life). This seems to make sense to me, since they would have all decayed into other elements given an infinite lifespan.

Why, then, is this immediately disregarded? Is it based on the belief that the universe continually expands and contracts, thereby "renewing" energy every rebirth cycle? Is it based on the belief that the matter in the universe had a beginning (such as is the case with the singleton theory)?

At the very least, it does seem to indicate that the matter in the universe could not have existed in it's current form for an infinite amount of preceding time. Or am I missing something?

theone86

The first argument essentially states, from what I gather, that the matter in the universe could not have existed forever because matter with an infinite existence could not have any radioactive elements (since they have a half-life). This seems to make sense to me, since they would have all decayed into other elements given an infinite lifespan. Why, then, is this immediately disregarded?mattbbpl

Wrong again.hydratedleaf

Then tell me how am I wrong.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="gaming25"]

That may be true. But only in certain instances. The POINT is that the whole theory is not a fact which is why it is not called a "law" (excuse me if I dont have the correct term). So your "pro tip" never proved me wrong.

gaming25

You most certainly don't have the correct term. As I said before, the theory of evolution can't go any "higher" than that - a THEORY.

No, it is a collection of facts.

The reason that it is a Theory is the reason that every collection of facts explaining a phenomenon is a Theory in science: because science is inherently self-correcting the option to adjust and revise previous knowledge means that anything that cannot be expressed a mathematical law is left open for further research.

Scientific theories are facts that explain a specific phenomenon that have withstood extensive research and peer review. Saying that it's not a "fact" is semantically correct, but you're ignoring the concept that a Theory in science is basically equivalent to a fact and the only reason it isn't called one is the reality that not even science is %100 perfect every time.

death, destruction, victorytheone86