> What you say is simply not true. One sees all the time and
> in many various fields that the same word is used to refer to
> both the facts associated with a phenomena as well as the
> theory that tries to explain those facts. I know it is
> probably surprising at first but it shouldn't cause too
> much confusion once you get the idea.
Cummins: To speak of "the theory of gravity" is inaccurate and, at best, an
abbreviated version of the correct form. To be accurate, you would say "the
theory of what causes gravity," (you could name the theory itself, such as
"gravitational wave theory"), gravity itself is a fact, not a theory.
Relativity is a fact and also a theory. I guess that settles it. Gravity is a fact and a theory.
Cummins: Even if we allow the use of "gravity is a fact and a theory," the evolutionists
are not simply overloading the subject, they're attempting to confuse things
(the shell game).
It's only confusing to those who do not take the time to educate themselves about it.
> Yes it is, and its called the theory of plasticity. OK, another reason
> for selecting this example is that I actually know something about it.:)
> Our department offers a course entitled "Theory of Plasticity."
CumminsL How about if you run over to your English department and get an expert on
the language to answer if it's meaningful to say "Plasticity is both a fact
and a theory"? While you're at it, ask what the verb is in "Please give me
a glass of water". And, ask if "very unique" is meaningful. I'm serious.
It is indeed correct and used as such all the time. At least in the realm of science. Perhaps you are more familiar with english ?
> You know, it might actually be less confusing if I said "the facts
> about evolution" instead of "the fact of evolution".
Cummins: Is "ameba to man" a fact or a theory?
Well, it's incorrect as has been told to you before but ignoring that part, the evolution of man (and other animals) is a fact and a theory.