For the alternative theorists:

[Write4U]

Is the following not sufficient for communication purposes?

Fact in science
In science, a "fact" is a careful observation or measurement, also called empirical evidence. Facts are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Correspondence_and_the_slingshot_argument

 

[Yazata]

Is the following not sufficient for communication purposes?

Fact in science
In science, a "fact" is a careful observation or measurement, also called empirical evidence...

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Correspondence_and_the_slingshot_argument

I think that I prefer to define 'fact' the way that the 'Oxford Guide to Philosophy' does (on p.287) where its article on 'facts' begins

A fact is, traditionally, the worldly correlate of a true proposition, a state of affairs whose obtaining makes that proposition true. Thus a fact is an actual state of affairs.

Defining 'fact' the way the Wikipedia article does, as the raw observations and measurements that scientists make of states of affairs in the physical world, isn't tremendously different. That approach might even have some advantages, such as anchoring facts in how scientists actually know about the physical world (they observe and measure it) and in what they are able to say about it, as opposed to treating facts as somehow adhering in things in themselves.

But locating facts among the things that scientists say, what they say about their observations and measurements in this case, seems to me to create problems as well. For one thing, there's the theoryladenness thing. Scientists rarely if ever report bare uninterpreted sense-data. Instead, they measure magnetic field intensities or whether a particular rock contains feldspar. Scientific observations and measurements, to say nothing of the instrumentation that's used to do it, embodies and incorporates all kinds of theoretical assumptions.

But what worries me more in this thread is that moving facts from the world itself to what scientists say about the world threatens to make some subset of scientific language (Rudolf Carnap's 'protocol sentences' that supposedly record scientific experience directly and without interpretation, perhaps) into something like how fundies imagine the Bible - inerrant and infallible.

Backing off that a little by admitting that scientists' reports of their observations needn't be necessarily true and might conceivably still be falsified seems to shift the locus of factuality from the observation report back to the world itself. Now the observation report is only truly reporting a fact if the world cooperates by corresponding to the report. And that delivers us back to the account of facts that I favor.

There's another problem here as well. Paddoboy wants to say that something like the biological evolution of animals is a fact. I'm willing to agree that this belief may well state a fact, depending on whether that's what's really been happeing out there in reality. (I'm quite confident that it is, but my confidence isn't what annoits facts as facts.)

If we do as Wikipedia (and the positivists along with it) want us to do and identify facts as observations and measurements, then it's hard to see how the biological evolution of animals could possibly be a fact. A paleontologist might observe and describe a particular fossil. A comparative geneticist might report the results of some gene-sequencing experiment. But nobody has literally stood there and observed animals evolving. (I think that we have observed bacteria evolving, as with drug-resistance, but that's a different example.) The idea that animals evolve isn't an observation or a measurement, it's a conclusion that's drawn on the basis of all kinds of often highly complex evidence and inference.

 

[paddoboy]

I think that I prefer to define 'fact' the way that the 'Oxford Guide to Philosophy' does (on p.287) where its article on 'facts' begins

Yazata, the reputable article I posted earlier re fact and theory did even surprise me.
I have said all along that no theory can be 100% certain. But obviously some are so near certain as to be very near fact, and they are often and logically and naturally referred to as fact.
That happens in all scientific circles.
You seem to have come here, criticising all those that criticise alternative hypothesis, and pseudoscience along the lines of them "not being given a fair go"
I'm obviously implied in that criticism.
Yet I have failed to see you answer the question currently at hand. [Or I have missed it...I am rather busy at this time]
That question is Give me another explanation for how life arose in the Universe [other than a non scientific biblical all powerful deity explanation] If one accepts the BB as the valid theory for the evolution of the Universe.

My answer is that we have no other choice but to accept that life arose from non life, if we accept the BB.
I also cannot see how it can be any other way, even if one dismisses the BB. [again ignoring the God hypothesis]

And I don't see my view [and that of the general mainstream] as defying the 12 points in the OP, if all those 12 points are considered together.

 

[Write4U]

Yazata, but we need not go back 100,000 years to know evolution is a fact. The fossil record, while incomplete, does confirm evolution 'by various means.
All those means are evident in our modern domesticated animals. Selective breeding, mutation, crossbreeding, in-breeding are all practised in nature even as it is on a more random basis. Evolution is a FACT, imho. We know when new species emerged; therefore they were not present at an earlier date. They MUST have evolved.
What other method could be imagined to account for the variety in speciation. You may want to check the "rock hyrax" which is a distant cousin of modern elephants.

And I believe that we have indeed "watched" fruitflies evolve or devolve when exposed to radiation. I read somewhere it takes but one generation for a fruitfly to adapt to a hostile environment. DDT used to be a poison, today locusts are immune to DDT.

We still have the genes from these old specimen in our system. http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/early-human-ancestors-faces.htm

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

We still have the genes from these old specimens in our system.

And that's the key to this argument. Evolution is perhaps the most solid theory in the entire scientific canon, because it is supported by evidence from two unrelated sciences: paleontology and genetics.

Fruit flies reproduce quickly, but bacteria are even faster. We can watch a community of bacteria evolve in the laboratory in less than one year!

Anyone who doubts evolution is neither a scientist nor a scholar.

 

[paddoboy]

Anyone who doubts evolution is neither a scientist nor a scholar.

And the same goes for the overwhelming "fact" that life in the Universe, ultimately had to have arisen from non life, although I see it as more a "common sense" quality being neither a scientists nor a scholar.

 

[Yazata]

Anyone who doubts evolution is neither a scientist nor a scholar.

Wouldn't that depend on the nature of the doubts and on what justifies them?

What bothers me is the idea that's implicit in much of this thread that certain scientific (more accurately scientistic) beliefs are somehow inerrant and infallible, and that anyone who dares question them reveals him/herself to be a heretical "denier". I'm not comfortable treating science as if it were religious faith.

It seems to me that the word 'evolution' is kind of ambiguous.

Its broadest meaning is something like 'change over time'. Hardly anyone will want to dispute that the universe changes over time. (There may be a handful of metaphysicians who take a Parmenidean view of things, perhaps.)

Another closely related idea of 'evolution' is something like 'change over time through natural processes'. This one introduces the naturalistic thesis and it can have a strong and a weak sense. The weak sense is that change over time through natural processes does happen. I don't think that most people would want to dispute that. Even creationists play pool. (There are some so-called 'occasionalists', many of them Muslim, who deny that physical causation even exists and insist that all physical change is the result of God's will.) The strong sense makes the much stronger claim that the only way that change over time can occur is through natural processes. That one is pretty clearly a metaphysical belief and many people will probably want to disagree with it. For my part, I don't know how anyone could know something like that. (My naturalism is methodological as opposed to metaphysical.)

We can move the meaning of the word 'evolution' in a Darwinian direction by having it stand for the assertion that 'biological speciation is explained by natural selection'. I'm not sure if I'm prepared to write this one a 100% blank-check, but in my opinion it's abundantly clear that natural selection is a major driver of what's happening in the history of life on earth.

If we tighten up the meaning of 'evolution' from here, it starts to get technical. There's questions about the logical structure of evolutionary theory and about the precise meaning of its terminology. There are questions about what precisely is evolving. (Individuals? Phenotypes? Populations? Species? Genes? Gene frequencies? Genotypes?) There are taxonomical issues and problems in defining the 'species' concept. There's all the fascinating 'evo-devo' stuff. (I suspect that punctuated equilibrium kind of naturally falls out of evo-devo.) There are no end of controversies and disputes about the evolutionary histories of particular taxa.

And evolutionary thinking naturally overflows biology and gets applied more broadly. So what are we to make of things like sociobiology or evolutionary epistemology? Do ideas evolve? Do societies evolve? They obviously change over time, so in one sense the answer is trivially 'yes'. But it gets more perplexing when we start wondering how applicable the Darwinian natural-selection model and the insights of evolutionary biology might be when applied to things like nations.

 

[paddoboy]

What bothers me is the idea that's implicit in much of this thread that certain scientific (more accurately scientistic) beliefs are somehow inerrant and infallible, and that anyone who dares question them reveals him/herself to be a heretical "denier". I'm not comfortable treating science as if it were religious faith.
.

What bothers me is the idea that's implicit in much of this thread and others, that scientific theories that are as close to rock sold as one can get, are completely over-ridden by unqualified layman and those without access to much of todays modern technology, spending their time spreading their nonsense behind a computer screen incognito. And then expect all and sundry to take their word as Gospel.

I may be wrong Yazata, but I don't believe I have seen you pull any of those sorts into gear yet.

And let's forget about Evolution for a moment. How about the claim I make as a near certainty.
The one about life from non life at it's most basic fundamental. Do you agree?
If not, what means do you suggest?

 

[Grumpy]

Facts and theories are two different things. Facts are the observations, theories try to explain what is observed. Evolution is a fact that can only be denied by those totally ignorant of the current knowledge of those observed facts, or by someone with mental problems or other impediments to accepting reality. Theories, on the other hand, are only as good as our understanding of the cause of observed facts, they are always subject to revision given new facts or better understanding and no scientists claims they are infallible.

So, to summarize, facts are undeniable by rational actors, while theory is always provisional. Evolution is a fact, it is undeniable given the copious observational evidence, the theory explaining the cause of that evolution(the Theory of Evolution)is constantly being argued(mostly in the details in our time).

Grumpy

 

[paddoboy]

So, to summarize, facts are undeniable by rational actors, while theory is always provisional. Evolution is a fact, it is undeniable given the copious observational evidence, the theory explaining the cause of that evolution(the Theory of Evolution)is constantly being argued(mostly in the details in our time).

Grumpy

Ahhh, gee, that was so beautifully put, it's brought a tear to my eye, and a lump to my throat.
Seriously, well explained.

 

[Russ_Watters]

What bothers me is the idea that's implicit in much of this thread that certain scientific (more accurately scientistic) beliefs are somehow inerrant and infallible, and that anyone who dares question them reveals him/herself to be a heretical "denier". I'm not comfortable treating science as if it were religious faith.

When the error bars are microscopic, there is no functional difference between "infallible/inerrant" and "almost inerrant/infallible". Indeed, to say the theory of evolution is almost 100% proven would be to imply it is less proven than it really is, because if you pulled a number out of the air (99% proven?) you'd be understating the level of proof.

So while it might be a slight exaggeration to call evolution completely proven, by the same token, expressing any doubt is understating the level of proof.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Facts and theories are two different things. Facts are the observations, theories try to explain what is observed. Evolution is a fact that can only be denied by those totally ignorant of the current knowledge of those observed facts, or by someone with mental problems or other impediments to accepting reality. Theories, on the other hand, are only as good as our understanding of the cause of observed facts, they are always subject to revision given new facts or better understanding and no scientists claims they are infallible.

So, to summarize, facts are undeniable by rational actors, while theory is always provisional. Evolution is a fact, it is undeniable given the copious observational evidence, the theory explaining the cause of that evolution(the Theory of Evolution)is constantly being argued(mostly in the details in our time).

Grumpy

Unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple: all facts have error bars associated with them, and the deniers live inside those error bars.

 

[Grumpy]

Russ_Watters

Unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple: all facts have error bars associated with them, and the deniers live inside those error bars.

I would say that the theories have error bars in understanding and permanance, while the error bars in observation are usually just technical.

Here is an example of an observed evolutionary event...

A parasitic fly from the US mainland was transported to the Hawaiian Islands in the 80s. It lays it's maggots on crickets that it finds by tracking their chirps. Crickets with genetic changes for the shapes of the noise making sections of their wings are largely immune to this hunting technique because they cannot chirp at all.

"In the Hawaiian crickets, silence arose amongst males as a way to hide from parasitoid flies that are attracted to male song. Fly larvae burrow into crickets, killing them within a week's time. Quiet crickets avoid those deadly flies and still manage to mate by positioning themselves near males in the population that do sing, Bailey explains.
At first, Bailey and his colleagues thought that silent flatwing crickets had arisen just once and subsequently migrated from one island to another. However, when they looked closely at the wings of crickets on the island of Kauai versus the island of Oahu, they noticed obvious differences in the crickets' forms.
Further experiments in the lab showed that the silent wings in both cricket populations could be traced to single, sex-linked genes. However, Sonia Pascoal, a postdoc in Bailey's laboratory, performed a genome-wide scan that showed that the genes responsible are linked to different genetic markers. Remarkably, the same trait arose at about the same time on two islands, but independently and in different underlying ways."

http://phys.org/news/2014-05-silence-cricket.html

Fact, two seperate populations of Flatwing Crickets evolved silence by two different paths(as shown down to the levels of the genes on the DNA of the crickets and clear morphological differences, both micro and macro evolution). Hypothesis(well supported, but not yet independently confirmed or peer reviewed), those populations evolved in response to a known event, the introduction of an invasive parasitic fly that uses the normal chirps to locate prey. Real evolution in the wild on a time scale we can observe in one lifetime. The evolution is an observed fact, the cause is not yet a confirmed theory, but it is a strong hypothesis(with some observed facts of it's own, the fly's behavior is an observed fact). There's simply no wriggle room left for deniers or doubters of the fact of evolution, and little on the theories as well.

Grumpy

 

[Trippy]

The Evolution and adaptation of species is the observable fact - there's no denying that it has happened and continues to happen.

Darwinism, neo-darwinism, gradualism, and punctuated equilibrium are the theories as to how the obeservable fact of evolution occur.

This perceived ambiguity is the fodder that creationists dwell upon.

 

[Trippy]

Fact, two seperate populations of Flatwing Crickets evolved silence by two different paths(as shown down to the levels of the genes on the DNA of the crickets and clear morphological differences, both micro and macro evolution). Hypothesis(well supported, but not yet independently confirmed or peer reviewed), those populations evolved in response to a known event, the introduction of an invasive parasitic fly that uses the normal chirps to locate prey. Real evolution in the wild on a time scale we can observe in one lifetime. The evolution is an observed fact, the cause is not yet a confirmed theory, but it is a strong hypothesis(with some observed facts of it's own, the fly's behavior is an observed fact). There's simply no wriggle room left for deniers or doubters of the fact of evolution, and little on the theories as well.

Kind of like the evolution of blond hair in humans - consider blond hair among solomon islanders versus blond hair among europeans.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Russ_Watters

I would say that the theories have error bars in understanding and permanance, while the error bars in observation are usually just technical.

Here is an example of an observed evolutionary event...

There's simply no wriggle room left for deniers or doubters of the fact of evolution, and little on the theories as well.

I'm sorry, "error bars" was probably too specific, since much of evolution is qualitative and not quantitative. I probably should have said "subject to error". Perhaps the final form of error is fraud, which leopold went to in his diversion thread. I have to trust that what you just said isn't a lie generated by you or someone else.

 

[Photizo]

Creationists have a theory as to the Who of our surroundings rather than the what, utilizing inference based on observation. This theory requires faith by definition--as does what you hold--because the desired knowledge/certainty remains out of reach (of both creationist and others). Creationist believe--as you do--that one day this knowledge/certainty will be attained. The difference being that we believe this 'state' of knowing/certainty will be received by direct revelation from God Himself rather than attained by human effort.

 

[wellwisher]

Facts and theories are two different things. Facts are the observations, theories try to explain what is observed. Evolution is a fact that can only be denied by those totally ignorant of the current knowledge of those observed facts, or by someone with mental problems or other impediments to accepting reality. Theories, on the other hand, are only as good as our understanding of the cause of observed facts, they are always subject to revision given new facts or better understanding and no scientists claims they are infallible.

So, to summarize, facts are undeniable by rational actors, while theory is always provisional. Evolution is a fact, it is undeniable given the copious observational evidence, the theory explaining the cause of that evolution(the Theory of Evolution)is constantly being argued(mostly in the details in our time).

Grumpy

Evolution is a theory, in the sense it is a conceptual way to explain the change/progression we observe of life. Even if you are a Creationists, after life is put here on earth 6000 years ago, (use this assumption), life will go through changes. Old species will disappear, floods change the flora and fauna, etc. We can all agree on this observable data of life. Any farmer will see changes year to year in color or size.

The difference in POV comes down to the question of origins of life, not that life changes. The origin of life is the heart of the debate, not change itself, since there has been change in the past 6000 years with ancient version of trees no longer around. Creation does not preclude DNA, as being part of life, it is all about origins, not how life is composed, as witnessed by science. Science tries to explain how God's creation works so we can make it better.

That being said, Creationists begin the changes of life about 6000 years ago, after its creation. They can see the fossils but will explain using their time line. Evolutionary theory goes back further into time and tends to start with genetics, as its do-all variable. I start with water, which goes back to day one. I see the genetic theory as starting too late to be fully true, just like they see the Creationists theory starting too late, to be valid.

This is where the Evolutionist make use of smoke and mirrors to ignore this fact of origins (time-line) as applied to them.

Everyone can look at the clouds form and we can have ten different theories for why a certain animal shape appears. But just because we all start with the observational facts does not automatically mean all theories are right. This is the confusion, pointed out by Grumpy. Some evolutionist use the facts connected to changes, to prove their theory, and then merge and confuse these two separate things. Everyone looking at the cloud animal can have a theory and the facts, these are two separate things.

The difference in my POV, is I start at the day one with my water variable and don't come in the middle, like Darwin, genetic evolution or Creation. Creation is a good example, for the evolutionists, of what can happen if you come in very late in the process, while still being able to see the facts of short term observations over the past 6000 years. Evolution does the same, compared to the water variable, but can't see it. This is why, of all the areas of science, evolution is the only one that has to censor, since it is not self standing; one legged science.

I define one-legged science as being based on the method of science. It makes use of data, but it forms a theory that needs politics and faith to survive. The other leg is not science, but is more liberals arts and dogmatic in nature. This artificial leg is needed because it does not start at the origin. If you look around, religion only goes after one legged science, because the fake leg is often semi-religion. Religion does not attack chemistry or IT, since it has two legs. There is no propping up needed and religion senses it would discredit itself to deny applicable science.

In the case of evolution, starting too late in the time-line requires propping up, even if the observations are factual. These are two separate issues. It takes so long to reach the brain of one legged scientists, because science alone will not reach the artificial leg. If I sucked up those who like evolutionary theory and told them how excellent this is, while knowing little, I would be called a spokesman since the artificial leg is important. This is why programming the children with the right artificial leg is seem as important. It is not about letting the science leg stand on its own.

Explain for me why the evolutionary theory comes in so late in the time line of life? Abiogenesis is given a separate name from evolution as a way to game the system with a liberal arts technicality. The artificial leg will need to ignore this question. Or if it is addressed there will be a political move to discredit the messenger. These are all artifacts of one legged science.

 

[origin]

The difference in POV comes down to the question of origins of life, not that life changes.

Then you are not talking about evolution.

This is where the Evolutionist make use of smoke and mirrors to ignore this fact of origins (time-line) as applied to them.

There is no smoke and mirrors. Evolution does not address the origin of life, why is this so hard for you to understand?

Everyone can look at the clouds form and we can have ten different theories for why a certain animal shape appears. But just because we all start with the observational facts does not automatically mean all theories are right. This is the confusion, pointed out by Grumpy. Some evolutionist use the facts connected to changes, to prove their theory, and then merge and confuse these two separate things. Everyone looking at the cloud animal can have a theory and the facts, these are two separate things.

Not the clouds again....

The difference in my POV, is I start at the day one with my water variable and don't come in the middle, like Darwin, genetic evolution or Creation.

The other difference is you are just making stuff up adn hand waving.

Creation is a good example, for the evolutionists, of what can happen if you come in very late in the process, while still being able to see the facts of short term observations over the past 6000 years. Evolution does the same, compared to the water variable, but can't see it.

That is ridiculus. There is no evidence for creation 6000 years ago - actually all evidence is against it. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

This is why, of all the areas of science, evolution is the only one that has to censor, since it is not self standing; one legged science.

Censor? One legged? What are you talking about.

I define one-legged science as being based on the method of science. It makes use of data, but it forms a theory that needs politics and faith to survive.

No faith and no politics needed. The data is there and overwhelming.

The other leg is not science, but is more liberals arts and dogmatic in nature. This artificial leg is needed because it does not start at the origin. If you look around, religion only goes after one legged science, because the fake leg is often semi-religion.

I knew it was those damn liberals!!!

Religion does not attack chemistry or IT, since it has two legs. There is no propping up needed and religion senses it would discredit itself to deny applicable science.

I am sorry but what a stupid comment. First all many religions do not have a problem with evolution. Secondly the religious zelots that have a problem with evolution is because it contradicts their world view. IT was not discussed much in the bible so they do not have an issue with it. The chemistry is OK unless the chemist is doing anything around creating life.

In the case of evolution, starting too late in the time-line requires propping up, even if the observations are factual.

That makes about as much sense as a soup sandwich.

These are two separate issues. It takes so long to reach the brain of one legged scientists, because science alone will not reach the artificial leg. If I sucked up those who like evolutionary theory and told them how excellent this is, while knowing little, I would be called a spokesman since the artificial leg is important. This is why programming the children with the right artificial leg is seem as important. It is not about letting the science leg stand on its own.

When you get on a roll like this you seem to lose all capacity for rational thought.

Explain for me why the evolutionary theory comes in so late in the time line of life?

EVOLUTION IS THE THEORY OF THE EVOLVING OF LIFE. IT IS NOT A THEORY ON THE FORMATION OF LIFE. WELLWISHER, CAN YOU HEAR ME!!!!

The artificial leg will need to ignore this question. Or if it is addressed there will be a political move to discredit the messenger. These are all artifacts of one legged science.

Do you actually think you are making valid points? This is buffoonery at best.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

What bothers me is the idea that's implicit in much of this thread that certain scientific (more accurately scientistic) beliefs are somehow inerrant and infallible . . . .

These are not beliefs. A belief can be based on nothing more than unreasoned faith, which in fact is the case for virtually all religious beliefs.

These are theories. A theory is based on empirical evidence and logical reasoning. The final step to its acceptance is peer review: examination of all the evidence, experimentation and reasoning behind it to make sure it was derived honestly and logically.

A theory is not "inerrant and infallible." In fact the definition of a scientific theory merely states that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt. While scientific theories are rarely disproven, they are occasionally revised in response to new evidence that could not have been discovered when they were first derived. Einstein's adjustments to Newton's laws are a perfect example. Newton did not have the industrial and electronic technology that was available to Einstein. Nonetheless, it's instructive to remember that Einstein's adjustments are incredibly tiny. They only come into play in macrocosmology (measurements of the universe itself) and microcosmology (radioactivity), not in the daily rituals of organisms who spend their entire lives in a planet's gravity well and never travel much faster than one hundred-thousandth of the speed of light--except for the occasional nuclear explosions of course.

And BTW, "theory" has different meanings in different disciplines. Mathematical theories, for example, are proven completely true, because they are derived from abstractions rather than from nature.

They are , and that anyone who dares question them reveals him/herself to be a heretical "denier". I'm not comfortable treating science as if it were religious faith.

Fortunately you don't have to. There is a chasm of difference between the reasoned faith of the scientist, which is based (as explained above) on evidence, logic and peer review, and the unreasoned faith of the supernaturalist, which is based on nothing more than legends from the Bronze Age and specifically demands that no evidence should be sought because that would be a breach of faith.

The example that I often use: My dog has been kind, faithful and devoted to me for almost 14 years. It is reasonable for me to assume that she will continue to be so based on this evidence.

In contrast, the only "evidence" the supernaturalists have ever presented is a tortilla (one out of millions fried every year) bearing a scorch mark that is said to be the likeness of a character in the Bible--of whom no portraits exist against which to compare it! This is unreasoned faith. People who think this way, and (worse yet) make important decisions based upon this scatterbrained thinking, deserve zero respect and should not be allowed to have positions of authority.

What bothers me is the idea that's implicit in much of this thread and others, that scientific theories that are as close to rock sold as one can get, are completely over-ridden by unqualified layman and those without access to much of todays modern technology, spending their time spreading their nonsense behind a computer screen incognito. And then expect all and sundry to take their word as Gospel.

The world is full of laymen who find science simply too difficult to understand. Rather than admit it, they insist that it's wrong.

The one about life from non life at it's most basic fundamental. Do you agree? If not, what means do you suggest?

First you must get your terminology right. Evolution is a theory--it is supported by mountains of evidence and reasoning, all of which have been peer-reviewed extensively.

Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis. Its casual--but incorrect--acceptance as a theory is merely the result of the fact that so far there are no other competing hypotheses. We know that at the moment of the Big Bang, there was no life, because there was no nothing. Today at least one planet is teeming with life. Therefore life must somehow have arisen from non-life.

Yes, there are millions of people who insist that there is another hypothesis: divine creation. But this assertion is so full of holes that it utterly fails to satisfy the Rule of Laplace: Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect. Its very logic is fallacious: obviously the hypothetical "god" must be alive in order to do all the things with which he is credited. Then the god must have been the first living organism. The divine creation hypothesis studiously avoids answering the question, "Okay then: where did the fucking god come from?" To put it more politely, the divine creation hypothesis is a textbook example of the Fallacy of Recursion.

Again: people who fall for this bullshit deserve no respect. Their brains are wired wrong.

So while it might be a slight exaggeration to call evolution completely proven, by the same token, expressing any doubt is understating the level of proof.

As I noted above, no scientific theory has been "completely proven." There is always the possibility that evidence will be found next week that falsifies it. Nonetheless, canonical scientific theories like evolution, plate tectonics and (snicker) heliocentricity have so much evidence that the odds of one of them being disproven are small enough to be comfortably ignored. As I noted earlier, it's much more common for new evidence to simply elaborate the theory, as Newton's Laws were elaborated into the Theory of Relativity.

The Evolution and adaptation of species is the observable fact - there's no denying that it has happened and continues to happen.

As I've pointed out before, we can watch the evolution of bacteria in the laboratory. They reproduce so quickly that we can see hundreds of generations in a year.

Creationists have a theory . . . .

Once again: Creationism is not a theory. There is no evidence or reasoning to support it. It is a childish fantasy.

The difference being that we believe this 'state' of knowing/certainty will be received by direct revelation from God Himself rather than attained by human effort.

You have no evidence that the god exists. In fact your holy books tell you that you are supposed to accept the existence of the god by simple unreasoned faith. To expect more is to insult the god.

Yeah right. And I've got a bridge to sell you.

That being said, Creationists begin the changes of life about 6000 years ago, after its creation.

Not all creationists are Young-Earthers. The leaders of most of the major religions (including the Pope) have admitted that most of the stories in their holy books are metaphors. If the universe came into existence 13B years ago rather than 6K, they can still claim that it was all created by their imaginary supernatural buddy.