leopold99:
if we know how then why hasen't science been able to recreate life in the lab?
The above has nothing to do with evolution.
the simple matter is we have no proof, evidence maybe, but no proof.
Which is rather fortunate, since proof is for mathematics and alcohol, not science. Science relies making inferences from facts, evidence, observations and experimentation.
i am really confused. science says theory when it's a fact.
To be honest, I can't blame you for being confused. Creationists take advantage of your confusion, and capitialize on it.
Here's the beauty of it. Evolution is BOTH theory and fact. Evolution is a fact, because we know that it has occurred in the past, occurs presently, and will occur in the future.
The THEORY of evolution explains HOW evolution occurred, occurs, and will continue to occur. The theory of evolution explains the MECHANISM which allows for the fact of evolution.
A wonderful analogy is gravity. While gravity is a fact, we also use gravitational theory to explain what causes gravity, and how gravity causes interactions between objects.
For more information, I suggest you read Stephen Gould's informative essay, "Evolution, both Fact and Theory." What I have said above is pretty much a very basic summary of his article.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
they say theory when it isn't proven
A theory is NEVER proven. You're labour under the misconception that 'theory' and 'fact' are hierarchal rungs on a ladder, where 'fact' is at the top. Not true. In science, the word 'theory' has an entirely different meaning from when it is used in everyday speech. In science, a THEORY is a robust, falsifiable, natural explaination of a large body of evidence and facts, and observations (including observations of results from experiments).
it's afact that 3+2=5 but yet science says theory.
No, it's absolute knowledge that 3+2=5, and science doesn't say otherwise. You can have absolute proof in mathematics, you can't have absolute proof regarding postulations on the workings of the natural universe. Facts and observations in the natural world aren't 'absolute knowledge', but they approach the probability of 1 of being correct.
The reason for this is simple when one thinks about it. If we are to have infinite certainty, we need to perform an infinite number of trials.
For example, I make the statement that 'iron always expands when heated'. While this statement is well supported by all current evidence and observations, the fact is that I can never be sure, since in the future a piece of iron may be heated, and actually contract. According to all available evidence and atomic theory, it's EXTREMELY unlikely, but not 'absolutely impossible'