I've gotten a lot of people reporting back that evolution is a fact. Science doesn't declare absolutes; science offers us the best explanations that support any given model. To claim evolution as a fact is no different than a theist asserting that it is incorrect.

The reason for my distinction between micro and macro wasn't that I don't understand that they are similar terms referring to the same thing, as stated above, "Before anyone decides to inform me that micro is macro given time. I am aware." I worded it that way because I know many theists who accept microevolution but reject the macroevolutionary evidence that supports speciation.

So Evolution is a theory based on a massive amount of evidence, and as it stands now, it's the best explanation of what is occurring in nature.

Wrong on a few things. First off, notice how I put "proven fact" in quotes. Yes, I know that science doesn't deal in proof. That's math. HOWEVER, evolution is a fact. It isn't just supported by evidence, but by the ability to predict locations of new finds. And like it or not, micro and macro evolution are the EXACT same thing. The "given time" line is a bit of a misnomer. Yes, larger things take more time to properly evolve, but that's obvious. It's still the EXACT same process, and so no distinction exists. The only reason those terms are used is because Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, or whichever creationist who doesn't have the FOGGIEST understanding of science(most especially biology), coined the terms to dodge the reality of the theory. It's no different than someone looking at a crime scene, that's LOADED with evidence, and which even had the still bloody killer sitting in the back yard playing with the victim's severed head, and having them say "Well there's no PROOF he did it." Evolution is that solid a theory. That's why I call it a fact. Maybe science won't call it that, but the evidence is FAR too vast to deny it without willful ignorance.

I hope you take this as just a fun conversation and not a combative argument. A fact is I'm holding a rock in my hand. The theory is when I release it from my hand it will fall to the ground using Newtonian laws of gravity the proof is in the observation of this occurring. I was once you arguing that evolution was a fact in a mock debate with a creationist, here is what the head of the biology department said to correct me. Science could have at one time proclaimed that the Newtonian law of gravity was a fact because all the evidence of the day supported it. Orbital predictions were verified based on this "fact," and in 1846 the planet Neptune was discovered using these same predictive powers offered by Newtonian gravitational laws. It wasn't until Einstein came up with the General Theory of Relativity that science realized how and why Newton was wrong. Einstein's theory of General Relativity better supported what we see in nature and we still don't call even that a fact. Theories like evolution, are detailed models that best represent the fact that lifeforms change over time, and the proof is the evidence that these changes are occurring. Why this is happening is answered by the theory of evolution, but a better theory could in the future replace it. And yes micro and macro are the same things given time.

If you've never investigated and you're a skeptical person, it would be the most honest answer. I personally can't get enough. I enjoy every bit of information I can get on the subject.

I'd rather someone admit they simply don't understand than assert it's wrong based on ignorance.

I appreciate your conviction. I would say that belief is still a subset of knowledge. Since I have never been to space and seen the Earth go around the sun or done the calculations that prove it without having been to space, I believe that the evidence is being accurately reported to me by those that have. It might just be an issue of definitions, and I think this is likely. My definition of faith is more in line with your definition of belief. My definition of belief is an acceptance of any proposal after the evaluation of evidence. Faith would be acceptance of any proposal despite the contrary or lack of evidence.

I agree. And beliefs are built into the cake. They are the default function in our minds so they absolutely serve a purpose. I use that language to remind me to make sure I'm not clinging to a belief is something comes along and challenges my pet ideology.