When reading the debate between creationists and "evolutionists," I often get impression that the creationist side does not know what parts of evolution are regarded as facts and and what are not.
As I understand it, facts in evolutionary biology are such as these: all living things have a common universal ancestor, all verterbrates are (relatively closely) related and things like that.
I'm a layperson myself, and not particularly well-educated on the subject, but it seems to me that new findings reported by popular newspapers sometimes get a new "spin" the original publishers didn't mean to give... Like "A new ancestor of humans (or a species X) discovered" when what the researchers actually say is that they consider the new finding a relatively close relative of the ancestral species, possibly even the ancestor itself. And that it's not possible to draw a precise family tree and call it a fact, but they have a very good reason to believe their interpretation is "in the ballpark."
This seems a common thread on many forums where evolution and creationism is debated. Maybe it would be beneficial to us laypersons if somebody gave us a short introduction to the subject?
EDIT: Since the moderator deemed 'Is it science' the correct forum for this question, Id like to clarify that I DO believe the evolution theory is a) science b) correct about the common ancestors (In other words, yes chimps are my distant cousins)
Edited by Emotive, : Clarification about my own opinion on the debate