[uncommonsense]

"Based on the context of what the person (who claims to be a scientist) said, you're wrong."

Again, I did NOT claim exclusivity between science and a theory. The scientific method starts with a theory. The theory itself is not the proof. The repeatable observation is the proof.

And yes, I'm a scientist by learning and trade. Plus, I'm a Christian who became one after studying creationism, having been an atheist (read my profile if you want)

[Moonman62]

And yes, I'm a scientist by learning and trade.

What's your accomplishments? What kind of scientist are you?

[Moonman62]

Here's the hill you're trying to defend from your post #15.

The point of this article, and one I always try to make being a scientist, is that evolution is NOT science. It's a theory.

Aren't you saying that evolution is not science because it's a theory?

[Moonman62]

The theory itself is not the proof. The repeatable observation is the proof.

Theories aren't proved. They are either disproved or improved upon. (Are you sure you're a scientist?) Theories such as the theory of evolution are the best explanations we have for the known evidence to date. Evolution, for instance is consistent with our knowledge of chemistry, comparative anatomy, genetics, comparative genetics, palaeontology and other scientific disciplines.

[stormer]

Let me help you out: The scientific method begins with an observation that generates an hypothesis; the hypothesis is a speculation that lends itself to testing or experimentation that can falsify the assumptions made by the hypothesis; the hypothesis is modified to account for various observations; a theory is developed from the hypothesis that takes into account all the information gathered and makes a statement that is irrefutable given all the observations; occasionally a law is also developed that mathematically describes the process.

You have said you are “a scientist by learning and trade”, but your repeated misuse of the term “theory” and your general ignorance of the scientific method and specific ignorance of the Theory of Evolution lead me to believe you are either not being truthful, or that computer science types haven't got a clue about what actual science entails.