[Nataku X]

Where did you come from? (Your profile is a piece of work.)

• If it's a compliment: Thank you. ;)
• If it's not: I'll learn Flash. Or something.
• Either way, I like to jump in these debates from time to time.
  
  We should trust you to be a judge of anothers understanding of science?
  
  Some creationist arguments are very difficult to debunk or refute, others are not. The "evolution is a theory" argument is the most easily refuted because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. It's like saying to a mathematican that a triangle has four points.
  
  A scientific law is no more authoritative than a scientific theory. Laws can change just as easily as theories. The difference, as other posters have pointed out to you, is a matter of semantics--a law is a specialized form of scientific theory.
  
  When people say "evolution is only a theory", they confuse scientific theory with scientific hypothesis. Every scientist (or someone who has at least taken science at the college level) knows the difference between a theory, hypothesis, and a law.

[gore3000]

A scientific law is no more authoritative than a scientific theory.

Aaaah, more semantics. A theory is garbage if it is not scientifically supported by the facts. That is what the discussion is about, not about the meaning of 'is', or 'alone' or 'theory'.