>Yes, that would be you. etc. etc.
I already provided a link to a neutral and qualified site that defines the entire scientific method. I forgot the post number but I'm sure you can find it. You challenged my definition of theory and law, which were in total agreement with that site. It was your definitions and understanding of the process that were flawed. If you don't like the one posted, I'll find one more, but that's it because this conversation is becoming pointless.
I already provided a link to a neutral and qualified site that defines the entire scientific method.
Yes, you did, and as someone already pointed out, it's wrong, either because the author himself is ignorant or because he dumbed it down to the point of uselessness.
As I explained,
a theory is a general explanation of why events occur, while a law is a generalization of what has happened that can be used to predict future events.
As an example, there is gravitational theory and the law of gravity. They are two different concepts. Gravity, in general, is that objects exert a force on each other in proportion to their mass and distance. The theory of gravity is an attempt to explain what causes this force. It's still currently a very big mystery as to what causes the distortion of space that is gravity. The law of gravity is simply a mathematical formula to calculate the gravitational force exerted by two objects between their mass and distance. The "law" of gravity, however, explains nothing. It offers no insights as to what, exactly, causes this force, it's just a formula for determining the force derived from consistent observations. It could never have been a theory, it's just not descriptive enough.
Laws aren't derived from theory. They're derived from consistent observations. They serve a different purpose than theories.
All of this is distraction, however. Even
with your incorrect distinction between "theory" and "law", Conservative till I Die is
still wrong about creation being a theory. It doesn't match the criteria set forth in the incorrect link that you supplied. You're just trying to play semantic games, but even that won't make the previous poster's inaccurate claims any better.