[JeffAtlanta]

I'll accept your admission of error at your earliest convenience.

No errors were made. You cited your source as the American Heritage dictionary. I just went to the American Heritage site and looked up 'theory'. Here is the link: http://www.bartleby.com/61/20/T0152000.html . You must be using a children's version because it doesn't have the simplistic definitions that you just listed.

Regardless, why would you apply definition #4 (“An assumption or guess”) of your source to the theory of evolution rather than definition #1 (“A statement or set of statements designed to explain a phenomenon or class of phenomena”)? Its already been explained to you what the word ‘theory’ means in a scientific context.

I'm still waiting for some of the intellectually honest creationists to step in and correct Dataman on this point.

[balrog666]

I'm still waiting for some of the intellectually honest creationists to step in and correct Dataman on this point.

Do you think there may be such a beast?

[Dataman]

I'm still waiting for some of the intellectually honest creationists to step in and correct Dataman on this point.

I am still waiting for the logical evolutionist to assist you in understanding that theory has more than one meaning.

Regardless, why would you apply definition #4 (“An assumption or guess”)

Because that is exactly what evolution is. For the sake of argument, use any of the four definitions. That still does not change the fact that evolution is unobserved, unrepeatable, unverifiable, contradictory and systematically discontinuous.

[narby]

Regardless, why would you apply definition #4 (“An assumption or guess”) of your source to the theory of evolution rather than definition #1 (“A statement or set of statements designed to explain a phenomenon or class of phenomena”)?

Typical Creationist that has his mind made up and searches until he finds some thread of evidence to "prove" it. He knows full well that the appropriate definition is #1. Why he thinks he can get away with #4 is a mystery to me.

These people are as bad for Republican political efforts as the Gay Marriage people are for the Dems. Both are unreasonable and will damage their own long term interests rather than take a reasonable approach.

Pure ego, I guess.

It's like the slow drivers in the mountains here in Arizona that won't pull over like the sign says they must to let faster cars pass. They're in front, and they just like to p#ss people off because they can.

Just like the dog can lick .....