[metmom]

They still keep mis-representing what a "theory" is.

That's because some scientists insist on using their own special boys club definition of theory that can't be found anywhere but on FR and wikipedia instead of a more commonly known reliable, objective, source like Merriam Webster; which BTW was the definition that I was taught when I got my degree and public state university. None of this "special definiton used only by scientists" stuff just so they can tell the unenlightened that they don't know what they're talking about and that they need to go back to college and get a *real* education.

[Dimensio]

That's because some scientists insist on using their own special boys club definition of theory that can't be found anywhere but on FR and wikipedia

And every professional scientist I've asked, including devout Christians.

instead of a more commonly known reliable, objective, source like Merriam Webster

Which has a definition of "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena". It's a bit vague, but it is a good summary and a good starting point for expanding further on explaining what makes an explanation qualify as a theory. Unfortunately, creationists either want to insist that a one-sentence definition from a dictionary is sufficient to fully and completely explain a scientific term when it is not or, more commonly, they wish to use one of the five other definitions of the word from the same dictionary and insist that they are allowed to pick and choose which definition of the word "theory" scientists really mean to use when they use the word "theory", regardless of what the scientists who use the word say.

In other words: one of the strongest arguments creationists have is dishonest semantic games whereby they redefine the word "theory" to make it sound less certain than it really is.

[RadioAstronomer]

That's because some scientists insist on using their own special boys club definition of theory that can't be found anywhere but on FR and wikipedia instead of a more commonly known reliable, objective, source like Merriam Webster; which BTW was the definition that I was taught when I got my degree and public state university. None of this "special definiton used only by scientists" stuff just so they can tell the unenlightened that they don't know what they're talking about and that they need to go back to college and get a *real* education.

What a bunch of flapdoodle. The definition of a theory in science is well known by just about every scientist anywhere.

[Ichneumon]

That's because some scientists insist on using their own special boys club definition of theory that can't be found anywhere but on FR and wikipedia

Wrong again.