“A theory describes what is known, as the facts change, the theory changes.
Unlike some people.” Number one, thank you for informing me of the importance of words. Definitions mean things as well. You are doing just what any good, unchangeable scientific-minded individual does... when you’re wrong you just redefine the parameters until you can call your findings “correct”. What you’ve said below describes exactly that and what you’ve accused me of...
“A theory can not be “proved out”. A theory cannot be proven true, nor does it claim to be “true”. It can be proven false, if what it describes in proven false, but then it changes to describe the new facts that are known or discarded.” This, my friend is a perfect definition of conjecture.
Although you won’t admit it, what you’ve explained is no different than what I presented. A theory is simply conjecture based on facts or it could not be disproven. And you still did not bother to answer the charge that with all the millions of years of data available why the proof of evolution is nowhere to be found.
I’m theorizing there is a good reason for that. Of course I have no proof.
The ordering of scientific notions is:
Conjecture, hypothesis, theory, and law.
A conjecture is an incomplete model.
A hypothesis is a model based on all data in its specified domain, and incorporating a novel prediction yet to be validated by facts.
A theory is a hypothesis with nontrivial validating datum.
A theory is a hypothesis based on facts, not a conjecture based on facts.
And you still did not bother to answer the charge that with all the millions of years of data available why the proof of evolution is nowhere to be found.
Swine Flu.
Have a nice day.