Sabre - the dictionaries reflect the most common uses of terms rather than define them.
Nobody argues that "therory" is a common term among laymen and it means what scientist denote by the word "hypothesis". And of course the laymen do not use the term "hypothesis" at all. Nevertheless, when reading literature written by the scientists, we should use the meaning that was intended by the author.
Otherwise when vernacular "theory" changes the meaning further - from "fact" through current "speculation" into "lie", one would be able to assume that the scientists admit it's a lie by using teh term. Just like "myth" that was supposed to mean "oral tradition", not "bunch of lies" or "trethoric" means "crap" rather than "correct argument techniques".
Theory is not really a fact but rather a set of facts and a general framework of preinciples into which those facts fit. But on the confidence scale it is teh same as a fact.
Also, for a scientists term "fact" does not mean "absolute truth" just an "assertion assured to such degree that it would be irrational to withhold consent" or something along those lines.
Unless you can observe the opening process of Evolution You totally confuse Evolution with Origin. Evolution is happening as we live since it is notheing more or less than change in gene allele frequency over time. Look at the dogs.
Origin of life, origination of new species, natural selection, artificial selection and mutation are all subjects that fit under the general domain of evolution.
not the creation of a new type of life form from a radically different precursor That is quite impossible according to the (neo) Darwinian evolution theory. You get very minor differences that acculmulate with generations untill the two branges cease to interbreed. Even then they are not "radically" different. Horses and donkeys or certain breeds of geese are very similar but do not interbreed. In fact, there are circular species - a polar geese that differ slighty with area they occupy so that every popyulation can easily interbreed with it's neighbouds but more remote populations cannot interbreed with each other.
There are serious issues on which one can argue the validity of origin of species and other things relavant to Evolution - the problem of semingly irreducible complexity on biochemical level, for example - but ignorance of what the theory really says is not one of them.
The very fact that species all fit so well into the natural balance argues for a guiding intelligence. Or that those who fit poorly either went extinct or adapted...
If you are so willing to accept the opinions of fallible human scientists you’ve never met That does not prevent anyone with time from reproducing their findings.
If you say such a thing, you do not really understand what science is. Nothing in science is accepted based on opinion. The whole science is about critically examining any claim - new or existing.
Anyway, the hypothesis of God "pre-aging" Earth and guiding evolution is as good as any. That of course just postpones the question. God must be a complex creature, so how does God originate? Sooner or later you get into origination of complexity without rational designer and the only spontaneous mechanism we know that can produce complexity is evolution through mutation/inheritance/selection.
Animal: The burning of the library of Alexandria is believed to have set back technology and civilization about 2,000 years. That is plainly impossible. The ancients did not ahev research labs. Neother they have a process of intentional invention. The only things that ended up in the library were those that existed in practice. How would burning the library wipe those out of existence, you woudl have to elaborate.
miko
