Nature

[Whateverist]

You do realize your own existence by scientific definition is a theory, right?

Right, then I ask: What isn't a theory in science?

Are empirical facts, scientific facts? Bare measurements certainly are not "scientific theories". I think when we record measurements we gather empirical facts. Scientists collect them but that doesn't make them scientific facts. It is how you generalize and predict based on those facts which qualifies as scientific theory.

The Big Bang Theory has been proven

That is hard to believe.

Of course proven originally meant "tested". It would be a little hard to replicate a big bang. Of course, you can deduce measurable implications of your theory, which when calculated may confirm or contradict it. How conclusive will this be? Lets just say it is hard to know in advance how much better those calculations may fit another as yet unknown theory. Methodologically, such work qualifies as science but it is still pretty damned speculative. I wouldn't bet the ranch on it. [Before anyone gets excited, this doesn't mean goddidit.]

I think it was said elsewhere on the forum....

"Go jump of a building... after all Gravity is Only a Theory"

Gravity exists, I see it's effects every day. How can it be [JUST] a theory?

I don't understand the criticism of this statement and question. Clearly gravity exists as more than a theory.

What we mean by "gravity" is something we can directly perceive through our kinesthetic sense. Clearly it takes effort to remain upright, otherwise why should standing on your toes be harder than with your feet flat? Gravity exists. We just don't know what it is.

A scientific theory of gravity seeks to identify exactly what it is and how it works. Science can't tell you what it is but lots of useful science has been done regarding gravity. There are good predictive mathematical models which allow us to plot paths for space craft through the planets and their moons.