Creation/evolution3

[Esquilax]

Actually if I am referring to the English defination (as apposed to the atheist 'feelings' of adopted words and pompous dialect) I do indeed get to label it a theory.

the·o·ry noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

(Note none of the merrium Webster defination require what your version of the word does.)

So, apparently your ignorance also extends to not knowing that "theory" is also a scientific technical term, and not merely a layman's english one, and that the two mean different things.

Don't you guys get tired of being wrong on things so easily verified? Then why don't you ever look them up before you speak?

On the last page, you were asserting that there was no evidence for the Higgs Boson. The Higgs Boson has been confirmed to exist, through evidence, for over a year now.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Drich.

I heard it from the horses mouth. There is little you can say as a 4th party to superceed what the scientist who were interviewed had to say directly about their efforts.

Would this be for the same layman's Netflix documentary and not, say... anything approaching an actual scientific source? Because the scientific sources say we've accumulated enough evidence through the LHC to confirm the existence of the Higgs Boson.

So, what supercedes what, Drich: the actual CERN establishment that runs the thing, or a documentary you saw on Netflix whose title you can't even remember?

And what am I supposed to think more likely: that the scientists in that documentary accidentally said the exact opposite of what many years of work at CERN has actually produced, or that uneducated, dishonest little Drich is willfully misinterpreting what they said, and being as vague as possible about the details in order to try and get away with it?