Creation/evolution3

[Drich]

You don't get to call it a theory until it's been thrown to the lions, gets shredded to pieces, but somehow walks out again. Until then it's a hypothesis.

You can also upgrade a theory to a law if you throw it to theoretical lions.

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.)

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?

---

Indeed! That is why they built a 100 billion dollar hadron super collider. Science needs this one unknown/unknowable particle to exist inorder for their theories to work, so based on the idea/preconception that it exists science is working backwards to make sure all their preconceptions fit.

As is usual for Drich, with his bizarre idea that his limited, layman's understanding of a topic is all there has ever been regarding that topic, he evidently doesn't know that the Large Hadron Collider has multiple purposes, and was not built solely to validate the presupposition that the Higgs Boson exists. In fact, Drich's assertion that the Higgs Boson was assumed to exist is proved entirely false by the simple fact that the LHC was built to test more than one model of physics, including a number of models that don't include the Higgs Boson at all.

All this took me all of five minutes to ascertain, so it doesn't surprise me that Drich failed to do the same; in his monumental arrogance he seems to believe that nobody could ever have more information than he does. It is, of course, emblematic of the differences between how science works, and how Drich works (and as a result, believes everyone else works too):

Science: 1. Make prediction. 2. Find method to test prediction. 3. Modulate theories based on evidence gathered by tests.

Drich: 1. Make conclusion. 2. Find some hole or ignorance in current models or the bible, i.e, the "It doesn't not say that!" method. 3. If hole or ignorance exists, conclusion must be true.

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.