Not hard to believe evolutians are confused by a simple word, when they have faith in someone that discovers a fossilized toe bone that proves a larger cranium.
Maybe not confusion, though. Might be a part of the long con that is the theory of evolution, removin the accurate description of it to make it seem more legitimate.
The theory of evolution has not and cannot be proved at the present time.
All I can do is speculate which word scares the shat outa evolutians the worst, macroevolution or theory.
Call it the theory of evolutians.
Good job continuing to display your ignorance.
He's some help for you from Wikipedia:
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]
The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.
This is precisely why evolution is a "theory" in the dictionary definition because it never has and never will demonstrate repeatedly the purely materialistic spontaneous generation of life or the simultaneous development of all 30+ fine tuned mechanisms required for life. If the hypothesis has no scientific way to get started (it isn't taking us anywhere scientific), it certainly cannot be demonstrated, and therefore it is relegated to the simple dictionary definition of (non-scientific) theory i.e. an unproven assumption. This is why we insist and will continue to insist on the typical dictionary definition because not only is it unproven ... it is also both unscientific and illogical.
