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.
Science isn't done on 'dictionary definitions' - dictionary meanings reflect the common usage of words, which may be used in multiple ways and have multiple meanings. So it's false to assign a meaning to something where it doesn't belong. That would be the fallacy of equivocation. The word 'theory' in science has a specific meaning.
Well you walked right into this one ... You are giving dictionary definitions all the time regarding biblical words and not taking context, logic, or original languages into consideration. Now when I deliberately do the same thing you have done continuously you want to object. Thanks for making this very easy to show your double standards. However the difference in these two cases is that the dictionary definition would apply to a theory which is an unproven assumption i.e. macro evolution.
