[Chaboo_Cleric]

Originally Posted by mgellan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There are plenty of hypothesis without evidence, in Science theories are confirmed with multiple lines of evidence such that at least provisional acceptance is warranted. You're using a colloquial definition of "theory" that is equated to "guess" which more correctly maps to "hypothesis" in Science.

So I accept Theories that are backed by substantial, converging lines of evidence which is completely different from "faith" which is by definition accepting something without evidence or despite evidence to the contrary.

Regards,
Mg

This was already established with my retort back to bdastomper, so yes and no

Originally Posted by bdastomper58 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

please learn what a scientific theory is

Originally Posted by Chaboo_Cleric [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I know what that is, thanks. What I wrote was based on a different definition and meaning. Not a literal. For instance, Einstein's theory of relativity, as oppose to the Big Bang theory. You'll find those two examples fit both definitions in what I said despite, one being an actual "scientific theory", and the other not.

Please learn what a "Rhetorical aim", and "angel of vision" is.