Aww, come on, harping on the trolls is good practice for actual debates and discussions!
lolz.... actually, it's more like shooting sluggish fish in tiny barrels with both barrels.
(... and at this point it's become, "I'm not a troll, you are!" "No, YOU are!" "No, YOU...!"
ad nauseum)
...
I don't know if I feel like transcribing it, but I've reading "The Devil in Dover" (by Lauri Lebo), an account of the 2005 Intelligent Design / Evolution case of national headlines (which happens to have been tried right here in Harrisburg, about 5 minutes from my apartment), and a whole page of the testimony concerning Michael Behe (ID proponent, Lehigh University) dealt exactly with the notion of what a "theory" versus a "hypothesis" is and what the implications of softening definitions are.
lol it's fine to have other ideas but you still can't admit it's not a fact? How many times should I ask you this? IS EVOLUTION A FACT? IS EVOLUTION A FACT? IS EVOLUTION A FACT? You are sooo avoiding many things I say and ask.
Dude, I don't answer you because you're not providing a coherent discussion of theory and science here; you can't even say the default color of this forum scheme is blue as a fact (how can you be sure?) by your definition .... but you can make a very strong case for it. Same with evolution.
The courts have already battled this out with their expert witnesses time and again, the most recent example being
here, where the court is very clear about what was shown to be true in the proceedings.
Behe tried to redefine "theory" like you have, which makes it sound like more of a hypothesis. His proposed definition was "a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences." In the court proceeding, Behe was forced to admit that, by using definition, even
astrology could be considered a "theory" ... and the judged noted as much in his verdict.
The NAS definition of a "theory" is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
Evolution is falsifiable, most of these ideas you bring up or not... but you would equate them as the same? It's nowhere close. There is no better falsifiable explanation for the development of life than evolution, at this current time... and even the ID proponents had to admit as much, and openly admitted in court that their creation science involved an essential faith to make the leap. Even if evolution isn't "it" down to every detail and has flaws, it explains a great deal coherent, has been tested, and is the best theory out there right now.