the source of life

So? Neither "proof" nor "personal observation" are required for a scientific theory. The only folks who require such a level of documentation are creationists who wouldn't accept even that--as their beliefs do not depend on evidence, but on revelation and scripture. "Theoretical," "not true," and "guessing" are not the same. Using sophistry to equate these very different terms is not honest, nor is it accurate. Oh, you do,eh? If this is the way you are going to define terms you shouldn't plan on discussing any of these subjects with scientists. Scientists define the terms of their fields, not laymen. It is up to laymen to learn the language of science lest their comments reveal them to be either uneducated in science, or deliberately misrepresenting these terms. In either of these cases what a layman thinks or does means nothing. To claim otherwise would be akin to the fleas on a dog thinking that they own the dog and dictate its direction.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I have no idea what that means; it is certainly not appropriate to a scientific argument. I have no idea what that means. I have no idea what that means. But as for you attacking science, you are unarmed. To debate matters scientific you have to understand them. You have not shown that you have either the knowledge nor the understanding to compete in the realm of science. If you are "old school" it is a pre-science school. Your understanding of the term "theory" as it is used in science is fatally flawed, and this is after I posted some good definitions. In case you missed them, here they are again (with additions; sorry for the length):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. Source

​

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

​

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."

​

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

​

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

​

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

​

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source

​

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ”it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

If you look at these you will see that theories are not just made up on the spot. In science you start with ideas and from these you form testable hypotheses. An hypothesis can only become a theory after a lengthy series of tests. Theories are expected to make accurate predictions, so the testing of predictions generated from hypotheses is a critical part of this process.Theories are not "observed and proved" and then advanced to a higher level. A theory is the highest level of explanation in science. And don't claim that a law is higher, because theories explain laws!Further, don't tell scientists that "you can't call it science, truth or authority" until it is "observed and proved" as that is not a part of the scientific process--it just shows that you have no clue as to how science operates. Nor do you have any role in determining how science operates. That is reserved for scientists to determine.From your posts it would appear that you are operating from belief. Concerning this, Heinlein notes:

​

Belief gets in the way of learning.

​

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

​

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Creation is not a theory; it is a religious belief.I have posted the definitions for theory for you, as the term is used in science, but you obviously think that you can just make up definitions to suit yourself. That's sophistry, not science.One of the key requirements for a scientific theory is testing of evidence and successful predictions. This is the opposite of religious belief.In fact, testing and evidence are the last things that religious belief wants to see. Religious belief relies on faith in divine revelation. Revelation, when traced back, always comes down to some human saying, "Trust me!" (I picture Harrison Ford and his crooked Indiana Jones grin whenever I think of "Trust me!")Science defines terms in very specific ways to avoid confusion, and requires that claims by scientists be able to be replicated or in some way verified by other scientists.Yet you are redefining these scientific terms to produce the maximum amount of confusion! And you are making claims without producing any evidence to support those claims.I suggest that it is due to the lack of evidence and successful predictions--those ingredients of a theory. And I suggest that since science won't accommodate and confirm your beliefs, you are doing your best to change or degrade science, to produce a faux science that will. That is what I think is behind your re-definitions.Sorry--already been done: creation "science" was devised for that exact purpose. And it might even have fooled someone. Somewhere. Once.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I think you'll have to provide evidence for that claim. As far as I am aware creation is a religious belief unsupported by scientific fact or theory. I am making no statements about what Einstein believed. Not my field. That is a belief. What have you in the form of evidence--scientific evidence that can stand peer review?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.