How are they not theories? I can come up with a theory and it is a theory. A hypothesis is a theory. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it any less of a theory. Now you could try and argue it is not a scientific theory but their is scientific evidence to support the majority of creationist theories.

Its fairly narrow minded to write off everything anyone else believes because you do not. I am Christian yet I think many of the teachings found in Buddhism are very helpful and agree with many of them. You can't write off someone else's theories as not being theories simply because you personally disagree.

What would have happened to galileo if everyone just stuck with their theories. If nobody questioned the Earth being flat what would the world be like today?

You can't just blindly believe one theory and write the rest off as whack jobs. A theory is a theory and creationist theories are no less theories then evolutionist theories.

Heck Richard Dawkins himself mentioned the theory that aliens seeded life on earth. So that is a theory but an intelligent designer isn't a theory? What kind of logic is that? Richard Dawkins called it a scientific theory on national television are you saying he's a nut job? Because if aliens seeding life on earth is a scientific theory then yes intelligent design is also a theory, it holds alot more water then aliens planting life on earth.

Eh.... no.  You can't jsut come up with something and call it a theory. There is also a very good distinction between a theory and a hypothesis. Given creationism means god, I am going to go off on a limb and say that there are no scientific theory that comes even close to proving existance of god. You know what the best part about a theory is? It doesn't matter WHAT you belive in a theory will remain true, whether you like it or not.

P.S. Aliens seeding life on Earth is not a theory either.....

Exactly Macro Evolution is a religious belief as is Abiogenesis and the Big Bang. Infact their are darwinian churches. So by law and seperation of church and state the religion of Athiesm should not be allowed in our schools.

Darwinism is a faith based religion. Infact any belief in a creator is a religion "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" Now sure religions up until the 20th century always revolved around supernatural beings but the lack of such beings doesn't mean it is not a religion.

The belief of cause or nature of the Universe make all forms of Athiesm religious beliefs.

A common thing I get told by Athiests is, "We believe in Science what we can see and touch, facts" well you can't see or touch or observe or repeate or falsify the creation of the earth. No matter which way you slice it you need to have faith in an unseen power to explain how life or even the Universe came into existance.

The only people who really aren't religious are agnostics. Every single belief in a creator of the Universe is following or creating a religion.

Well thats opinion because Dawkins himself called it a theory and he is one of the most respected Athiest scientists on the earth today.

"What you believe in, a theory will remain true, whether you like it or not" - Thats not a theory thats a scientific fact. Their is a major difference between fact and theory, theories can be proven false or correct. Once they are proven false or correct they stop being theories. Well actually Science 10 text books still called them theories just theories that were proven false and some correct.

You are confusing theories with facts. a Scientific fact is something that can be falsified, repeated, observed and studied. A scientific theory is a theory based on scientific fact.

Just by reading your wording you seem to be confused. Their are many scientific theories that support the existance of God. Their just aren't any scientific facts that can prove the existance of one 100%. Their are many scientific and non-scientific theories that support Darwinism and other athiest idealogies. But no scientific facts that prove Macro Evolution or many other evolution theories to be 100%.

Scientific fact and scientific theory are two different things. But by your writing you believe the two are the same!

Atheism isn't a religion, and there isn't any atheism in schools, unless the school preaches "all religions are false", which it obviously shouldn't be doing. And I think you don't know the difference between science and religion. The Big Bang theory being a religious belief? Seriously?

You seem thoroughly confused, let me help you:

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

Basically, you are wrong.

What schools did you attend. My Science teacher clearly said their is no God. Infact many of my teachers taught that God did not exist. The public schools I attended clearly taught "All religions are false".

Also yes the Big Bang theory is a religious belief. it is a faith based belief in something that can't be seen or proven. I'd consider that a religious belief. The belief in a creator that you believe in is religion in my books.

Well then my science text books are wrong and everything I learnt in Science and highschool was wrong as well. Also almost everything Richard Dawkins has said is also wrong, I think the guys an idiot but I guess so do you.

Actually what you say isn't even wrong. Its not much different then what I said." A scientific theory is a theory based on scientific fact." Also if you read my comment you will note I never said that aliens seeding life on earth was a scientific theory I said it was a theory.

Their is also a difference between scientific theory and regular theory. A theory doesn't have to be scientific to be a theory either.

You are still confused. I'd say that Richard Dawkins and my text books are probably right and you are wrong. Infact you are partially right but you are also wrong.

As I said theories aren't all scientific yet they are still theories. Scientific theories have to be based around scientific facts. You do say it differently then me but both our definitions are essentially the same. A scientific fact is something that can be repeated, observed studied and falsified. A scientific theory must be based around scientific fact essentially" A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."

Again Richard Dawkins and my text books have all called aliens seeding life on earth a theory. Whether it was scientific or not it was still a theory. You can argue all you want but that does not change the fact that it is.

I love how some athiest claim to be even smarter then each other. I think Dawkins is nuts but he is definatly highly educated and respected within the scientific community. If he calls aliens seeding life on earth a theory, then yah I'd bet it is!

I could take a big huge dump in my back yard and call it a scientific theory that flies are attracted to the type of grass that grows in my back yard, but that doesn't make it deserving of the same respect as Newton's theory of gravity.  And it certainly wouldn't be very scientific. 

Will respond in more detail later. 

See only difference is Newtons Theory of Gravity is based on scientific facts. Macro Evolution for example is not based on Scientific fact, yet many here and abroad call it a scientific theory.

All I was saying is that Macro Evolution and yes even the Big Bang are not Scientific theories. Even the recent collider built to test the Big Bang theories credibility still doesn't prove such a thing could or did happen without the tampering of man.

A scientific theory is something based on scientific fact. Some Dinasuars were carnivores, well we know the bones existed, but none of us can see a dinasuar and none can observe it eating. But the tooth fossil type would suggest that they were. Its a theory not a fact but it is based on scientific fact making it a scientific theory.

All i was trying to prove is that a theory doesn't have to even be based on scientific fact. or any fact actually. Anyone can make a theory. Example conspiracy theories, are they not theories? Some of them aren't even based on fact like "Obama wasn't born in America" a theory that was infact false we all know it is but it is still a theory. Or that Bush carried out 9/11 or that America faked the moon landing. All three are theories.

So what makes the theory of Macro Evolution anymore of a logical theory then that of intelligent design? Neither can be proven right or wrong by scientific fact. Both are based around some scientific evidence.

Most of the creationist and evolutionist theories are more logical then the theory that Obama isn't American. But honestly they are just theories neither proven correct or false.

That is all I have been getting at!