It was tails.

Theory =/= fact

It really annoys me when people think that a theory is just an untested idea or something. A theory has had to of been tested and examined beyond the realms of "just an idea", it has to have a lot of tested evidence backing it up to become a theory. If it was testable but no evidence existed then it would be a hypothesis.

 You are splitting hairs for the sake of it.

Theory is not a fact.

MacroEvolution is not a fact- it is philosophy.

The test do not prove the theory so it is still a theory, unproven, not fact, not LAW.

You are splitting hairs for the sake of it.

Theory is not a fact.

Tell this to a scientist, their heads will explode. A theory is a group of facts attained through testing to understand a natural phoenominon. Therefore a theory is as close to having facts as you can get really. But it only becomes one when it is accepted by the scientific community when hypothesis has proved positive and the tests can be successfully recreated. But testing does still occur in a theory to better understand it. But it is hard facts when you get down to it.

MacroEvolution is not a fact- it is philosophy.

Macroevolution was invented by creationists in 1927 to try and trip up evolutionists because it's harder to proove than micro. Ask any evolutionary biologist, they will tell you it's far more accurate to describe evolution as a universal definition (not break it up into two fields) and that you cant have micro evolution and not macro because they are one in the same. Besides what you call macro evolution has much evidence to support it... especially with todays findings.

The test do not prove the theory so it is still a theory, unproven, not fact, not LAW.

Look up the scientific definition of theory in the dictionary. it HAS to be proven, othwise it is a hypothesis.

You missunderstand a bit actually.

Theories exist to explain how the laws of the universe interact practically.  Theories do not become laws, they often contain them or propose them.  Or what is more common is that a theory will rise from a law.

For instanace Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is our theory of how gravity works.  But regardless of whether General Relativity is the exact description for the complex workings of gravity (it isn't a complete view we know that for sure actually) we know there is still gravity and laws that it follows that are put into context by the theory but not one and the same. So any new theory would have to account for those laws to be considered complete even if the current theory explaining those laws is shown to be incorrect. 

So we work out the laws mathematically and analytically and use those robust and thoroughly tested principles as the basis for a theory.  The reason a law is more certain however is because it aims to make a statement in a narrow band...something like "All prime numbers, excepting the special case of two, are odd." Where as a theory aims at a very broad band such as explaining how life came to be.  Kind of a bad example but it gets the point acrossed that laws have a disinct advantage in that their goals aren't quite as lofty as trying to unify the understanding of a whole subject but rather just trying to make a statement that can be relied on about a small piece of a larger issue.