>Many scientists do think their current views are the truth, not a compelling theory. You are wrong to suggest that scientists don't do this.

Many might. So what? This is meaningless. So what if one or one hundred or one hundred thousand scientists think it as truth? I doubt it is that way - all scientists know that what they think is the case, might not be so. For example, pretty much everyone "knows" the Big Bang happened 13.5 billion years ago. It's the truth, by most everyone. I think it is true. HOWEVER, if it is shown to be not true, I will change my mind. That's the point. While I say it is the truth, I also know that it can be proved wrong at any time. It's kind of a semantic difference, that when a scientist says something is the "truth", implicit in that statement is "unless it is shown NOT to be the truth."

Any actual scientist will change their views instantly when shown that they are wrong. Every physicist changed their minds instantly when they saw Einstein's discoveries. But I've also read that a few physicists to disagree with him and said he was wrong. So what? What some scientists say is irrelevant. It's the Scietific Method that is important.

Now, on the other hand, a religious person will almost NEVER change their views when presented with evidence, because they are the ones who think that they have the 100% truth, all the time, no matter what, no matter what evidence. It's what religion is, there is nothing new in what I say, everyone knows it.

>You can't have it both ways. If a scientist says there are no fairies then according to you it is not the truth, but a model or theory. No scientists could possibly come to the conclusion that it is anything other than just a theory.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying. It actually IS a theory that there are no fairies. But the thing is, is that all theories are not equal. Saying that the model or theory of there being fairies is such a crazy thing that one can safely say that there's no chance. I don't know if you are familiar with calculus, and limits. Limits are basically show that as you have some kind of function that gets closer to zero, let's say, you will get closer and closer to zero, but never actually reach it. But limits in calculus basically say, "Fuck it, it's zero." This is not me saying it.

So the point being is that I'm saying that the chance of fairies existing are .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%. But if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.

But you can't just say that there being fairies is equivalent to the model of germ theory and because germ theory is a model just like "fairy model" that they are the same at 50%/50% as being equally likely, just because they are both called "models."

I think a lot of it is that non-scientists really don't have a good grasp of what the field is about and the meanings. For example, a lot of christians will say that "evolution is only a theory" but use the word "theory" is more akin to the scientific word "hypothesis", and therefore will say that creationism, or "intellegent design" is also a theory, so they are both equivalent. But they are not. Evolution is 99.999999% proven by evidence, while "intelligent design" is .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of it being reality, and there is zero actual evidence of "intelligent design." Yet the proponents of "intelligent design" say that they are both "theories" and therefore must both be equivalent. But they are not. That being said, if a christian showed as much evidence of it being true as scietific evolution, I'd change my mind.

>If I believe in a theory that hasn't been disproven like fairies then calling me an idiot would be wrong. According to you, I am making no more of a truthful statement than a scientist who says there are no fairies.

Are you saying that there are fairies, then? Then show me. If you claim you can fly, then show me. If you claim that there is a god, then show me. And by showing me, I mean like all the evidence we have for evolution - there are millions of facts showing evolution, none for "inteligent design", or any god, let alone the christian one.

I would never try to prove a negative, like there are no fairies. I would leave it to those who say that there are to show me. If I say that there are absolutely no such thing as fairies, I mean that the possibility is so low as to be disregarded. But if you say there are and show me otherwise, then I would stand corrected.

>I am saying there are certain things in science we can say are true.

There are certain things that have more probability of being correct than other things. If you said that our universe is inside of a cell in the fingernail of a big blue genie, and the big blue genie is inside of an even bigger cosmic watermelon, I'd say that is 100% bullshit if you are serious about it. HOWEVER, what that actually means when I say that is that the odds are so low as to be ridiculous to talk about. But if you show me with evidence that we as a matter of fact actually ARE our universe is inside of a cell in the fingernail of a big blue genie, and the big blue genie is inside of an even bigger cosmic watermelon, well then let's give you a Nobel Prize and call it a day.