>>135
Do you realise that by quoting that, you just backed up what I said? You demonstrated it was true. A scientific "law" is not a truth. These are very distinct things. To use the classic example, if we see a sheep in a field that is white, we could provide a scientific "fact" that all sheep are therefore white, but it is just a theory, a hypothesis, which is tested against future cases of sheep and whether or not they're white. It was once scientific "fact" that the Earth was flat and that the Sun revolved around it. However, the only true fact that can be said from viewing this one sheep is that there is at least one sheep in a field, one side of which is white.
To quote what you quoted: "In practice the terms are often interchanagable [sic], though scientific theory can be a systematically integrated set of related scientific laws that leads to greater insight and further predictions than the laws alone would."
Cutting out the crap in that sentence, it says that a scientific theory is a set of scientific laws. That doesn't justify the truth of the so-called laws. And what you said about "through the scientific method, hypotheses and theories are created," That's exactly right -- I'm not disputing that -- but these theories are not universally true, they are things to test over and over. That's my point.
tl;dr -- wikipedia/inductive reasoning
>>137
It's a very subtle difference. If you said to me, "do you believe that god exists?" and I said "I don't know, I'm not sure. I'm just sitting on the fence, because I'm undecided," then that is very different to saying, "I believe we can't prove it either way." The point is that I can be either theist or atheist and still be agnostic. I can believe that god exists but that we can't PROVE he does or he doesn't from evidence. Similarly, I can believe he doesn't exist but be agnostic.