A theory is a process that we can test find evidence for but not recreate in laboratory conditions because it's scope is beyond such things. So Evolution is just a theory is not a valid argument.?

Answer 1

First answer: Your provided definition of a theory is not accurate and therefore is not valid.
A theory is an explanation of experimental data and empirical observation. The current theory is one that best explains everything and has yet to be disproved. Evolution being just a theory is therefore not a valid argument
My answer:
THe process is observe: hypothesize, draw a theory, test it, and then and if it is true it becomes a law. Evolution is a theory, and has been for 150 YEARS, nobody can debate that, and nobody can prove evolution. There are alot of theories that support the theory of evolution, but neither of them can be proven either. so by definition, evolution is more of a religion than a scientific law, a bunch of people fervently believing something that cannot be proven.

Answer
A theory is a lacing together of facts that gives a good all-roundish explanation that explains a lot and makes predictions. A theory is better than a hypothesis, a hypothesis is just a good idea. A theory is an hypothesis that has gained much evidence and never been refuted, only supported. Note that one can never prove a theory/hypothesis. To prove a theory 100%, one needs an infinite amount of experiments and observations that meet predictions. Theories are unrefuted and that is the highest quality they can have. A theory is a hypothesis in its greatest glory. A theory is never 'just a theory'. A hypothesis is indeed just a hypothesis or just a good idea or just a rubbish idea if it turns out that way. If a hypothesis is supported by experiment and unrefuted long enough, then it is indeed worthy of not being a hypothesis and being promoted to theory.

With regards to your definition of theory: it is slightly inaccurate and I have corrected it above. However, what I hypothesise you mean is that the theory of Evolution is a massive theory, a 'process' that took billions of years to get from Precambrian prokaryote to Holocene hog, hyena and hoopoe, and thus a process whose 'scope' is too large in time and complexity (genetic and morphological and geological and climatological complexity - the world of Natural Selection) to replicate in the laboratory. That is true. We cannot put a modern relative of the earliest bacteria into a laboratory and watch it, human generation by human generation, progress and branch into myriad forms as different from a bacterium as mice and jellyfish, sequoias, starfish, paramecia and pangolins, because, we as a species will not have the time resources to do such a thing. If you think that the Theory of Evolution in all its professed veracity hinges only on this one 3.5 billion year laboratory experiment, then Evolution as a theory (and perhaps even a hypothesis) may seem a failure to you. You may well exclaim "Evolution is just a theory". But Evolution, the Theory, cannot rest on this absurd, nonsensical experiment, too long in time and indeed patience. Do we have to see a hydrogen atom to theorise its existence or see the air push up the wing of an aeroplane? There are many things that we cannot see. And many theories that we accept, theories of the invisible, like the invisible atom or the invisible guanine in DNA, or the invisible change of long-dead animals from fish to amphibian and from coelurosaur to bird and from a possible hyrax-like animal to manatee and elephant, cannot have the ultimate proof brought upon them. See an electron? Feel an electron? Be in two places at once like an electron? And yet we accept the wave-particle duality of electrons.
We accept these ideas because they are good ideas of the rank of theory. Not hypothesis, theory. And, within the definition of theory above, stood up in time and not fallen. We accept Evolution because it has evidence, of the quantity that renders evolution a theory. We accept atoms and DNA because there is evidence. The same goes for the Big Bang and Continental Drift. The statement 'just a theory' is always erroneous. A theory is a good thing, the best explanation we can come up with. And the longer we go without refutation, the more confident we become in the veracity of the claims of a theory. And the longer we go without refutation, the more we doubt whether there will ever be refutation, which is another way of stating the last sentence.
In short, whether it is possible or not to replicate Evolution over 3.5 billion years in a laboratory, we know that this experiment would be impossible and thus need indirect ways to work out what has happened to bring life into the forms it is in now. These indirect methods (used to build up Evolution as a theory and Atomic Structure as a theory and many other theories of the invisible) have built up extraordinary wonderful theories which seem to be veracious and whose veracity (given the state that it is) it would seem absurd to deny. Just because we cannot see something in the laboratory directly for ourselves with our very eyes does not deny the veracity of the theories (as propoundings) arising from the realm of indirect method research.