In science, the word "theory" is USUALLY used for well-established theoretical frameworks, that are generally accepted as being true. This is the case with the theory on protoplanets - it is generally held to be true.
Currently, the most accepted theory is that it resulted from a crash between a large planetoid (or "protoplanet") and Earth.
There are several, but one of the more popular is that a protoplanet about the size of Mars originally shared Earth's orbit. It crashed into Earth, and threw off a gigantic cloud of debris that coalesced into the Moon. If you'd like to read more about this, look up "Theia", the name given to this hypothetical protoplanet.
the solar system
This sucks jon haddad
1,500 years :D
An early collision by (proto) Earth with a large protoplanet..
1,500 Years .
Yes, that is how Earth's formed, it hit a large protoplanet called Theia.
A theory is a guess at what the result of something will be, based on what is already known about it. Theories will often remain unchanged, unless new evidence is found that suggests the theory is incorrect - if this is the case, the theory will be modified in order to better reflect the new evidence
I think you mean "protoplanet hypothesis". In fact, astronomers usually call it the Nebular Hypothesis A protoplanet is a planet-like object that hasn't fully developed into a planet. Why that hypothesis? It's because it is the best we have to describe the origin of the solar system according to the Laws of Physics.
The word 'theory' means it is an explanatory framework for some set of observational data. As to your question: while there is an overwhelming amount of observational data supporting the general tenets of evolutionary theory, and it is now impossible to rationally reject these tenets, it will technically always remain an explanatory model - a theory.
In theory, they can remain unchanged for their entire existence. However, in practise, nature isn't so nice and evolution happens eventually.