According to science which theories are the facts and which are still in the air, dependent on future tests?

All theories re correct. However, most people get the word "theory" wrong. "Theory" means a claim which is testable and has been tested scientifically and has been shown to be correct by all (or at least the majority of the data. The data itself must be subject to peer review. As such, any "theory" that truly is a theory is almost certainly true.

"Theory" does not mean an untested- or untestable- hunch or idea. That is a HYPOTHESIS.

There are three possible ways which a scientific statement can be:

1) Hypothesis: untested but possibly true.

2) Theory: tested and almost certainly true, but cannot be proven 100% by the nature of the claim it makes.

3) Theorum/law: deductible from basic facts known as "axioms"

EDIT: Quantum theory and relativity both work; relativity is for big things, quantum theory is for small things.

String theory is just an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

According to science which theories are the facts and which are still in the air, dependent on future tests

- You obviously have no concept of what a theory is.

yet a good many of these theories may contradict another when placed side by side if one was being honest..

- Look at your own words "theories may", and you list nothing. How very fundie.

What are the science theories that are the back bones and fundamentally breaks the supernatural beliefs stance to pieces

- Science deals with reality and has no concern for the supernatural since it is a fantasy.

Which of these science theories do atheists feel strengthens their atheistic view

- Atheism has nothing to do with science except that both deal with thinking and intelligent thought. So simple intelligence strengthens atheism as you, collectively, have never produced any evidence of a deity.

which science claim do they have no faith in because its merely a belief too

- No science claim is a belief.

Does the Quantum theory contradict Einsteins Relativity theory

- No it simply adds another facet.

when an hypothesis is posited into the mix such as string theory

- You obviously have no concept of the difference between hypothesis and theory, try reading something other than fundie captions.

First, tell us which theories contradict each other.....Here's a list of scientific theories:

1. The Atomic Theory

2. The Theory of Matter and Energy: Conservation of Matter and Energy

3. The Cell Theory

4. The Germ Theory

5. The Theory of Plate Tectonics

6. The Theory of Evolution

7. The Big Bang Theory

8. Chaos Theory

9. The Theory of Quantum Mechanics

10. The Theory of Special Relativity which subsumes The Theory of General Relativity which subsumes Newtonian theories of motion

11. The Photon Theory of Light Energy and its speed of light

12. The Theory of Electromagnetism as begun by Maxwell and continued with the work of others

13. Theory of Gravity

Quantum Mechanics (QM) and relativity are both 100% accurate, so far as we have been able to measure (and our measurements are really, really good). The incompatibility shows up when both QM effects and relativistic effects are large enough to be detected and then disagree. This condition is strictly theoretical today, but in the next few years our observations of Sagittarius A*, and at CERN should bring the problems between QM and relativity into sharp focus.

Relativity comes in two flavors: special and general. Special relativity describes how time and distance are affected by movement (especially fast movement), and it replaces Newtonian mechanics, which is only accurate at low speeds. Einstein came up with it by looking at the mathematical repercussions of the fact that all of physics works the same way, independent of movement (constant speed is the same as no speed). Special relativity has been exhaustively tested (relativistic effects have been verified all the way down to walking speed), and works so perfectly that it is now held up as the yardstick against which all new theories are tested. In fact, QM would make grossly inaccurate predictions if Dirac hadn’t shown up and tied QM together with special relativity to create “relativistic QM”.

General relativity, on the other hand, describes the stretching and bending of space and time by gravity. Einstein came up with it when he thought about what the universe would be like if inertial and gravitational acceleration were the same (turns out they are). By the way: gravitational acceleration is what pushes you toward the ground, and inertial acceleration is what pushes you back into the car seat when you step on the gas. It’s general relativity that causes the problems. Here’s two (of a possible untold many):

1) Smooth vs. Chunky: General relativity needs space to be “smooth”, or at the very least continuous. So if you have two points side by side, then no matter how close you bring them together you can still tell which one is on the right or left. Quantum mechanically you have to deal with position uncertainty. At very small scales you can’t tell which is right or left. In addition (as the name implies) QM requires everything to be “quantized”, or show up in discrete pieces. You see this clearly with atoms, photons, and even phonons (which is quantized sound! How awesome is that!?). Less clear is the quantization of space, which would require space to be “chopped up”. This choppiness will never be directly measured. The predicted “chunky scale” should be no large than 10-35 m. For comparison, a hydrogen atom is about a million, million, million, million times larger (10-24).

2) The Information Paradox: According to general relativity when stuff falls into a blackhole everything about it’s existence (with the exception of mass, charge, and momentum) is completely erased. That doesn’t sound so bad. We tend to think of blackholes as being like galactic garbage disposals. However, if all the information about something is destroyed, then you lose time-reversibility. Time-reversal is the idea that if you run time backwards, all the basic physical laws of the universe continue to work the same. More obscurely, you can predict the future based on what you know now, and time reversal means that you can derive what happened in the past as well. QM requires that time-reversibility (or “unitarity”, to a professional) holds. So QM requires that blackholes cannot destroy information. One way around this is amazingly complicated entanglement between all of the in-falling matter, and all of the Hawking Radiation that comes out later. Again, we’ll never be able to measure this. To get results we would have to exactly measure at least half of all of the photons generated by Hawking radiation over the essentially infinite life time of the blackhole (every blackhole that exists today will be around long, long after the heat death of the universe).

" yet a good many of these theories may contradict another when placed side by side if one was being honest"... Please provide examples.

Or are you just parroting something you read on a creationist website?

As for your question, let's go with the Big Bang, Evolution and gravity. Please explain how you think those contradict each other. These debunk certain supernatural claims.

I know you trust science too. I can tell because you're using some sort of electronic device to post this question. I bet you use science without thinking about it all day long from the water piped into your home so you can flush and shower in the am to your toothbrush and toothpaste to your car to the tv to the electricity to the buybull science printed for you. Stop being dishonest and saying science is trying to replace gawds...science doesn't give a fig about your gawd..

A theory is an explanation of observable facts. So all theories are backed up by observable, testable, empirical facts.

Frizby... you got owned!