Isn't the phrase "it's just a theory" more of a hypothesis than a theory?

When someone does that they use the equivocation fallacy. They're simultaneously trying to use both definitions of the word "theory" in the same context, which is wrong. The fields of science use the word "theory" in a much different way than it's use colloquially. In science, a theory is a possible explanation of established observations and facts which can make predictions. That last part is the most important. "Theory" is the highest point you can reach in scientific vernacular. To be considered a "theory" your explanation has to be so good as to stand up to criticism from all angles, have enough evidence to support it, and, most importantly, be able to make accurate predictions.

Physics saw this when we had telescopes powerful enough to observe Mercury's orbit. At the time, Newton's mechanics were used everywhere and it was pretty good for almost everything, but the prediction it made about Mercury's orbit was wrong. Does that mean everything was wrong about it? Of course not. But clearly there was something in Newtonian mechanics, or something NOT in it, which threw off the prediction. This was fixed with Einstein's Relativity, which wasn't considered a theory at first, but it made such accurate predictions that it was upgraded. You can read more about it if you're interested.

A law is something different. A law is an observation of a single phenomena. You might saw a law is a "mini-theory." Laws also, more often than not, include equations that we use. It somewhat comes down to a theory being qualitative whilst a law is quantitative, but that's not always the case.

This rant has gone on far too long...

A theory is a set of rules in place to explain a natural phenomena. It has been tested a lot of times and each time the theory could be applied (it hasn't been disproven) thus it became widely accepted as a theory. The existence of God could be considered a theory, it hasn't been disproven and it could explain anything. The difference here though is that a theory of God could get changed every time to adjust to recent observations and as long as it does that, it cannot be disproven.

A theory is created by multiple results and conclusions, each enforcing that theory. A hypothesis can be based off a theory, it's an assumption and we make assumptions by using logic and theories.

So I think people who try to degenerate evolution theory as a theory really don't know what a theory is. Any logical reasoning comes down to a theory.

Saying "it's just a theory" seriously misunderstands what is meant when a scientist says the word "theory." The meaning is very different from when a layman says "theory."

After all, gravity, bacterial infection, quantum mechanics, and so on are also "just theories."

They don't know what they are ranting about, otherwise they would not be religious fundamentalists. if you pour a bucket of lies into someone, that's the result you can expect.

You can take it as a general rule that ranters are ignorant.

That is just their ignorance on how the word theory is used in the natural sciences. Gravitational theory, number theory, germ theory, atomic theory, and more all exist and unless science changes its methods will always be theories and subject to revision or rejection by new data.

no a theory has no evidence

a theory means some one made it up and is trying to tie physical things as evidence for their theory.

no were saying it s a made up guess

Pretty much-- they use the word "theory" the way that scientists use the word "hypothesis", and they often talk about evolution as if it were really more of an "idea".