Quote:
Originally Posted by A Voice of Sanity
The theory of gravity and the law of gravity are separate.
The theory of gravity is that objects comprised of many atoms or molecules will attract other similar objects. This is a theory based on observations.
The law of gravity is that the force of attraction is proportional to the mass of the objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This is a mathematical formula.
The theory of evolution is that living things will slowly optimize their characteristics to the environment they occupy by variation due to sexual reproduction and the survival of those with the more optimum characteristics. This is a theory based on observations.
|
There is no "the" theory of gravity. There are theories (plural) of gravity. Gravity is something we don't fully understand, and it is something we cannot fully explain. If you mean to tell me there is one universal theory that every physicist and every scientist on this entire planet regards as "the" theory of gravity, and that's the basis of your argument, I would address that as a totally flawed concept.
And you've still slinked by the actuality of the matter. Here, this article puts it into perspective:
HowStuffWorks - Gravity
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HowStuffWorks
The question of why atoms attract one another is still not understood.
|
Yes, it's a mathematical equation--
if you take the "why" out of that equation and make massive presumptions and assumptions. Sure. That's the law of gravity--it's still not understood. It probably never will be. But who knows? No one. It's no different from human evolution. Yes, we know that
species generically evolve, but that doesn't prove jack when you apply the same "data" to the questions regarding human evolution. Scientifically speaking, the only true way to actually prove human evolution as a fact is to observe it--all thousands and maybe millions of generations of evolution--those
prior to human existence (a massive impossibility for us) which is why the pope was actually right. I'm not even a big fan of the pope. I'm not a fan of the Catholic church--I respect their right to what they believe in, but I certainly respect the way he understood what he was talking about. Science should not waste time attempting to answer such foolishly impossible-to-answer questions out of nothing more than judgment. That's the opposite of science. That's idiocy. The pope didn't even endorse creationism when he said that. He simply said exactly what I've said now.