Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory"

[Captain Caveman]

False Choice
I've already posted a Link from Scientific American that's says it's Both.
I didn't catch your refutation.
Not even an excerpt from the link. (I embarrassed you into FINALLY posting one.)

You still do NOT Understand the meaning of 'Scientific Theory.'

You have spectacularly Low: IQ, reading comprehension, and maturity level.

`

It's a theory, retard. Darwin has your family evolving from the amoebas.

 

[abu afak]

It's a theory, retard. Darwin has your family evolving from the amoebas.

AGAIN:


15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - Editor-in-Chief
July 1, 2002 - Scientific American
[.....]
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In Addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution."..."

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense​

`

 

[Captain Caveman]

AGAIN:


15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - Editor-in-Chief
July 1, 2002 - Scientific American
[.....]
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In Addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution."..."

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense​

`

Science doesn’t prove anything, and that’s a good thing

It is often the case that the most fundamental concepts in science are the ones that are the most misunderstood, and that is certainly true with the concept of “proof.” Many people acce…

thelogicofscience.com

 

[abu afak]

Science doesn’t prove anything, and that’s a good thing

It is often the case that the most fundamental concepts in science are the ones that are the most misunderstood, and that is certainly true with the concept of “proof.” Many people acce…

thelogicofscience.com

You don't need a link for that clown.
Wow, I really embarrassed you into trying to look educated!
Two in a row!

I've already said that many times in this thread alone. Look back the last few pages. (or immediately below to my thrice repeated post)
Science does not deal in Proof, only Math does.
You need a link for that goofy?
Not in dispute Moron.
But everything does not need to be proven to be a fact.

Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
Evolution at 160 years and getting stronger with every New Science, Decade, Fossil Find, etc.

`

 

[abu afak]

Deniers only exist in the closed minds of True Believers. You can't explain things and have a hissy fit when confronted. It is dolts like you that have closed off innovation and news lines of thinking in continued support of broken orthodoxy.

YOU ARE THE DENIER AND A FRAUD.
You can't answer me denier.
THIRD TIME:

Rogue AI said:
The theory of gravity can be tested in laboratories across the planet, each netting the same result. The theory of evolution, not so much.

We have overwhelming Physical evidence for Evolution.
What in Court would be called "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
A great circumstantial case, plenty good enough to hang a man.
(Captain Caveman too) But true proof, as sci would use it is not 90%. Not 99.9%.
Only math has absolute 100% 'proof' (2+2=4)

Some sciences, like astronomy, are also not lab-able but observational.
Though the Hard evidence for Evo has been piling up for 160 years.
Many new sciences since, and all relevant ones not only don't contradict it, but some help confirm it. (lab-tested DNA, Isotopic dating, etc),
And all new found fossils consistent in age/strata, and in finding tweeners that only Evolution (not creationism) could and does predict.
One fossil out of place of millions found could have blown it. None has.

`

 

[BackAgain]

Gravity is not just a theory. It’s the LAW!

 

[abu afak]

Gravity is not just a theory. It’s the LAW!

Scientific Theory vs Law

There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. This is largely due to the fact that…

medium.com

"There is a common Misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory.
This is largely due to the fact that the scientific definition of the word is different than the English definition. In this article we define both terms and compare the two definitions. We then apply these definitions to the definition of the scientific method. Finally, we use these definitions to argue that science is the best tool we have to understand the natural world.
[.....
.....]
`

 

[BackAgain]

Scientific Theory vs Law

There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. This is largely due to the fact that…

medium.com

"There is a common Misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory.
This is largely due to the fact that the scientific definition of the word is different than the English definition. In this article we define both terms and compare the two definitions. We then apply these definitions to the definition of the scientific method. Finally, we use these definitions to argue that science is the best tool we have to understand the natural world.
[.....
.....]
`

Nah. It was just the set-up for an old joke.

 

[BackAgain]

I know that this defies the law of gravity, but, you see, I never studied law. (Bugs Bunny)

 

[Rogue AI]

YOU ARE THE DENIER AND A FRAUD.
You can't answer me denier.
THIRD TIME:



We have overwhelming Physical evidence for Evolution.
What in Court would be called "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
A great circumstantial case, plenty good enough to hang a man.
(Captain Caveman too) But true proof, as sci would use it is not 90%. Not 99.9%.
Only math has absolute 100% 'proof' (2+2=4)

Some sciences, like astronomy, are also not lab-able but observational.
Though the Hard evidence for Evo has been piling up for 160 years.
Many new sciences since, and all relevant ones not only don't contradict it, but some help confirm it. (lab-tested DNA, Isotopic dating, etc),
And all new found fossils consistent in age/strata, and in finding tweeners that only Evolution (not creationism) could and does predict.
One fossil out of place of millions found could have blown it. None has.

`

You quacks are too much. You only accept ideas that confirm your preconceptions and lash out like children by proclaiming any dissent is denial of science. Pathetic.

 

[abu afak]

You quacks are too much. You only accept ideas that confirm your preconceptions and lash out like children by proclaiming any dissent is denial of science. Pathetic.

We all have ideas.
Apparently you can't explain or defend yours.
Show me I'm wrong.
That's what this place is for. It's not for worship.
We do have a religion section tho.

Problem is you can't defend your belief v mine (what I posted to you) and you know it.
So it's YOU who are the denier.

`

 

[Rogue AI]

We all have ideas.
Apparently you can't explain or defend yours.
Show me I'm wrong.
That's what this place is for. It's not for worship.
We do have a religion section tho.

Problem is you can't defend your belief v mine (what I posted to you) and you know it.
So it's YOU who are the denier.

`

Funny I have never mentioned or argued religion anywhere on these forums. Come up with some new material you two bit hack.

 

[Clyde 154]

You don’t seem to understand how important anything defined as a theory is in science. It takes a lot of work to get consensus from enough of a community to decide something is a theory. Why don’t you look up what a theory is before you pretend evolution should be dismissed becouse it’s only a theory. Do you have a cell phone. It’s development was ENTIRELY based upon the science around the theories applied to its engineering. How about the food you eat. They are nearly entirely based upon the evolution related theory to genetics.

A consensus is not based upon applied science.....a consensus is an "OPINION".......some of the consensus opinions held by supposed scientists? The earth was the center of the solar system with the sun revolving around the earth.........the earth was flat.........etc.,

nearly........entirely..........really? That passes as science or ya?

 

[Clyde 154]

We all have ideas.
Apparently you can't explain or defend yours.
Show me I'm wrong.
That's what this place is for. It's not for worship.
We do have a religion section tho.

Problem is you can't defend your belief v mine (what I posted to you) and you know it.
So it's YOU who are the denier.

`

joke? Again........applied science is real science, anything based upon mental projections is nothing but "philosophy"

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." -- Romans 1:22

Why can no one explain the origins of the universe as based upon the natural laws of physics? Why can no one reproduce life from non-living matter? Apply science to these questions and answer them based upon that application and come back tell us how smart you are.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And neither one speak for a scientific consensus community.

Who does, then?

Point being, scientists do refer to some theories as facts.

Like, evolution as the origin of species. Ask any biologist if that is a fact.


The answer will be"yes".

I understand the point you are making, in that nothing can be "100% proven" in science. But nothing ever will be, and yet facts will always exist.

 

[Dagosa]

A consensus is not based upon applied science.....a consensus is an "OPINION".......some of the consensus opinions held by supposed scientists? The earth was the center of the solar system with the sun revolving around the earth.........the earth was flat.........etc.,

nearly........entirely..........really? That passes as science or ya?

Silly remarks of a science illiterate. I suppose you know more then the pentagon and every of nation in the world, all hospitals and 320 plus accredited universities in the world. Educated people know evolution, doofus crowd knows shit. Seriously, did you make to bio class ?

 

[Dagosa]

Irrelevant. Point being, scientists do refer to some theories as facts.

Like, evolution as the origin of species. Ask a biologist if that is a fact.


The answer will be"yes"

Having fun mimicking drop out Hannity and dufus Tucking. The toothless crowd is getting belligerent. Really, have you had your vaccination for covid ? You should. You don‘t want to get a chance to see evolution in action this close and personal.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Having fun mimicking drop out Hannity and dufus Tucking.

I think you might have posted this to the wrong person.

 

[Dagosa]

I gave you the link you thick ****

No shit….it’s hilarious.

 

[Dagosa]

I think you might have posted this to the wrong person.

Wouldn’t be the first time.