> The question of believing in evolution as FACT can actually be answered quite simply. If it were indeed proven fact, it would not be called a "theory". ... The THEORY of Evolution is not proven fact, by its very name, which does have scientific significance.
Wow. Just... wow.
Tell me: are the results of the Thoery of Relativity a fact, or not? If an atom of uranium fissions, is there energy release? Does subjective time change for a body moving near the speed of light?
Does an apple fall according to the precepts fo Newtons theory of gravity?
Do you even knwo what "theory" *means?*
I think I see where you are having trouble, here.
Newtons Laws have been verified countless times in science classes and through experimentation.
Until we can measure the results of experiments which happen faster than sensors can record them, we will have nowhere near the base of reproducible results which will elevate the Theory of Relativity to the status of "Law".
No one can conclusively answer the question, often postulated as a joke, of whether the headlights come on if you are traveling at .9999c and hit the switch--or whether they light your path.
Physics, too has its 'untouchables', the working base assumptions which remain unverified and which may one day be refuted.
Merely asking a question about the velocity of gravity got me a firm committment from my professor that I would be summarily flunked should I ever broach the topic again.
Macroevolution...Hmmm. Let's get a few planets slicked up with primordial (but lifeless) ooze, and wait a while and see if we get humans...
(Frankly, I'd give it a pass if you could just get from amino acids to rudimentary vertebrates, amphioxis, sp. aside. Who needs hypothetical ancestral neotenic tunicate larvae stock, anyway?)
If you don't get that, study up.
Tough to run an experiment like that, and I'd really hate for that to be a taxpayer funded grant.
The reality is that Darwin's theory came along at a convenient time in European colonial expansion, (ca 1850) in which the colonization of vast areas of the planet by Europeans could be handily justified if they were just exercising their God given right to dominate the lower species, including the "inferior" races of man.
After all, it was the Europeans who were at the pinnacle of evolution. How handy.
So it is no wonder that a theory which has (still) more missing links than most even imagine, more hypothetical ancestors and ancestral stocks than Carter has pills, not only gained nearly immediate acceptance in the European scientific circles (where necessary made more palatable by the addition of the ministrations of a loving God), but has since become the darling of the Godless.
After all, just about any undermenschen can be deprived of resources or eliminated, either from the breeding population, the voting population, or the living, by virtue of their evolutionary inferiority.
Why have a God when you can be one?
But anyway, back to your questions.
Tell me: are the results of the Thoery [sic] of Relativity a fact, or not? If an atom of uranium fissions, is there energy release? Does subjective time change for a body moving near the speed of light?
The Theory of Relativity covers more than a fissioning atom, which certainly releases energy, as does a match when struck, even if a few quanta downscale. The jury is still out.
I have in the past been accused of driving too fast, and in at least one instance I am sure the passenger would have testified to a time dilation effect, but in reality no one has gone anywhere near the speed of light, so I'll leave this in the "unverified" pile, along with other notable theories.
Does an apple fall according to the precepts fo [sic] Newtons theory of gravity?
Within the measurable parameters, an apple does indeed fall conformably with Newton's Law of Gravity. This has been verified ad nauseum with a variety of objects, and qualified with such factors as wind resistance, terminal velocity, etc., but has been empirically substantiated often enough to become, in the scientific mind, Law.
Do you even knwo [sic] what "theory" *means?*
Yes! Which is the reason I posted in the first place.