[js1138]

When Newton observed that an apple fell to the ground on earth at 32' per/sec 2 that was a direct observation that he measured, not some convoluted evolving morphing thing like your evo belief is.

I think it was Galileo who measured the acceleration of gravity by direct observation.

Newton applied his equations to the universe, an object he could not possibly observe directly. It was the successful calculation of the orbit of a comet by Halley that first confirmed Newton's gravitation -- long after Newton was dead.

But don't let facts impede your ranting.

[Thatcherite]

The retreating mutt never lets facts get in the way of anything. And his response was in no way germane to the question I asked. Just a random diatribe. How unlike all his other posts ;) .

Still waiting for any creationist (or anyone else) to supply that rigorous proof of something in the physics or chemistry fields. It's funny, there are all these Freepers who think that the physical and chemical sciences are somehow much more hard and rigorous than the biological sciences. We see that particular claim again and again, but I've never met a single practicing physicist or chemist who agrees with them. Some limited areas of mathematics deal in rigorous proof. Everyone in the natural sciences deals with evidence and predictions and falsification.

[RunningWolf]

Well you are wrong about even this most basic thing,
Sir Isaac Newton: The Universal Law of Gravitation
but even if I got the attribution wrong it changes nothing.

Wolf