To: Quark2005
I meant to say it more like that. I will get back to you. But I had links to sources that even the scientists here would have difficult time discounting. And those said part of Newtons laws were contradicted by Einstein's.
But your last paragraph. You acknowledge gaps in the theories and also say the one theory extends another (I add into infinity), then you conclude that this is knowledge. You can certainly hang onto your knowledge. I say it is nothing close to reality but very far fetched theory. We just have the tiniest subsets of reality and you guys are calling game, it does you poorly IMO.
All Darwin observed is speciation, turtles becoming other turtles, iguanas becoming other iguanas, et al, nothing else. Therefore the conclusions drawn from that were a great reach, and I say wrong. Genetics only reinforces that conclusion in the minds of those that have adopted that conclusion, then they see their conclusion in the evidence.
See thats one problem many people see with the contemporary scientists, maybe its in the presentation of the scientists.
As a 17 year old, I put an arrow (with a 45lb re-curve) within 6" of a flying pheasant 50' away and with a limited understanding of the 'physics' involved, we now send a vehicles to intercept Titan. Very fantastic yes, but see my analogy?
Wolf
197 posted on
11/14/2005 10:25:33 PM PST by
RunningWolf
(tag line limbo)
To: RunningWolf
Very fantastic yes, but see my analogy? I do see the analogy, but I don't think it's correct. I do understand your skepticism, but it is unwarranted in this case - we have a lot more information pertaining to evolution than you seem to believe - the conclusion is not the wild extrapolation that you seem to think it is. (Though I'll admit that this isn't always readily apparent to the layperson - it took quite a bit of reading on my part to become convinced that it is a solid theory.)
BTW Newton's Laws do technically contradict Einstein's; the most accurate way to put it is that Einstein's theory of gravity reduces to Newton's in the non-relativistic limit. My point was that Newton's Laws are still perfectly valid in all but the most extreme or sensitive circumstances.
203 posted on
11/15/2005 6:54:27 AM PST by
Quark2005
(Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson