Posted on 01/03/2006 12:12:37 PM PST by PatrickHenry
"I suppose it would be unscientific to assert that you exist either since there are NO peer-reviewed articles stating as much."
Pretty funny. longshadow, however, is not a scientific theory. He is a human being (presumably). He can present himself in person if necessary. No scientific theory is involved here, so there would be no paper, peer-reviewed or otherwise.
Of course, he could be a web bot, responding semi-intelligently to threads here on Free Republic. You could be a web bot, for all I know. So, how do we tell?
We could do some testing. Let's see:
Test 1. Do the postings make sense?
Test 2. Do they follow, logically, the progress of the thread?
Test 3. Are the postings based on some real knowledge, or are they merely rehashes of information commonly available on certain websites?
Having applied these tests, I have determined that longshadow is a human being. I have further determined that Fester Chugabrew may be a human being or a web bot. Further testing will be needed.
TOE is still just a theory. Prove to me humans descended from ape-like creatures. Now drop something. Hmmm.
Ultimately, this fight is not over a "creator." It's about what causes the scientific method ought to address, going forward. FWIW
Just like you to keep changing your story.
Maybe it will happen with ID in the future. Or can you predict the scientific future also?
Can gravity be proved?
"TOE is still just a theory. Prove to me humans descended from ape-like creatures. "
You ARE determined to restate the obvious again and again, aren't you.
Yes, the Theory of Evolution is just a theory. Nobody has said it is not. I cannot prove to you that humans descended from ape-like creatures. I can, however, show you a great deal of evidence that makes that a very, very likely progression.
You cannot argue against the Theory of Evolution, mlcnnnn, by saying that it is a theory. That's already stipulated. It is a theory.
Truly, they should "care less" as you say. Thanks for your post!
And you can't argue that because it is a theory, all science is theory.
It's always a pleasure to have one's humanity reaffirmed...
;-)
Maybe that's all science has been doing all along. Do you really think that attribute of "supernatural" as applied by each and every observer establishes the nature of what is being observed? Is human understanding the sole determinant of what is or is not supernatural? Why should such an arbitrary attributition be accepted as "scientific?" Because you, or some other observer says so, or because a whole group of observers happen to agree? What if God is ultimately as "scientific" as it gets? Is it our understanding, or lack of understanding, that turns Him or His works into something else?
"Can gravity be proved?"
Do you mean the force attracting two physical bodies to each other? Yes, that's easily demonstrated.
The theory of gravity is not about that commonplace phenomenon. It's much more complex than that. Sadly, I do not believe your background in the sciences is adequate to understand a brief explanation of it.
You can find much material on the theory of gravitation on the web, however, if you're of a mind to learn something.
"And you can't argue that because it is a theory, all science is theory."
Huh? You're not making sense there. Did I argue that?
Since complexity has not been defined consistently by IDists and ID uses an unfounded and demonstrably false assumption that natural causes do not create complexity they have a lot of work to do. Maybe they should get started. Soon.
1. How do you know?
2. There is no way to put the force of gravity under a microscope either.
Further testing has been completed. Fester Chugabrew is definitely a web bot, rather than a human being.
Publication will appear in a future issue of Nature, once I've completed the paper.
Believe in what exactly? Turns out no one is really sure what gravity actually is. (For instance whether it's a force like electromagnetism or more a property of space/time as effected by matter/energy.) The equivalence between gravity and inertia -- suggested by generally relativity -- is not understood. Indeed it's not understood why there even is inertia if relativity is true, as it certainly appears to be. (How does nature "know" to create a "centripetal force" if all motion is relative?)
You say that there is a "law" of gravity, and there is. But look a little closer and you find it's not a real law because it's not universal. Real laws are supposed to apply in all relevant circumstances. But to universalize the (Newtonian) law of gravity you have to apply it in the context of a THEORY (e.g. general relativity).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.