[Dimensio]

I can demonstrate gravity very easily. Just let me release a 10# brick from 20 feet over your head. What happens after I release it will demonstrate gravity. Want to give it a try?

That would be setting up a single data point. That would not explain what caused the brick to fall. It would not explain how the process worked or what caused the fall (saying "it was dropped" is a statement of an event, not a statement explaining the force that pulled the brick downward).

You're not very bright.

You're not very honest.

[connectthedots]

That would be setting up a single data point.

How many times would like a 10# brick released from 20 feet above your head? If you doubt the expected result, you would have no reason to move, would you?

I have an interesting question for you. Why do evolutionists claim that the 'theory of evolution' is just as valid as the 'theory of gravity'? Seems to me that it would be impossible for both of them to enjoy the same level of credibility; wouldn't it?

If evolution was as valid at the law of gravity, there would be no reason to compare the two. They don't really have anything in common. Only only possible reason why evolutionists compare the two is to mislead those who aren't all that bright into thinking that evolution is just as valid as gravity. The fact is, evolution cannot stand on its own apart from using some accepted scientific fact to lend evolution credibility.

This reminds me of an old saying, "the only purpose served by economic forecasting is to lend credibility to astrology.