I didn't mean to give that impression. I don't have one but I have some interesting things to say nonetheless. The difference being that I know what I don't know and don't pretend otherwise.
I find it interesting that the person who made that comment is still making more comments on this thread.
The responses can be interesting or amusing. For example the guy who called me a dim bulb but is unable to solve a problem I could in a few hours. But also one of the other posters made some good points. I guess you could say the thread is lot's more informative than the article.
How did the laws of motion and thermodynamics start, as manna from On High?
Scientific laws are derived from observation, they are straight forward extrapolations of those observations. They are not explanatory in the way that hypotheses and theories are. So I'm not sure why you bring these two up when clearly we are talking about hypotheses and theories.
A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. (Next to last paragraph of section IV)
Folks at Rochester, don't bother asking which Rochester, appear to disagree with you.