Replies

"There is far more evidence supporting the theory of evolution (and indeed it is a scientific theory) than gravitational theory.

Do you deny that gravity exists?"

Not to get off subject, but our lack of knowledge concerning gravity (and time for that matter) has always irked me. Shouldn't we know the MOST about the simpler things, and worry about the more complex later?

I mean, I have yet to hear a good explanation for particle/wave duality and if we don't even know what we're made of- sheeesh Why worry about DNA if you can't even agree on a good definition for light/energy or something "simple" like a dimension.

Sorry to rant, but it seems to me the universe is WAY more complex than anyone gives credit. Space is complex. Time is complex. Energy is a mystery. We are like children who have just enough smarts to take the safety off our dad's gun.

There is far more evidence supporting the theory of evolution (and indeed it is a scientific theory) than gravitational theory.

Do you deny that gravity exists?

Heck, no! If you drop a rock off a cliff, it falls! If you drop a monkey of a cliff, it doesn't evolve into a man, it just goes *splat*!

There is far more evidence supporting the theory of evolution (and indeed it is a scientific theory) than gravitational theory.

Do you deny that gravity exists?

This is a very misleading analogy.

In common usage, gravity is interchangeable as both hypothesis and observation. There's no denying that variation exists within species, just as there's no denying that if I hold my hand out and drop a penny, it will accelerate downward. Both observations are true and self evident.

The hypothesis of common descent, like the many hypotheses of gravity, have yet to be demonstrated. So in accordance with these terms, I would say yes, to your question.

Unless of course, you can demonstrate the gravity hypothesis of your choosing [and in so doing, falsify all the remaining hypotheses] and how it is compatible with relativity, and in particular, the equivalence principle.

So, without further adieu, the stage is yours.

Put up, or shut up...since I'm tired of seeing this inappropriate analogy constantly being bandied about...

>>There is far more evidence supporting the theory of evolution (and indeed it is a scientific theory) than gravitational theory.<<

HA, ha. Baloney. 911 was evidence supporting the theory of gravity. Our orbit of the sun is evidence that supports the theory of gravity. When I pour milk on my cereal there is yet more evidence supporting the theory of gravity.

And yet with that, we really cannot prove whether or not it pulls or pushes. Both sides can be argued.

Some evolution has been observed, like the evolution of the Corvette, while others have not, like speciation. And evolution is a "catch all" phrase anyway. Gravity is one of the four forces. Simple. Concise. Evolution is...what? That one type of fruit fly outnumbers another until the conditions favor the latter, at which point they reverse population percentages? Yeah, some call that evolution and I believe that sort of evolution happens all the time. It is observable.

But when someone says that dogs came from the primordial soup, I can explain the logical fallacies necessary to come to that belief. I can show them that all of the evidence for such a belief is based in faith, mostly in FUTURE discoveries. If they are a True Believer, there is nothing to do but smile and nod.