>> For one, General Relativity is falsifiable
> So is evolution.
Really? How so?
>> Furthermore, it [General Relativity] is mathematically solvent.
> I have no idea what that means.
It simply means that the theory of General Relativity was submitted with mathematical proof.
> there is no well-funded, organized effort to keep General
> Relativity from being taught in schools or, if taught,
> being accompanied by a counter-theory with little
> supporting evidence.
There are many alternatives to General Relativity being taught, most of them exponents of Quantum Mechanics. As far as I know, there are no well organized, well funded efforts to keep such teaching out of the schools, nor is there any punishment for supporting or believing them.
Evloutionism is taught and promoted in the same manner as Global Warmism.
> Another reason is that GR isn’t something most people see in action
You can’t be serious. What holds you to the ground? Think before you react.
> hat if there were a bunch of people insisting that
> disease was caused by bad humors, and demanding that
> schools “teach the controversy,” and complaining that
> they didn’t get hired to teach in medical schools because
> of their beliefs?
Argumentum ad absurdum. We can see the little buggies in microscopes. Nobody has seen a shrew turn into a bat or a photosensitive cell turn into an eye.
> You don’t think doctors and scientists would argue
> against them using exactly the same kinds of terms that
> “evolutionists” use for evolution deniers?
Just to set the record straight, I am also a Global Warming “denier”.
Your use of the pejorative term of the Global Warmists says something about you that you may not want it to say.
You gave your own example: if a shrew gave birth to a bat, that'd pretty much do it. Or finding the proverbial rabbit in the stomach of a T. Rex.
It simply means that the theory of General Relativity was submitted with mathematical proof.
Mathematics doesn't prove a theory. It can describe and predict the phenomena that a theory tries to explain, but it doesn't prove anything. And if it's numbers you want, what's wrong with the rate of genetic change or the percentage similarity of two genomes?
There are many alternatives to General Relativity being taught, most of them exponents of Quantum Mechanics.
I'm not familiar with them--do you have a reference? More to the point, do they claim that GR is completely wrong in its premises and conclusions and should be scrapped, or are they just expanding and deepening it--the way GR did to Newtonian physics?
You can’t be serious. What holds you to the ground?
Newton handled that just fine. We don't need GR to understand much of what we see at human scale.
We can see the little buggies in microscopes.
Yes, and we can see DNA changes from generation to generation. We've seen the formation of entirely new bodily structures in just a few years. At the same time, I'm not sure anyone's seen the little buggies actually cause a disease--it's all inference from strong evidence. Just like evolution.
You'll probably have the last word, as I'm going out of town for a couple of days and probably won't bother to pick this up again when I get back.