In what way was my pointing out your confusion of the Law of Gravity with the non-existant Theory of Gravity an "attack" on you (as distinct from an attack on your claim)? How was pointing out that Mendel's ratios are not only not "proven", but are not even factually true of numerous real world cases Clintonesque? How was my very politely demuring from your absurd implication that "relativity" tells us all we need to know about "atomic bombs" ad hominem?
For Gosh sakes, on that last point I even resisted pointing out to you that relativity theory deals with macroscopic phenomena, says nothing (directly) about nuclear interactions, and has little if anything to do with actually building "atom bombs".
Let us assume that I genuinely wanted to attack your claim that "gravity" is a "proved theory". Is there any possible way I could do that which would not cause you to squeal like a Palestinian caught with an explosive belt that you had been subjected to unfair personal attack?
I was not referring to me, I was referring to the great scientists who you malign with your statements about science. If science had proven nothing, if science had not advance knowledge, if science had not given us useful applications from their theories, we would still be living in caves. It is an insult to both these scientists and to the intelligence of the readers of this thread to say that science proves nothing.