Gravity is technically still a theory 99% of scientists have chosen is the best idea we have come up with for a lot of things that happen in this universe. So we label it as a Law. It's technically not fact. It just has piles and piles of evidence supporting it and is generally accepted by the scientific community to be the law governing the state of large objects in the world. The law of gravity however holds absolutely no merit when on the sub-atomic level when dealing with the strong and weak nuclear forces that hold atoms together. But it works pretty damn good for everything else. Same with a lot of phsycis and math.
The Theory of Evolution also has piles and piles of evidence from thousands of independent sources from across the planet who do scientific experiments and make general observations that can be redone over and over and over with the same results.
The only other theory of how humans came into being that is generally accepted in the western world is supported by 1 book with no observations, no reproducible scientific experiments, or any sorts of measurementsat all. It's still accepted based upon pure faith. There is absolutely no science behind it.
"Since you can't disprove it, it must be right" is not science, it's a argumentative fallacy that makes no sense. That's what the other theory soley relies on in the scientific community. Which is completely incorrect.
Wasdie
The law gravity IS a Law. And is a fact. Because there is not gravity at the sub-atomic level dosen't mean there is no such thing as gravity. with your logic that Gravity isn't a law just cause it doesn'texist or apply in a certainlocation. e.g: You don't exist because your not also on the moon."The only other theory of how humans came into being that is generally accepted in the western world is supported by 1 book with no observations, no reproducible scientific experiments, or any sorts of measurementsat all. It's still accepted based upon pure faith. There is absolutely no science behind it." --This comment is so wrong I don't know where to begin. Thereare two schools of thought that have challenged the Theory ofEvolution lately,they areCreationism and the Theory or Intelligent Design. Lets generalize: Creationsists typicallyare young earth believers and take the Bible verbatim (or almost verbatim),and Intelligent Design supporters believe the universe/life is too complex by observation and mathmatics to believe in the Theory of Evolution. So you can believe in Creationsim and Intelligent design butsomeonecanbelieve in Intelligent Design and notCreationism(as defined above)There IS scientific evidence pointing to an intelligent designer, just like there is evidence to support the assumptions the Theory of Evolution believers espouse. Now the vast majority of the scientific community has focused on trying to prove the Theory of Evolution for years now. So is the majority of:observations, scientific experiments, or measurements are going to fall heavily on the side of "Evolution", but Quanity doesn't mean Quality.
Log in to comment