W3bbo wrote:
Minh wrote:The word "theory" has been bushwhacked here in the U.S. lately. There are some that want to call Intelligent Design is a "theory" -- in the same manner that Evolution is a theory. One is pretty much universally confirmed whereas, the other, you know...
It was an untestable hypothesis , therefore not science. End of story.
Steve411 wrote:The theory of gravity and the universe is far too complex for the human mind to understand.
What does Gravity have to do with the Universe in the same sentance? And I wouldn't say it's too complex, Sir Issac Newton didn't have any problems with devising his Universal Laws of Motion, and Gravity plays an important role in other modern-day scientific endeavours, like General Relativity and Special Relativity.
Steve411 wrote:If there was such proof of them being created by a God or a "higher force", we'd still argue on their existance.
To analogise:
"If there was such proof of chocolate bars being created by Kellogs, we'd still argue on their existence". ...what are you trying to say, other than contradict yourself?
Steve411 wrote:It's how it works, we don't stop. Whow. (8)
- Steve
You're not Loadsgood and I think everyone knows your name pretty well.
If the laws of the Universe weren't too complex for Newton, how come he was fundamentally wrong? He may have got some laws which give good approximations, but they aren't completely correct and the absolute space which they are based upon doesn't exist.
Gravity also plays no part in special relativity. The theory can't handle it because you need a curved spacetime, which is why we have general relativity (a theory about gravity).
