Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Newton's Law of Gravity and the Orbit of Mercury

Posted by Pat D (A) on October 25, 2003 at 21:40:20

In Reply to: Re: Natural science is not pure mathematics. posted by dado4 on October 18, 2003 at 20:00:33:

Actually, Newton's physics has been falsified and so has Einstein's to some degree. Newton's Law of Gravity doesn't work to well for Mercury. That doesn't keep their formulations from being very useful, despite Karl Popper and you. I have found a link that explains this:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0614/p25s03-stss.html

Now, in another part of this thread, you mention some spurious claims put forth by creationists "man-made lead pellets in Precambrian layers, Trilobites found in late marine fossil beds and the congruent dinosaur tracks and human footprints are a few of the more famous ones." Then you have the gall to say that evolution is not falsifiable: you're contradicting yourself!!! You yourself have shown that evolution is falsifiable.

You're objection that we cannot scientifically investigate the past is also contradicted by your reference to the above claims. You don't believe it yourself, except where it proves useful for your case, which involves the fallacy of special pleading.

My link to the Paluxy River fiasco at TalkOrigins was not correct above, but here's a good one:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html

The author, Glen J. Kuban, would be happy to see creationism supported, BTW, but he also recognizes his obligation to the truth. I really don't know where you get the other two, as unlike myself, you offer no references at all.

As for evolution being a faith, well it has been pointed out that from a logical point of view, sciences involves premises--but they are not religious premises and they are premises accepted by the main creation science groups as well. So, that objection involves an unrecognized equivocation, more than one meaning for the same word. Here's a quotation from an educational site:

"Therefore, "belief" is not really an appropriate term to use in science, because testing is such an important part of this way of knowing. If there is a component of faith to science, it is the assumption that the universe operates according to regularities—for example, that the speed of light will not change tomorrow. Even the assumption of that regularity is often tested—and thus far has held up well. This "faith" is very different from religious faith."

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html

I have no philosophical or theological objection to evolution, and I usually take on the religious objections to evolution. I generally leave the science to those in the relevant fields, although sometimes by default I have had to take on some of the alleged scientific objections, notably regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

There is a lot of information on the Talk Origins site linked below.

____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)

• The Talk Origins Archive   (Open in New Window)

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Kimber Kable

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---