Longloadr wrote:

What experiments can you do for gravity? (not sure if thats what you are asking) How about take 2 different size rocks.. weigh them... measure them... drop them... observe... Do they fall at the same rate? Repeat your experiment. Try from different heights... measure the rate of descent... determine if there is maximum velocity... etc etc.....

But those are just interpretations of your singular tests. You haven't tested every single possible scenario, so you can't know if that really applies to every scenario. In other words every single possibility isn't closed out by few tests on certain situations.

Sorsis wrote:

Longloadr wrote: What experiments can you do for gravity? (not sure if thats what you are asking) How about take 2 different size rocks.. weigh them... measure them... drop them... observe... Do they fall at the same rate? Repeat your experiment. Try from different heights... measure the rate of descent... determine if there is maximum velocity... etc etc..... But those are just interpretations of your singular tests. You haven't tested every single possible scenario, so you can't know if that really applies to every scenario. In other words every single possibility isn't closed out by few tests on certain situations.

You might think that you can do repeatable expeiments on histirical events... But others know you can't. ToE is a belief... a religion.

Stephen J, Gould wrote:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.... to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

Catch that??? “We never see the very process we profess to study.”

Surely you can see that Gould understands that gravity can be studied using empirical science... Not so with ToE.

Michael Ruse, professor of history and philosophy and author of The Darwinian Revolution, Darwinism Defended, and Taking Darwin Seriously wrote:

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint...the literalists [i.e., creationists] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

.
He seems to understand that the ToE is a belief.

evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis (Recently deceased / was married to Carl Sagan) wrote:

a minor twentieth century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology.

She describes neo-darwinism as religious. She understands there is a difference between testing gravity... and believing in evolution.

Harvard Professor Richard Lewontin, geneticist, author of several books on Darwinian theory wrote:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

He knows that ToE is based on beliefs more than science.

These are just a few examples of people who believe in evolution... and understand its a belief... Very different from other scientific concepts such as gravity

Longloadr, you're answering completely off the question. You still didn't get your way of thinking to work with gravity which you used as an example. Tell me why would I believe you in modern ToE when you use exactly same logic?

Sorsis wrote:

Longloadr, you're answering completely off the question. You still didn't get your way of thinking to work with gravity which you used as an example. Tell me why would I believe you in modern ToE when you use exactly same logic?

You don't get it because of your blind faith I suppose. The scientists I mentioned above seem to understand that ToE is not observational / operational science.

Longloadr wrote:

Sorsis wrote: Longloadr, you're answering completely off the question. You still didn't get your way of thinking to work with gravity which you used as an example. Tell me why would I believe you in modern ToE when you use exactly same logic? You don't get it because of your blind faith I suppose. The scientists I mentioned above seem to understand that ToE is not observational / operational science.

To my known we were not talking about that even at all, but instead you were trying to convince me about ANY theory which would be valid within your logic which in this case was gravity, but you failed to do that and then switched to conviently something else to cover it up. Therefore your babble about ToE in this case is irrelevant and I hereby dismiss it as an ignoratio elenchi.
So, should I just conclude the requirements you set for modern ToE are not reasonable, since within them not a single theory is standing? Thus playing your game no theory would be valid.

I argued that the ToE is very different from empirical, observational, operational science. The ToE is a historical science dealing with the pas. We can't observe life evolving from a common ancestor.
We can however do empirical science on fossils, dna and mutations, et cetera. We can observe and create data on things like natural selection and speciation. But when we interpret or extrapolate the results, to support evolutionism or creationism, we have stepped beyond the realms of observational science. And that is why even some hardcore evolutionists admit that evolutionism is a religion.
Do any scientists call gravity a religion?