Religious folk: Did you know that Gravity is still a theory?

You wrote: "There are the laws of gravity that some of you might know about from high school, but there are enough anomalies and inconsistencies to relegate what we call gravity to the status of 'theory'."

You obviously do not understand. In science, a 'Law' is expressed where scientists notice a mathematically consistent relationships of parameters within a dynamic system wherein, given knowledge of one or more parameters and known standard equations, future states of the system can be calculated or, alternatively, past states of the system can be revealed. Such is Newton's 'Universal Law of Gravitation'... it allows us to calculate how objects will behave under the influence of gravity, but it tells us nothing at all about gravity itself... i.e., what gravity is or how it works.

Your statement about "...there are enough anomalies and inconsistencies to relegate what we call gravity to the status of 'theory'" is just flat wrong... more on that below.

You wrote: "Earlier this week, some scientists found direct evidence of something called Dark Matter, which partially explains a major inconsistency in gravity, that being the movement of galaxies."

That has nothing to do with an "inconsistency in gravity"... it has to do only with a unexpected (or better, unexplained) observations in the movements of stars and galaxies.

I get really sick of all these scientifically ignorant nut-jobs screeching "... it's only a 'theory'... not a fact." In science, 'theories' occupy a higher tier of importance than mere 'facts'... theories EXPLAIN facts.

Newton's 'Theory of Gravitation' postulated that gravity's effects were caused by an unseen gravitational 'force'. This theory was meant to EXPLAIN the CAUSE behind the OBSERVED FACTS of the effects of gravity that are described in the equations set forth in the Law of Gravitation. This 'theory' (explanatory framework for the facts) is now defunct, since we now know (or, THINK we know) that gravity is explained by Einstein's 'Theory of General Relativity', and that the FACTS of gravity are explained as being a consequence of the curvature of space-time, rather than an invisible force. Same facts... different theory.

Einstein's theory also revealed to us that the 'Law of Gravitation' was wrong, as well... at relativistic velocities, and in the presence of very large masses, Newton's equations do not work. Also, at the quantum level, neither Newton's nor Einstein's equations work. HOWEVER, we still use Newton's equations, and refer to Newton's 'Law of Gravitation' in a LOCAL environment... 'local' meaning non-relativistic. Why? Because, in a 'local' environment, the answers to the calculations come out the same (within a certain number of decimal places), whether Einstein's or Newton's equations are used... and Newton's math is EASIER. So, we still refer to Newton's Law of Gravitation, and still use it for building skyscrapers and bridges, and for sending satellites into orbit, or to visit the Moon or Mars, or to calculate the ballistic curve of an artillery projectile for reasons of PRACTICALITY.

Now... the 'Theory of Evolution. Evolution is not a matter of 'belief. I keep reading in here that "... evolution is just a theory... not a fact." That, as it turns out, is true... although the word 'just' is inappropriate, and misleading... and it indicates that people just don't understand what a scientific theory is; they seem to think that it is just an idea. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Again... in science, a theory occupies a higher stratum of importance than a mere 'fact'. Theories EXPLAIN facts. The theory of evolution provides an explanatory framework for the OBSERVED FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes, over time (in some cases, over distance)... and that over an extended period of time (hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of generations), the accumulation of those changes can result in speciation. It explains the OBSERVED FACT of transitional species found in the fossil record.

Theories live or die on the basis of their explanatory power and falsifiability. Theories, as an explanatory framework, allow one to make predictions which can be subsequently validated by way of experiments or future observations. That means that in order to be valid, a theory must be falsifiable... and all that it takes for a theory to be falsified is ONE INSTANCE where an experiment or future observation achieves a result that is CONTRARY to what the theory has predicted.

Evolution, as it turns out, has NEVER been falsified... in nearly 150 years. Further, all findings and observations to date... in molecular biology... in genetics... in paleontology... have SOLIDIFIED the explanatory power of evolution... NEVER detracted from it.

For those that say that evolution does not account for new species... horseshit. Examples abound, both in the 'world' and in the laboratory. One of the most interesting examples, and the most enlightening, has to do with a kind of bird (plovers, if my memory is correct) that occupies adjacent habitats all the way from Siberia to Britain. Because of environmental differences in these adjacent habitats, natural selection has produced genetic differences between the populations in these adjacent habitats. However, birds in adjacent habitats can still mate with each other... the genetic differences are small. However, the birds from the Eastern-most reaches of Siberia CAN NOT mate with those from Britain. Over the reach of MANY habitats, the accumulation of genetic differences essentially differentiates them as a species.

Aerodynamics is just a theory too, and it's just rediculous. They would have us believe that air alone can cause things heavier than air to fly. Do they even think about the nonsense they promote!? I mean, there's air all over the place. Why isn't everything flying!?

Clearly, all flight is related to intelligence. People are intelligent, and they can fly, so are a lot of birds. Penguines and emus are pretty stupid though, so they have no chance of flying. So then, intelligence is responsible for flight and they should be teaching Intellugent Buoyancy in schools instead of aevildynamics, which requires more faith than a religion and is therefor a religion.

Intelligent buoyancy can also explain how Santa's sleigh can fly. Aevildynamics falls flat on its face on that one and could be discredited on that basis alone! There are millions of such examples I could list.

A theory remains a theory until such a time as we understand and empirically observe the entire universe of the subject in question. You are correct in that physics is a perfect example. When Newton developed his theories, it was based on the concept of absolute space. Then the thought shifted to relativistic theory. Then back to Absolute Space-Time. I think with current super string theory we are somewhere between the two.

However, you are not entirely correct about gravity. The current laws of physics have not been overruled, but instead modified depending on circumstances. Thus, the laws of physics were expanded under quantum theory to be more precise in their wording (event X produces result Y under maco conditions sort of thing), but they are not overturned altogether.

No, Dear. Gravity is not a theory. Dark matter is the theory that the scientists found direct evidence of and that is what was under suspicion. Not gravity. You are mixing the two. The existence of one has nothing to do with the other.

You're clearly comparing gravity with evolution, so let's talk about it.

Will you agree that, without external forces acting on it, a rock will fall downward every time that you drop it? Who would dispute this fact? Even your theoretical argument doesn't dispute it.

Show me ONE DOCUMENTED INCIDENCE of a species evolving under observation from abiogenesis to a complex vertibrate life form. I want the whole process documented, just like the rock-dropping experiment.

If you cannot demonstrate a theory by experimentation, it barely qualifies as a theory. Evolution should be relegated to the category "hypothesis," as there is absolutely no way to test it. Even if you accept that the earth is billions of years old, it doesn't prove evolution.

The fossil record raises more questions than it answers, in regards to evolution. And all of the hypothetical explainations for the nature of the fossil record can be explained in other ways.

Such is not the case with gravity. Within the bounds of Earth, the rock-dropping experiment worked yesterday, works today, and will work tomorrow. That, my friend, is the difference.

See "intelligent falling". It's a real theory, stating that gravity cannot possibly explain all aspects of gravitational phenomenon, so credence should be given to the idea that a higher power is moving them. It has been around for a while.

I knew that in the realm of outside our little planet gravity is still "just a theory," a lot of that has to do with einstein's theory of relativity giving gravity a whole new concept (something about putting dents in time and space).

In the realm of our little planet, however, the newtonian basics are considered scientifically proven.

best wishes.

No matter what you say, you will never get through to the creationists. Personally, I'm not sure why we waste our breath trying to speak logically to the ultra-religious. How about we apply their "it's just a theory" argument to their religious texts, and ask them to back up their arguments with facts. It can't be done.

On a completely different note, Einstein's relativity is also still "just a theory". Why don't we ask the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki if they can prove it is true.

man this same rant kinda getting sick of this. we obviously have shed a lot of the animal stuff that we should have because we as a society are generally sad when people die and have a sense of what should be right. why do we take care of the sick and feel bad for people more people more competition for resources and mates? why do we even try to stay together as married monogamous couples male testicles in animals can give a educated guess as to how long males keep mates humans are semi monogamous we should be changeing mates? how do you evolve a conscience just doesnt seem very benificial to me to have a conscience and feelings they seem to actually be a deficit to surviving. maybe im wrong but honestly i would rather think that there is a final judgement for people and that i was as good a person as i could be than to think, im just a cosmic lottery winner and nothing i do or that anyone has done means anything and that no matter how evil or bad someone is they get the same death as me and then nothing else

Blaspheme!!!

Don't go throwing science at the issue.

A theory has graduated from a hypothesis (educated guess) because evidence has been found to back it up. A scientific theory is not the same as a theory in general usage.

Please educate yourselves: