Ceteloguing the Tricks Theists Play

[Drich]

well, except where scientific absolutes, and laws are concerned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

Youre slipping FF

Ahem.

From the very article you linked.

Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation.

Now if you'll just look at the definition of scientific theory from the same site...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Defi...anizations

It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

Seriously Drich, saying "well it's not a LAW" is fifth grade shit.  You must be able to understand the difference between the observation (or law) and the explanation or mechanism (theory).

For example, one 'law' could be..."Objects tend to fall towards the center of the earth, and this has a general acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 after repeated observation".  There's your 'law' of gravity.  The thoery of gravity explains why and how that works.  

You're drippin' Drich.

A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. Factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing causal relationships (such as those implied by laws) from principles that arise due to constant conjunction.[1]
Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply.
Many laws take mathematical forms, and thus can be stated as an equation; for example, the Law of Conservation of Energy can be written as , where E is the total amount of energy in the universe. Similarly, the First Law of Thermodynamics can be written as .
The term "scientific law" is traditionally associated with the natural sciences, though the social sciences also contain laws.[2] An example of a scientific law in social sciences is Zipf's law.
Like theories and hypotheses, laws make predictions (specifically, they predict that new observations will conform to the law), and can be falsified if they are found in contradiction with new data.

So I guess what you posted somhow cancels out what the article opens with... Or maybe somehow both can be true.. That scientific Law Speaks in Absolutes, but in so far as they have been observed under given parameters...

Really FF if you going to step up to bat you need to at least take a couple practice swings first.

---

Why is Drippy back here dumbing us down again?

Do you have a website (A few actually) that censors all non atheist thought? isn't that enough?