RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 7:16 am
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 7:24 am by John 6IX Breezy.)
(August 7, 2019 at 7:10 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote:(August 7, 2019 at 5:11 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: My bad, its "triumphantly" just a theory. Thanks.
Gravity isn't a theory lol. Its a natural phenomenon that different theories have tried to explain (i.e. general relativity?).
Right. So the Theory of Gravity is merely a theory. It would be as valid to propose a theory of space pixies pressing all of us down to the surface, right? After all, it's just a theory, right?
And if, as you claim, gravity is not a theory, why is there a theory of gravity? Are you claiming that the Theory of Gravity simply does not exist?
A theory of space pixies wouldn't be as accurate as another theory of gravity (depending on the theory), but yes, they would both still be just theories. So their validity would differ, but not their composition as theories.
What do you mean by if "gravity is not a theory why would there be a theory of gravity?" I don't understand.
