Own3D writes:
[...] how do you know that there are pixies in the vacuum chamber when the air is pumped out?
I don't know this, but it is what my model assumes.
[...] if the pixies are invisible, how do you know that they breathe oxygen, how do you know they breathe at all?
Again, this is what the model assumes.
If this model was true, the experiment designed to "disprove" it would not be valid.
On the contrary, if the model was true, in all its aspects, then the experiment would certainly have disproved it.
Everyone can see the same effects of gravity in the solar system, which is in empty space(a vacuum), as those on Earth.
Well spotted. We didn't even have to bother with a vacuum chamber. But the point I wanted to make is that the assertion you made earlier, namely:
quote:
Because neither model can be "proven" this means that neither model can be "disproven"
is nonsensical. As someone said: it's a non-sequitur. I can't prove the pixy-model of gravity, but that doesn't mean I can't
disprove it. The experiment I described clearly shows that I can.
It's all very well to go and reinvent the theory of evolution
Can you provide a better definition? The basic postulate of Evolution is a "law" of increasing organization, which introduces new systems into higher systems.
Of course I can provide a better definition. Your "basic postulate of Evolution" is a bogus representation of what evolution is all about. Here's my definition of evolution: descent with modification by natural selection. It's as simple as that. What you say is evolution's basic postulate is at most a corollary.
First you say that all scientists agree on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and then you say they don't
Wow, you think so? All scientists do accept the Second Law of Thermodynamics as fact, its observable, it can be experimented on, and it’s proven to be a known phenomenon.
Agreed, so far. But...
Not all scientists are, however, Evolutionists.
Well, maybe not, but evolution is a science and the people studying it are scientists. So saying that the theory of evolution - a theory coming from scientists - proposes a contradiction to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is tantamount to saying that there are scientists who do not accept the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This contradicts your earlier assertion that
all scientists accept it. I merely wanted to point out a flaw in your reasoning.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
™ Version 4.2