Verbosity is no substitute for coherency. Please, try again. And do try to minimize your ignorant ad-homs please.The degree of accuracy often depends on the task at hand. The task was not to quote Einstein for the simple reason that evolutionists do not understand simple sentences. The task was to try to explain simple sentences in the words that possibly could be accessible to evolutionists.
Would an evolutionist understand what does mean "Quantitatively... made little modification in Newton's theory, but qualitatively a deep-seated one."? No way.
If you wish to compete in accuracy, let me know…
More accurately,it made it quote more accurate and liable to exceptions end of quote.
Next time do not include in the quote things which are not well said when you say ‘’well said’’ under the quote.
You have not noticed how I characterized the rest of the post, have you? Why? Or may be you have ignored an indivisible part of my proof?
You also put your signature under the statement ‘’Scientific theories are not verifiable; they are only falsifiable. Newton's iron laws, for example, were "verified" for hundreds of years’’
You see I have told you that this is what they teach you everywhere. This is the danger, the damage evolutionists inflict on young brains. You see, Commi is a good man and he has a good personality and good brains. Evolutionists did not damage his brains but turned it completely up side down. Commi and you just agreed on some positions of scientific method I was lucky never been forced upon in my young years.
Atheists have invented and called it scientific method to brainwash you and inflict a permanent damage on your brain . They start feeding it to you in schools, then in colleges, then… step by step.. How do you, guys swallow this delirium? What is verification, what is falsification? I could never understand…
Appendices: III The Experimental Confirmation of the General Theory of Relativity. Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. TRANSLATED BY ROBERT W. LAWSON NEW YORK: HENRY HOLT, 1920
Experimental Confirmation is the verification. TOR was verified at the moment it was published. If you wish accuracy :
‘’up to the present we have been able to find only a few deductions from the general theory of relativity which are capable of investigation, and to which the physics of pre-relativity days does not also lead’’.
Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. TRANSLATED BY ROBERT W. LAWSON NEW YORK: HENRY HOLT, 1920
(Where did you get your quotes?)
As well all Newton’s theories were verifiable upon publication of Philosophia Naturalis Principia Mathematica. What I am telling you is not opposite to the absurd atheists tell you, their absurd has no relevancy because ‘’atheistic idea is such an absurd that I cannot express it in words’’ as Kelvin used to say. Moreover, a theory- if it is scientific -gets put in immediate use, such as – if in classical mechanics- in calculations of positions of celestial bodies in space and time as we observe them staring at them through telescopes. Look at these theories as we use them everyday: Amazon.com: Theory of Machines and Mechanisms: John J. Uicker, Gordon R. Pennock, the late Joseph E. Shigley: Books
Amazon.com: Theory of Wing Sections: Including a Summary of Airfoil Data (Dover Books on Physics): Ira H. Abbott, A. E. von Doenhoff: Books
Amazon.com: Theoretical Hydrodynamics: L. M. Milne-Thomson: Books
and try to ‘’falsify ’’ them, or to ‘’falsify ’’ Newton’s Philosophia Naturalis Principia Mathematica aka Newton’s laws of motion or Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. TRANSLATED BY ROBERT W. LAWSON NEW YORK: HENRY HOLT, 1920
Give it a shot. You see? You are a smart man you don’t have to play a poo all the time. You have to accept that atheism can happen only in a few types of brains – either in undeveloped ones or in damaged ones, or in ones which are turned upside down.
First you want to be MORE accurate, then you say accuracy was irrelevant … God is in details. Accuracy of following rules of science has 2 qualities – either you follow or you don’t. And that is very relevant if you ever discuss anything from POV of science.
I cannot recognize a thought here. I hope you don’t take drugs as many atheists do. What are you talking about? It is an indivisible property of humans – not to have a complete knowledge. Humans as species are characterized as ones not having a complete knowledge. This truth comes from all experiments and experience of humanity, not even mentioning that these experiments and experience of humanity just confirm the truth of the Bible. Science itself exists only due to the incompleteness of knowledge and Science itself maintains incompleteness of knowledge.
Science does not seek ‘’truth’. It is you who does. It is you who finds.
I am sorry, but I have difficulties to believe you. Poincare, for instance, was telling you that even a hypotheses (not even speaking about a theory) ‘’should be verified at the first opportunity and it should be verified as often as ever possible’’ (he had a specific meaning and service for a hypotheses). As well in my view there are other huge differences between his views and yours as I can see them, he would agree with me that science does not seek the truth, but you do. Still, I am glad to see you in the club. I have some disagreements with him, too.
BTW Atheists often say also that Euclid’s geometry was wrong or had mistakes or was not advanced enough, - Poincare says that it is the same absurd as all other atheistic ideas, - let me translate it by memory, - ‘’one geometry cannot be more true than another one, - yes it may be more convenient [for a specific task] – but not more true’’. I am not even sure that this text is available in English. In the same way Relativity cannot be more true than Newton’s Principia.
It may be so, but, - like everything else, - he is not known to evolutionists who live by fantasies.
Well said Tucker!
It is a declaration, a blind belief of yours, it is an assumption of yours - because you are ignorant of or you are ignoring the tools which allow to avoid such an assumption.
There are tools, sure ways, litmus tests which would indicate exactly if it is a fantasy or a scientific theory. I have been using one of them – the easiest one and the first one required. A theory either follows rules of science or it does not. The rules are very simple and they all including. That’s all. Evolution does not pass the test. That’s all. From POV of science evolution is a fantasy. And as I have demonstrated each evolutionist has his own personal fantasy. However attractive and logical it looks to you meeting your personal taste and your personal logical abilities, from POV of science it is a ‘’written-in-stone "fantasy".”