ID & Religion - Page 12

justone · 06-29-08, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

observable data is observations...if I observe a monkey on a tree, its observable data. If I see that two species have similar characteristics its observable data.

So, we are back to where we started … OK. Let’s try to do it in your way. If you observe a monkey on a tree, it is observable data, or in my words event. If you see that two species have similar characteristics it is not observable data, you have made at least 2 assumptions which depend on your personal view. I see the same species with totally different characteristics, like you and I. That’s why when you twist the wording of the rules you fail. I cannot be repeating the same things over and over again… It is another proof that evolutionists do not want to play by rules of science… There are 4 rules and there are terms in the rules…

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

Secondly, Acquinas, on the nature of causes doesn't prove anything special. There must be a first cause with no beginning... Ok... sure we'll call that god. But what practical purpose is there, I can call that god, someone calls it Allah, another calls it a singularity, someone else calls it an infinite transgression, whatever. his later proofs of god begin sticking in interesting but highly subjective and indirect conclusions. Like: everything tends towards the best, so there must be a perfection, which is god. OK... but you see that it has no practical value as well, and there is a lot of room for argument of what "best" is, and again what the nature of god is. All acquinas really brings up are interesting conundrums in logic and reason, and even limits to logic and reason. No scientist disagrees that there are open questions that are unsolvable. The human mind is limited. A scientist's goal however is simply to understand the observable world based on the abilities we have.

Again, pay attention – Aquinas’ logic has no scientific value. And what scientists think or understand about abilities and etc has no value in science, these are their personal beliefs. And different scientists have different beliefs; some agree, some disagree; the majority don’t even talk or think about such things. I have demonstrated that in my post about Nobel Prize winners.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

Uhh TOR does correct classical mechanics when considering larger bodies and faster frames of reference. Classical mechanics was inadequate in explaining it. actually the simple formula of relativity figured out years before was plain wrong for calculating relative speeds near the speed of light. He has a corrected version, that takes into account all reference frames.

Larger bodies? Faster frame of reference? Classical mechanics was inadequate in explaining it? What is ‘’it’’? The simple formula of relativity figured out years before? What is the formula of what relativity? Plain wrong? You have totally lost me... Madam, you are not even wrong…

‘’ We have another instance of far-reaching agreement between the deductions from two theories in Newtonian mechanics on the one hand, and the general theory of relativity on the other. This agreement goes so far, that 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’’ A. Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.

Would Einstein’s words convince you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

The second half of your paragraph gets into an interesting thing about the nature of reason, proof, and truth. Yes every logical system we use comes back to a basic set of assumptions that we take for granted. We cannot necessarily prove why there is momentum, or something simple like why red is red. But we have to take them for granted when we create our models. If they have practical results, we give those assumptions more value.

2nd part does not say it is any kind of an assumption. I did not say it did not have a proof, I said “”such a proof does not exist”’, - the one I was asking you for. Those who knew would understand the catch. But I do not hold you, I am not sure about my English…

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

I digress, the point of bringing Einstein into the picture was to show that his extension of classical mechanics was largely deductive, based on a few hypothetical assumptions deduced by simple observations. The rest was mathematical formulation (a think of beauty). It was only later on that the final step of the scientific method was employed, which was to prove that his theory yielded observable results.

However, the most careful observations have never revealed such anisotropic properties in terrestrial physical space, i.e. a physical non-equivalence of different directions…. …the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was also able to show that the velocity of propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity of motion of the body emitting the light. Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.

What else..…’’The agreement between Newtonian mechanics and general theory of relativity goes so far’’ that I guess I would have to quote pages now? TOR is ALL based on observation of phenomena and a very good part of it based on observations and experiments of classical mechanics ( as anyone can see from the text of TOR ), and not on some very special observations but the most basic ones a kid can confirm…

If you mean Galileo’s transformation:

“’The Galilei transformation can be obtained from the Lorentz transformation by substituting an infinitely large value for the velocity of light c in the latter transformation. “Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.

the electrodynamics of Maxwell-Lorentz … in no way opposes the theory of relativity. Rather has the latter been developed from electrodynamics. Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.

Oh, darling… What did I say about the Christian creationist Maxwell and TOR? Oh, exactly the same as TOR and Einstein. So, us repeat it to you:

THE BEATLES - MAXWELL'S SILVER HAMMER LYRICS

Each and every time evolutionists start talks about TOR and quantum mechanics. Each time I ask them, please don’t start me up… they never stop… Are you a biologist or a physicist? Didn’t I ask you to make it “’biology for idiots’’ and not to start me on Einstein? Why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

Key word is models which are logic. Experiments are designed through logic. Logic is everything. Math is pure logic. Science is nothing without math. Again its quite absurd to think there is no value of logic in science.

Please understand what you have said: Science is nothing without math. It is true, but the opposite is not true. Math does not need science. Math is not exactly science or the scientific method as it is described in the rules. Math is pure logic. As somebody said, ‘if we wake up in the morning and find that all universe around us is gone we would still be able to do math.’

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

Evolution, the steps were (and quite valid)
Darwin:
Observed similarities in species. Attempted to observe why those similarities occur (seemingly random). Take into account other observations: Populations change, die off, grow. By each generation we see many changes such as hair color, height, etc. (humans are an easy observation).

Now comes logic and hypothesis:

Well if two populations are competing in an environment of limiting resources, the population with the better advantage to survive will grow faster than a population with less of an advantage. This could be the same species or different species. Darwin's hypothesis was that evolution would occur over time, cause changes that are more advantageous will stick, while changes that are not advantageous will die off with the population. Hence evolution.

Open question: What causes that change from generation to generation. Evolution was still not considered valid until this question was answered, and it was later answered by genetics.

The question neither was not answered nor was asked by genetics, because such a question “”why”’ especially coming before ‘’how’’ is not scientific. You have merely shown that evolution is non-scientific because it is not following the 4 rules procedure as I have described in my Step 1…2..N. As I have said I am basing my view on the 4 rules quoted. The process you have described is in no compliance with the rules. You see, you, atheists, have the term “scientific revolution”. I have been taught science by atheists. The quoted rules are the base of your ‘’scientific revolution’’. Thus the process suggested by you is anti-scientific revolution. This is exactly what I have been pointing to. I accepted JC as my savior but I never was required to abandon science taught to me by my professors who had to be atheists. I am arguing from the POV they had taught me.

to be continued

justone · 06-29-08, 12:20 PM

continued

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

No, because genetic differences show only one line of evolution, there isn't much room for interpretation. You are right that if we still followed Darwin's methods of relating species, we'd be running into a lot of problems. We'd probably try relating fish and whales as more related than whales and other mammals. Phenotypes aren't hardfast like genotypes. By examining genes we see only one set of relations and very little confusion.

WHERE IS THE ONLY ONE, ONE, justone LINE IN THE SQURE AND THE TRIANGLE?
What is No? Do you disagree that genetic drift is the process of change in allele frequencies that occurs entirely from chance? Do you disagree that in the Pinnet square and Da Fenitti triangle there is no coordinate of environment, no line of genetic isolation (speciation)? And where am I right? And where is your claim about the relation between the genetic drift and natural selection? Bingo. You have your own theory of evolution, which is different from others theories here and you have dropped it after I have pointed the contradiction of it to mathematics of genetics. I have no intention to try to figure out your new statement, I never was right in what you claim I was right, I was not even there at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

This last part got me kinda confused (i haven't quoted your whole post). Are you saying that hypotheses are not necessary? Or are they invalid? Or unprovable? I agree that I said that scientists hypothesize and continue to hypothesize. But they also test them. whats so hard about that.

It is not what I am saying, it is what the scientific method is saying, and it is not saying what you are reciting, but exactly what it is saying. You see it is like I have a measure, a ruler, the 4 rules, all I have been doing is applying it, - no thinking or invention needed, - to see how far you are away from science. Take the ruler and measure any statement of yours by yourself to see exactly what would be my answer.

But again I can give it all to you, put your cross shoes on and tie up my feet. You can hypotheses or theorize, or use any loose semantic you want, and you can test, but until your can demonstrate your tests proving your hypothesis or theories, please, do not come to me with them as with any kind of scientific or useful truth.

Moreover, I may entertain even an untested hypothesis but only on 3 conditions 1. It has to be logical, or as you have said it has to be expressed mathematically so that I can appreciate the beauty of your imagination. 2. It should not take more than 25 pages altogether, anything more than that would make your imagination ugly.3. It must not contradict laws of physics.
Evolution has never hold up to these requirements.

If it isn’t mathematical it is not logical in science. Species that look different to you may look similar to me, - as I always say evolution is in the eye of the beholder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

The last sentence again kinda alludes to the nature of reason. Yes there are different logical systems, but once they start conflicting drastically, you have a problem. The logic that goes into natural selection and evolution is NOT different from the logic that goes into every other science. Now if you accept science as a study, if you accept its results, then you accept the logic behind it. You live in a society where technology created from scientific models is all around you and you constantly use it. If you deny that the logic behind those models produced valid results, then you're living in conflict.

Again, science studies nature. Nature does not follow human logic. Nature and you, -who did create whom? It is as simple as that. Logic of all other science, including technology is known as mathematics. That used to be the bare minimum I used to ask evolutionists for in the beginning. Now I am not even asking for that minimum, I will do it myself, I am asking for something I can do math about…

As to the process of scientific thinking, I am afraid you have been confusing with the scientific method, – there is no rules, you can hypothesize, hypnotize, use imagination as Einstein, fantasize, use logic, get drunk, do whatever you want in your head. Many say that logic is of no help, opinions and methods vary greatly…

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

BTW, you keep saying you have to repeat your posts. I've read your posts, and a lot of it doesn't make sense, and it is hard to argue with out bringing some of those topics up. So it is better that if we have a debate here, we debate step by step. You argue, i refute, i argue, you refute. If need be that you need to repeat something, you gotta do it, sry about that.

As a lot of it does not make sense, then it is exactly what I am asking you to do, in order to spare my time, and I really should stop, - you take the most nonsensical statements of mine and kill me quickly…

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

One final question: why do you find evolution so hard to accept? Evolution doesn't disprove god (even in Acquinas' proofs), it just shows that the Christian version of creation is wrong, which Acquinas did not prove haha. It was actually the Christian thinker St. Augustine that said wonderfully(Its funny how you put christian scientist infront of everyone ):

You see whether it is old posts or new posts you are not following your own ‘’You argue, i refute, i argue, you refute’’. I do not put CC scientist in front of everyone. Did I ever put CC in front of Einstein or Feynman? I put CC only in front of CC scientists. You cannot debate like this…I am sorry if I have to leave, I really have some other things to do…

What is Christian version of creation and what is evolutionist version of creation?

No science can disprove G-d, as well no science can prove G-d, G-d is not in the scientific domain at all just by definition. Who did create whom?

Let’s look at the problem. We know that science exists. We don’t know if G-d exists. There are 2 variants.

1. G-d does not exist. So we have science that exists on the left and nothing that exists on the right. Can science prove or disprove nothing existing?

2. G-d exists. We have science that exists on the left and G-d who exists on the right. Who has capability to prove or disprove whom, who is the almighty?

The theorem that ‘’No science can disprove G-d, and as well no science can prove G-d’’ is proven unless you have some different answers to the questions. Now let’s polish it and do it in math…. I am getting carried away…

Did not I say that I used to believe in G-d and in some kind of a version of evolution in the same way as SD and you believe in your own versions? I believed that evolution was some kind of a science I did not know too much about. My belief in G-d did not improve when all evolutionists convinced me that evolution was not science. When I came on DP I did not know that, but after debating with evolutionists I am fully convinced now. My belief in G-d has not changed, in the same way as my understanding of science has not changed even a bit since I have became a Christian.

It is another proof #1000001 that any time when one criticizes evolution the evolutionists spin into considerations of one’s personal views and beliefs away from science. This is another proof that evolution is not science.

I do not mind to accept evolution in exchange for your love, I do not mind to announce it publicly if it pleases you, darling, but I would have to announce it as my personal belief I have no proof for within realms of science.

Yardbirds | For Your Love Lyrics

scourge99 · 06-29-08, 01:10 PM

The Universal Law of Gravitation (F=G*[m*M]/R^2) or any other theory for that matter can never be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you wish to stay incredulous to all the research and data that supports such a theory so be it; you're methodology for discovering truth is primitive and flawed.

Evolution is exhaustively supported (just as the Universal Law of Gravitation). The mechanisms which cause evolution are still being researched quite extensively. There are MANY mechanisms that all play roles for the outcome we know as evolution. In the meantime revisions will likely be made as new evidence is uncovered.

So feel free to stay in denial until you see bacteria evolve into a monkey. Likewise stay in denial of the math behind gravity and of the revisions made by Einstein. Pass off the mathematical equations regarding electrical current and voltage. Ignore the periodic table and all other scientific theories for that matter. Just pick and choose the theories which conform to your preconceived notions so you can happily skip along your path of ignorance and denial while ignoring the overabundance of evidence and the obvious direction it points. After all, the fossils and the DNA are just there to trick you.

justone · 06-29-08, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scourge99

The Universal Law of Gravitation (F=G*[m*M]/R^2) or any other theory for that matter can never be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you wish to stay incredulous to all the research and data that supports such a theory so be it; you're methodology for discovering truth is primitive and flawed.

Evolution is exhaustively supported (just as the Universal Law of Gravitation). The mechanisms which cause evolution are still being researched quite extensively. There are MANY mechanisms that all play roles for the outcome we know as evolution. In the meantime revisions will likely be made as new evidence is uncovered.

So feel free to stay in denial until you see bacteria evolve into a monkey. Likewise stay in denial of the math behind gravity and of the revisions made by Einstein. Pass off the mathematical equations regarding electrical current and voltage. Ignore the periodic table and all other scientific theories for that matter. Just pick and choose the theories which conform to your preconceived notions so you can happily skip along your path of ignorance and denial while ignoring the overabundance of evidence and the obvious direction it points. After all, the fossils and the DNA are just there to trick you.

It is very entertaining.
My methodology for discovering truth is primitive and flawed, but Evolution is exhaustively supported just as the Universal Law of Gravitation. Puts everything in its place. My methodology is quoted word by word from the Universal Law of Gravitation book and it is written by the author the Universal Law of Gravitation.

The most entertaining thing in your post is by that quoting TOR and Einstein and repeating what they say I am in denial of what they say. Evolutionists are so rational, so entertaining and so knowledgeable of theory of relativity and laws of gravity, that it is all they can talk about.

Very entertaining.

nkgupta80 · 06-29-08, 07:28 PM

hey i'll respond to the rest later, but just to touch on the einstein thing. his point was that unless you're at the speed of light, the results given from classical mechanics are correct (very small degree off). It is only when you get to describing objects traveling near the speed of light where the descrepencies become apparent. Just to show you whwat did change. The original equations of relativity were to simply add or subtract velocities in a frame of reference. So if I'm running 5 miles an hour on a train that is traveling 50 miles an hour, my real speed is 55 miles an hour. Einstein corrected this classical notion of relativity to include the cap at the speed of light. Hence the equation is different.

galilean addition of velocities (the classic notion of relativity)

s = v + u.

relativistic addition of velocity as per einstein:

s = (v + u)/(1+(v/c)(u/c)) where c is the speed of light.

There a correction to the original model of classical mechanics.

scourge99 · 06-29-08, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justone

My methodology is quoted word by word from the Universal Law of Gravitation book and it is written by the author the Universal Law of Gravitation.

What methodology is that exactly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by justone

The most entertaining thing in your post is by that quoting TOR and Einstein and repeating what they say I am in denial of what they say.

So do you believe in the theory of gravity? If you do then how are credulous of the theory of gravity but incredulous of the theory of evolution?

That is, you cannot see the effects of gravity by placing a rock in your hand and viewing its effects on the objects around it. You can't know that the mass is actually the cause of gravity because your body is not sensitive enough to feel the effects. You have to rely on empirical evidence from extraordinarily large celestial bodies around you such as the movement of the planets in our solar system around the sun. Such reasoning is the exact same thing for evolution when DNA, fossils, and micro evolution is shown. Yet, when evidence for evolution is shown in the same type of manner that the theory of gravity is supported you mark it off as false and wrong.

Don't you find that peculiar?

justone · 06-29-08, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

hey i'll respond to the rest later, but just to touch on the einstein thing. his point was that unless you're at the speed of light, the results given from classical mechanics are correct (very small degree off). It is only when you get to describing objects traveling near the speed of light where the descrepencies become apparent. Just to show you whwat did change. The original equations of relativity were to simply add or subtract velocities in a frame of reference. So if I'm running 5 miles an hour on a train that is traveling 50 miles an hour, my real speed is 55 miles an hour. Einstein corrected this classical notion of relativity to include the cap at the speed of light. Hence the equation is different.

galilean addition of velocities (the classic notion of relativity)

s = v + u.

relativistic addition of velocity as per einstein:

s = (v + u)/(1+(v/c)(u/c)) where c is the speed of light.

There a correction to the original model of classical mechanics.

And how in the world it contradicts the statements of Einstein quoted by me? And where in the world “’large bodies “” of yours move with the speed of light, of massless particles? And where in the world your ‘’faster frames of references’’ in TOR are? - instead of “’slower”” and “’fixed”” frames of references. (Notice – if u=c and v=c w=2c when in TOR w cannot be >c) Classical mechanics is a particular case of TOR when TOR does not dismiss/correct classical mechanics, but adds to it, so classical mechanics in essence is a particular case of TOR. This is exactly how it has always been in physics. Aristotelian mechanics is a particular case of classical mechanics and classical mechanics is a particular case of TOR, and none of them is “”plainly wrong”’ as you state, BECAUSE OF THE ONLY ONE REASON – they all are based on observation of a phenomena! Aristotle and Newton saw things with their own eyes and those things did not change according to the rules they cannot change. The earth still turns around the sun exactly as Newton saw it. Because such additions exclusions and correction are a part of the rule 4! Read the rule 4.

So, anyway thanks for the confirmation of Einstein words quoted by me, your next step is to explain your large bodies and faster frame of reference and to confirm again that I have been correct. Where did you get this idea of yours that quoting TOR I could be incorrect about TOR? From scourge?

I hope I would be able to take a break from my existence on DP, the entertainment you put on here is very addictive, but I must try to limit it, so if I don’t reply you do not consider it is impolite. Just take the rules and apply to your statement and see my answer. Then it would be good if we could get back to TOE instead of TOR.

justone · 06-29-08, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scourge99

What methodology is that exactly?

Exactly the one you called primitive and flawed

Quote:

Originally Posted by scourge99

So do you believe in the theory of gravity?

I don’t. I have no beliefs in the field of science, none, zero, zilch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scourge99

If you do then how are credulous of the theory of gravity but incredulous of the theory of evolution?

I am not credulous of the theory of gravity, I was talking about the universal laws of gravity only, the ones mentioned by you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scourge99

That is, you cannot see the effects of gravity by placing a rock in your hand and viewing its effects on the objects around it. You can't know that the mass is actually the cause of gravity because your body is not sensitive enough to feel the effects.

Nobody knows the cause of gravity, neither Newton, nor Einstein, no myself, I guess you do. And yes the rock attracted to the earth is part of the gravitational force, and yes my body is not sensitive enough to feel the earth attracted to the rock.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scourge99

You have to rely on empirical evidence from extraordinarily large celestial bodies around you such as the movement of the planets in our solar system around the sun.

I have to observe the planets turning around the sun and write mathematical formulas describing the movements and check and calculate again if they are correct, and then expand these calculations to all celestial bodies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scourge99

Such reasoning is the exact same thing for evolution when DNA, fossils, and micro evolution is shown. Yet, when evidence for evolution is shown in the same type of manner that the theory of gravity is supported you mark it off as false and wrong.

The empirical evidence of the movements of the sun and the planets leads to the logical explanation of god Ra driving his horses etc. As I have to see planets turning around the sun I have to see species turning into another species and write mathematical formulas describing the movements of the species and do all other things the scientific methods tells me to do without even asking causes of such a movement of species until I observe the causes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scourge99

Don't you find that peculiar?

This time I don’t. I find this post of yours to be mature and inquiring in a very good part of it. What did happen?

scourge99 · 06-29-08, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justone

Exactly the one you called primitive and flawed

I don’t. I have no beliefs in the field of science, none, zero, zilch.

Not even the slightest belief? I've not asking if you would not change your opinion based on reasonable counter evidence. I'm merely asking you whether you find it the most rational and logical conclusion given the data is true.

I don't believe anyone should be steadfast believer in most beliefs. One should always have an open mind but nonetheless be wary of the absurdity of nihilism and extreme skepticism. I call it "provisional consent".

Quote:

Originally Posted by justone

Nobody knows the cause of gravity, neither Newton, nor Einstein, no myself, I guess you do.

No one has claimed to know the ROOT cause. Most will only claim that their are relations and patterns within observable reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by justone

The empirical evidence of the movements of the sun and the planets leads to the logical explanation of god Ra driving his horses etc.

Yes, but using Ra as an explanation is a crude explanation just as the Flying Spaghetti monster is. Is it plausible? Sure it is! But it creates more holes and further questions than it solves and does not conform to cumulative knowledge of our time.

Simply put, that type of explanation is near the back of the line for reasons I really shouldn't (but I will if needed) have to explain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by justone

As I have to see planets turning around the sun I have to see species turning into another species and write mathematical formulas describing the movements of the species and do all other things the scientific methods tells me to do without even asking causes of such a movement of species until I observe the causes.

By such a methodology one is limited to first hand observable reality. Science demands no such thing. Science only demands that evidence conform to the hypothesis to qualify as "supported".

Quote:

Originally Posted by justone

This time I don’t. I find this post of yours to be mature and inquiring in a very good part of it. What did happen?

So far so good.

nkgupta80 · 06-30-08, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justone

And how in the world it contradicts the statements of Einstein quoted by me? And where in the world “’large bodies “” of yours move with the speed of light, of massless particles? And where in the world your ‘’faster frames of references’’ in TOR are? - instead of “’slower”” and “’fixed”” frames of references. (Notice – if u=c and v=c w=2c when in TOR w cannot be >c) Classical mechanics is a particular case of TOR when TOR does not dismiss/correct classical mechanics, but adds to it, so classical mechanics in essence is a particular case of TOR. This is exactly how it has always been in physics. Aristotelian mechanics is a particular case of classical mechanics and classical mechanics is a particular case of TOR, and none of them is “”plainly wrong”’ as you state, BECAUSE OF THE ONLY ONE REASON – they all are based on observation of a phenomena! Aristotle and Newton saw things with their own eyes and those things did not change according to the rules they cannot change. The earth still turns around the sun exactly as Newton saw it. Because such additions exclusions and correction are a part of the rule 4! Read the rule 4.

So, anyway thanks for the confirmation of Einstein words quoted by me, your next step is to explain your large bodies and faster frame of reference and to confirm again that I have been correct. Where did you get this idea of yours that quoting TOR I could be incorrect about TOR? From scourge?

I hope I would be able to take a break from my existence on DP, the entertainment you put on here is very addictive, but I must try to limit it, so if I don’t reply you do not consider it is impolite. Just take the rules and apply to your statement and see my answer. Then it would be good if we could get back to TOE instead of TOR.

whoa man, classical mechanics is a case of relativistic mechanics if you make simplifying assumptions to relativistic mechanics. In other words its a "rough" version of relativistic mechanics. Relativistic mechanics applies to everything, its differences to classical mechanics only becomes noticeable when it comes to large-mass bodies and objects traveling very fast. This is something classical mechanics was fundementaly unable to explain. This is why the model is incomplete, and its notion of relativity not quite correct.

Point here is, models get corrected and expanded using deductive logic. Einsteins derivation of relativistic mechanics was largely deductive. Again I want you to explain WHY logic has no role in science (which again to my sounds ultimately absurd).