valich said:
This is why scientists make a distinction when using the scientific method between a being just a mere theory, and a more multiply scientifically proven Principle or Law under certain given common conditions.
Valich, I'm beginning to think those guys are absolutely right in picking on you. Its nonsense like you've posted above that betrays true ignorance.
There's nothing "mere" about a theory and you seem to be victim of the same faulty-thinking as creationists who shout "its just a theory!" at the top of their collective lungs about evolution. That there is some hierarchy where theory is placed below the rank of 'law' is poppycock. Laws are generalizations, principles or patterns in nature, while theories are the explanations of those generalizations. They're related, but one does not become another. At best, String "Theory" should really be called "String Hypothesis," but it simply doesn't roll of the tongue as easily. Moreover, it proponents enjoy the legitimization that the terminology gets them as with Probability Theory or Game Theory.
But the main assumption that your comment above fails with is that a theory is a step to becoming a law. It most certainly isn't. Laws can exist to which there is not a theory. Theories can exist to which there is not a single law. The law of gravity is an example. We all can easily agree that gravity works. It happens. There are some very consistent things we can say about gravity and how it works. But there is no well accepted "theory of gravity." Some physicists think gravity "waves" are ultimately responsible. Others don't. Newton himself said
Hypotheses non fingo, "I frame no hypotheses" with regard to
how gravity works. He only observed that it did.
This is all relative to the thread topic, because of the creationist argument that ID proponents present in the form of "evolution is only a theory," because they have the same misguided and ignorant understanding of science that you appear to have. Your knowledge in this and other threads appears to have its roots in the copy/paste realm and you find it easy to regurgitate the words of those who are actually in some authority, but I see little evidence that you are able to discuss a topic at hand with knowledge you have on retention in your own brain. The comment above supports that hypothesis.
I would not ordinarily reply so harshly, but your habit of acting as a pompous ass with "locked" when a thread goes in a direction you disagree with is somewhat irritable to me. As is your constant bitching about other members "stalking" you. Add to that the very ignorance that the creationist nutters are guilty of as with above and you get this post.
