Replies

Over hundreds of predictions -- that is, ahead of time, not a reconstruction -- Newton's Laws correctly state the motion of bodies in space.

As I said before, the ancients were able to predict the motion of bodies in space--the ones they could see, anyway--long before Newton. Also, Newton's Laws wouldn't help us determine their motion unless we knew their mass. In reality, the process is the opposite of what you state: we agree that Newton's Law is correct, we observe the motion of bodies, and thereby we calculate their mass.

"Accepted science" is a contradiction in terms....Questioning everything is the heart of science.

Nonsense. Yes, science begins by asking questions. But at some point, we agree that one of the possible answers appears to be pretty much correct, so we "accept" it as accurate and move on from there. At that point, we can start investigating the details of how the accepted answer operates in practice, but for the most part we don't keep going back and asking the original question all over again. Doctors don't keep questioning germ theory; geologists don't continue to wonder what causes earthquakes; and biologists aren't still questioning the theory of evolution. Sure, some maverick might overturn any of those by re-asking the original question and coming up with a different, better answer--like Copernicus did to Ptolemy--and more power to them. But in the meantime, some theories are "accepted science"--as they should be.

The last thing I'll say is to repeat that I'm glad actual scientists don't feel constrained by the limits you try to put on them, or there's be vast areas of knowledge we just wouldn't have.

As I said before, the ancients were able to predict the motion of bodies in space--the ones they could see, anyway--long before Newton. Also, Newton's Laws wouldn't help us determine their motion unless we knew their mass. In reality, the process is the opposite of what you state: we agree that Newton's Law is correct, we observe the motion of bodies, and thereby we calculate their mass.

No, they were not. The fact that the models explaining the motions of the planets and even the moon and the apparent motion of the sun DID NOT accurately predict their motion is what drove countless, painstaking observations and attempts to develop new explanations.

The painstaking observations and records of Tycho Brahe, the work of Johannes Kepler, Galilei Galileo, and countless others were driven by the fact that the planets, the moon, and the sun DID NOT move in the sky according to their understanding.

However, what is your point?

You implicitly stumble across a powerful truth:

Observed data can have MULTIPLE potential causes.

So if you observe the behavior of the planets in the sky, and that motion can be explained EQUALLY WELL by Hypothesis A and Hypothesis B, then the data cannot prove either Hypothesis A or Hypothesis B.

And that is one of the fatal defects of evolution.

Events that evolutionists point to as proof could also be due to non-evolutionary process, just as easily.

That is why the CONTROLLED experiments under the discipline of the Scientific Method are required.

But at some point, we agree that one of the possible answers appears to be pretty much correct, so we "accept" it as accurate and move on from there

That is pre-scientific superstition.

You are the perfect EXHIBIT A of my argument.

You are a post-scientific alchemist. You do not know science and have never learned or encountered science.

What you describe is what led to the theory of "humors" and using leeches to bleed sick people.

What you describe is what people did BEFORE science was established.

Doctors don't keep questioning germ theory;

Because we can observe germs -- in the present, as is NOW.

Germs are not a theory, because we can look at them and watch them do their thing.