The issue with E=MC^2 (where c is constant speed of light in a vaccum) you have E=MC^2 but what about M=E/C^2?
At first I thought you were joking around.....now I can tell you are just plain STUPID.
Here to help you:
IF you truly believe what you believe, that E=/=mc^2 , you deserve to keep believing in a God without evidence. (crackers and wine)
BTW, Hitler was NOT a Christian either....but you already knew that! Oh and I can tell you are a
Theoretical Physicists so let us know when you publish your findings that proves E=/=mc^2. And that Evolution was not accepted as truth via undeniable scientific/observable evidence.
"Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law"
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformation s, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
CITED: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist
It doesn't get any clearer than that. Again, it is from
Scientific AmericanSo much for this bullshi.t:
Idea -> Hypothesis -> Repeatable Test -> Theory -> Rigorous Proof -> Theorem -> Universally Accepted -> Law. This is the chain of events.
Because you are stupid and clearly believe that a Theory can become a law in
SCIENCE, here it is once more:
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law
CITED: Scientific American
Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.
CITED: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&page=2
Right....just a Theory.
BTW I noticed a LACK of scientific sources...so I will just carry about and pay no attention to you. You are clearly stupid and do not know anything about science and the use of sources. I guess you never wrote a paper before. Let me know when you become a
Theoretical Physicists or have PROOF of your God.
There is no sense in Beating a Dead Horse.
Topic: Any Smart HMONG people? Answer this please: What is the Scientific Method (Read 1393 times)