I don't think that there is too much danger, science geek, of the here and now, testable, observable theory of gravity being invalidated. mind you, it seems that the here and now science about how long perishable material could conceivably last, is now here and gone since it was found in dino bone !.
you and bill have both appealed to the "scientific method ", which, last I heard involved testable , repeatable science that is observable, not that which is not observable. a geologist can measure, quantify and describe rocks and strata, but how that is interpreted is coloured by worldview and how he or she has been trained to interpret.
bill insists that presupposition is not sufficient to sway scientists interpretations, but as I can look up a few quotes by evolutionists that admit as much, I will stick to what I have said.
"...evidence by the majority..."
1- everyone has the same evidence....it is how it is interpreted.
2-assuming you meant that most scientists believe they have evidence that favours their view, then you are again appealing to authority ["traditional scientists"], and numbers ["the majority"].
someone said something like...if its consensus , it is,nt science.. presumably emphasizing that just because most scientists say they are right, does not by itself make it so.
interesting that dmcg and steve don't seem to agree what natural selection is. I was quite surprised by disagreement on that.
maybe it is just clarification issues.
frustrating innit stu. happened a few time to me. I try not to do too long posts now as a result.