Nice work taking a sentence out of context. Congratulations. In my sentence i was pointing out the fact that it would be detrimental to a bird, if they lost their wings. Much like it is detrimental to us as humans to lose the ability to swing from trees.
Actually that quote was from someone more intelligent and knowledgeable on the subject than you or I. How does that make me guilty of obfuscating?
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/U6QYDdgP9eg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3OwSARYTK7w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_W._Szostak#Awards_and_honors
Doesn't work. "We" can't reasonably redefine things into existence by simply replacing one name with another . If "we" can, then Gilbert is God+1 , Gibert is a 100% certainty, 'Gilbert is the Universe' .
Ok Mr Angry keep your wig on. Now you're just making yourself look more and more ridiculous. Gravity obviously exists... that's a start, but how do you prove it's gravity existing , and not pixies pushing down on things existing, or Intelligent Falling existing, so not a law, not a proof of what exists. Just your own personal fantasies embodied by the name gravity? You say you were talking about ' theories versus laws' Well theories are laws, laws are theories. The laws of physics are scientific empirical tests via the scientific method, which are theories that have never failed. You dummy.