Comments

It's important to remember that pennies pre 1982 were 3.1 grams, but pennies after 1982 are 2.5 grams. You should adjust for calibration accordingly. Also 28.34 grams is an ounce (avoirdupois) these days.

Bagpipe100, what do you mean by provable? Do you mean supported by facts or that it inherently true? If you get into metaphysical issues, then you can't prove anything. Descartes said "cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). The only thing he could trust was true was that he exists. You can doubt all your other senses because they can be tricked (optical illusions, for example). When you say that evolution accounts just as well as a theory that has God in it, (I might ask what model or theory this is? Intelligent Design?) I can not help but wonder what you mean by provable. Evolution is a fact. It has happened. It is observed. To even compare evolution's provability to religion seems incredibly dubious to me. Religion's do not make claims based on evidence (which is based on observation), they use whatever evidence they have in support of their claims. There is a great difference in that subtlety. Evolution is not a religion. It is based on observation, and is in agreement with the reality we know. It's predictions are true. I do not know of even a single God-based theory that comes even close to this. They simply posit that God "did it." Perhaps I'm ignorant of some theory that includes God that makes testable predictions, if so, please tell me about it. Many religions even say evolution was how God "did it." As a side note, who are "evolutionists?" There is no church of evolution. We don't call people who believe in gravity "gravitists." Yet gravity is a theory (as always in this post, the scientific sense) that is just as unprovable in the sense of provability you use. If you propose that religion is things that are unprovable, I ask you to prove that gravity has always existed and will always exist. Of course, we can not prove that, but that does not make me doubt it because we have intensively tested this and it has always been true. If you reject that evolution is provable, you must admit you cannot prove anything with observation. I am sorry if this seems a little harsh of your views, which I greatly disagree with, Bagpipe100, or if I have misconstrued any of your ideas. I have striven not to to have an argument ad hominem.