• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Warning: Gravity is “Only a Theory”

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Oooooph! I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is merely a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
And Doublespeak is really quite easy.

Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" by Ellery Schempp
All physics textbooks should include this warning label:

“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.

The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
[...... Big snip........]
It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.

Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow. It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.

Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.
 
Last edited:

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
August 17, 2005 | ISSUE 41•33
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

"Intelligent Falling"... "Evangelical Physics'.
No more far fatched than "ID" or other fertilizer regularly posted here by God-ists.

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "Theory of Gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down,"
said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how Angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision.".....
 
Last edited:

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
well, no. many times there is but one high tide per day, and the behavior of the tides is affected by the moon.

wtf is ellery schempp?
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Yup, gravity is only a theory. Anyone who makes the argument that "evolution is only a theory" is just showing their blatant ignorance of science, which probably explains why they believe such absurd things to begin with. :doh
 

Catz Part Deux

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
28,721
Reaction score
6,738
Location
Redneck Riviera
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'm scared now that I'm going to fall off the earth and drift aimlessly into space!:shock:
 

marduc

don't panic
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
5,332
Reaction score
3,589
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
ohh c'mon.. How can anyone believe in the theory of gravity when it cannot even explain where matter came from? :doh

Damn Gravitationists. can't you see the gaps? clearly it is a false theory.
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

gravity-just-a-theory.jpg

 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,076
Reaction score
36,304
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oh so I guess I don't need to set my legs properly before I get off this chaLdh. abkjhdfk.jasf
 

coberst

Active member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
349
Reaction score
28
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There are no absolue truths. A theory is fact until it is proven to be erronous.
 

Tashah

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,229
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Intelligent Falling Theory? :shock:

Let's do a little mind experiment here. Pick any twenty people out of a crowd. Have them (just a mind game folks) place their heads on a guillotine and then remove the stop. I guarantee that all twenty will have their head removed from their torso. Do this as many times as you wish with varying numbers. The gory results will always be the same.

This suggests some interesting interpretations of Intelligent Falling Theory.

1) Since God “pushes” the blade, God inexplicably always desires the guillotine deaths of whomever you select. The exact person, place, time, and method. Fascinating.

2) Or, one is somehow able to read the mind of God. Clairvoyance at its best.

3) God is forced to murder in order to preserve theory integrity. Chilling.

4) One can force God to do his/her bidding under the auspices of IFT. Spooky action at a distance.

5) Umm. God rested on the Sabbath. Lazy physics.

6) I imagine piss and poop also need God's guiding hand :doh

This could be fun. Anyone else? :rofl
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
34,704
Reaction score
23,528
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
People shouldn't place such trust in the inerrancy of the bible, It's only a collection of ancient myths, it's not as if it's gospel!
 

justone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Well, well, well, what do we have here?

We have philosophers and scientists Catz Part Deux, Dezaad, Dogger807, iangb, marduc, molten_dragon, samsmart, spud_meister, Tashah

1. First philosophers and scientists and scientists make the deepest scientific discovery. They post an example of deepest human thoughts expressed by an atheist making all kinds of possible and impossible statements about Gravity. This is an unbelievable level today’s science and philosophy are achieving..

2. Then on the base of these statements about gravity our philosophers and scientists
Catz Part Deux, Dezaad, Dogger807, iangb, marduc, molten_dragon, samsmart, spud_meister, Tashah make a great conclusion about … guess what… after reading statements about gravity – guess – they make conclusion about evolution…
That is so deep, so intellectual, so scientific…

3. Then we have philosophers and scientists Catz Part Deux, samsmart who cut/ paste obvious lies and misrepresentation of statements of some individuals and thus prove that the individuals are funny. Never mind that the individuals most likely never said what our philosophers and scientists report they said.

4. Then the mentioned philosophers and scientists have a traditional hate fest.



Now.

This is the truth.

Nobody knows the truth because of the methods the mentioned philosophers and scientists use to hide the truth and tramp over it and have a hate fest over its grave.

Evolution is not a theory because of the only one reason. Not because of God, Bible, logic, evidence, but because of the text of universal laws of gravity and motion directly stating that evolution is not a theory.


Evolution is not a theory not because I like or don’t like evolution, not because it is true or false, not because it is logically perfect or it has flaws, but only because of the text of laws of gravity, because of the foundation of the proof of laws of mutual attraction and motion of bodies, because of the statement without which no laws of gravity could be possibly drawn and formulated.

This is the text: Evolution is not a theory because’’ for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction” - Sir Isaak Newton, Principia mathematica a.k.a. Laws of mutual attraction and motion a.k.a Universal laws of gravity

Since evolution is not deduced from phenomena it must be called a hypothesis and it has no place in experimental philosophy,no place anywhere near gravity, motion, electromagnecs, thermodynamics and all other ever usefull disciplines.




‘’In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.
This rule we must follow, that the arguments of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.’’


Sir Isaak Newton, Sir Isaak Newton, Principia mathematica a.k.a. Laws of mutual attraction and motion a.k.a Universal laws of gravity


Of course, Newton did not think that a delirium could be seriously considered on the level of a hypothesis thus he made no provision for delirium in the text of formulations of his laws. Since the Bing Bang Theory is designated by its author to be The Hypothesis of Primeval Atom, but not a Theory (the truth scientists do not want you to know) it is clear that evolution is not even a hypothesis. The Hypothesis of Primeval Atom and The Theory of evolution are fruits of totally different trees, are totally different species. The former is a lion the latter is a skunk in a moment of distress as we have it here. Can somebody get deodorant?
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This post above more than bordering on incoherent.

But apparently saying that Evolution isn't even a Theory (a claim surpassing most whacked creationists) because there's no evidence/observable phenomena to support it. (Gee and said in one sentence!)
Which is, of course, completely False.

It was Darwin's original and Live observations/"phenomena" that kicked off Evolution.

Since, and briefly, confirmed by the "phenomena" of Millions of Fossils ('coincidentally' in the right layers worldwide), and predictably (because it IS a good Theory) confirmed by Other sciences like Isotopic Dating and DNA regression analysis which came along later.
 
Last edited:

iangb

Lurker
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
2,112
Location
Birmingham, UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Could you explain to us (presumably Catz Part Deux, Dezaad, Dogger807, iangb, marduc, molten_dragon, samsmart, spud_meister, Tashah) what you consider the 'hypothesis of evolution' to be?
 

justone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
mbig;1-058648685 said:
This post above more than bordering on incoherent.

Sure, what kind of any other argument one can expect from scientists?

mbig;1-058648685 said:
But apparently saying that Evolution isn't even a Theory (a claim surpassing most whacked creationists) because there's no evidence/observable phenomena to support it. (Gee and in one sentence!)
Which is, of course, completely False.


It is another proof that scientists cannot comprehend a simple sentence.

I said :

Evolution is not a theory because of the only one reason. Not because of God, Bible, logic, evidence, but because of the text of universal laws of gravity and motion directly stating that evolution is not a theory.

What could be unclear? What should I clarify. Let me try one more time: Evolution is not a theory NOT because of presence or lack or abundance or shortage of evidence to support it, but because of the text of universal laws of gravity and motion directly stating that evolution is not a theory.



mbig;1-058648685 said:
It was Darwin's original and Live observations/ "phenomena" that kicked off Evolution.

Scientists attempt to equate the word phenomena in apprentices with phenomena in the text of the laws of Gravity and with the word observation. This sentence is above more than bordering on incoherent

What is Darwin’s original and Live"phenomena"?

mbig;1-058648685 said:
Since confirmed by the "phenomena" of Millions of Fossils ('coincidentally' in the right layers worldwide) and Other sciences like Isotopic Dating and DNA regression analysis.


I guess scientists have real problems with understanding the word phenomena which is central in the text of laws of gravity and motion; instead they put it in apprentices and use it in some wild broken and incoherent English.

What is the "phenomena" of Millions of Fossils?
 
Last edited:

justone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Could you explain to us (presumably Catz Part Deux, Dezaad, Dogger807, iangb, marduc, molten_dragon, samsmart, spud_meister, Tashah) what you consider the 'hypothesis of evolution' to be?

Could you stay on the topic instead of trying to examine me on the unrelated path?

Obviously 'hypothesis of evolution' depends on a person you are asking; each evolutionist has his own variant of evolution.




But generally evolution sums in appearance of new species out of the preexisting species and increase of the number of existing species; or in the dubious language of scientists - Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.After a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and eventually diversify into new species ( where the new species are genetically isolated from the previous ones); or in the language of Newton’s laws – phenomena of new species popping around us in increasing amounts.
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Sure, what kind of any other argument one can expect from scientists?
A logical one of course.
They put us on the moon, Conjured up TV's and computers, waterproof clothes, and Cured Polio/etc with their 'nonsense'.

I've never seen someone who was not only a God-ist, but was Hostile to scientists in general.
Remarkable Hang up!

Confirmed by:
It is another proof that scientists cannot comprehend a simple sentence.

I said :

Evolution is not a theory because of the only one reason. Not because of God, Bible, logic, evidence, but because of the text of universal laws of gravity and motion directly stating that evolution is not a theory.

What could be unclear? What should I clarify. Let me try one more time: Evolution is not a theory COLOR="Red"]NOT[/COLOR] because of[/COOR] presence or lack or abundance or shortage of [COLR="red"]evidence to support it, but because of the text of universal laws of gravity and motion directly stating that evolution is not a theory.
Despite your Hostility to Scientists, I think they, or even ONE of their kwazy kweationist opponents, whose IQ might even be 3 digits, would have noticed this contradiction ...IF it existed.
:^)

I guess scientists have real problems with understanding the word phenomena which is central in the text of laws of gravity and motion; instead they put it in apprentices and use it in some wild broken and incoherent English.

What is the "phenomena" of Millions of Fossils?
So regardless of the SEMANTIC BS of what you want to call Fossils (or Isotopic Dating and DNA regression analysis you conspicuously left out), You have made no refutation of those phenomena/Evidences of Evolution.

IOW, you can't refute the weight/logic of the aforementioned in any way, except to disagree semantically with what you wish to call them.
2 and 2 is STILL 4 even if you don't want to call them 'Numbers'.

-
 
Last edited:

iangb

Lurker
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
2,112
Location
Birmingham, UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Phenomenon: a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable

Just so you know.

ut generally evolution sums in appearance of new species out of the preexisting species and increase of the number of existing species; or in the dubious language of scientists - Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.After a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and eventually diversify into new species ( where the new species are genetically isolated from the previous ones); or in the language of Newton’s laws – phenomena of new species popping around us in increasing amounts.
Not to copy-past or anything, but...

CB910: New species
CB910.1: New fruit fly species
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species]Ring species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Speciation is hard to observe because it takes so long to actually happen - in fact, the whole paradigm of associating 'species' to certain animals slows down this recognition. However, it has been observed - both through novel species being discovered and ring species demonstrating the split over longer timescales.
 
Last edited:

justone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
A logical one of course.
They put us on the moon, Conjured up TV's and computers, waterproof clothes, and Cured Polio/etc with their 'nonsense'.

I've never seen someone who was not only a God-ist, but was Hostile to scientists in general.
Remarkable Hang up!
Confirmed by:
Quote:
It is another proof that scientists cannot comprehend a simple sentence. .

Now scientists call this: Originally Posted by mbig;1-058648685
''This post above more than bordering on incoherent.''
logic.


You certainly have your logic. Especially after all hostility you have started and continued this tread with.




Despite your Hostility to Scientists, I think they, or even ONE of their kwazy kweationist opponents, whose IQ might even be 3 digits, would have noticed this contradiction ...IF it existed. .
:^)

Now it is my hostility:
Oooooph! I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is merely a theory'.
No more far fatched than "ID" or other fertilizer regularly posted here by God-ists. .
etc etc
What contradiction? I guess I have to repeat the simplest sentence to scientists the 3rd time: Evolution is not a theory NOT because of presence or lack or abundance or shortage of evidence to support it, but because of the text of universal laws of gravity and motion directly stating that evolution is not a theory.

So regardless of the SEMANTIC BS of what you want to call Fossils (or Isotopic Dating and DNA regression analysis you conspicuously left out), You have made no refutation of those phenomena/Evidences of Evolution. .

Point me where I called Fossils at all. Do you want me to point where YOU called Fossils? I have made no refutation of Evidences of Evolution. Nor I am going to, nor I see a reason or any meaning in doing it. I have made a point that scientists see no difference between phenomena and evidence and cannot comprehend the basic text of the formulation of the laws of gravity. One more time: What is the "phenomena" of Millions of Fossils?
What is the "phenomena" of Millions of Fossils?

These are your words and I am asking to clarify them.

IOW, you can't refute the weight/logic of the aforementioned in any way, except to disagree semantically with what you wish to call them.
2 and 2 is STILL 4 even if you don't want to call them 'Numbers'. .

What semantics? Where do I disagree? I point to obvious things and ask you to clarify semantics scientists use. It is obvious for any person with common sense that scientists straight forward funny… On more time:
Evolution is not a theory not because I like or don’t like evolution, not because it is true or false, not because it is logically perfect or it has flawsbut only because of the text of laws of gravity, because of the foundation of the proof of laws of mutual attraction and motion of bodies, because of the statement without which no laws of gravity could be possibly drawn and formulated.

Why would I do such a meaningless attempt as refuting your logic? I just stated that accepted that it is logically perfect, if you wish to think so. I just stated, let me bold and paint it for you again: not because it is logically perfect or it has flaws, but only because of the text of laws of gravity, because of the foundation of the proof of laws of mutual attraction and motion of bodies, because of the statement without which no laws of gravity could be possibly drawn and formulated.
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Now scientists call this: Originally Posted by mbig;1-058648685
''This post above more than bordering on incoherent.''
logic.
I've never seen posts like yours. And in Raging Red too!


justone said:

Now it is my hostility:
justone said:

Sure, What kind of any other argument one can Expect from Scientists?
justone said:
It is another Proof that Scientists Cannot Comprehend a Simple Sentence.
It Would seem that way wouldn't it!
And with that attitude one can't expect a logical discussion On... 'science'!... which is done BY scientists.


.... Evolution is not a theory NOT because of presence or lack or abundance or shortage of evidence to support it[/Childish COLOR], but because of the text of universal laws of gravity and motion directly stating that evolution is not a theory.

So you're alleging Evolution is Not a theory because "the text of universal laws of gravity and motion directly stating that evolution is not a theory"
This is Incoherent.. still.
Gravity/Motion doesn't Contradict nor preclude Evolution.!%&!%$%^$^$

.......
&*^*(&*(
............
..... only because of the text of laws of gravity, because of the foundation of the proof of laws of mutual attraction and motion of bodies, because of the statement without which no laws of gravity could be possibly drawn and formulated.
The quoted sections above are the wildest few rambles I've ever seen posted in this section. (most mercifully "..."ed out by me) And with the Super-naturalists we have posting here, that's going some.

When you wish (or are able) to have a cohesive discussion, there are several here who would be glad to engage you/Anything. (and have to a degree)
However, I am no longer since I am quite satisfied as to where this isn't going.
-
 
Last edited:

OxymoronP

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
2,175
Reaction score
795
Location
Heart in Brooklyn, body South of Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Theory of Gravity has been disproven by both Einstien and Quantum mechanics. It only works for our everyday purposes, but fails to create a law of gravity that works in all situations. Like Gravity acting differently depending on the size of the object whether huge or micro.
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It's been altered, not disproven.
 

Serenity

Stay Human
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
29,920
Reaction score
26,815
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
there is no theory of evolution. just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
 
Top Bottom