Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
croxis
I am the walrus
in Zocalo v2.0
from [url=http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512]here[/url]
[quote]
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
August 17, 2005 | Issue 41•33
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."
"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.
Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.
"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."
Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.
"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."
"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"
Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.
"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."
[/quote]
[quote]
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
August 17, 2005 | Issue 41•33
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."
"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.
Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.
"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."
Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.
"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."
"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"
Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.
"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."
[/quote]
Comments
Jake
then I saw the source...
And laughed...
[B]heh, at first I was like: "You gotta be kidding me! I hate it when stupid people make reports like these and make the rest of us look like idiots"[/b][/quote]
Ahem.
[url=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?postid=117814#post117814][/url]
[url=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?postid=123085#post123085][/url]
[url=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?postid=127870#post127870][/url]
[url=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?postid=127985#post127985][/url]
[url=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?postid=128043#post128043][/url]
:)
the word intelligent shouldnt even be in their vocabulary.
[QUOTE] adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens![/QUOTE]
Im glad that all 10 subscribers got to read up on this breaking news.
nope, didnt look at it.
an I know some of the damn editors cause all my buddies went to UWM.
Don't worry I've been there, last time someone posted a link to theonion.com, I thought it was real at first too. Join the club :rolleyes:
[B]Ahem.
[url=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?postid=117814#post117814][/url]
[url=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?postid=123085#post123085][/url]
[url=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?postid=127870#post127870][/url]
[url=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?postid=127985#post127985][/url]
[url=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?postid=128043#post128043][/url]
:) [/B][/QUOTE]
your point? I stand by those statements. Evolution can't be proven, and hasn't been. Gravity and the effect of Mass on other objects has been. So...nice try.
;)
In the end, evidence looking for an answer will not always be satisfied, but an answer looking for evidence will always find support...
Jake
[B]your point? I stand by those statements. Evolution can't be proven, and hasn't been. Gravity and the effect of Mass on other objects has been. So...nice try.
;) [/B][/QUOTE]
So, to clarify, you're saying you stand by at least the following:
[list][*]There's no such thing as climate change and all evidence is flawed because scientists use the temperature readings from the local weather forecast for their research.
[*]Scientific theories are exactly like faith: they are believed, not supported by emperical evidence.
[*]That the Earth can be proven to be young because all the magma is coming out and... just vanishing?
[*]That all scientific dating measurements are flawed because of fundamental and obvious mistakes (the sort it would be reasonable to expect any educated person not to make).
[*]That deposits and rock formations are made in a very short time span, not over long periods as the evidence shows.[/list]
That's just a few. Note that I'm not arguing about evolution vs creation here. I'm merely asking if you really stand by the statements you've made.
As for gravity: it hasn't been proven to exist, it is not a fact. The fact is that lumps of matter are drawn towards each other. The theory of gravity is simply the best explanation we have for this fact at the moment. I thought we had explained the scientific method to you already.
[B]your point? I stand by those statements. Evolution can't be proven, and hasn't been. Gravity and the effect of Mass on other objects has been. So...nice try.
;) [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, gravity hasnt been proven either, its just a very likely theory. As is evolution.
;)
[url]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html[/url]
Great for finding all the basic equations related to physics...
Jake
[B]your point? I stand by those statements. Evolution can't be proven, and hasn't been. Gravity and the effect of Mass on other objects has been. So...nice try.
;) [/B][/QUOTE]
You where owned my man.
So, to clarify, you're saying you stand by at least the following:
[list][*]There's no such thing as climate change and all evidence is flawed because scientists use the temperature readings from the local weather forecast for their research.
[b]Thats my theory, and I standby it.
Massive amounts of concrete in larger motropolian areas = higher temeratures. As those temperatures are used to determine the overall average temperature, yes. They are responcible. [/b]
[*]Scientific theories are exactly like faith: they are believed, not supported by emperical evidence.
[b]Specifically, evolution.[/b]
[*]That the Earth can be proven to be young because all the magma is coming out and... just vanishing?
[b]I like how you reword everything to sound like I'm an imbicil. Hows this: "Evolution is a fish turning into a man". Obviously there is a hell of alot more to the theory than that, but it's to illistrate the point that trimming out all the details to make others ideas sound imbicillic is not the nicest thing to do.[/b]
[*]That all scientific dating measurements are flawed because of fundamental and obvious mistakes (the sort it would be reasonable to expect any educated person not to make).
[b]And others that cannot be proven false. If the Earth was created, it stands to reason that most things were created in a partially decayed state. [/b]
[*]That deposits and rock formations are made in a very short time span, not over long periods as the evidence shows.
[b]As has been SEEN and DOCUMENTED. Canyons have been formed in a small period of time, complete with rock layers, etc. Yet you don't hear about that in geography 101 do you? It kinda puts a damper on some other popular theorys.[/b]
[/list]
[/QUOTE]
wheee...10char limit
Massive amounts of concrete in larger motropolian areas = higher temeratures. As those temperatures are used to determine the overall average temperature, yes. They are responcible.[/quote]
Then explain the accelerated melt of ice caps and glaicers. Your model fails to explain this, unlike global warming which does.
[quote]Specifically, evolution.[/quote]
The model for eveolution was created after data was collected. This is not faith. If it was it would have NEVER been accepted in the scientific community. Creationism fails to be unfalsifiable and is therefor an unacceptable theory.
[quote]I like how you reword everything to sound like I'm an imbicil. Hows this: "Evolution is a fish turning into a man". Obviously there is a hell of alot more to the theory than that, but it's to illistrate the point that trimming out all the details to make others ideas sound imbicillic is not the nicest thing to do.[/quote]
I read the post in question and that is exactly what you are saying. Here was your chance to defend your view and you faild to do so, which shows to me you can't.
[quote]And others that cannot be proven false. If the Earth was created, it stands to reason that most things were created in a partially decayed state. [/quote]
Again, unfalsifiable as this can not be proven wrong. Fails to meet the criterion developed over 3,000 years of philosophy
[quote]As has been SEEN and DOCUMENTED. Canyons have been formed in a small period of time, complete with rock layers, etc. Yet you don't hear about that in geography 101 do you? It kinda puts a damper on some other popular theorys.[/quote]
Yes, I did hear about it in Geology 201, 202, 311 and 401. Your lack of knowledge in the field is causing you to arrive to the wrong conclusions as you are missing data. Jack can correct me if i'm wrong but fast layers only happen if there is a significantly high ammound of sedimentation to form the head and pressure to fuse it into rock. This is NOT typical behavior. Also caynons are only made quickly is there is tramatic techtonic uplift and the water is going through soft rock. Also what about the records of magnetic pole reversals? None of these are recorded in the pottery or firepit stones of sites in the past million years, only the very oldest firpit stones from early human sites record the magentic field going in the other direction. If you look at a map of the polerization of the ocean floor there are [i]several[/i] of these. Meaning the flips must have happen LONG before humans arrived.
What about the yellowstone hotspot track? Or the Hawaiian hot spot track (notice the pacific plate changed direction a while back). The young earth model fails to explain those, unless God put it there. That would make it an unfalsifiable statement and then young earth is no longer science. Its faith.
The large theories are not done based on one or two lines of research and evidence. Plate techtonics, keplers laws, evolution, old earth, atomic theory are all based on many many years of research from many different fields put together in a synergestic way and a single theory, a single model, comes forth to explain alll of the data.
[B]Thats my theory, and I standby it.
Massive amounts of concrete in larger motropolian areas = higher temeratures. As those temperatures are used to determine the overall average temperature, yes. They are responcible. [/B][/QUOTE]
croxis has dealth with the others so I'm just going to deal with this one because it's the clincher.
Let me repeat what was said in the thread you original made the statement in: scientists do not just take readings in the cities and use that for all their evidence! They don't pull them off the local news, nor do they read them off their own thermometers placed just in cities. Temperature readings are taken all over the globe in all sorts of places, from the coast of the US to the Tibetan Plateau.
Because you obviously need to hear it again, here are two of the follow up posts to your original statement.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]No they arn't. Certainly not all of them. I don't think there are any cities in places like the Artic or Antarctica, for a start. You generally find weather stations where official temperature readings are taken in large open spaces because they measure other things like humidity and wind speed too (they arn't just a thermometer on a wall). If you're interested, go and ask to see a local one (universities are good places to try) - they're rather interesting. Auckland's main weather measuring station is at Auckland International Airport surrounded by a large grass field, a 30 minute drive from the CBD. There are numourous other ones around the city in places like school fields and parks and university campuses.
Even if news stations may report temperatures that are often recorded in cities, scientists still use proper measuring equipment with methodology that has been developed over a long time. They don't watch the local news at night and make a note of the reported figures, and they also don't just rely on temperatures taken in urban areas, they use data from all over the world and in a huge number of locations ranging from mountains to valleys to urban areas to plains.
As for the difference in temperature between your house and the city 20 miles away, yes part of that would be due to the temperature characteristics of the materials urban buildings are made of, but part of it will also be due to the fact that you're 20 miles away. Weather patterns arn't just on a large scale. [/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]You clearly don't understand the way science is done A% if you believe what you have said. Temperature information is collected on a world-wide basis. % of water frozen is also determined as a rating of how cold the Earth is.
I might point out that a recent article I read (a few months back) said that recent research has shown that the entire US is sinking. Why? Becuase the glaciers in northern Canada are melting. Since the North American continental plate is floating on the molten mantle of the planet, when the glaciers melt, the whole continent acts as a see-saw and canada rises as the US sinks. I seem to recall that the US is sinking by a matter of a few millimeters per year at this point, and that the rate of melting of the glaciers is increasing. As the US sinks, eventually (after tens or hundreds of years) costal areas will be underwater that were once well above water. The data for this was collected by satelite. This entire example shows one example of how global warming is effecting us in the United States. [/B][/QUOTE]
Anyway, I think my original point has now been made pretty clearly.