Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Fallin

[forrestkc]

I think the more accurate statement is you have not done enough study to see all the evidence.

The fossil record shows great age. I agree with that. The earth is very old. The fossil record does not show Darwinian Evolution! The Fossil record shows explosions of life forms at specific times. It does not show transitional life forms also know as missing links. Darwin said that the fossil record would show steady progression of lifeforms over time. The record simply does not show this steady progression. It shows explosions of new species in very short periods of time.

Ever read "Origin of the Species?" Might want to read it sometime. I think you will find that Darwin believed in Intelligent design. If you have not read the book, don't even say the statement is ridiculous. Read the book, then run off at the mouth.

This is a subject that interests me and I know a good bit about it. The "no transitional fossils" claim is a lie being promoted by some creationist groups. Just a few weeks ago we went out to the K.U. Museum of Natural History. There, right before my eyes there were transitional fossils for a variety of animals. For example, right here in Kansas of all places you could see the full transitional record of a whales land based ancestors all the way to whale.

As to additional transitional fossils:

There are 18 earlier hominin species in the fossil record.

Here is but a partial list transitional fossils in the fossil record.

* Fish to Amphibians

o Tiktaalik roseae

o Osteolepis

o Eusthenopteron

o Panderichthys

o Elginerpeton

o Obruchevichthys

o Hynerpeton

o Tulerpeton

o Acanthostega

o Ichthyostega

o Pederpes finneyae

o Eryops

* Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles)

o Proterogyrinus

o Limnoscelis

o Tseajaia

o Solenodonsaurus

o Hylonomus

o Paleothyris

* Synapsid reptiles to mammals

o Protoclepsydrops

o Clepsydrops

o Dimetrodon

o Procynosuchus

* Diapsid reptiles to birds

o Yixianosaurus

o Pedopenna

o Archeopteryx

o Changchengornis

o Confuciusornis

o Ichthyornis

* Evolution of whales

o Pakicetus

o Ambulocetus

o Artiocetus

o Dorudon

o Basilosaurus

o Eurhinodelphis

o Mammalodon

* Evolution of the horse

o Hyracotherium

o Mesohippus

o Parahippus

o Merychippus

o Pliohippus

o Equus

* Non-human apes to modern humans

o Ardipithecus

o Australopithecus

o Homo rudolfensis

o Homo habilis

o Homo erectus

That is but a very partial list of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Sure, there are gaps, but that is simply due to the extremely rare circumstances in which fossilization occurs. Not to even mention, the difficulty in finding them.

Challenging prevailing science is the hallmark of modern science. If there was any, any positive evidence for I.D. you can bet that some biologist out there would have submitted for peer review by now. Evolution is a law of the universe and thus a product of God's will just gravity is.

[cjrose]

First, Gravity is not a theory, it is a law. The law of gravity. Evolution is a thery, many athiests just wish it was a law.

Incorrect. Wikipedia:

"Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, but the much simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an excellent approximation in many cases."

So you see, gravity is indeed a corollary of a theory. It is a "law" as well, but this law is merely a rule of thumb, as most scientific laws are. People constantly confuse the definition of "theory" and "law" in science. They are very different from their vernacular counterparts. I recommend reading up on them.

Oh yeah, forrest, great thread.

runners you crack me up because you are always so quick to the draw to say "you're wrong" when even(see below also) scientists are slow to recognize the new scientific evidence that supports the Bible. Most outdated information is still in the textbooks of students. Scientific evidence of God is now incresaing extremely rapidly. Gradual, the scientif world is becoming aware of the many breakthroughs.

Let me quote an article and maybe it will give a new perspective.

"The Bible... Scientific Insights...Investigation of the Evidence by Ralph O. Muncaster" In this small booklet, he also offers many other refrerences and sources that I just can't list them all.

This is but a small portion of what this booklet has to offer and if you like I will make a separate topic on it listing more facts. So, here goes..

Why Science Seems At Odds:

The more the Bible is studied, the more suprising it becomes that people often thin it is in contradiction with science. Yet the idea of scientific rejection has been popular only the last hundred years. Great scientists of the past including Newton, Kepler and Galieo were all avid readers and believers of the Bible. As scientists are slow become aware of the increidible wealth of recent information, a scientif return to the Bible is occurring.

The decline in a "scientifif belief in God" can be traced to Darwin's Theory of Evolution, introduced in 1860. This alternative to creation , combined with the prevalent theory of an infinite universe caused many scientists to turn away from God and the Bible. In 1916 Einstein's General Relativity breakthrough contained ample evidence to refute evolution with pure mathematical probability. Only in recent years has General Relativity been essentially "proven" (even so, Einstein begrudgingly admitted to the probability of a Creator). Unfortunately, the world is slow to recoginize the new scientific evidence supporting the Bible. Most outdated information is still in the textbooks of students. Scientific evidence of God is now incresaing extremely rapidly. Gradual, the scientif world is becoming aware of the many breakthroughs.

There is some great info in this booklet that "wikpedia" y'all love to use so much as a resource, mayhaps doesn't have. If you would like more, I'd be happy to provide it. In fact I may do a topic in any case.

So, see Darwin's Theory is just that, theory. Not fact. Here are a couple of facts though.

Anyone knowledgeable in probability theory and also knowledgeable about the Bible, should understand the supernatural inspiration of the Bible.

Consider:

1. That information in the Bible could NOT have been contrived after scientific knowledge became available. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint-both written hundreds of years BC - exist as evidence.

2. That the books of the Bible were written by at least 40 authors over 1500 years, yet have consisten integrated information tying them all togeher.

Scientific insights are in the Bible that were not known by Science until many centuries later. Man's belief at the time contradicted it. The probability of such insights without God is beyond reason.

Prophecied about Jesus alone, written centuries in advance, vastly exceed statistical aburdity without inspiration of God.

Concealed Codes show incredible, complex models integrating books by different authors in different locations and at different times statistically impossible numerical patternsals emerge with the assistance of high speed computers.

Even if Moses somehow knew the 10 event creation process merely guessing the correct order would be unlikely (one chance in about 4 billion). Recent discoveries show that life and the existence of earth are statistically impossible without God.

So there

[SaturnV]

I read that. According to that definition, in essence, there is no such thing as a scientific law. A scientific law has had the same definition for a couple hundred years. It appears in college text after college text. The law of gravity is the law of gravity. It is a law, not a theory. Please cite a college text book written before 1996 that calls gravity a theory. There has become a post-modern attempt to relegate everything to theory status. If this can be accomplished, they can push the theory of evolution to equal status with gravity, thermodynamics, etc. Using the definitions we have used for a couple hundred years, they can not do that.

As I said before, a law is a model based on a theory. You seem to have the definition of a law confused with the definition of fact-something that has been observed so often that it is assumed to always hold true.

Theory: The mass of an object curves spacetime, allowing other objects fall into this curve (Gravitation as explained by the Theory of General Relativity)

Law: The gravitational force between two objects increases proportionally to the mass of said objects and decreases by the square of the distance between them (Law of Universal Gravitation)

Fact: A stone thrown off a cliff will fall to the ground

Of course, IF advocates will be quick to point out that the fundamental flaw of the Theory of Gravity is that spacetime cannot be directly observed, and that the perfect mathematical relationship between mass, distance and force could have only been put in place by the will of an Intelligent Faller.

[SaturnV]

You are admitting that there is a law of gravity. I never said laws did not have spinoff theories.

Yes, I did. My point was to show that a law is not some sort of super-verified theory, as you seem to think it is.

Edited February 4, 2007 by SaturnV

[SaturnV]

Maybe this'll make my life a bit easier:

#include<forumposting.h>


#define definition_of_law "Generalized model of natural phenomena"


int main()

{

while (hr.jr says(law==extremely_verified_theory));

{

quote(post_number_11)

post(definition_of_law)

post("No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature")

}

return(0);

}

Sorry, just had a geek moment there.

Edited February 5, 2007 by SaturnV

[tdrehfal]

First, Gravity is not a theory, it is a law. The law of gravity. Evolution is a thery, many athiests just wish it was a law.

Incorrect. Wikipedia:

"Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, but the much simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an excellent approximation in many cases."

So you see, gravity is indeed a corollary of a theory. It is a "law" as well, but this law is merely a rule of thumb, as most scientific laws are. People constantly confuse the definition of "theory" and "law" in science. They are very different from their vernacular counterparts. I recommend reading up on them.

Oh yeah, forrest, great thread.

Ok, well, practically speaking, I don't need to be so esoteric in my understanding of gravity. Here on earth, you can be assured that gravity

will be a law to me and I will never try to see if there's some kind of exception to it by jumping off a building and neither would you, unless

you're suicidial. Science can define laws, theories, and hypothesis however it wants. In the real world, however, gravity is a law, regardless

of what science defines it as. I'm not really attacking science here, just the way it is defining something. I understand that physics is very

complex and under weird conditions there can be exception to everything and that gravity is probably even hard to understand in the

esoteric sense, but that doesn't mean I can't say gravity is a law practically speaking. It's very common sense of me to say that

no matter how many times I jump, I'll fall back to the ground, Ok? This does not make me unscientific. I will, however, take the advice

about reading up on the subject matter, If I can find some good sources on the net. Science is always fascinating.

[tdrehfal]

Maybe this'll make my life a bit easier:

#include<forumposting.h>


#define definition_of_law "Generalized model of natural phenomena"


int main()

{

while (hr.jr says(law==extremely_verified_theory));

{

quote(post_number_11)

post(definition_of_law)

post("No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature")

}

return(0);

}

Sorry, just had a geek moment there.

Best use of PHP I've seen!

Hmm.. Shouldn't Quote and Post functions have a ; after them?! I may be mistaken about this, but can't we just return; or return(); instead of specifying 0

[SaturnV]

Hmm.. Shouldn't Quote and Post functions have a ; after them?! I may be mistaken about this, but can't we just return; or return(); instead of specifying 0

Yah, I forgot my semicolons. return(0) is the old-school C way of doing things. The 0 isn't really necessary, I just put it in there out of habit.

psst-I don't actually know PHP

[tdrehfal]

Hmm.. Shouldn't Quote and Post functions have a ; after them?! I may be mistaken about this, but can't we just return; or return(); instead of specifying 0

Yah, I forgot my semicolons. return(0) is the old-school C way of doing things. The 0 isn't really necessary, I just put it in there out of habit.

psst-I don't actually know PHP

actually i would probably put the 0 there too out of habit.

[tdrehfal]

This goes to show that the unscientific don't know anything about the theory of Intelligent Falling. This is a well-established theory that the evangelical

scientific community has supported by tons of peer-reviewd articles and evidence. Do they even know what an Intelligon particle is? I bet not. And

don't confuse Intelligent Falling with the Agravofalling hypothesis, one is a theory and the other is a hypothesis. When an Intelligon collodies with

a Materialon Falling is produced and even the geologic record supports the massive amount of Materiolons which show collision rates of up to

50km/hr based retro dating through trajectory splicing. Perhaps people should study up on this. Man, i'm just so sick of people who don't know

science!