Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Gravity is a theory just like evolution, atomic and cell are theories.Gravity is not a theory. Gravity is an ancient observation.
"Newton attempted to explain the force of gravity.
I can't stand all of you Newtonians and your theory of gravity. We've never seen gravity happen. Newtonians and gravitationans have never proven gravity.
When people fall, it is because God is pushing them down.
Gravity is the most dangerous and dumbest religion on this planet.
On September the 11th, 2001, two planes were flown into the World Trade Center, killing 3000+ people. The hijackers were influenced by gravititionists because Newtonians had taught them that gravity made people fall and kill them.
The planets do not spin because of gravity, but because God does it. Black Holes are not "gravity" but gaps to heaven that God does not want you to enter. This is the most out dated theory and lie for the last 400 years.
This dangerous theory can now have an alternative.
We are trying to take out the Theory of Gravity and introduce a new way of learning why things fall.
Intelligent Falling leads those from the satanic path of gravity and leads them to the path of God and Intelligent Falling.
If you made it this far, THIS IS A SATIRE.
Wrong.Gravity is a theory just like evolution, atomic and cell are theories.
LOL.Newton attempted to explain why things fall to the ground and succeeded.
The origin of species merely deals with the origin of species not the origin of life.Darwin attempted to explain why there were so many species on the planet and succeeded.
Dalton plagiarized all his ideas from the ancients.Dalton attempted to explain what everything is made out of and succeeded.
Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, abiogenesis, and Darwinism.Pasteur attempted to explain the various diseases and succeeded.
go look up what a theory is AoS, why in the world do you think being observed has any relevance to theories being made about it? if it has been observed it is a fact, and there are theories about those facts, like germ theory and atomic theory.Wrong.
Gravity, atoms, and cells have been observed, therefore they are not theories and they are not theoretical.
<staff edit>, evolution is a theory and a fact. if i must i will show you evidence, but i doubt you will care.Biological evolution on the other hand is pure myth and has never been observed.
LOL.
<staff edit>
good job at least you get that, though why you consider that a mere thing i'll never know.The origin of species merely deals with the origin of species not the origin of life.
why don't you go look up what those dead men believe photons and atoms were made of and how they related to each other, they believed things that were completely wrong.Dalton plagiarized all his ideas from the ancients.
claiming dalton "plagiarized" from them is a flat out lie, they never once started from the scientific method or started with anything resembling a hypothesis.
everyone of those people just felt the world works that way, they had no evidence, did they bother to experiment? i doubt it.
dalton didn't steal anything, he just used the names they used, but his and later scientists refuted everything those dead men you quote ad nauseum believed.
those philosophers are nothing short of an argument of authority and are worthless since they are not experts.
you refute yourself. you said :Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, abiogenesis, and Darwinism.how can you say pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, when darwin's theory says nothing about spontaneous generation? do you even know what spontaneous generation is?The origin of species merely deals with the origin of species not the origin of life
the irony is pasteur disproved the beliefs of all the learned men you idolize so much in fact most of the men you quote in your post here believed in spontaneous generation, and pasteur refuted them!
plus i fail to see how pasteur disproves darwinism when darwin wrote his book during the time pasteur was experimenting, and nothing he did disproved evolution.
I say there is a difference between an observation and a theory.go look up what a theory is AoS, why in the world do you think being observed has any relevance to theories being made about it?[
I agree.if it has been observed it is a fact
And the theories are absurd.and there are theories about those facts, like germ theory and atomic theory.
Biological evolution is a myth. You have no evidence.<staff edit>, evolution is a theory and a fact. if i must i will show you evidence, but i doubt you will care.
I am aware that Anaximander believed in evolution even though it is completely wrong.why don't you go look up what those dead men believe photons and atoms were made of and how they related to each other, they believed things that were completely wrong.
Why do you think there is no evidence for atoms?everyone of those people just felt the world works that way, they had no evidence, did they bother to experiment? i doubt it.
It's called plagiarism.dalton didn't steal anything, he just used the names they used, but his and later scientists refuted everything those dead men you quote ad nauseum believed.
Atoms existed in ancient times regardless of whether or not you accept the authorities.those philosophers are nothing short of an argument of authority and are worthless since they are not experts.
They ARE theories.Agonances of Susa said:Gravity, atoms, and cells have been observed, therefore they are not theories and they are not theoretical.
Oh please. This has been discussed so many times.Agonances of Susa said:Biological evolution on the other hand is pure myth and has never been observed.
Cite source please! I hope that's not a personal appeal.Agonances of Susa said:Unless you believe in Intelligent Falling, Newton failed miserably.
I was not asking for quotes.Agonances of Susa said:Quote mining.
And biological evolution is a myth? Stop contradicting yourself.Agonances of Susa said:The origin of species merely deals with the origin of species not the origin of life.
That doesn't make the atom theory wrong.Agonances of Susa said:Dalton plagiarized all his ideas from the ancients.
Agonances of Susa said:More quote mining.
Not THAT abiogenesis. Darwinism is TOTALLY RADICAL [a.k.a. outdated term].Agonances of Susa said:Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, abiogenesis, and Darwinism.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7434766-3/#post54038874Cite source please!
"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687
"... to what Agent did the Ancients attribute the gravity of their atoms and what did they mean by calling God an harmony and comparing him & matter (the corporeal part of the Universe) to the God Pan and his Pipe?" -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 169-
"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710
"Thus, thinking as Newton did (i.e., that all celestial bodies are attracted to the sun and move through empty space), it is extremely improbable that the six planets would move as they do." -- Pierre L. Maupertuis, polymath, 1746
"...certain theoretical investigations ... appear to me to throw doubt on the utility of very minute gravitational observations." -- George H. Darwin, physicist, 1882
"Since Newton announced his universal law of gravitation, scientists have accepted and educators taught it, and rarely has it been questioned. Occasionally one has the temerity to say that gravitation is a myth, an invented word to cover scientific ignorance." -- C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915
"But what do you know about gravitation? Nothing, except that it is a very recent development, not too well established, and that the math is so hard that only twelve men in Lagash are supposed to understand it." -- Isaac Asimov, writer, 1941
"The mathematical proofs of Newton are completely erroneous." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1942
"Newton attempted to explain the force of gravity on two hypotheses: the existence of a medium, or ether, and action at a distance. The first hypothesis he rejected as being physically absurd, the second as contrary to reason. Newton had, therefore, no theory of gravity." -- Melbourne G. Evans, physicist, 1958
"It was only the downfall of Newtonian theory in this century which made scientists realize that their standards of honesty had been utopian." -- Imre Lakatos, philosopher, 1973
The quotes contain source citations.I was not asking for quotes.
I'm not the one who says atoms are a theory or wrong.That doesn't make the atom theory wrong.
lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another.
This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God ..., Or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God* usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and, by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, coexistent parts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and everywhere. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him** are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere. Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colors, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, nor touched; nor ought he to be worshiped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of anything is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colors, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savors; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.
Wrong.
Gravity, atoms, and cells have been observed, therefore they are not theories and they are not theoretical.
Correct.Is this in the same sense that biological diversity and nested hierarchies are observed. Therefore evolution is not a theory and it is not theoretical?
Every day of my life I have observed gravity.And since when have you ever observed gravity?
You are confusing gravity and gravitation.All I ever see is the outcome of some underlying (presumed) process. Yet you claim to see that underlying thing that gravity really is. How so? No one else claims to have seen it. They are still looking.
Regards, Roland
Ah so then, germ theory and atomic theory are not sciences either. You cannot have it both ways AoS.Correct.
Check. Evolution can do those. Plenty of literature out there, and plenty posted here, if you would only care to read it.AoS said:Evolution is not a theory because theories require observation and repeatable laboratory experiments.
AoS said:Evolution has never been empirically observed.
AoS said:In fact, evolution has been empirically falsified by the discovery of fossil octopuses in the Creataceous.
AoS said:Therefore evolution is a falsified hypothesis -- not a theory.
In everyday life I observe biodiversity and a part of the nested hierarchy.AoS said:Every day of my life I have observed gravity.
That is the outcome of gravity. (Did you know that light ones also fall to the earth?)AoS said:Gravity is the observation that heavy objects near the surface of the Earth fall to the Earth.
?AoS said:You are confusing gravity and gravitation.
AoS said:Gravity is an ancient observation.
So you assert. I thought it was a part of a theory.AoS said:Universal gravitation is a 17th century myth.
Germs and atoms are objects and observations not theories or sciences.Ah so then, germ theory and atomic theory are not sciences either. You cannot have it both ways AoS.
Name one new animal that has evolved within the historical memory of man.Check. Evolution can do those. Plenty of literature out there, and plenty posted here, if you would only care to read it.
Only in Meinong's Jungle.Check. Evolution has been observed.
"...Evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water. When challenged by a zealous Popperian to say how evolution could ever be falsified, J.B.S. Haldane famously growled: 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.'" -- Richard Dawkins, biologist, 2006?
Reference please? And explain how this falsifies evolution.
What are you talking about?Why not read my replies above and address the question just above?
So do I.In everyday life I observe biodiversity and a part of the nested hierarchy.
No they don't. Air molecules and clouds do not fall to the Earth. They defy gravity.That is the outcome of gravity. (Did you know that light ones also fall to the earth?)
Your personal definition of evolution is not the standard commonly accepted defintion.Evolution is the observation of nested hierarchies and biodiversity.
Of course not.Did you observe it in ancient times?
Germs and atoms are objects and observations not theories or sciences.
Irrelevant.AoS said:Name one new animal that has evolved within the historical memory of man.
Irrelevant. See above.AoS said:You can't because no such animals exist.
Irrelevant.AoS said:Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation have never been observed in nature or the laboratory.
AoS said:Only in Meinong's Jungle.
AoS said:"...Evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water. When challenged by a zealous Popperian to say how evolution could ever be falsified, J.B.S. Haldane famously growled: 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.'" -- Richard Dawkins, biologist, 2006
See above.AoS said:Modern fossil octopuses in the Cretaceous represent a "single fossil" in the "wrong geological stratum."
They are the outputs of evolution, just as falling apples are the outputs of gravity.AoS said:So do I.
Irrelevant and misguided comment. Why would I ever think that biodiversity is abiogenesis for example?AoS said:Biodiversity is not spontaneous generation, natural selection, or undirected random mutation.
AoS said:No they don't. Air molecules and clouds do not fall to the Earth. They defy gravity.
AoS said:Thus, it is obvious that gravity is electromagnetic and that electromagnetic forces dominate the universe.
AoS said:Your personal definition of evolution is not the standard commonly accepted defintion.
AoS said:If evolution simply means biodiversity every creationist and fundamentalist on Earth would believe in it.
Obviously biodiversity is not the definition of evolution.
AoS said:Of course not.
AoS said:I observe the historical record in modern times.
Why do you think germs and atoms are not observations?Actually they are no more observations than are nested hierarchies and biological diversity.
Are you afraid to honestly answer my questions or are you unable to?Irrelevant
What goal posts?You are moving the goal posts.
I did?You asked about theory and the requirements of a theory.
That's what I've been saying: http://www.christianforums.com/t7434766-2/#post54032152A theory is not an observation. A theory derives from observations.
More than the average Darwinist. For example, if someone were to post about modern octopuses in the Cretaceous I would know where to look without having to ask them to source it.How much literature on biology do you actually read?
Cretaceous Octopus With Ink And Suckers -- The World's Least Likely Fossils?What has this got to do with the reference I asked for. I want a reference to the octopus fossil.
ScienceDaily (Mar. 18, 2009) — New finds of 95 million year old fossils reveal much earlier origins of modern octopuses. ... it does create problems for scientists interested in evolutionary history.
What is a nested hierarchy?So if you claim that you see gravity be seeing a falling apple, then you also see evolution by seeing a nested hierarchy.
You seem to think biodiversity = evolution.Why would I ever think that biodiversity is abiogenesis for example?
Because I have 2 eyes and I can see the clouds defying Newton.b) How do you know that they defy gravity.
Thus the moon and airplanes defy gravity.c) Not all heavy things fall to earth, do they - the moon and airplanes for example.
By pointing a telescope at the sky.Have you directly observed electromagnetic forces dominate the universe? If so, how did you do this?
Correct. However I consider history, literature, and art to be included in observations since I don't faith in the religion of scientism.Yet you claim not to believe something, unless you can observe it, don't you?
Almost all. A few lies in they're but 99% true.So all historical records tell the truth?
It's impossible for you to observe real events in the past because you don't have a time machine or a crystal ball do you? All you have to go on is history.And observing the historical record must therefore be observing the real event in the past?
No more than historical data observed in ancient times.Any historical data (that is not historical record) observed in modern times, cannot tell us anything?
Example?If we find any evidence from the past, in the present, that contradicts the historical record, then the evidence must be wrong.
If a scientist was involved in writing it it's probably wrong.The historical record cannot be wrong?
Why do you think germs and atoms are not observations?
No.AoS said:Are you afraid to honestly answer my questions or are you unable to?
Don't you understand what the term means? It means that we were talking about one thing, and you switch it to another. Thus, you made a comment about theory and the requirement of a theory. I told you that evolution meets those requirements.AoS said:What goal posts?
You did. Go back and read the exchange I quoted in my last post to you.AoS said:I did?
AoS said:That's what I've been saying:
You would know that if you would actually read I'm saying.
You still did not address my question. (I wanted to know where you got your source from, given that it could have been from several different places for all I knew. An entirely legitimate question.)AoS said:More than the average Darwinist. For example, if someone were to post about modern octopuses in the Cretaceous I would know where to look without having to ask them to source it.
Something you claimed you observe - and you do.AoS said:What is a nested hierarchy?
AoS said:You seem to think biodiversity = evolution.
But they are till being pulled to the earth, just like the apple.AoS said:Because I have 2 eyes and I can see the clouds defying Newton.
But they are still apart of gravitational theory. Have you ever seen electromgnetism keep the moon in its orbit? What about a 747 in the sky?AoS said:However, I have never seen a graviton or a gravitational wave.
They are still being pulled to the earth. Stop either from moving and they fall to the earth. Why do you thing planes crash when their engines cut out?AoS said:Thus the moon and airplanes defy gravity.
All you see is stars and galaxies. I might just as well say that I see universal gravitational attraction by pointing a telescope at the sky.AoS said:By pointing a telescope at the sky.
So there is a big magnet on the other side of every aircraft that flies, keeping it in the sky. And if its engines do cut out, then it does not crash, right?AoS said:You can also do an experiment. Take a tiny magnet and hold it near a paperclip. That magnet counteracts the entire alleged gravitational force of the Earth.
Anything can be used as empirical evidence I presume you are saying, and I tend to agree, in principle.AoS said:Correct. However I consider history, literature, and art to be included in observations since I don't faith in the religion of scientism.
AoS said:Almost all. A few lies in there but 99% true.
AoS said:It's impossible for you to observe real events in the past because you don't have a time machine or a crystal ball do you? All you have to go on is history.
?AoS said:No more than historical data observed in ancient times.
AoS said:Example?
Given all the peculiarities that humans exhibit at all times and across all cultures, you trust folk from the past who write history, but don't trust people now who do research?AoS said:If a scientist was involved in writing it it's probably wrong.
I knew you wouldn't be able to.So you then asked me about naming a new animal that evolved within historical memory.
Atoms can be observed and have been observed since before Trojan times.structures that cannot be observed e.g. atoms
I knew you wouldn't be able to name a newly evolved animal.Then if that is what you are saying, your requirement to name a new animal that has evolved within historical memory (i.e. was observed in history) is a bogus claim, isn't it - in the context of ToE being science or not.
3.8 centimeters per year away from the Earth is not "pulled to the earth."But they are till being pulled to the earth, just like the apple.
On a daily and nightly basis. Have you ever seen Saturn's rings effected by gravitation? I haven't.Have you ever seen electromgnetism keep the moon in its orbit? What about a 747 in the sky?
I guess if you look through the wrong end with the lens cap still on and tell us what you imagine you see.I might just as well say that I see universal gravitational attraction by pointing a telescope at the sky.
Everything in the universe is composed of magnets.So there is a big magnet on the other side of every aircraft that flies, keeping it in the sky. And if its engines do cut out, then it does not crash, right?
And there is a big magnet on the other side of the moon too?
Historical records are in fact data.Those were claims based on data. The claims were of things for which there are no historical records. Yet you appear quite ready to accept them
How can this be so?
Rank speculations.Its impossible to observe many real events that occur in the present, yet we infer their reality - fusion reactions inside the sun
Observed.your electromagnetism holding the moon up
Subduction leads to mythology.rocks sliding past each other 20 km below the earth's surface
Observed.protons and neutrons inside atoms.
I agree. For some reason atheists didn't believe in meteorites because they are in the Bible. And people of the scientism faith still don't believe in meteorite craters because they contradict uniformitarianism.Past events often leave their imprint on the present which allows us to infer their reality - e.g. a meteorite crater.
Historical records are nothing other than data from the past.1) So you do agree that there is something other than historical record. It is data from the past.
False dichotomy. Historical records are in fact data from the past.2) A historical record can be very meagre while data from the past can be very rich in detail.
Just as observable as Evolution.Why do you think germs and atoms are not observations?
Bananas and dogs are for example something that man evolved.AoS said:Are you afraid to honestly answer my questions or are you unable to?
What is "Darwinism" and "Scientism" and "Psuedo-Skepticism"?AoS said:If I was a Darwinist or believed in scientism and pseudoskepticism I would probably be afraid to answer questions.
When we answer you, you mutilate the answer so it looks like we never refuted your claim.AoS said:What goal posts?
Cool link, bro!AoS said:That's what I've been saying: *link[/url]
I know a guy who's an Daltonist.AoS said:More than the average Darwinist. For example, if someone were to post about modern octopuses in the Cretaceous I would know where to look without having to ask them to source it.
Jesus F. Christ.AoS said:What is a nested hierarchy?
Biodiversity is caused by evolution.AoS said:You seem to think biodiversity = evolution.
Wat?AoS said:Because I have 2 eyes and I can see the clouds defying Newton.
Thus, by your logic, it doesn't exist because it's not "observable".AoS said:However, I have never seen a graviton or a gravitational wave.
They don't.AoS said:Thus the moon and airplanes defy gravity.
Magnetism has to do what with gravity?AoS said:You can also do an experiment. Take a tiny magnet and hold it near a paperclip. That magnet counteracts the entire alleged gravitational force of the Earth.
AoS said:Correct. However I consider history, literature, and art to be included in observations since I don't faith in the religion of scientism.I'm not atheist enough to have faith in christianity.
Evolution has evidence. What "observable" evidence does creation have?AoS said:It's impossible for you to observe real events in the past because you don't have a time machine or a crystal ball do you? All you have to go on is history.
It has come to my observation that AoS is afraid to lose arguments, be corrected or be wrong on something.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?