Intelligent Falling

[daniel192]

Gravity is not a theory. Gravity is an ancient observation.
"Newton attempted to explain the force of gravity.

Gravity is a theory just like evolution, atomic and cell are theories.

Newton attempted to explain why things fall to the ground and succeeded.
Darwin attempted to explain why there were so many species on the planet and succeeded.
Dalton attempted to explain what everything is made out of and succeeded.
Pasteur attempted to explain the various diseases and succeeded.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

You forgot The Big Stick and the "THEORY" Approach:

What will you tell God when you meet him and He asks you why you believed in the THEORY of Gravity insead of I.F.???? I hope you like FIRE!!!!!!!1111

If Gravity were true, it would be a LAW instead of a THEORY!!!!!111

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Gravity is a theory just like evolution, atomic and cell are theories.

Wrong.

Gravity, atoms, and cells have been observed, therefore they are not theories and they are not theoretical.

Biological evolution on the other hand is pure myth and has never been observed.

Newton attempted to explain why things fall to the ground and succeeded.

LOL.

Unless you believe in Intelligent Falling, Newton failed miserably.

"...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

Darwin attempted to explain why there were so many species on the planet and succeeded.

The origin of species merely deals with the origin of species not the origin of life.

Dalton attempted to explain what everything is made out of and succeeded.

Dalton plagiarized all his ideas from the ancients.

"... his [Democritus's] ... atoms are infinite in number ... and [he] compares them to the motes of air [photons] which we see in shafts of light coming through windows ...." -- Aristotle, philosopher, On the Soul, 350 B.C.

"At least those atoms whence derives their power
To throw forth fire and send out light from under
To shoot the sparks and scatter embers wide."
-- T. Lucretius Carus, philosopher poet, 54 B.C.

" ... if one must believe Poseidonius, the ancient dogma about atoms originated with Mochus, a Sidonian, born before the Trojan times. However, let us dismiss things ancient." -- Strabo, geographer, 7

"Those bodies [atoms] acknowledge these three accidents, figure, magnitude, and gravity. Democritus acknowledged but two, magnitude and figure. Epicurus added the third, to wit, gravity; for he pronounced that it is necessary that bodies receive their motion from that impression which springs from gravity, otherwise they could not be moved." -- Plutarch, Opinions of the Philosophers, 1st century

"He [Anaximander] said ... that winds come from the separation and condensation of the subtler atoms of air ...." -- Hippolytus, priest, 2nd century

Pasteur attempted to explain the various diseases and succeeded.

Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, abiogenesis, and Darwinism.

 

[ReverendDG]

Wrong.

Gravity, atoms, and cells have been observed, therefore they are not theories and they are not theoretical.

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.

Biological evolution on the other hand is pure myth and has never been observed.

<staff edit>, evolution is a theory and a fact. if i must i will show you evidence, but i doubt you will care.

LOL.

<staff edit>

The origin of species merely deals with the origin of species not the origin of life.

good job at least you get that, though why you consider that a mere thing i'll never know.

Dalton plagiarized all his ideas from the ancients.

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.
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.

Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, abiogenesis, and Darwinism.

you refute yourself. you said :

The origin of species merely deals with the origin of species not the origin of life

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 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.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

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 say there is a difference between an observation and a theory.

if it has been observed it is a fact

I agree.

and there are theories about those facts, like germ theory and atomic theory.

And the theories are absurd.

"...their theory is incorrect but they don't have an accepted theory to replace it and that I think is very psychologically bothersome to particularly scientists who have gone into science in order to be certain about the world, to be sure that they're right and so forth, and it's a very insecure position. Some scientists have joked that, well, a scientist would rather be wrong than uncertain. We sort of have to live with uncertainty which is, well, it's an interesting and challenging situation." -- Halton C. Arp, astronomer, 1998

<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 is a myth. You have no evidence.

No new animals have been observed to spontaneously evolve in our lifetimes.

<staff edit>

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.

I am aware that Anaximander believed in evolution even though it is completely wrong.

"He [Anaximander] said ... that mankind was at the beginning very like another animal, to wit, a fish." -- Hippolytus, priest, 2nd century

everyone of those people just felt the world works that way, they had no evidence, did they bother to experiment? i doubt it.

Why do you think there is no evidence for atoms?

Why do you think it was impossible to experiment in the past?

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.

It's called plagiarism.

those philosophers are nothing short of an argument of authority and are worthless since they are not experts.

Atoms existed in ancient times regardless of whether or not you accept the authorities.

 

[daniel192]

Tiem foar refutahl!

Gravity, atoms, and cells have been observed, therefore they are not theories and they are not theoretical.

They ARE theories.

Theory =/= Hypothesis.
Theory = Facts.
Theory explains why certain things do what they do.

Next!

Biological evolution on the other hand is pure myth and has never been observed.

Oh please. This has been discussed so many times.

Unless you believe in Intelligent Falling, Newton failed miserably.

Cite source please! I hope that's not a personal appeal.

Quote mining.

I was not asking for quotes.

The origin of species merely deals with the origin of species not the origin of life.

And biological evolution is a myth? Stop contradicting yourself.

Dalton plagiarized all his ideas from the ancients.

That doesn't make the atom theory wrong.

More quote mining.

Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, abiogenesis, and Darwinism.

Not THAT abiogenesis. Darwinism is TOTALLY RADICAL [a.k.a. outdated term].

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Cite source please!

http://www.christianforums.com/t7434766-3/#post54038874

"...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

I was not asking for quotes.

The quotes contain source citations.

That doesn't make the atom theory wrong.

I'm not the one who says atoms are a theory or wrong.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

For the people who don't know that gravitation is nothing other than Intelligent Falling: Isaac Newton, General Scholium

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.

"Meanwhile remote operation has just been revived in England by the admirable Mr. Newton, who maintains that it is the nature of bodies to be attracted and gravitate one towards another, in proportion to the mass of each one, and the rays of attraction it receives. Accordingly the famous Mr. Locke, in his answer to Bishop Stillingfleet, declares that having seen Mr. Newton's book he retracts what he himself said, following the opinion of the moderns, in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, to wit, that a body cannot operate immediately upon another except by touching it upon its surface and driving it by its motion. He acknowledges that God can put properties into matter which cause it to operate from a distance. Thus the theologians of the Augsburg Confession claim that God may ordain not only that a body operate immediately on divers bodies remote from one another, but that it even exist in their neighbourhood and be received by them in a way with which distances of place and dimensions of space have nothing to do. Although this effect transcends the forces of Nature, they do not think it possible to show that it surpasses the power of the Author of Nature. For him it is easy to annul the laws that he has given or to dispense with them as seems good to him, in the same way as he was able to make iron float upon water and to stay the operation of fire upon the human body." -- Gottfriend W. Leibniz, polymath, 1695

 

[rjw]

Wrong.

Gravity, atoms, and cells have been observed, therefore they are not theories and they are not theoretical.

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?


And since when have you ever observed gravity? 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

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

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?

Correct.

Evolution is not a theory because theories require observation and repeatable laboratory experiments.

Evolution has never been empirically observed.

In fact, evolution has been empirically falsified by the discovery of fossil octopuses in the Cretaceous.

Therefore evolution is a falsified hypothesis -- not a theory.

And since when have you ever observed gravity?

Every day of my life I have observed gravity.

Gravity is the observation that heavy objects near the surface of the Earth fall to the Earth.

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

You are confusing gravity and gravitation.

Gravity is an ancient observation.

Universal gravitation is a 17th century myth.

 

[rjw]

Correct.

Ah so then, germ theory and atomic theory are not sciences either. You cannot have it both ways AoS.

Evolution is not a theory because theories require observation and repeatable laboratory experiments.

Check. Evolution can do those. Plenty of literature out there, and plenty posted here, if you would only care to read it.

Evolution has never been empirically observed.

Check. Evolution has been observed.

In fact, evolution has been empirically falsified by the discovery of fossil octopuses in the Creataceous.

?

Reference please? And explain how this falsifies evolution.

Therefore evolution is a falsified hypothesis -- not a theory.

Why not read my replies above and address the question just above?

Every day of my life I have observed gravity.

In everyday life I observe biodiversity and a part of the nested hierarchy.

Gravity is the observation that heavy objects near the surface of the Earth fall to the Earth.

That is the outcome of gravity. (Did you know that light ones also fall to the earth?)

Evolution is the observation of nested hierarchies and biodiversity.

You are confusing gravity and gravitation.

?

Gravity is an ancient observation.

Did you observe it in ancient times?

Universal gravitation is a 17th century myth.

So you assert. I thought it was a part of a theory.



Regards, Roland

 

[Nostromo]

It's hard to imagine HOW ELSE space got bent. Who else has that strength?
Who else could spread out the heavens?
Who else could create life out of nothing but energy?

Chuck Norris?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Ah so then, germ theory and atomic theory are not sciences either. You cannot have it both ways AoS.

Germs and atoms are objects and observations not theories or sciences.

Check. Evolution can do those. Plenty of literature out there, and plenty posted here, if you would only care to read it.

Name one new animal that has evolved within the historical memory of man.

You can't because no such animals exist.

Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation have never been observed in nature or the laboratory.

Check. Evolution has been observed.

Only in Meinong's Jungle.

?

Reference please? And explain how this falsifies evolution.

"...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

Modern fossil octopuses in the Cretaceous represent a "single fossil" in the "wrong geological stratum."

Why not read my replies above and address the question just above?

What are you talking about?

In everyday life I observe biodiversity and a part of the nested hierarchy.

So do I.

Biodiversity is not spontaneous generation, natural selection, or undirected random mutation.

That is the outcome of gravity. (Did you know that light ones also fall to the earth?)

No they don't. Air molecules and clouds do not fall to the Earth. They defy gravity.

Ozone which is heavier than oxygen is found at the highest levels of the atmosphere.

Argon which is heavier than nitrogen is found in the same percentage at every level of the atmosphere.

Thus, it is obvious that gravity is electromagnetic and that electromagnetic forces dominate the universe.

Evolution is the observation of nested hierarchies and biodiversity.

Your personal definition of evolution is not the standard commonly accepted defintion.

If evolution simply means biodiversity every creationist and fundamentalist on Earth would believe in it.

Obviously biodiversity is not the definition of evolution.

Did you observe it in ancient times?

Of course not.

I observe the historical record in modern times.

 

[rjw]

Germs and atoms are objects and observations not theories or sciences.

Actually they are no more observations than are nested hierarchies and biological diversity.

Name one new animal that has evolved within the historical memory of man.

Irrelevant.

This is the claim you made:-

"Evolution is not a theory because theories require observation and repeatable laboratory experiments."

to which I replied:-

"Check. Evolution can do those. Plenty of literature out there, and plenty posted here, if you would only care to read it.


You are moving the goal posts. You asked about theory and the requirements of a theory. A theory is not an observation. A theory derives from observations.

You can't because no such animals exist.

Irrelevant. See above.

Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation have never been observed in nature or the laboratory.

Irrelevant.

Only in Meinong's Jungle.

How much literature on biology do you actually read?

"...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

What has this got to do with the reference I asked for. I want a reference to the octopus fossil.

Modern fossil octopuses in the Cretaceous represent a "single fossil" in the "wrong geological stratum."

See above.

So do I.

They are the outputs of evolution, just as falling apples are the outputs of gravity.

So if you claim that you see gravity be seeing a falling apple, then you also see evolution by seeing a nested hierarchy.

Biodiversity is not spontaneous generation, natural selection, or undirected random mutation.

Irrelevant and misguided comment. Why would I ever think that biodiversity is abiogenesis for example?

No they don't. Air molecules and clouds do not fall to the Earth. They defy gravity.

a) I did not say that all light things fall to earth did I.

b) How do you know that they defy gravity.

c) Not all heavy things fall to earth, do they - the moon and airplanes for example.

Thus, it is obvious that gravity is electromagnetic and that electromagnetic forces dominate the universe.

Have you directly observed electromagnetic forces dominate the universe? If so, how did you do this?

Your personal definition of evolution is not the standard commonly accepted defintion.

I am simply running off your implicit definition of some kind of science which confuses the observation of the output of some process with the actual process itself.

If evolution simply means biodiversity every creationist and fundamentalist on Earth would believe in it.

Obviously biodiversity is not the definition of evolution.

See above.

Of course not.

Yet you claim not to believe something, unless you can observe it, don't you?

I observe the historical record in modern times.

So all historical records tell the truth?

And observing the historical record must therefore be observing the real event in the past?

Any historical data (that is not historical record) observed in modern times, cannot tell us anything?

If we find any evidence from the past, in the present, that contradicts the historical record, then the evidence must be wrong. The historical record cannot be wrong?



Regards, Roland

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Actually they are no more observations than are nested hierarchies and biological diversity.

Why do you think germs and atoms are not observations?

Irrelevant

Are you afraid to honestly answer my questions or are you unable to?

If I was a Darwinist or believed in scientism and pseudoskepticism I would probably be afraid to answer questions.

You are moving the goal posts.

What goal posts?

You asked about theory and the requirements of a theory.

I did?

A theory is not an observation. A theory derives from observations.

That's what I've been saying: http://www.christianforums.com/t7434766-2/#post54032152

You would know that if you would actually read I'm saying.

How much literature on biology do you actually read?

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.

What has this got to do with the reference I asked for. I want a reference to the octopus fossil.

Cretaceous Octopus With Ink And Suckers -- The World's Least Likely Fossils?

ScienceDaily (Mar. 18, 2009) &#8212; 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.

So if you claim that you see gravity be seeing a falling apple, then you also see evolution by seeing a nested hierarchy.

What is a nested hierarchy?

I've never seen one.

Why would I ever think that biodiversity is abiogenesis for example?

You seem to think biodiversity = evolution.

b) How do you know that they defy gravity.

Because I have 2 eyes and I can see the clouds defying Newton.

However, I have never seen a graviton or a gravitational wave.

c) Not all heavy things fall to earth, do they - the moon and airplanes for example.

Thus the moon and airplanes defy gravity.

Have you directly observed electromagnetic forces dominate the universe? If so, how did you do this?

By pointing a telescope at the sky.

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.

Yet you claim not to believe something, unless you can observe it, don't you?

Correct. However I consider history, literature, and art to be included in observations since I don't faith in the religion of scientism.

So all historical records tell the truth?

Almost all. A few lies in they're but 99% true.

And observing the historical record must therefore be observing the real event in the past?

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.

Any historical data (that is not historical record) observed in modern times, cannot tell us anything?

No more than historical data observed in ancient times.

If we find any evidence from the past, in the present, that contradicts the historical record, then the evidence must be wrong.

Example?

The historical record cannot be wrong?

If a scientist was involved in writing it it's probably wrong.

 

[rjw]

Why do you think germs and atoms are not observations?

I did not say that they were not observations. I said they were no more observations than are germs and atoms. Are you now going to tell me that nested hierarchies and biodiversity are not observations - because I thought you said they were observations.

Are you afraid to honestly answer my questions or are you unable to?

No.

Your response there was irrelevant. We are talking about evolution, not the origin of an evolving system.

As I asked Dad - didn't you read the article either?

What goal posts?

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.

So you then asked me about naming a new animal that evolved within historical memory. That has nothing to do with theory and the requirements of a theory because as you know, theories often rely on observations to learn about processes and structures that cannot be observed e.g. atoms, their components and the processes that keep them together. (And I might add, atoms were a theory well before anybody could take pictures of what they claim are atoms.)

I did?

You did. Go back and read the exchange I quoted in my last post to you.

That's what I've been saying:

You would know that if you would actually read I'm saying.

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.

You can't have it both ways.

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.

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.)

So let me ask you again - how much literature in biology do you read. So far, all I know is that you may read a few press clippings.

You will note that the only problem it presents for evolution, is explaining the origin of modern octopi. It does not present a problem for ToE, any more than the existence of the coelacanth does.

What is a nested hierarchy?

Something you claimed you observe - and you do.

It's a classification of characteristics where groups of characteristics sit within other groups of characteristics which sit within other groups and so on.

The binomial classification system developed by the creationist Linnaeus is a nested hierarchy.

Here is a write up:-

Hierarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only natural process we know of which forms such a pattern, is one involving common descent with modification.

You seem to think biodiversity = evolution.

I am saying that biodiversity is an outcome of the process of evolution in the same way that an apple falling from a tree is an outcome of an underlying process called gravity. We know much more about the processes behind evolution than we do the process behind gravity.

Because I have 2 eyes and I can see the clouds defying Newton.

But they are till being pulled to the earth, just like the apple.

However, I have never seen a graviton or a gravitational wave.

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?

Thus the moon and airplanes defy gravity.

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?

By pointing a telescope at the sky.

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.

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.

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?

Correct. However I consider history, literature, and art to be included in observations since I don't faith in the religion of scientism.

Anything can be used as empirical evidence I presume you are saying, and I tend to agree, in principle.

I don't have faith in scientism either. However, if the data are used in a reasonable, logical and sensible manner, then it does give me more confidence in the scientific theory, or the historical claim.

Besides you do believe in things you don't observe and maybe historical claims but were never observed either. I remember asking you repeatedly about some of von Daniken's claims which could only be inferences he was drawing from data - e.g the Nazca lines as alien space ports, the building of the pyramids by aliens, and stone walls through which razor blades couldn't fit - and you did not answer we.

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?

Almost all. A few lies in there but 99% true.

Where did you get this figure from?

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.

Its impossible to observe many real events that occur in the present, yet we infer their reality - fusion reactions inside the sun, your electromagnetism holding the moon up, rocks sliding past each other 20 km below the earth's surface, protons and neutrons inside atoms.

Past events often leave their imprint on the present which allows us to infer their reality - e.g. a meteorite crater.

The same happens with unobservable events in the present. They put out an imprint which we can observe, allowing us to infer the reality of those ongoing events that are invisible to us.

So yes, when it comes to the past, all we have are historical records and data from the past.

No more than historical data observed in ancient times.

?

Two points:-

1) So you do agree that there is something other than historical record. It is data from the past.

2) A historical record can be very meagre while data from the past can be very rich in detail.

Example?

von Daniken's claims above - eg. the building of those stone walls. He claims aliens IIRC, based on the razor blades not being able to fit between the slabs of stone. Archaeological evidence shows that humans could have build the walls and it shows the method as to how.

If a scientist was involved in writing it it's probably wrong.

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?

How do you manage to work this out? Why are people in the past more trustworthy than people today?

Did you actually observe these people to know that they are more trustworthy?



Regards, Roland

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

So you then asked me about naming a new animal that evolved within historical memory.

I knew you wouldn't be able to.

structures that cannot be observed e.g. atoms

Atoms can be observed and have been observed since before Trojan times.

" ... if one must believe Poseidonius, the ancient dogma about atoms originated with Mochus, a Sidonian, born before the Trojan times. However, let us dismiss things ancient." -- Strabo, geographer, 7

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.

I knew you wouldn't be able to name a newly evolved animal.

But they are till being pulled to the earth, just like the apple.

3.8 centimeters per year away from the Earth is not "pulled to the earth."

Have you ever seen electromgnetism keep the moon in its orbit? What about a 747 in the sky?

On a daily and nightly basis. Have you ever seen Saturn's rings effected by gravitation? I haven't.

"When first observed by Voyager, the spoke movements [of Saturn's Rings] seemed to defy gravity and had the scientists very perplexed. Since the spokes rotate at the same rate as Saturn's magnetic field, it is apparent that the electromagnetic forces are also at work." -- Ron Baalke, astrophysicist, 1998

I might just as well say that I see universal gravitational attraction by pointing a telescope at 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.

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?

Everything in the universe is composed of magnets.

Electrons generate a magnetic field.

"Diamagnetic substances include water, protein, diamond, DNA, plastic, wood, and many other common substances usually thought to be nonmagnetic." -- Martin D. Simon, professor, May 2000

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?

Historical records are in fact data.

Its impossible to observe many real events that occur in the present, yet we infer their reality - fusion reactions inside the sun

Rank speculations.

your electromagnetism holding the moon up

Observed.

rocks sliding past each other 20 km below the earth's surface

Subduction leads to mythology.

"More realistically, the appropriate and credible physical metaphor for subduction would be of a wooden nail being projected very slowly into a cannon ball. This is, of course, impossible, even over infinite time...." -- Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist) and David J. Ford (geologist), 2005

"It is established fact, however, that there is not any physically observed discontinuity between deep crust and upper mantle at around 100 km depth, and the continents are observed to have continuous mantle rock roots extending as deep as 600 km (Grand, 1987; Grand et al., 1997). So the question is naturally raised: How is it possible for the upper 100 km of a continent, e.g., North America, to move horizontally by several thousand kilometers at all, under any circumstances, when global seismic tomography data indicate deep continuous roots from the surface down to 600 km depth?" -- Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist) and David J. Ford (geologist), 2005

protons and neutrons inside atoms.

Observed.

Past events often leave their imprint on the present which allows us to infer their reality - e.g. a meteorite crater.

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.

1) So you do agree that there is something other than historical record. It is data from the past.

Historical records are nothing other than data from the past.

2) A historical record can be very meagre while data from the past can be very rich in detail.

False dichotomy. Historical records are in fact data from the past.

 

[daniel192]

I Like Where This Thread Is Going!

Stop Being So Egocentric Aos!

 

[SithDoughnut]

AoS: You want an animal that has evolved with human history.

How about pretty much every domesticated animal that exists? Dogs, for example.

 

[daniel192]

Why do you think germs and atoms are not observations?

Just as observable as Evolution.

Are you afraid to honestly answer my questions or are you unable to?

Bananas and dogs are for example something that man evolved.

If I was a Darwinist or believed in scientism and pseudoskepticism I would probably be afraid to answer questions.

What is "Darwinism" and "Scientism" and "Psuedo-Skepticism"?

What goal posts?

When we answer you, you mutilate the answer so it looks like we never refuted your claim.

That's what I've been saying: *link[/url]

Cool link, bro!

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.

I know a guy who's an Daltonist.

What is a nested hierarchy?

Jesus F. Christ.

You seem to think biodiversity = evolution.

Biodiversity is caused by evolution.

Because I have 2 eyes and I can see the clouds defying Newton.

Wat?

However, I have never seen a graviton or a gravitational wave.

Thus, by your logic, it doesn't exist because it's not "observable".

Thus the moon and airplanes defy gravity.

They don't.

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.

Magnetism has to do what with gravity?

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.

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.

Evolution has evidence. What "observable" evidence does creation have?

It has come to my observation that AoS is afraid to lose arguments, be corrected or be wrong on something.