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."
Reliable Source. (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512?utm_source=EMTF_Onion)
:puke: <- - - (Ayuh - That'd be the reliable source alright!) :biggrin:
that is what "I" was getting ready to say... :yes: ;D
Apparently you two didn't see the obvious comparisons.
That isn't outside the realm of belief... You must have at least a rudimentary grasp of elemental sciences.
I can imagine the subject bored you to tears. lol
Quote from: Philodox on July 13, 2009, 01:38:44 PM
. . .
That isn't outside the realm of belief..
For someone under the influence of gallons of the Kool Aid and centuries of pre-conditioning at the hands of those seeking personal wealth and power. . . maybe.
Bleat on. . .
Wow...un-freakin'-believable!
Quote from: Exterminator on July 13, 2009, 01:48:46 PM
Wow...un-freakin'-believable!
Their Kool Aid is strong! :rolleyes:
hmmm....I'm lost. I thought this was supposed to be a 'spoof' article. Isn't that all the Onion publishes? What the heck are you guys going on about....believing what?
...ssshhhhhhhhhhhhh !!
You'll spoil the fun.
Quote from: pariann on July 13, 2009, 01:53:13 PM
hmmm....I'm lost. I thought this was supposed to be a 'spoof' article. Isn't that all the Onion publishes? What the heck are you guys going on about....believing what?
Party pooper!
:rolleyes: I thought you guys went around calling a spade a spade......and I'm the ditsy blond?
Quote from: pariann on July 13, 2009, 01:59:52 PM
......and I'm the ditsy blond?
Remember, YOU said that. . . :icon_twisted:
Quote from: pariann on July 13, 2009, 01:59:52 PM
:rolleyes: I thought you guys went around calling a spade a spade......and I'm the ditsy blond?
Correct. :biggrin:
That article is hilarious! :biggrin:
Don't take it out of context. There was a question mark there.
You are all a bunch of goofballs. I love it, NOW I'm being entertained. Anyone got any extra peanuts?
Quote from: pariann on July 13, 2009, 02:22:59 PM
Don't take it out of context. There was a question mark there.
You are all a bunch of goofballs. I love it, NOW I'm being entertained. Anyone got any extra peanuts?
:biggrin:
Sad part is........
some of the students have arrived at my lab actually believing similar theories.
Yes, indeed, the kool-aid is strong.
Sorry for the interruption.
Please, by all means, carry on. :biggrin: :biggrin:
I can see them believing that God creates the attributes of science, (damn I hope I said what I meant) but for them to believe that God is running around pushing things down.....is a bit much to believe.
Wasn't this in a 'Friends' episode?
Quote from: followsthewolf on July 13, 2009, 03:04:51 PM
Sad part is........
some of the students have arrived at my lab actually believing similar theories.
FTW, you need to explain the alternate theory to them. To wit: there is no such thing as gravity. The earth just sucks.
Actually, gravity at one time was not as we know it today....It ONCE was a form of a thermo dynamical Solar Blackbody...but over the course of 1.6 Billion years it has evolved into the coalesce matter that is being dispersed as we now know it. At one time the Earth, it's neighboring planets and other macroscopic objects was rifling aimlessly throughout this universe. But over the course of time, it evolouted from thousands of stages of thermodynamics to what we NOW understand as gravity...and by all means, this is NO theory... :no: it is based upon facts...and should be taught in schools across this country. :yes:
WTF?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 14, 2009, 08:53:28 AM
Actually, gravity at one time was not as we know it today....It ONCE was a form of a thermo dynamical Solar Blackbody...but over the course of 1.6 Billion years it has evolved into the coalesce matter that is being dispersed as we now know it. At one time the Earth, it's neighboring planets and other macroscopic objects was rifling aimlessly throughout this universe. But over the course of time, it evolouted from thousands of stages of thermodynamics to what we NOW understand as gravity...and by all means, this is NO theory... :no: it is based upon facts...and should be taught in schools across this country. :yes:
Okay, I have no freaking clue what you just said...BUT I do see that number in there. 1.6 billion years. How do you resolve that with the Bible. If God created the heavens and earth....why did he wait so freaking many years to populate it? And trust me, 1.6 billion, is a LOT of years.
Quote from: pariann on July 14, 2009, 09:05:43 AM
Okay, I have no freaking clue what you just said...BUT I do see that number in there. 1.6 billion years. How do you resolve that with the Bible. If God created the heavens and earth....why did he wait so freaking many years to populate it? And trust me, 1.6 billion, is a LOT of years.
Here's my take:One of the most common arguments against evolution, as well as my own theory surrounding the melding of evolution and creation, is the whole "God created the heavens, the universe, and all within it in 7 days" passage that is contained within the "tool", (known to the zealots as "The Bible") Let's take a few minutes to really think this whole concept through.
A "man" sits down to document his perception of just how all of "this" came to be. Again, during the time when this is performed the man has no conception of space, the universe, the laws of physics, etc., etc.. And time itself (as we know it today) is a human creation; a measurement created by humankind that did not exist until we came up with it. There were no "divine clocks" and before the earth came to "be" there was no sun or moon to rise and fall. The seconds, minutes, and hours with which we measure each day did not exist until humankind created them. The creator had no need for these things, and unless there is a zealot amongst you that is willing to jump up and say that the creator handed these things to us, it leads to a simple question; when this guy wrote about "Genesis", how was he able to determine how "long" it took for the creator to accomplish it?
Now I know what some of you are thinking, "Divine inspiration", but while I am not above believing such can transpire I still find myself unwilling to just accept such an offhand way of dismissing the question. I believe the most likely explanation can be found in a "man" telling a "story" and using the words of the day to tell it. But let's take this a step or two further.
Perhaps the creator did create all that is in "seven days", but by what measure? Why, by the creator's measure of course. Since "time" as we know it is a human concept and did not exist before we created it, we cannot automatically extend the scale of measurement back to the point of origin for this planet, much less the universe. We could, but it drastically skew the reality of things, just as it has since its inception. Even if we stipulate that the "man" only wrote down what the "creator" told him to via some mystical means of communication or divine inspiration, the meaning of "days" is still in question since it meant to the man only that the cycle of day and night transpired.
It just appears to me to make much more sense that "time" as we know it is not the same as time from a creator's perspective. The scale has to be much larger! For example, we already know that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, and the scientific evidence suggests the emergence of the first "humans" about 2 million years ago. 2 million "years" in the human measurement of time! So if we mark the first appearance of "man" as the end of the "7" day period of creation what is this telling us?
912,500,000,000 - human days between the formation of the earth and the appearance of the first man.
1,642,500,000,000 - human days since the earth was created. (Approximately)
912,500,000,000 human days divided by the 7 days = 130,357,142,857
Making the conversion from creation time to human time: 1 creator day = 130,357,142,857 human days.
Using this conversion factor this would mean that from the perspective of the creator the amount of time that has passed since he began the creation of all that "is", and right now, 13 days. 13 days since the earth was born.
If the man who wrote Genesis was divinely inspired then a whole lot was lost in the conversion of "days" from the creator's perspective to the human perspective. And if this even is close to being the correct conversion, then it allows for the evolutionary process to be a part of the creation process. It accounts for the various species and their evolvement into those plants, animals, minerals, etc. that we know them as today. It provides for the "time" necessary to let this happen. In addition, if this conversion factor is true, it makes one wonder why, (if 2012 is indeed the end of the earth), the creator would impose such a short expiration date upon his creation doesn't it? (From the creators perspective of time that is).
Of course this begs yet another question; was the first emergence of man the end of the seven day period, or must we take into account man's evolutionary period as well? And is that evolutionary process completed? (It would be a fractional amount at this point in any case, and I'll leave that up to you math freaks to figure out). . .
A well thought out albeit lengthy post. The more likely answer, however, is that it's all bullshit (Ockham's razor).
Quote from: Exterminator on July 14, 2009, 09:30:54 AM
A well thought out albeit lengthy post. The more likely answer, however, is that it's all bullshit (Ockham's razor).
:smile: Yup! :smile:
1.6 billion years ago.......
2 million years ago.
STILL a lot of years between the creation of heaven and earth, and populating it.
Quote from: pariann on July 14, 2009, 09:40:19 AM
1.6 billion years ago.......
2 million years ago.
STILL a lot of years between the creation of heaven and earth, and populating it.
What are years when you exist in eternity? :smile:
Years and "time" are of human creation. . .
And guess where I live. In the human area. Even when I visit eternity, I'm just going to be thrown right back here at some point.
The world isn't going to end in 2012. Someone just got tired of figuring out the calendar, or he died without an apprentice to carry on.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 14, 2009, 08:53:28 AM
Actually, gravity at one time was not as we know it today....It ONCE was a form of a thermo dynamical Solar Blackbody...but over the course of 1.6 Billion years it has evolved into the coalesce matter that is being dispersed as we now know it. At one time the Earth, it's neighboring planets and other macroscopic objects was rifling aimlessly throughout this universe. But over the course of time, it evolouted from thousands of stages of thermodynamics to what we NOW understand as gravity...and by all means, this is NO theory... :no: it is based upon facts...and should be taught in schools across this country. :yes:
EX?....you think THIS is bullshit?......... :confused:
Pari?.....What is NOT to understand?......... :confused:
the bottom line for ME is..........it don't mean a hill of beans. We are here, and I can honestly care less HOW we got here, WHY we got here, WHEN we got here.....the fact is we are HERE......I, personally am not concerned about our next stop either.....I have my faith, and that is enough for me.
but, I really think that the thermo dynamical Solar Blackbody has evolved nicely... :yes:
Quote from: pariann on July 14, 2009, 09:49:35 AM
And guess where I live. In the human area. . .
Exactly. And because of this our perspective/concept of the "big picture" is biased and skewed.
Quote from: pariann on July 14, 2009, 09:49:35 AM
The world isn't going to end in 2012. Someone just got tired of figuring out the calendar, or he died without an apprentice to carry on.
Actually, this is a theory that many people/cultures spoke of; the last days of the "Great Cycle", including the: Maya, Hopi, Egyptians, Kabbalists, Essenes, Qero elders of Peru, Navajo, Cherokee, Apache, Iroquois confederacy, Dogon Tribe, and Aborigines. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on July 14, 2009, 09:45:37 AM
Years and "time" are of human creation. . .
Perhaps the term is but I don't think humans dictated the amount of time it takes for the earth to make a full rotation or to travel once around the sun.
I know what it is. I just don't believe the world is going to end in 2012. I don't care how many people said it a couple of thousand years ago.
What I've heard is it will not be as we know it. Well already the world is not as they knew it back then. Wouldn't you agree?
"Both the Gregorian calendar and the clock are based on the original Babylonian model which substituted a measurement of space for a measurement of time. Time is not space. Time is of the mind.
A circle on a flat plane divided into twelve 30-degree parts was used as a model for the annual calendar. A circle on a flat plane has 360 degrees (30 X 12). One annual orbit of the Earth around the Sun is 365 1/4 days. The measure of time according to the standard of the circle on a flat plane is irregular, arbitrary, and irrational. As is the measure of time, so is the measure of our mind.
Using the flat plane of 12, the clock doubled the 12 to 24 hours and the degrees from 30 to 60 minutes per hour. A clock does not measure time. A clock measures increments of space which, projected as increments of time, are valorized into monetary units. Money does not grow on trees. Money is a function of false time." -Dr. Jose Arguelles, PhD.
What is this thread about again?
Quote from: Exterminator on July 14, 2009, 10:57:20 AM
Onions.
No wonder there was all that boo-fuggen-hooing going on! :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on July 14, 2009, 10:57:20 AM
Onions.
speaking of onions.........how is your garden doin?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 14, 2009, 11:04:48 AM
speaking of onions.........how is your garden doin?
It's crazy! The corn is 8 feet tall, tomatoes are everywhere, a racoon has been nibbling on my eggplant and squash and melon vines are taking over the world! I need to take some pics...
Yeah...you know what they say, this thread is nothing without pictures.