then how did they arrive at the clear no other than the record?
That question makes no sense. The "clear no other than the record?" Perhaps reprhase it.
then how did they arrive at the clear no other than the record?
then how did they arrive at the clear no other than the record?
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
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.'...
...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.
The INTELLIGENT GRAPPLING FAQ.
1. What is Intelligent Grappling (IG?)
Intelligent Grappling is the SCIENTIFIC Theory that Intelligent
and Conscious Agents "push" things together. It is the only coherent
theory that explains why things fall.
2. Doesn't gravity explain why things fall?
NO. Gravity only attempts to describe what objects do. It does
not explain WHY they do them. It is that challenge that Intelligent
Grappling is intended to meet.
3. Aren't there theories that explain why things fall?
NO. There are theories by atheists and secular humanists that
TRY, but they all lead to crazy conclusions no human being has ever
seen, like black holes and the so-called "Big Bang". Intelligent
Grappling ONLY deals with the visible world.
4. Is Intelligent Grappling a scientific theory?
YES. Intelligent Grappling is the ONLY VIABLE THEORY fore why
things fall. Physicists have tried for a hundred years to explain why
things fall and THEY HAVE FAILED. It is time for a new theory, one
backed up by all the evidence, to finally solve the question. IG is
that theory.
5. Isn't "Intelligent Grappling" just another way of saying, "Angels
push things around?"
NO. Intelligent Grappling says nothing at all about the nature
or origins of the conscious agents that perform the actual act of
pushing and grappling. All IG says is that conscious agents are the
cause of all apparent "gravitic" phenomenon.
6. In order to accept Intelligent Design, must I accept Intelligent
Grappling as well?
YES. Intelligent Design says that there is a non-naturalistic,
conscious designer at work at the biological level. Intelligent
Grappling says that there is a non-naturalistic, conscious grappler at
the physical level. Accepting a naturalistic explanation for one
phenomenon but a non-naturalistic explanation for another is a
philosophically corrupt position and we do not advocate it.
--
Elf M. Sternberg
Also known as Intelligent Grappling:
Of course not! You pointed out my silly arithmetic error and now I can say based on your equation (even thought it is completely bogus) the chance that christianity (by which you actually mean creationism) is correct is zero, zilch, nada.
The beat goes on...No, there is evidence of Christianity. For example, archaeologists (who were atheist, by the way) have found ancient Egyptian chariot wheels in the Red Sea.
I think I just threw up a little in my mouth...
I prefer hanging out here to get my kicks.I probably spent about an hour or so perusing the various resources related to the subject, and had quite a good time
okay, no problem.That question makes no sense. The "clear no other than the record?" Perhaps reprhase it.
leopold, there is an entire website dedicated to answering questions of this sort. Do us all a favor and read it. Most of your questions regarding Gould, et al. will be answered. Here's a link to take you specifically to the page on micro v macro evolution.okay, no problem.
these scientists concluded that the process of microevolution can't be extrapolated to macroevolution.
how did they conclude that?
No, there is evidence of Christianity. For example, archaeologists (who were atheist, by the way) have found ancient Egyptian chariot wheels in the Red Sea.
Why do we complain about hurricanes, earthquakes and floods? Maybe because they have unpleasant consequences?Strip mining comes from humans and if this is natural why do we complain about it?
Creation, to be consistent with science, has to do with the evolutionary split into modern humans. Modern humans do not follow the path of natural selection since civilization add unnatural things to the earth. Strip mining comes from humans and if this is natural why do we complain about it? We complain because this create unnatural stresses. There is no straight line from apes to humans simple because apes do not have to evolve within the unnatural environment created by humans. The environments select differently.
We can watch chickens eat pebbles to help them digest their food. This is natural for chickens. But just because we can use willpower to copy this chicken behavior, does not make eating pebbles natural to humans. Humans could eat pebbles, as long as we have doctors and dentists and medicines creating smoke and mirrors, so we can sales pitch this as natural for humans. If you needed all this propping up and was living in nature, you would not be selected by nature, since nature prefers inherent capacity; no external props.
The theory of evolution is attributed to Darwin in 1859. But evolution was occurring way before he verbalized it. Why does he get credit for something that happened before he was around? He was the first to explain this change. As far as humans are concerned this perception of life became real in 1859, even though it was there a billion years ago. Creation is when humans become self aware of unnatural/divine and the line of evolution forms a branch. They did this 6000 years ago instead of 1859. I marvel at how advanced they were since they saw what even today appears to be beyond the ability of most scientists.
They are over a dozen new species - hence it can't correctly be characterized as microevolution.this is micro evolution. [Darwin's finches]
Nothing I've read fits that characterization. First there was a South American finch, and suddenly (we can estimate the interval because we know the approx age of the coral towers the islands stand on) - suddenly there were over a dozen new species of finch. Granted - they are not a new order or class, but that's not the correct definition of macroevolution either. So we have a different issue than it purports to be - an issue of the scientific meaning of certain words.it was the conclusion of these scientists that this process can't be extrapolated to macro evolution.
Yes, but I presume you would agree that Gould and Ayala were two of the three most authoritative experts in the field - with Dawkins being the third (I wonder what he was doing then).there were 50 there, not just 3 or 4 or 10. don't you understand?
I disagree with the way this is stated. It should be expanded to include the fact that they were talking about a particular issue in Gould's theory, and without qualifying the details, this remark would not convey the truth of the matter.these scientists FOUND NO EVIDENCE for accumulating changes that lead to macro evolution.
That omits the caveats that still are being buried in this thread.these scientists had almost 200 years to find this stuff and it simply wasn't forthcoming.
Part of the disconnect here is that we are talking about Darwin's Theory of Evolution, as amended, which only addresses speciation and nothing more. To my knowledge no scientist has ever proposed a theory of divergence of classes or orders -- or whatever you are looking for . . . which is still not clear to me because you have not said what level of taxonomy you believe is necessary to acknowledge that Darwin was correct.to imply that we have all these wonderful transitional fossils that explains evolution is simply untrue.
My fingertips may rot but my tongue is fine. My reason for harping on creationism is that it's invalid. It's not science, and it doesn't care about the truth. All it wants to do is to replace the truth of nature with fiction. Worse, it has the zeal and propaganda of quasi-mentally ill doctrinaires who have the attention of millions of vulnerable and naive minds, to perpetuate errors like some posted here.you can call this creationist until your tongue rots but it changes nothing.
A hoax incorrectly cast as such, when the claim should read "evidence of Judaism", which isn't even correct since no one doubts that the religions exist. Severe breakdown in logic, characteristic of the antagonists of science. They don't get it because they just don't get it.That's your "evidence of Christianity"?
I notice nobody address evolution in water ...... Animals still have to deal with the water constraint.