Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

and who said God couldn't have been involved in evolution?

Read page 1 and 2.

I'm of the belief that SOMETHING similar to the current evolutionary theory is to blame for all of this. My main point in coming into this thread was to make the point that creationism and intellegent design are NOT the same thing, and that intellegent design and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. The discussion of the flaws of evolution was just a side topic that I love to get into.

[motivez]

I'd love to see these differences between Intelligent Design and Creationism.

I hope there's more to it than creationism follows some specific creation myth while Intelligent Design adopts some broader generic version.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

By that definition my cock is bigger than yours.

A definition doesn't make a theory a fact. If we put all the scientists in the world in a room with you, and asked "Is evolution a theory or a fact", there would be only one person raising their hand.

Ok, there are two things, the original theory of gravity, and what gravity is

an apple falling from a tree is gravity in work, it is not the theory of gravity

likewise, evolution has been observed in labs, and thats evolution, however watching that evolution does not set an entire theory of evolution

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Read page 1 and 2.

I'm of the belief that SOMETHING similar to the current evolutionary theory is to blame for all of this. My main point in coming into this thread was to make the point that creationism and intellegent design are NOT the same thing, and that intellegent design and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. The discussion of the flaws of evolution was just a side topic that I love to get into.

It says nothing about how God can't be involved in evolution

try again

[Donkey®]

Any evidence of God? Any evidence of ID? Any evidence of creationism? Anyone? Links? Pics?

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by motivez

I'd love to see these differences between Intelligent Design and Creationism.

I hope there's more to it than creationism follows some specific creation myth while Intelligent Design adopts some broader generic version.

Intellegent design can simply be explained to going back to a point in history where we can't find an explanation and which we never will.

"What was before the big bang"
"How/why did the big bang occur".

Enter God into that equation, and you can use science to explain EVERYTHING else - and it still fits into intellegent design.

"Why is this apple here?"
"It fell from the tree"
"What made it fall?"
"Gravity"
"Why is there gravity?
"Because the earth's mass generates a gravitational field as per the law of gravity, carried all the way back to the creation of the universe"
"Why/how was our universe created with the law of law of gravity and other laws of physics?"
"God"

Creationism would be
"Why is this apple here"
"It fell from the tree"
"What made it fall"
"God"
"What about gravity"
"STFU, newb! You want to get burned at the stake?!"

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

I am taking an Anthropology of Religion class right now, and my professor addressed Intelligent Design our first day.

And he said, there is Religion, and there is Science.

......

But, you'll read an old book, and take THAT'S Word on it? And consider the Bible isn't the only book with a Creation story...so which books account are you going to believe?

There's a good example of someone who thinks creationism and intellegent design is the same thing, and that intellegent design and evolution is mutually exclusive.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Intellegent design can simply be explained to going back to a point in known science where we can't find an explanation and which we never will.

"What was before the big bang"
"How/why did the big bang occur".

Enter God into that equation, and you can use science to explain EVERYTHING else - and it still fits into intellegent design.

"Why is this apple here?"
"It fell from the tree"
"What made it fall?"
"Gravity"
"Why is there gravity?
"Because the earth's mass generates a gravitational field as per the law of gravity, carried all the way back to the creation of the universe"
"Why/how was our universe created with the law of law of gravity and other laws of physics?"
"God"

So to blindly accept "God" as the answer to the not answered is the better way than to look at the evidence that points to something else?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Intellegent design can simply be explained to going back to a point in history where we can't find an explanation and which we never will.

"What was before the big bang"
"How/why did the big bang occur".

Enter God into that equation, and you can use science to explain EVERYTHING else - and it still fits into intellegent design.

"Why is this apple here?"
"It fell from the tree"
"What made it fall?"
"Gravity"
"Why is there gravity?
"Because the earth's mass generates a gravitational field as per the law of gravity, carried all the way back to the creation of the universe"
"Why/how was our universe created with the law of law of gravity and other laws of physics?"
"God"

What is the cause of God?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

So to blindly accept "God" as the answer to the not answered is the better way than to look at the evidence that points to something else?

its not an answer

"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument… The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination."
-- Bertrand Russell

[imind]

i'll never understand why those who do not believe evolution think that its veracity lies so squarely on the shoulders of fossil evidence, when in fact there are several independent lines of evidence supporting it. i am somewhat certain, in fact, that if we went so far as to dismiss all of the fossil record, the remaining evidence would still be sufficient to support it; i will look for a suitable link.

In order for evolution to be a fact it must be the RULE, meaning we should be able to show how EVERY species evolved and show the trail of organ change/attrophy from EVERY base species to EVERY advanced species.

this, again, is false, as evolution is not dependant on the fossil record to support it. and the question below is on the money, so-to-speak

1: What % of creatures that die end up fossilized?

why don't we have records of all 'transitionals'? how many animals have existed since the dinosaurs? even if the number were in the millions, and i would suspect that number to reach into the billions, not all of them fossilize, as the conditions for fossilization are not ever present, and having only surveyed a tiny portion of the globe for fossils, we are bound to find many more, but nowhere near the amount of animals that have lived.

nobody should be arguing against evolution without first reading this essay (the words, 'this essay', is the link). not only does it provide many evidences of evolution beyond the fossil record, it also provides predictions and potential falsifications. it is the most thorough reading on evolution i have come across and speaks in great detail about those separate lines of evidence i hinted at earlier. take note to pay special attention when i mentions 'twin nested hierarchies'.

you have no excuse not to read this if you suggest evolution is not a valid scientific theory, as it is proof positive that it is.

edited to add: irreducible complexity, something some of you have hinted at, is no challenge to evolution, as every 'irreducibly complex feature' presented has been shown to be possibly beneficial to the organism. as has been mentioned, without being present at the time, it is exceptionally difficult to prove what it could have been for, but the evidnece is still strongly supportive of evolution.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Good question, can someone answer this?

I have no clue about evolution, but I'll jump in with a question that struck me-- why does the mutation have to be gradual? What if instead of a an arm turning into a half fin and then a full fin, you have a freak fish that's suddenly born with a full fin, and that fish, because he has a full fin, is like the Brad Pitt of fish, and all the little hoochie fishes wanna ride the full finned fish's nuts, and he has 100's of little finned fishes, and bada bing.

the other thing to note is that 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of mutations are fatal to the organism. i have yet to learn of ANY mutation that benefits any organism, but it single-cellular or multi-cellular organism. for any organism to suddenly obtain a mutation (beyond genetic, but even physical) that is beneficial is almost sci-fi.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

With this sentence I agree 100%. My point is that while evolution still remains a theory with substantial holes, the majority of those holes lying in the "HOW", it's just as ridiculous to tell people that God COULDN'T have been involved in that process as it is to say that it is a PERFECT theory (ie: fact).

Science says nothing about god at all. Evolution says nothing abour god.

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Intellegent design is the belief that God created the universe using scientific principles like evolution. Which is actually a nice way of doing it, since there are so many holes in evolution compared to every other aspect of how the earth was created.

The problem with ID is it uses God-of-gaps arguments. Since X is unknown, it must have been god.

The problem the scientific community has with ID is that it is being presented by some people as science or an alternative to science with is just as valid.

ID cannot be tested, and therefore can't be proven wrong, so it isn't science

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Enter God into that equation, and you can use science to explain EVERYTHING else - and it still fits into intellegent design.

Ok, that isn't the sort of ID that causes controversy. In general ID is used to refer to biological development, using concepts such irreducable complexity.

As for entire cosmology, ID from some being - any explanation is as "valid" as another.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by imind

why don't we have records of all 'transitionals'?

\

Why don't you have records of ANY transitions? Even the family of species I quoted from Thorgrim's copy/paste extravaganzy, described as having the most "complete" amount of fossil records, couldn't provide a SINGLE peice of transitory proof.

It's not like i'm saying i'll need 100% of all transitions to believe in evolution. I'm asking for just a few.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Kytro

ID cannot be tested, and therefore can't be proven wrong, so it isn't science

Exactly, it's a religion. And since evolution has neatly set itself up as being a theory that can operate under the ABSENCE of evidence, it to is a religion - not science.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Exactly, it's a religion. And since evolution has neatly set itself up as being a theory that can operate under the ABSENCE of evidence, it to is a religion - not science.

Evolution is OBSERVABLE and TESTABLE. Seems like science to me. How about ID? Didn't think so.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Exactly, it's a religion. And since evolution has neatly set itself up as being a theory that can operate under the ABSENCE of evidence, it to is a religion - not science.

But evolution does has evidence to back it up, and it is testable.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Kytro

But evolution does has evidence to back it up, and it is testable.