Intelligent Falling

[Daisy]

Apparently, evolution is not the only scientific theory now questioned by the creationists. The little understood Theory of Gravity is now under fire:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
August 17, 2005 | Issue 41•33
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."

Source: theOnion (linkie)

 

[Deacon]

Uhhhh...do I hear satire anyone???

Rob

 

[Daisy]

Yeah, I hope so.

I mean, I hope that's what you hear as that's what it is.

 

[JamesJ]

I see... and this was posted here... why?

There is a clean humor forum.

 

[Daisy]

This is specifically science satire, that's why.

 

[Gina B]

I read it as I listened to this song: It Just Happened

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Gina L:
I read it as I listened to this song: It Just Happened

Hi Gina! Welcome back. Long time - no say.
Again, thanks for the forum on which we play.

 

[fossilman]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gina L:
I read it as I listened to this song: It Just Happened

Hi Gina! Welcome back. Long time - no say.
Again, thanks for the forum on which we play. </font>[/QUOTE]Whether you force lyrics to fit a rhyme, or science to fit a literal reading of Genesis, you end up with the same thing: nonsensical ramblings that aren't very interesting.

Just my opinion.

Another hit and run post by fossilman.

 

[Pete]

From the site that brings us "God Diagnosed With Bipolar Disorder"

The "Throw out bits of the Bible and replace it with 924,387,652,985,622,897 years of evolution brigade" haven't lost any credibility in my eyes though.....never having any to start with might have something to do with that


Oops....Science forum....Oh well, too late, looked up site and typed this, may as well hit the Add Reply button now

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Deacon:
Uhhhh...do I hear satire anyone???

Apparantly, there's still a few people who don't realize that the Onion is a satire site.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Deacon:
Uhhhh...do I hear satire anyone???

Apparantly, there's still a few people who don't realize that the Onion is a satire site. </font>[/QUOTE]Considering the poster who a few days ago said that perhaps gravitational evidence suggesting the existence of dark matter was just God testing our faith, maybe there's reason to think this was a serious news story!

 

[Gina B]

LOL!
Hi jcrawford, cute reply!
Yes, nice forum. I wish there was time for me to post on it like I had planned though.

Note of amusement... at a certain unnamed college about a week ago, an atheistic one of the science -ology students was complaining that she felt the evolution theory was being mocked by the teacher.
I tried not to grin. Really. It's probaby the ONLY class there where unbelievers aren't coddled, and for a brief moment I wondered if I should complain that in every classroom but geology, I feel as if MY beliefs are mocked.
But I didn't. I did have to sit and wonder why five atheists could initiate drastic measures in order not to feel offended, while 100 Christians would have no effect.
Maybe because we don't throw fits? Should we? Should we get the ACLU involved if we get offended by atheist teachings and the institution refuses to change?
If my belief in creation is laughed at and I'm told the only "correct" view is evolution, should I try to claim discrimination?
I would say no.
But I'd like to know what you'd say.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Gina L:
LOL! Hi jcrawford, cute reply!

Note of amusement... at a certain unnamed college about a week ago, an atheistic one of the science -ology students was complaining that she felt the evolution theory was being mocked by the teacher.

Ooh, a new word! Scienceology! Rhymes with ideology. What is it? The study of science, of course. Besides ideologists, we can also call neo-Darwinists scienceologists.

I did have to sit and wonder why five atheists could initiate drastic measures in order not to feel offended, while 100 Christians would have no effect.
Maybe because we don't throw fits? Should we? Should we get the ACLU involved if we get offended by atheist teachings and the institution refuses to change?
If my belief in creation is laughed at and I'm told the only "correct" view is evolution, should I try to claim discrimination?
I would say no.
But I'd like to know what you'd say.

I would say yes, but don't call the ACLU. Call the Rutherford Institute, the American Center for Law and Justice, (ACLJ) the Thomas More Law Center, or the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). The ACLU does a better job defending communists, neo-nazis and atheists.

Start an Anti-Darwin League (ADL) in your school if not a pro-creationist group sponsored by ICR or AIG and read "Bones of Contention" by Marvin Lubenow to find out how anti-Semitic neo-Darwinist race theories about human evolution really are.

btw: I just made up a new species name for the whole human race and all the human fossils in the human fossil record. Human speciens for us modern folk and Human speciensis for those in the fossil record.

Of course, neo-Darwinists can continue to call themselves Homo sapiens if they prefer, as long as they don't call the descendents of Adam and Eve Homo this and Homo that.

 

[Gina B]

I like it, but shouldn't the fossil ones end in were instead of is? Human specienswas.
Don't forget that scienceologists cannot accept names for groupings that end in consonants on both words. For double credibility I suggest you go with "huma specia".

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Gina L:
I like it, but shouldn't the fossil ones end in were instead of is? Human specienswas.
Don't forget that scienceologists cannot accept names for groupings that end in consonants on both words. For double credibility I suggest you go with "huma specia".

I think I'll settle for plain old Human species, with Human as the genus, species as the species and such Latin names as sapiens, neanderthalensis, heldelbergensis, erectus, et al., as sub-species names.

That way no Human species sapiens will get the false impression that Human species neandertalensis and Human species erectus were anything less than full and equal members of our one human race and species.

 

[Rachel]

Originally posted by Gina L:
I read it as I listened to this song: It Just Happened

Funny thanks Gina!