Just as much evidence for evolution as gravity but both are just theories

after all. Maybe Gravity is just god throwing stuff at us. :crazy:

the Earth sucks.

From The Onion archive:

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.

Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains 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.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

would have to do with sucking, wouldn't it?

Of course the whole problem is not with God as much as people's concepts of God. For some reason, many many folks get their concept confused with Reality. In my concept, God is everything, so of course evolution is part of God, just as everything is. I'm a believer who is perfectly comfortable with science, as I see it as God manifesting God.

:) I saw that on a bumper sticker many, many years ago. It took me a few days to figure out what it meant. duh!

But the point stays the same. Evolution could be a law and as evident as an apple falling from a tree and the fundies would still deny it.

The term "law" has been abandoned by science. Newtonian "laws" will not always hold true under all conditions, thus they are theoretical.

There are no "laws" in science. There are only hypotheses and theories.

As of last year we were still using the term law in my college physics class.

"A law is a description of a natural phenomenon or principle that invariably holds true under specific conditions and will occur under certain circumstances."

It isn't supposed to hold up in all circumstances, only specific ones.

We need to put this thing in perspective. It would be great if there were other areas we could highlight "academic disagreement," but in which the unconventional side looks totally ridiculous. It will help discredit the anti-evolutionists.

Especially puzzled by the ones who are so convinced the theory of evolution is bogus while they go to the bull markets to look over big critters to breed their cows so they will get better steers and heifers.
They want to bring good rams in for their ewes to build better lambs. They introduce new roosters to the hens when the chicks start looking sorta iffy.

Hell, they are helping evolution along, doing it knowingly, doing it cuz it helps profits for the family ranch They teach their kids what to look for in breeding better stock... But they think Darwin was full of crap.

It just boggles my mind.

edit: typo

surely you don't believe that things just "accidentally" always fall down, do you? Some greater intelligence *had* to have designed falling.

Helium balloons, the *only* exception* to gravity, is totally unexplained by the false scientific theories, but is evidence of the IFF (Intelligent Falling Facilitator). *Only* a designer could possibly have enough of a sense of humor to have included helium balloons in the falling thingy.

I like your humor and its a good point, but I think its a mistake to attribute the word "intelligent" to anything a fundie says or does. In my opinion, the fact that fundies even exist disproves the notion of god or anything intelligent behind creation at all.

:shrug:

God rolling potatoes down his basement steps! My grandma said so, and I want it taught in science classes!

TlalocW

I can't remember how I found this. Googled it somehow.

<http://www.timecube.com/>

Gravity is a fact AND a theory.
Evolution is a fact AND a theory.

That both exist is undeniable. The "theory" aspect of each is the *how*--the mechanism that explains gravity (and evolution).

several hypotheses of Evolution of species. In a strict scientific sense, only something that can be tested experimentally can be termed a theory. Evolution of species, because of its long time scales involved, remains a hypothesis. Evolution of, say, HIV viruses, can be called a theory, because changes in the genetic code of this relatively smiple virus can be demonstrated in a "laboratory" of unwilling human subjects. But then again, it is a particular kind of evolution in which HIV remains HIV. It never becomes HPV or herpes, get my drift? Evolution of one species into another, as postulated by Darwin, has not been experimentally confirmed or observed. It has been inferred. Therefore, it is not a theory. Neither is "Intelligent design".

I am really happy to have it. I was aware of the doubling of chromosome content leading to "speciation", or the "speciation" by geograhical separation, like birds on an island that lost their ability to fly, and would not interbreed with their ancestral species.
I am glad to have them in a neat article like that, and I will study them. My critique goes like this: We can call them speciation events by many reasonable definition of a species, but what bothers me si that in these instances there was no new genetic material created by mutations (something that seems to be a requirement for evolution of species we see today from a common ancestor). The doubling of chromosome content leads to a new species, but the gene content is the same as before, only it's doubled in quantity. The bird population on an island that loses the ability to fly because of intense natural selection has lost some genes or regulatory elements that enabled its ancestors to develop muscles and bones for flying. You see, it is a case of speciation but it is speciation by LOSS of genetic information. Darwin's "theory" demands that there is an overall increase in gene/information content over time because of mutations and selection. Loss of gene content/information often leads to speciation, but it is going in the wrong direction, IMO. Thanks for the article again. thereismore