It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Intelligent falling will replace gravity theory in schools

page: 2
4
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 05:22 AM

Originally posted by Rren
The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design:

Perhaps another example will help. If one wishes to explain why astronauts were able to fly to the moon when apples usually fall to the earth, one will not primarily cite the law of gravity. Such a law is far too general to be primarily relevant to explanation in this context, because the law allows for a vast array of possible outcomes depending on initial and boundary conditions. The law stating that all matter gravitates according to an inverse square law is consistent with both an apple falling to the earth and with an astronaut flying to the moon. Explaining why the astronaut flew when apples routinely fall, therefore, requires more than citing the law, since the law is presumed operative in both situations. Accounting for the differing outcomes—the falling apple and the flying astronaut—will require references to the antecedent conditions and events that differed in the two situations. Indeed, explanation in this case involves an accounting of the way engineers have used technology to alter the conditions affecting the astronauts to allow them to overcome the constraints that gravity ordinarily imposes on earthbound objects.

Seems like these guys are cool with gravity theory as is, maybe i'm missing something

That passage you have quoted makes no mention of the theories of gravity at all. It talks about the Law of Gravity which, as well as being a mathematical postulate, is all about describing how objects behave because of gravity. For example if you drop an object on Earth it will accelerate towards it at roughly 9.8 metres per second per second, this is an aspect of that Law. The theories of gravity attempt to explain why the object falls towards the Earth.

From what I gather, none of these theories work completely and they contradict each other in many cases. This would seem to leave the door open to saying "well it must be God then". Not sure how many people advocate this, though logically if you are going to have Intelligent Design then you must be able to have other faux sciences that try to explain other aspects of reality in terms of an "intelligent designer".

posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 11:48 AM
Its very simple Rren with “Design inference” anything that can not be explain by scientific method is a “trademark of intelligent causes” if you can not explain how gravity came to be then you can apply intelligent causes to explain it, “God did it” he,he. Occurs you know is a joke.

Now is not surprised that already is been explanations by Creationist and ID believers that will cover any subject in relation to sciences, history, philosophy and almost anything else.

posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 04:35 PM
Gravity cannot be explained as of yet. But it can be witnessed. There are countless astronomical examples whereby stars, meteors, commets have been affected by the gravitational forces of certain bodies which they come into close proximity with. The Sirrus stars are a perfect example whereby the gravitational forces of each cause the other to 'wobble' along its orbit. (I am no astronomer so excuse the crude example)

I dont know where God gets the time to create so many people and still manage all that pushing and pulling...
never mind all the other things on his day-planner.

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 07:47 AM
In that case if I jump off a building, I am not falling I am being pushed down by God, therefore god is murdering me. And when a place crashes it is not falling, it's being pushed down by God. Therefore God is a mass murderer.

[edit on 29-8-2005 by DarkSide]

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 09:12 AM
Why cant they just believe that god created the laws? Why does it seem that they want that god does everything directly?

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 01:24 PM
Good point Darkside, where do I file the papers for mass murder?

"In the case of World v God for the murders of several billion people over the past 20-30 thousand years the lawyer Jonny Cochren(sp? also I heard he died so this works perfectly for God) has the CHewbacca defense, the defense that made him famous in life during the OJ Simpson case. The prosecuters have evidence by the ton, literally. They have dump trucks full of documents proving the case, this is considered to be a dog and pony show as everyone knows God is guilty. When convicted he could face up to 7,000 years to life, and being immortal......."

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 04:35 PM
The theory of gravity leaves many questions unanswered in the field of particle physics. It is definitely an incomplete theory. Until some one comes out with a better explanation, I would definitely support Intelligent Falling!!!. As is explained here...

Intelligent Falling For Dummies

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 04:47 PM

Originally posted by they see ALL

how can they say He exists without scientific proof???

The universe is an alive and conscious entity - but not in the way we are - Just like our bodies function, so does the body of the universe, would it not be safe to assume that it also has its own intelligent mind that does need need to consider what happens within itself on the micro level?

You are a speck, independent within the universe - Is it not enough to simple just be happy?

Unlocking secrets of the universe seems worth little value if we irradiate our ourselves with technology.

Suddenly, in the face of all I've been seeing - Id rather be a farmer

Science & Industry is tearing this world apart

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:25 PM
Hahaha, love the Onion guys

It's obviously a joke, but shows one important point: Considering the argumentation the creationists are using to attack the theory of evolution, they'd also have to attack gravity and ask for a name change.

top topics

4