There's the Theory of Evolution and the Interpretation of Evolution

This law is simply about how all objects (without air resistance) fall at the same rate of acceleration/speed, up to the same maximum speed.

Nothing about 'gravity' causing it.


Why does everyone say an object 'falls' to Earth?

Nobody says an object was 'pulled down' to Earth.


Even when gravity is supported, they say objects 'fall' to Earth!



So why don't we ever say that an object is 'pulled down' to Earth?


Think about how it feels when you drop from a certain height, and hit the ground below........

Do you feel like something is pulling you down, towards Earth?

Or do you feel like you are simply falling, freely, within air, towards the Earth?


There's a big difference between falling to Earth, or 'being pulled down' to Earth.

That's why we know we 'fall' to Earth, and why we say all objects 'fall' to Earth!


As we can feel when we're 'pulled', or 'pushed', by an external force - like a strong wind, for example.

a reply to: turbonium1

There's a big difference between falling to Earth, or 'being pulled down' to Earth.

NO... no there's not

Not even the slightest difference

It's very challenging trying to hide any/all evidence of the Earth's creation.


It's much easier to fool them about how life is just dumb luck!

a reply to: turbonium1

So...smart luck?
God does roll dice?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

So...smart luck?
God does roll dice?

Like in D & D?

I would think that in regard to orbital mechanics, it would be more like lawn bowls or snooker.

But I really imagine that if God gambled it would be in the most exclusive and opulent Monte Carlo casino (but He'd of course cheat, because, you know, God).

a reply to: chr0naut

I would think that in regard to orbital mechanics, it would be more like lawn bowls or snooker.

Indeed. Law of gravity, old sport.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

There's a big difference between falling to Earth, or 'being pulled down' to Earth.

NO... no there's not

Not even the slightest difference

Which proves the force isn't there.

Any real force, opposed by another force, must work against this force, obviously.

That's why we call it a force.


A force that pulls you down, will exert this same force to anything opposing it.

So a bird would struggle to fly from the Earth, or not even be able to fly at all. A force is acting against the bird from flying up.


That's how a force works. It goes against opposing forces. It doesn't let a bird fly freely up in air.

A child would know it's absurd!

a reply to: turbonium1

So a bird would struggle to fly from the Earth, or not even be able to fly at all.

They flap their wings.

Vigorously.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

So a bird would struggle to fly from the Earth, or not even be able to fly at all.

They flap their wings.

Never opposed by the greatest force known to exist, which pulls all objects down to the surface.....except little insects and birds, who wield an immense power, which the force of gravity cannot hope to match!!


Amazing, indeed!

a reply to: turbonium1

Actually, compared to other forces, gravity is quite weak.
Relatively.

If there were no birds or insects freely flying around, you'd have an argument that a great force is holding everything to the surface.

Unfortunately, you have no argument.

A force would apply to anything opposing it. And that includes birds and insects, too.

All it takes is a pair of micro-sized wings, to overcome the greatest force ever known. Holds the moon in it's powerful grip, while absolutely useless against a mosquito!


You go on believing that, now!

originally posted by: turbonium1
If there were no birds or insects freely flying around, you'd have an argument that a great force is holding everything to the surface.

Unfortunately, you have no argument.

A force would apply to anything opposing it. And that includes birds and insects, too.

All it takes is a pair of micro-sized wings, to overcome the greatest force ever known. Holds the moon in it's powerful grip, while absolutely useless against a mosquito!


You go on believing that, now!

Oh dear. You again, the Lord Commander of all Trolldom.
Have you heard of the concept of something called an 'atmosphere'? Do you understand how basic physics work?
Now, I'm convinced that you do and all of your protestations against the idea of gravity or the Earth being a sphere is just an attempt to see how many people you can annoy - as you are perfectly well aware that gravity exists and that we live on a globe.

originally posted by: chr0naut
In the posts that were being referenced, the wording in contention was "fallacy" and BARCS provided, in his defense, the definition for "logical fallacy", which carries a specific and different meaning to the wording in the way it was used in context. It stands as an example of BARCS trying to play semantics and hoping that no one will recognize the 'switcheroo' (and apparently I cherry picked the definition of the word. LOL).

This is why context matters. There was never a "switcheroo." If you go back to the original posts, I pointed out the exact fallacy you committed, so there should be no confusion in what was meant by "fallacy."

This post is the original discussion on that topic, so read it in context please. I didn't even use the word fallacy in the first post, I just said that it was confirmation bias. You directly used the rain example as an argument for the validity of prayer and the post even started "I've seen prayer work."

The word fallacy without the term "logical" in front of it CAN STILL mean an error in reasoning as I CLEARLY demonstrated in the post above. Again, you are just playing dumb to save face and equivocating definitions (ANOTHER FALLACY). You are using that to dishonestly besmirch me, by inventing some fantasy about me switching words and meanings on you when my meaning was consistent the entire time.

All I'm asking is that you stop the meaningless semantics arguments. Do you honestly not see the issue with trying to tell ME what definition I MEANT when I USED the word?

I wouldn't care so much if you would just debate/argue honestly, that's all I wanted from the beginning. You drag many threads off topic because you nitpick semantics and focus it on word meanings instead of the topic itself. You are the one who is needlessly dragging this on and on. Let it go. You used fallacious reasoning, I called it out. It's over. Normally people move on when this happens, instead of vehemently defending themselves when there is nothing to defend.

I may be opinionated at times, but I'm not a troll and did not misrepresent anything you said.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1
If there were no birds or insects freely flying around, you'd have an argument that a great force is holding everything to the surface.

Unfortunately, you have no argument.

A force would apply to anything opposing it. And that includes birds and insects, too.

All it takes is a pair of micro-sized wings, to overcome the greatest force ever known. Holds the moon in it's powerful grip, while absolutely useless against a mosquito!


You go on believing that, now!

Oh dear. You again, the Lord Commander of all Trolldom.
Have you heard of the concept of something called an 'atmosphere'? Do you understand how basic physics work?
Now, I'm convinced that you do and all of your protestations against the idea of gravity or the Earth being a sphere is just an attempt to see how many people you can annoy - as you are perfectly well aware that gravity exists and that we live on a globe.

Why would my arguments ''annoy' you, or anyone else? If you don't agree with me, or whatever, then don't respond to my posts, or leave the thread. The only reason you are here is to call me a troll, spew some crap....which are exactly how a real troll behaves.


I'm here to discuss the issues, not battle against trolls who do anything to AVOID discussing the issues.

Saying 'have you heard of the atmosphere?' or 'do you understand how physics works?' is not discussing the issues.

If anything is truly annoying, and childish, and worthless, your last post would be a fine example of it.


Why not act like mature, respectable adults.....okay?

a reply to: turbonium1

Which proves the force isn't there.

Any real force, opposed by another force, must work against this force, obviously.

That's why we call it a force.

No... IF you drop a ball it doesn't float... it falls to the earth

that would be a force pulling it to the ground.... same reason you can't flap your arms and fly off into the wilderness

Yet something reasonably small can... with wings of course

A force that pulls you down, will exert this same force to anything opposing it.

So a bird would struggle to fly from the Earth, or not even be able to fly at all. A force is acting against the bird from flying up.

Which Gravity does... a bird will struggle to get off the ground IF their wings are not in good shape

See we've discussed this before.... you're clueless about the concept of "lift"... along with many other basic elementary subjects

That's how a force works. It goes against opposing forces. It doesn't let a bird fly freely up in air.

A child would know it's absurd!

Which somehow makes me believe you're a child... Though im sure you're not

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1
If there were no birds or insects freely flying around, you'd have an argument that a great force is holding everything to the surface.

Unfortunately, you have no argument.

A force would apply to anything opposing it. And that includes birds and insects, too.

All it takes is a pair of micro-sized wings, to overcome the greatest force ever known. Holds the moon in it's powerful grip, while absolutely useless against a mosquito!


You go on believing that, now!

Oh dear. You again, the Lord Commander of all Trolldom.
Have you heard of the concept of something called an 'atmosphere'? Do you understand how basic physics work?
Now, I'm convinced that you do and all of your protestations against the idea of gravity or the Earth being a sphere is just an attempt to see how many people you can annoy - as you are perfectly well aware that gravity exists and that we live on a globe.

Why would my arguments ''annoy' you, or anyone else? If you don't agree with me, or whatever, then don't respond to my posts, or leave the thread. The only reason you are here is to call me a troll, spew some crap....which are exactly how a real troll behaves.


I'm here to discuss the issues, not battle against trolls who do anything to AVOID discussing the issues.

Saying 'have you heard of the atmosphere?' or 'do you understand how physics works?' is not discussing the issues.

If anything is truly annoying, and childish, and worthless, your last post would be a fine example of it.


Why not act like mature, respectable adults.....okay?

No, sorry, you don't get to finger point and claim that I'm a troll. You have pulled the same crap in thread after thread after thread - you have posted claims based on nonsense, instantly dismissed all evidence that gets posted that utterly explodes your claims and then repeated the same rubbish elsewhere, claiming that you're just trying to state your theory. Well, I and others have memories and we remember what you said. You have never acted like any form of adult.
Your comments about gravity have been stated elsewhere. You failed to grasp the concept when it was explained there and now you are doing the same here. That's why I came up with my theory. Either you are genuinely utterly unable to understand basic physics, not to mention very basic science, or you do understand it and are trolling us all.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1
If there were no birds or insects freely flying around, you'd have an argument that a great force is holding everything to the surface.

Unfortunately, you have no argument.

A force would apply to anything opposing it. And that includes birds and insects, too.

All it takes is a pair of micro-sized wings, to overcome the greatest force ever known. Holds the moon in it's powerful grip, while absolutely useless against a mosquito!


You go on believing that, now!

Oh dear. You again, the Lord Commander of all Trolldom.
Have you heard of the concept of something called an 'atmosphere'? Do you understand how basic physics work?
Now, I'm convinced that you do and all of your protestations against the idea of gravity or the Earth being a sphere is just an attempt to see how many people you can annoy - as you are perfectly well aware that gravity exists and that we live on a globe.

Why would my arguments ''annoy' you, or anyone else? If you don't agree with me, or whatever, then don't respond to my posts, or leave the thread. The only reason you are here is to call me a troll, spew some crap....which are exactly how a real troll behaves.


I'm here to discuss the issues, not battle against trolls who do anything to AVOID discussing the issues.

Saying 'have you heard of the atmosphere?' or 'do you understand how physics works?' is not discussing the issues.

If anything is truly annoying, and childish, and worthless, your last post would be a fine example of it.


Why not act like mature, respectable adults.....okay?

No, sorry, you don't get to finger point and claim that I'm a troll. You have pulled the same crap in thread after thread after thread - you have posted claims based on nonsense, instantly dismissed all evidence that gets posted that utterly explodes your claims and then repeated the same rubbish elsewhere, claiming that you're just trying to state your theory. Well, I and others have memories and we remember what you said. You have never acted like any form of adult.
Your comments about gravity have been stated elsewhere. You failed to grasp the concept when it was explained there and now you are doing the same here. That's why I came up with my theory. Either you are genuinely utterly unable to understand basic physics, not to mention very basic science, or you do understand it and are trolling us all.

I've been discussing the issues, and if anyone disagrees with my arguments, I expect a reply to the points I've made.

Calling people a troll is not a proper reply, to anything. Posting it repeatedly to tarnish someone is utterly juvenile, and should not be allowed to continue on and on, in these threads.


I've addressed the points against my arguments, including yours, afaik. If not, then repeat what I didn't address, specifically.

Suggesting I've never addressed your points', works better if you actually mention the points...

I'd much prefer that you would ONLY have raised those points, so I could address them. That's how discussions work.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1
If there were no birds or insects freely flying around, you'd have an argument that a great force is holding everything to the surface.

Unfortunately, you have no argument.

A force would apply to anything opposing it. And that includes birds and insects, too.

All it takes is a pair of micro-sized wings, to overcome the greatest force ever known. Holds the moon in it's powerful grip, while absolutely useless against a mosquito!


You go on believing that, now!

Oh dear. You again, the Lord Commander of all Trolldom.
Have you heard of the concept of something called an 'atmosphere'? Do you understand how basic physics work?
Now, I'm convinced that you do and all of your protestations against the idea of gravity or the Earth being a sphere is just an attempt to see how many people you can annoy - as you are perfectly well aware that gravity exists and that we live on a globe.

Why would my arguments ''annoy' you, or anyone else? If you don't agree with me, or whatever, then don't respond to my posts, or leave the thread. The only reason you are here is to call me a troll, spew some crap....which are exactly how a real troll behaves.


I'm here to discuss the issues, not battle against trolls who do anything to AVOID discussing the issues.

Saying 'have you heard of the atmosphere?' or 'do you understand how physics works?' is not discussing the issues.

If anything is truly annoying, and childish, and worthless, your last post would be a fine example of it.


Why not act like mature, respectable adults.....okay?

No, sorry, you don't get to finger point and claim that I'm a troll. You have pulled the same crap in thread after thread after thread - you have posted claims based on nonsense, instantly dismissed all evidence that gets posted that utterly explodes your claims and then repeated the same rubbish elsewhere, claiming that you're just trying to state your theory. Well, I and others have memories and we remember what you said. You have never acted like any form of adult.
Your comments about gravity have been stated elsewhere. You failed to grasp the concept when it was explained there and now you are doing the same here. That's why I came up with my theory. Either you are genuinely utterly unable to understand basic physics, not to mention very basic science, or you do understand it and are trolling us all.

I've been discussing the issues, and if anyone disagrees with my arguments, I expect a reply to the points I've made.

Calling people a troll is not a proper reply, to anything. Posting it repeatedly to tarnish someone is utterly juvenile, and should not be allowed to continue on and on, in these threads.


I've addressed the points against my arguments, including yours, afaik. If not, then repeat what I didn't address, specifically.

Suggesting I've never addressed your points', works better if you actually mention the points...

I'd much prefer that you would ONLY have raised those points, so I could address them. That's how discussions work.

No, in thread after thread after thread you have refused to acknowledge any evidence whatsoever that challenges your statements that scorn the existence of evolution, a spherical Earth and now gravity. In other words you refuse to admit that basic physics can possibly be correct. And all you do is parrot the same spurious nonsense. In, as I said, thread after thread after thread. You have a reputation.

a reply to: turbonium1

This is a thread about Evolution, not Gravity.

It seems to me, from your line of questioning about how mosquitos fly while debating the semantics between "pull" and "fall", that you're lacking the basic concepts of physics. For instance, flying organisms just need to be able to create lift with their wings and thrust with their tails to overcome gravity. Not too different from how an airplane does it, except they have these nifty things called engines to overcome the pull of gravity. Anyway here's a link to curious kids about it:

theconversation.com...

Or, you can just post your gravity question in this thread:
Ask any questions you want about Physics

Good luck

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

This is why context matters. There was never a "switcheroo." If you go back to the original posts, I pointed out the exact fallacy you committed, so there should be no confusion in what was meant by "fallacy."

This post is the original discussion on that topic, so read it in context please.

I didn't even use the word fallacy in the first post, I just said that it was confirmation bias. You directly used the rain example as an argument for the validity of prayer and the post even started "I've seen prayer work."

You only linked the post but not the topic thread, so context was not shown in the link you provided. The actual topic thread with that post reference is: Science for Religion A - proof of God Creation (from back in 2017) and wasn't part of this current topic thread. Surely an appeal to context with an out of context reference is not entirely honest?

The first reference in this thread of my previous statement about prayer was in this post,by you, that is the context. It was factually incorrect (my prayer did not mention rain, nor did I state anywhere that I prayed for rain) and it is obvious that introducing an attempt to ridicule me by mis-referencing a year old comment, from an unrelated thread, was both a 'red herring' to the current topic and 'ad hominem'.

The word fallacy without the term "logical" in front of it CAN STILL mean an error in reasoning as I CLEARLY demonstrated in the post above. Again, you are just playing dumb to save face and equivocating definitions (ANOTHER FALLACY).

You seem confused, I was actually de-equivocating definitions there, you were the one equivocating 'logical fallacy' with 'fallacy'.



Nor was I "playing dumb". I was clearly being accurate and specific about definitions.

Stop "playing dumb" and accusing me of things that you were doing.

You are using that to dishonestly besmirch me, by inventing some fantasy about me switching words and meanings on you when my meaning was consistent the entire time.

Fantasy?

I only accused you of switching meanings, not words. Your argument back there was purely semantic.

All I'm asking is that you stop the meaningless semantics arguments. Do you honestly not see the issue with trying to tell ME what definition I MEANT when I USED the word?

The word definitions are independent of you.

We cannot know what is in your mind, we have to trust that you are expressing yourself properly. Taking word meanings at face value is part of the way we parse your arguments.

I wouldn't care so much if you would just debate/argue honestly, that's all I wanted from the beginning.

Really? You didn't have any intention of dropping into a thread about evolution with an anti-religious agenda, like you have done trolling Origins and Creationism threads, previously? Has it all been accidental?

You drag many threads off topic

That is true, we both do.

because you nitpick semantics and focus it on word meanings instead of the topic itself.

And you don't?

What about your repeated redefinition, over multiple threads, of words such as 'hypothesis' and 'theory' and how the semantic pedantry there is usually entirely irrelevant to the point of the thread topic?

You are the one who is needlessly dragging this on and on. Let it go. You used fallacious reasoning, I called it out. It's over. Normally people move on when this happens, instead of vehemently defending themselves when there is nothing to defend.

I may be opinionated at times, but I'm not a troll and did not misrepresent anything you said.

You are opinionated but you seem to be unable or unwilling to critically evaluate your opinions, or to follow someone else's line of reasoning.

You make factual errors, we all do, but you blame others of misleading you, as a way of justifying yourself.

You have ridiculed, misrepresented and misquoted me and many others (it seems to be your modus operandi).

You also are guilty of using the same logical fallacies that you accuse others of.

You drop in to particular topic threads, usually taking up argument against something not previously mentioned in the topic and, in so doing, introducing your own agenda where it isn't the topic under discussion.

What does that make you?