Warning: Gravity is “Only a Theory”

[Ernie S.]

Gravity is a myth...

Things fall to earth because God makes them do that

Actually, things fall to earth because Liberals suck. If we taxed the hell out of green energy projects, we would all be able to fly.

 

[Ernie S.]

The Copernician Theory, that the earth revolves around the sun, is also just a theory.

Exactly! The fact is, the Earth revolves around barack obama

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Gravity is a myth...

Things fall to earth because God makes them do that

I disagree - things fall, because they fall OUT OF FAVOUR with God.

We are bound to the earth because of sin.

 

[hangover]

Gravity really is only a theory. They are still looking for the God Particle which would be that particle that gives the atom mass. Mass is why there is such a thing as gravity. Gravity is merely the physical manifestation of one object's attraction to another object. Once they find that particle gravity won't be a theory any more. That's what the super collider is supposed to do.


Until then the theory of gravity will only be a theory because there is no explanation of what it is.

Wrong.

The Copernician Theory has been proven. Yet, it is still considered a theory.

Wrong...once a theory has been "proven", then it's a fact. So many think they know what they don't.

Actually, things fall to earth because Liberals suck. If we taxed the hell out of green energy projects, we would all be able to fly.

Con logic. You've been listening to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann again haven't you. Proud to be stupid.

 

[abu afak]

Gravity really is only a theory. They are still looking for the God Particle which would be that particle that gives the atom mass. Mass is why there is such a thing as gravity. Gravity is merely the physical manifestation of one object's attraction to another object. Once they find that particle gravity won't be a theory any more. That's what the super collider is supposed to do.


Until then the theory of gravity will only be a theory because there is no explanation of what it is.

Wrong.

The Copernician Theory has been proven. Yet, it is still considered a theory.

Wrong...once a theory has been "proven", then it's a fact. So many think they know what they don't.

Actually, things fall to earth because Liberals suck. If we taxed the hell out of green energy projects, we would all be able to fly.

Con logic. You've been listening to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann again haven't you. Proud to be stupid.

Evolution IS a Fact AND a theory.
Most people's confusion is due to their Unfamiliarity or DISingenuity in use of the word 'Theory'.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American
JOHN RENNIE, editor in chief
June 2002
(orig by subscription
Now here, Second article down
http://mukto-mona.net/Articles/jaffor/jaffor_intelligent_design.html )

1. Evolution is 'only' a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

Previously posted here by me: A String title that's still on FIRST Page.
Silver platter time again, as if that String wasn't already

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

"....In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess.

Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a Fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning..."

 

[hangover]

Most people's confusion is due to their Unfamiliarity or DISingenuity in use of the word 'Theory'.

the·o·ry (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

theory [ˈθɪərɪ]
n pl -ries
1. a system of rules, procedures, and assumptions used to produce a result
2. abstract knowledge or reasoning
3. a speculative or conjectural view or idea I have a theory about that
4. an ideal or hypothetical situation (esp in the phrase in theory)
5. a set of hypotheses related by logical or mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms the theory of relativity
6. a nontechnical name for hypothesis [1]

the•o•ry (ˈθi ə ri, ˈθɪər i)

n., pl. -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Darwin's theory of evolution.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural.
3. a body of mathematical principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it.
6. a guess or conjecture.
7. contemplation or speculation.

theory (th-r, thîr)
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

theory (ˈθiəri) – plural ˈtheories – noun
1. an idea or explanation which has not yet been proved to be correct.

 

[abu afak]

Hangover, you Dope.
Just above I went to Great Lengths to address the Scientific definition of 'Theory' vs the layman/elementary school definition.
So you merely repeat the Simpleton Mistake DESPITE me already and Unmistakably elucidating that difference.
And even within your Goofy attempt you usually highlighted definition 6 or 7, the Last; not the first, 1.
I've never seen so many 80 IQers on one message board.

You might want to try looking up 'Scientific Theory' Instead of merely 'Theory'. DUH
Of course, I've ALREADY Posted and elucidated that definition And that difference.

EDIT
NOTE the Asclepias TROLL Below who, as always, has NOT contributed anything to the discussion.
In fact, as an 80 IQer himself, he showed up on cue/call.
(WTF is HE doing in Science section anyway?)
"The mind is a terrible thing to have wasted"

`

 

[Asclepias]

Hangover, you Dope.
Just above I went to Great Lengths to address the Scientific definition of 'Theory' vs the layman/elementary school definition.
So you merely repeat the Simpleton Mistake anyway DESPITE me already and Unmistakably elucidating that difference.
And even within your Goofy attempt you usually highlighted definition 6 or 7, not the first, 1.
I've never seen so many 80 IQers on one message board.

You might want to try looking up 'Scientific Theory' Instead of merely 'Theory'. DUH
Of course, I've ALREADY Posted and elucidated that definition And that difference.

`

Stop going through great lengths to prove you are stupid.

 

[Asclepias]

No, that's very wrong and the [missed] point of the string.
Above are all Science/sciences and FACT-based except Religion, which is FAITH-based.
Science changes with New discovery/evidence; religion has No evidence.

`

Archeology continues to prove the evidence of religions. i.e. the flood, the Anunnaki, Puma Punku,the Nazca lines, Tiwanaku, the pyramids of Egypt and the Maya, Stone Henge. A lot of religion is history based.

Holy Books DO make references to Real events and places, however, the fact they are mentioned is No evidence of a god or act of thereof. God/religion are wholly Fabricated as causes/effects for the events, real or not.
People may build things because they Believe in a god but that is not Evidence of one either.
In fact, people who believe in different, even contradictory godS, build monuments to them.
All we have proof of, ergo, is most are necessarily wrong about which 'god'.
Most gods [we created all] have gone by the wayside Because of Science.
If you built, ie, a pyramid for the Sun, Fire, Rain, Lightning, 'godS' etc, it is Not proof nor even evidence of the existence of one, still just a belief/myth.

And science has proved much magic with the ATOM being 80% empty space, and no one knows how they stay together. That makes you 80% empty space, even though you are 70% water, because the atoms that make up the molecules of the water are 80% empty space too. That goes a long way to proving the possibility of God. They've even found what they call the "God particle". Now why would scientists call it that if there was NO evidence?

How is that "magic"?
How does that "go along way towards proving the possibility there's a god"? :^)
If the atom was 40% empty space would that be "evidence of god" too?
If it was 0% empty space might that not be better 'proof' of god/intelligent design?
Since when is wasted space god-like?

IOW, if/because Superstition is your Predisposition you can just point to anything and say "god".

`

You don't understand that a creator and science are not separate. They are one. It can be proven in the randomness of events as well as the consistency. Somehow we have lost contact with that and thats why we don't understand things. Simple people accept nature and live within its rules. Something sets those rules. People only get mixed up when they let their peers tell them how get in contact with that something else.

 

[hangover]

No, that's very wrong and the [missed] point of the string.
Above are all Science/sciences and FACT-based except Religion, which is FAITH-based.
Science changes with New discovery/evidence; religion has No evidence.

`

Archeology continues to prove the evidence of religions. i.e. the flood, the Anunnaki, Puma Punku,the Nazca lines, Tiwanaku, the pyramids of Egypt and the Maya, Stone Henge. A lot of religion is history based.

Holy Books DO make references to Real events and places, however, the fact they are mentioned is No evidence of a god or act of thereof. God/religion are wholly Fabricated as causes/effects for the events, real or not.
People may build things because they Believe in a god but that is not Evidence of one either.
In fact, people who believe in different, even contradictory godS, build monuments to them.
All we have proof of, ergo, is most are necessarily wrong about which 'god'.
Most gods [we created all] have gone by the wayside Because of Science.
If you built, ie, a pyramid for the Sun, Fire, Rain, Lightning, 'godS' etc, it is Not proof nor even evidence of the existence of one, still just a belief/myth.

You have no proof there is NO God, only faith that there isn't one. You put your faith in "science", which continually changes it's story because they prove themselves wrong all the time. There is much evidence that points to the existence of a God. Just because you choose to ignore it, doesn't mean it's not there. Putting your faith in the negative "belief" that there is no God, allows the negative energy to possess your soul.

And science has proved much magic with the ATOM being 80% empty space, and no one knows how they stay together. That makes you 80% empty space, even though you are 70% water, because the atoms that make up the molecules of the water are 80% empty space too. That goes a long way to proving the possibility of God. They've even found what they call the "God particle". Now why would scientists call it that if there was NO evidence?

How is that "magic"?
How does that "go along way towards proving the possibility there's a god"? :^)
If the atom was 40% empty space would that be "evidence of god" too?
If it was 0% empty space might that not be better 'proof' of god/intelligent design?
Since when is wasted space god-like?

IOW, if/because Superstition is your Predisposition you can just point to anything and say "god".

`

The magic isn't the "empty space", the magic is what keeps all atoms and everything else together.

 

[hangover]

Hangover, you Dope.
Just above I went to Great Lengths to address the Scientific definition of 'Theory' vs the layman/elementary school definition.
So you merely repeat the Simpleton Mistake DESPITE me already and Unmistakably elucidating that difference.
And even within your Goofy attempt you usually highlighted definition 6 or 7, the Last; not the first, 1.
I've never seen so many 80 IQers on one message board.

You might want to try looking up 'Scientific Theory' Instead of merely 'Theory'. DUH
Of course, I've ALREADY Posted and elucidated that definition And that difference.

EDIT
NOTE the Asclepias TROLL Below who, as always, has NOT contributed anything to the discussion.
In fact, as an 80 IQer himself, he showed up on cue/call.
(WTF is HE doing in Science section anyway?)
"The mind is a terrible thing to have wasted"

`

I know you are, but what am I? NA NA NA NA NA NA, there now I'm on your level. Looking down your nose makes you cross eyed. Your sandbox banter proves my IQ is higher than yours.

 

[abu afak]

Yes, Gravity too is "Only a theory"

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American
By John Rennie - Editor in Chief
June 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American
1. Evolution is Only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however.

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of theFACT of evolution.
The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling."...."

`

 

[Zander]

Gravity is a movie.....

 

[Ernie S.]

Gravity is a friend of mine. Hi Gravity!

 

[edthecynic]

Gravity is a Liberal hoax intended to destroy the American family and turn us all into Socialists.

 

[Ernie S.]

If Ed says so, it must be true.

 

[abu afak]

Yes, Gravity too is "Only a theory"

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American
By John Rennie - Editor in Chief
June 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American
1. Evolution is Only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however.

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of theFACT of evolution.
The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling."...."

`

 

[abu afak]

KABUMP for Young Earth Creationist, Little Nipper who doesn't know what a Scientific theory is!
and even more unbelievably, says scientists "can't prove the earth is millions of years old"!

A theory is an "educated guess." One cannot prove that the Universe is millions of years old.

 

[abu afak]

LittleNipper, still clinging to Ben Carson [iL]Literalism

`

 

[abu afak]

Kwazy Kweationist Fallacy alert Bump!

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
Aug 17, 2005

"....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..
[......]

​