Ernie S.
Diamond Member
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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Gravity is a myth...
Things fall to earth because God makes them do that
The Copernician Theory, that the earth revolves around the sun, is also just a theory.
Gravity is a myth...
Things fall to earth because God makes them do that
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.
Con logic. You've been listening to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann again haven't you. Proud to be stupid.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.
Evolution IS a Fact AND a theory.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.
Con logic. You've been listening to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann again haven't you. Proud to be stupid.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.
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."..."
Gould said:"....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..."
Most people's confusion is due to their Unfamiliarity or DISingenuity in use of the word 'Theory'.
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.
`
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.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.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.
`
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.
How is that "magic"?hangover said: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 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.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.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.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.
`
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.
How is that "magic"?hangover said: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 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".
`
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"
`
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."...."
`
Little Nipper said:A theory is an "educated guess." One cannot prove that the Universe is millions of years old.