Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory"

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You’re calling it a fact. No one in science does.

Uh, yes they do.

https://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/knowing/gould_fact-and-theory.html

https://richarddawkins.net/2015/11/is-it-a-theory-is-it-a-law-no-its-a-fact/

Ernst Mayr - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Off the top of my head...

 

[Ringtone]

WRONG Entry you MORON.
Precisely the target of this thread. Just PERFECT you 12 IQ Clown!

1. Wiki: 'Scientific Theory'

....The definition of a Scientific Theory​

(often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly Different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". ​

In everyday speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, the Opposite of its meaning in science. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of "prediction" in science versus everyday speech, where it denotes a mere hope..."​

2. 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American - June 2002
John Rennie - Editor in Chief
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
[......]

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.....​

`​

The hypothesis of evolution is predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is scientifically indemonstrable. In the meantime, we know for a fact per observation that adaptive radiation occurs. Given that the fundamental imperatives of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics tell us that God necessarily exists, the assumption that all of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause and effect—i.e., that evolution is necessarily true—is the baby talk scientism. Can you say goo-goo-gaga? —Ringtone's Handbook on Pseudoscience​

 

[Clyde 154]

I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.

Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory"
by Ellery Schempp
Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE

All physics textbooks should include this warning label:​

​

“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​

​

The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.​

​

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.​

​

The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.​

[...... Big snip........]​

It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.​

​

Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow. It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.​

​

Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​

`

Applied Science: When you can apply science to reproduce life separate from natural reproduction within the same species.....come talk to us about using FACTS concerning the theory of evolution.

Who says that gravity is only a theory? Anything that can be "quantified" via its "potential" and measured to repeat, time and time again in a constant manner as defined by the Laws of Physics is no longer a theory........its demonstrable science.

Applied Science: Try it sometimes instead of philosophy dressed like actual science. You are attempting to declare that "theoretical science" does not exist as a philosophy yet time and time again most theories are based upon the observable facts witnessed today.........as if the Universe does not change, does not use and exhaust energy........as if that which is seen today is a constant in the universe and applied to eons past to include assumptions in calculating time period BILLIONS of years in the past.

For instance. Wind, you can't see it, you can't touch it but its quantifiable and measurable as defined by its "potential" energy. All energy is subject to quantification as governed by the laws of physics. One cannot see an Atom....but its energy is quantified and its potential is used to create new uses for atomic energy with regularity.

You know what is not quantifiable? Love and Life? Man cannot create/reproduce Life...... Yet there are theories existing NOT BASED UPON FACTS but rather IDEAS (thought) making such theory more in line with PHILOSOPY rather than applied science. The origin of the universe is also an UNKOWN as far as the laws of physics are concerned. Yet some would call this philosophy of the BIG BANG a fact......even thought the best IDEA of Cosmology is that the energy that supposedly caused the BIG BAG.......created itself from nothing, directly in contradiction to the laws of physics. If you belief that, can I interest you in some ocean front property in Ks.?

 

[Ringtone]

WRONG Entry you MORON.
Precisely the target of this thread. Just PERFECT you 12 IQ Clown!

1. Wiki: 'Scientific Theory'

....The definition of a Scientific Theory​

(often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly Different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". ​

In everyday speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, the Opposite of its meaning in science. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of "prediction" in science versus everyday speech, where it denotes a mere hope..."​

2. 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American - June 2002
John Rennie - Editor in Chief
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
[......]

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.....​

`​

The hypothesis of evolution is the stuff of magic, indeed, the stuff of fairy dust, leprechauns, unicorns . . . your mother-in-law's fruitcake. —Ringtone's Handbook on Pseudoscience​

 

[Hollie]

​

The hypothesis of evolution is the stuff of magic, indeed, the stuff of fairy dust, leprechauns, unicorns . . . your mother-in-law's fruitcake. —Ringtone's Handbook on Pseudoscience​

Actually, it's difficult to comprehend your profound ignorance of that you wish to denigrate. Your babbling is a strong illustration of the fallacious thinking that inundates creationism and other anti-science bigotry.

You can deny evolution, but I'd have to ask your motivation for doing so. If it is for reasons of biblical literalism, (and that is all we have seen so far), then I would have to question your intellectual honesty. You would rather believe, without the slightest shred of evidence, in talking animals, the Tower of Babel, Jonah living in the belly of a 'great fish' for 3 days, sticks to snakes, water to wine, and on, and on.

You don't have to 'believe' evolution. You can accept that the thousands of scientists who study this phenomenon have evidence and fact-based data .You can accept the general idea that life propogates with modifications, and those modifications can lead to improved survival, and that those modifications are passed on, and that over time, many modifications can lead to a species that looks very different from its predecessor. While that obviously clashes with your flat earth / literalist biblical worldview, don't expect educated people to accept your nonsensical Bible thumping.

 

[Ringtone]

Actually, it's difficult to comprehend your profound ignorance of that you wish to denigrate. Your babbling is a strong illustration of the fallacious thinking that inundates creationism and other anti-science bigotry.

You can deny evolution, but I'd have to ask your motivation for doing so. If it is for reasons of biblical literalism, (and that is all we have seen so far), then I would have to question your intellectual honesty. You would rather believe, without the slightest shred of evidence, in talking animals, the Tower of Babel, Jonah living in the belly of a 'great fish' for 3 days, sticks to snakes, water to wine, and on, and on.

You don't have to 'believe' evolution. You can accept that the thousands of scientists who study this phenomenon have evidence and fact-based data .You can accept the general idea that life propogates with modifications, and those modifications can lead to improved survival, and that those modifications are passed on, and that over time, many modifications can lead to a species that looks very different from its predecessor. While that obviously clashes with your flat earth / literalist biblical worldview, don't expect educated people to accept your nonsensical Bible thumping.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[abu afak]

​

The hypothesis of evolution is predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is scientifically indemonstrable. In the meantime, we know for a fact per observation that adaptive radiation occurs. Given that the fundamental imperatives of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics tell us that God necessarily exists, the assumption that all of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause and effect—i.e., that evolution is necessarily true—is the baby talk scientism. Can you say goo-goo-gaga? —Ringtone's Handbook on Pseudoscience​

Not even raging uneducated Kweationists call Evolution a Hypothesis.
It's a 'Scientific Theory'. (not to be confused with common less sure usage of the word theory alone)

SWAT!

`

 

[Ringtone]

Not even raging uneducated Kweationists call Evolution a Hypothesis.
It's a 'Scientific Theory'. (not to be confused with common less sure usage of the word theory alone)

SWAT!

`

Nah. No. Negative.

 

[Hollie]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
View attachment 587292

'

It's always so easy to refute the religious extremists. Just hit em' with the facts and they crumble.

 

[Clyde 154]

'

It's always so easy to refute the religious extremists. Just hit em' with the facts and they crumble.

Fact: Life could not have evolved as defined by the "theory"...........not a law, of evolution. Why? Because Science has never recreated life from non living matter or witnessed through the science of archaeology (fossil records) any lifeform changing from one species into a totally new species (all the supposed evolution is always within the same species)...i.e. there is no fossil record of a fish changing into a warm blooded creature, no record of a cat (feline) that has evolved into a k-9...etc. and especially no record a primate changing into a man.

You know what is in the fossil record? Living fossils that have been demonstrated to be exactly the same over the eons (supposedly) of time. When you prompt living fossils, you will get no denial that these creatures have not changed species over the years.......but you will get the standard DEFLECTION attempting to claim that evolution is still true because there have been changes with that same species. The ole switch a rue..............you claim changes outside of species and then claim that because changes have been recorded within species this somehow equates to the type of Darwinian evolution taught as truth (changes outside of species)........only in superman's (Darwin) Bizarro World.

No one has ever denied that all life forms have the ability to adapt to their surroundings (what is called evolution by the pseudo sciences) because their DNA contains the necessary links to produce that adaptive change.........if not human life would have become extinct the moment it first encountered radical weather or a common virus. Yet this pseudo science (Darwinian) claims that all life came from the sea (cold blooded) and changed from single celled cold blooded life examples into warm blooded complex land dwelling creatures......the only problem? Applied Science nor the fossil record supports that pseduo conclusion.

Living fossil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dagosa]

Uh, yes they do.

https://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/knowing/gould_fact-and-theory.html

https://richarddawkins.net/2015/11/is-it-a-theory-is-it-a-law-no-its-a-fact/

Ernst Mayr - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Off the top of my head...

And neither one speak for a scientific consensus community.
The AAAS, the worlds largest organization of scientist sees it differently. It’s called a theory for a reason. It’s an explanation. One that can be altered as new evidence is found. Life is simple. you can list all the individuals you want, they mean nothing as opposed to the AAAS or Harvard, or Yale or any consensus institution.

What Makes Evolution a Theory? - AAAS - DoSER

In this intriguing short film, Dr. Jeff Hardin discusses key ideas relating to the definition of scientific theory and what…

sciencereligiondialogue.org

 

[Dagosa]

This thread.

You’re discussing it aren’t you. That was easy.

 

[Dagosa]

Fact: Life could not have evolved as defined by the "theory"...........not a law, of evolution. Why? Because Science has never recreated life from non living matter or witnessed through the science of archaeology (fossil records) any lifeform changing from one species into a totally new species (all the supposed evolution is always within the same species)...i.e. there is no fossil record of a fish changing into a warm blooded creature, no record of a cat (feline) that has evolved into a k-9...etc. and especially no record a primate changing into a man.

You know what is in the fossil record? Living fossils that have been demonstrated to be exactly the same over the eons (supposedly) of time. When you prompt living fossils, you will get no denial that these creatures have not changed species over the years.......but you will get the standard DEFLECTION attempting to claim that evolution is still true because there have been changes with that same species. The ole switch a rue..............you claim changes outside of species and then claim that because changes have been recorded within species this somehow equates to the type of Darwinian evolution taught as truth (changes outside of species)........only in superman's (Darwin) Bizarro World.

No one has ever denied that all life forms have the ability to adapt to their surroundings (what is called evolution by the pseudo sciences) because their DNA contains the necessary links to produce that adaptive change.........if not human life would have become extinct the moment it first encountered radical weather or a common virus. Yet this pseudo science (Darwinian) claims that all life came from the sea (cold blooded) and changed from single celled cold blooded life examples into warm blooded complex land dwelling creatures......the only problem? Applied Science nor the fossil record supports that pseduo conclusion.

Living fossil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You don’t seem to understand how important anything defined as a theory is in science. It takes a lot of work to get consensus from enough of a community to decide something is a theory. Why don’t you look up what a theory is before you pretend evolution should be dismissed becouse it’s only a theory. Do you have a cell phone. It’s development was ENTIRELY based upon the science around the theories applied to its engineering. How about the food you eat. They are nearly entirely based upon the evolution related theory to genetics.

 

[Dagosa]

​

The hypothesis of evolution is predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is scientifically indemonstrable. In the meantime, we know for a fact per observation that adaptive radiation occurs. Given that the fundamental imperatives of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics tell us that God necessarily exists, the assumption that all of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause and effect—i.e., that evolution is necessarily true—is the baby talk scientism. Can you say goo-goo-gaga? —Ringtone's Handbook on Pseudoscience​

Why do you call evolution a hypothesis ? It’s not. It’s a theory. Go grab a dictionary if you want your remarks read beyond that first erroneous phrase. You’re a confused puppy jumping from one term to another just to generate woo woo. What a blowhard post.

A hypothesis is a starting point based upon limited evidence, subject to further study. A theory is an agreed upon explanation based upon trials and accumulated evidence, and in the case of evolution, after literally centuries of work.

 

[Hollie]

Fact: Life could not have evolved as defined by the "theory"...........not a law, of evolution. Why? Because Science has never recreated life from non living matter or witnessed through the science of archaeology (fossil records) any lifeform changing from one species into a totally new species (all the supposed evolution is always within the same species)...i.e. there is no fossil record of a fish changing into a warm blooded creature, no record of a cat (feline) that has evolved into a k-9...etc. and especially no record a primate changing into a man.

You know what is in the fossil record? Living fossils that have been demonstrated to be exactly the same over the eons (supposedly) of time. When you prompt living fossils, you will get no denial that these creatures have not changed species over the years.......but you will get the standard DEFLECTION attempting to claim that evolution is still true because there have been changes with that same species. The ole switch a rue..............you claim changes outside of species and then claim that because changes have been recorded within species this somehow equates to the type of Darwinian evolution taught as truth (changes outside of species)........only in superman's (Darwin) Bizarro World.

No one has ever denied that all life forms have the ability to adapt to their surroundings (what is called evolution by the pseudo sciences) because their DNA contains the necessary links to produce that adaptive change.........if not human life would have become extinct the moment it first encountered radical weather or a common virus. Yet this pseudo science (Darwinian) claims that all life came from the sea (cold blooded) and changed from single celled cold blooded life examples into warm blooded complex land dwelling creatures......the only problem? Applied Science nor the fossil record supports that pseduo conclusion.

Living fossil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You may have a basic misunderstanding of terms and definitions. Evolutionary science does not address the beginning of life, only how biological systems evolve due to external, environmental conditions and biological chemistry.

 

[miketx]

You’re discussing it aren’t you. That was easy.

You must not know what discuss means.

 

[Hollie]

Fact: Life could not have evolved as defined by the "theory"...........not a law, of evolution. Why? Because Science has never recreated life from non living matter or witnessed through the science of archaeology (fossil records) any lifeform changing from one species into a totally new species (all the supposed evolution is always within the same species)...i.e. there is no fossil record of a fish changing into a warm blooded creature, no record of a cat (feline) that has evolved into a k-9...etc. and especially no record a primate changing into a man.

You know what is in the fossil record? Living fossils that have been demonstrated to be exactly the same over the eons (supposedly) of time. When you prompt living fossils, you will get no denial that these creatures have not changed species over the years.......but you will get the standard DEFLECTION attempting to claim that evolution is still true because there have been changes with that same species. The ole switch a rue..............you claim changes outside of species and then claim that because changes have been recorded within species this somehow equates to the type of Darwinian evolution taught as truth (changes outside of species)........only in superman's (Darwin) Bizarro World.

No one has ever denied that all life forms have the ability to adapt to their surroundings (what is called evolution by the pseudo sciences) because their DNA contains the necessary links to produce that adaptive change.........if not human life would have become extinct the moment it first encountered radical weather or a common virus. Yet this pseudo science (Darwinian) claims that all life came from the sea (cold blooded) and changed from single celled cold blooded life examples into warm blooded complex land dwelling creatures......the only problem? Applied Science nor the fossil record supports that pseduo conclusion.

Living fossil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The term you're not familiar with is speciation and there are many examples.

Observed Instances of Speciation


CB910: New species


Some More Observed Speciation Events


Just a thought, but Wiki is not the best choice for science matters.

 

[Clyde 154]

The term you're not familiar with is speciation and there are many examples.

Observed Instances of Speciation


CB910: New species


Some More Observed Speciation Events


Just a thought, but Wiki is not the best choice for science matters.

Real Science is Objective in nature.......not subjective as in (IT APPEARS TO HAVE........." appears to have exists only in the human mind.
Seciation: Always within the same species........... even in the example you presented of NEW SPECIES it contradicts your won logic or lack thereof. Can you not comprehend............a "mesquito" is still the same species its still a "mesquito" new or not, and the next example of cancer.......is ALWAYS developed in the same species..........read from your own presentation, "similar" event APPEARS (real objective science here.....appears ) to have happened in Dogs.......these (wink, wink) new examples of life are always confined to the same species. A Rose is a Rose. And you can't sprinkle sugar on a pile of feces and call it candy.

There is no evolution outside of species. You attempted to deflect without using Applied Science to develop life from non living matter. Everything you presented is an example of adaptation WITHIN SPECIES. Its existed from the beginning. A new species of mesquito is still a mesquito ........a new example of a virus or germ is still a virus or a germ within the confines of the same species.

Show us the applied science that demonstrates how fish have evolved into warm blooded land dwelling examples of life. You cannot because there are no such examples in the real world. In the real world.......living fossils exist.

 

[Dagosa]

You must not know what discuss means.

You obviously don’t. If evolution didn’t play a part in so many things, we wouldn’t be discussing it. Try again. You’re just dismissing something that has played the major part doubled your life expectancy.
I bet you didn’t know either that Quantum theory is directly and indirectly tied to over 70% of our economy. Being science illiterate just is no excuse for being ignorant of the world around you.

 

[miketx]

You obviously don’t. If evolution didn’t play a part in so many things, we wouldn’t be discussing it. Try again. You’re just dismissing something that has doubled your life expectancy.

Try what again? Making you cry like a girl?