Science > Physics > Response to the onion's intelligent falling theory
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
15 Sep 2005 01:58:03 AM |
| Object: |
Response to the onion's intelligent falling theory |
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling'
Theory http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
and in response the theory of:
Differential Gravitational Success
Scientists have long been searching for the origin of the force of
gravity. By simple experiment I hope to demonstrate how the force of
Gravity originates.
Going down to the river, I collect a bunch of oddly shaped rocks laying
on the riverbed. Putting the rocks in a sack, I next climb up a hill
and empty the sack on a steep slope of the hill. As expected, the rocks
roll down by gravity.
I notice that some rocks have rolled down further as others. There was
a differential gravitational success. Next comes the important
question, what may have caused this difference? On examining the rocks
I find that the rocks vary in some aspects. The rocks that have rolled
down most far are generally more heavy and rounded, as the other rocks.
By the established scientific methodology, the explanation becomes
simple. In struggling to roll down most far, the rocks that were most
fit to roll down, rolled down the furthest. So this means that the
force of gravity finds it's origin in the property of being more fit
then another to go downward in the struggle for depth, resulting in
gravitational success.
Professor Richard Dawkins (university chair of public-relations manager
for science) comments:
"This is what i've been saying all along really. Although I like to
believe it is true, it is preposterous to claim that a beneficient
almighty being would govern falling intelligently. In the ruthless
struggle for depth the rocks are only governed by blind, pitiless
indifference, in fact they do not care at all. I once saw a schoolbus
full of children being crushed by a huge boulder falling of a cliff,
splattering the kids into a bloodsoaked mush. Was this intelligent
falling of a beneficient God? No, it was just the purposeless forces of
nature, the ruthless struggle for depth by a boulder that has no
feeling, no care at all."
Eugenie Scott (National Association of Biology Teachers USA) comments:
"What religionists sometimes do is exploit a gap in scientific
knowledge such as the origin of the force of gravitation, and fill that
gap with fantastic speculation. Slowly but surely science progresses to
fill these gaps, by applying methodological naturalism. This method has
been succesful for science so far. There is no need to invoke
intelligence to
describe the world around us, and the theory of differential
gravitational success just proves that once more."
(Howard Hershey, talk.origins)
"And the value that rocks place on gravitational success is an
observational finding based on fact. It is, in fact, the one thing that
all rocks strive to do."
----------
Supposing you don't want to either be embarassed or insulted, but still
accept natural selection theory, then one should understand the basic
logic of natural selection in terms of preservation of form consequent
on simple reproduction of the organism, in stead of preservation of
form consequent on competitive advantage, beneficial variation,
superiority etc. of an organism.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to the onion's intelligent falling theory |
15 Sep 2005 02:46:17 AM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126767483.593444.82950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling'
Theory http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
What a hoot the above theory is.
It implies that we are able to "make god do something" simply by pushing an
object off a table. We could even "stop god" by catching the object.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to the onion's intelligent falling theory |
15 Sep 2005 06:33:51 AM |
|
|
Since pantheism is right (the Universe and God are identical) yes, you
could stop God by catching the object. A very tiny subsystem of "God",
but God nonetheless. Pantheism solves so many problems. Like the guy
in the insane asylum who thinks that he's God. He's right! Let him
out (of course the proper response to this by the next poster is "Hey,
they oughtta let you out, dude." Too bad. Did a look-ahead and beat
you to it in this endless game we call "conversation" (although no
responses will be read due to the extreme discourteousness present in
this forum).
"I no longer engage in endless debates. Instead, I'm just trying to
find hapinness" - Douglas R. Hofstadter
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Response to the onion's intelligent falling theory |
16 Sep 2005 12:00:08 AM |
|
|
it's -> its
don, why God?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
