Intelligent Design Grounded in Science

CBN ^ | November 2005 | By Gailon Totheroh

[Elsie]

My point was that a NARROW looking at Scripture can produce absolutist statements.

When studying the whole book, however, we see that going outside the LETTER of the Law, to access the Spirit of it, is sometimes neccessary.

There are some really strong LETTER types on both sides of the aisle in these C vs E threads.

[Elsie]

For forty-five years, I believed that the sun was a giant ball of gas as I was taught in school.

Speaks for itself.....

[Elsie]

...another side that has logical fallacies rooted in mysticism.

Got a link to these documented cases?

[Elsie]

We need to keep track of the names of the creationists who are told the difference between "theory" and "law",

Likewise...

---

We need to keep track of the names of the Evolutionists who KNOW it's a "theory" and yet will NOT complain when one of their compatriots publish's that it is a 'fact' and should be taught as such.

[Stark_GOP]

"Hasn't Stark_GOP been told this before? We need to keep track of the names of the creationists who are told the difference between "theory" and "law", especially those who use the term "Law of Gravity" and are corrected on the matter so we can find out who is genuinely ignorant and who is willfully ignorant."
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Newton's law of universal gravitation states the following:

Every object in the Universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers of mass for the two objects. This force is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the centers of mass of the two objects.

[Dimensio]

So why does that force exist? What causes it?

Newton's Law doesn't explain that. It simply provides a means for making statements about what force will result from two masses in any given observation. That's why it is not and has never been a theory.

[Coyoteman]

I see you can't refute the logic in my post.

I couldn't find the logic in your post. I asked you to try again.

[Stark_GOP]

So why does that force exist? What causes it?

Newton's Law doesn't explain that. It simply provides a means for making statements about what force will result from two masses in any given observation. That's why it is not and has never been a theory.
---
And it also doesn't explain why your posts make no sense.

[Dimensio]

And it also doesn't explain why your posts make no sense.

Perhaps you could tell me what about them you don't understand.

[Stark_GOP]

I simply posted Newton's law of universal gravitation and you had to argue about it.

Take it up with Sir Issac.

[Dimensio]

I simply posted Newton's law of universal gravitation and you had to argue about it.

The discussion of gravity began when someone mentioned that gravity is only a theory. You brought up the "law of gravity", and an explanation was given as to the difference between "theory" and "law" in science. I asked if you hadn't been given that clarification before (as I did recall you being one of the people who had received such an explanation in the past, but I admit to having a faulty memory and am still not certain). You then posted the text of the law of gravity and I, keeping with the previous discussion on the difference between "theory" and "law", explained how the "law" of gravity is not the same as a "theory" of gravity.

[Stark_GOP]

"You brought up the "law of gravity", and an explanation was given as to the difference between "theory" and "law" in science. I asked if you hadn't been given that clarification before (as I did recall you being one of the people who had received such an explanation in the past, but I admit to having a faulty memory and am still not certain)."
---
Thank you for your concern. No need to educate me on the definitions of 'theory' and 'law'. I have a perfectly adequate dictionary.

[Dimensio]

Thank you for your concern. No need to educate me on the definitions of 'theory' and 'law'. I have a perfectly adequate dictionary.

Then why your original comment regarding the "law of gravity"?

[Stark_GOP]

In post 450 I wrote, "I thought it was the law of gravity."

In post 458 I made a JOKE.
"Poor Sir Issac. His laws have been reduced to a theory.
Next thing you know gravity will be just an unproven hypothesis causing us to be flung off the planet. ;)"

In post 465 I posted Newton's law of universal gravitation to provide further evidence to show that I knew gravity is not a theory.

[Dimensio]

I was referring to your post 450 wherein you stated "I thought it was the law of gravity." in response to someone pointing out that gravity is only theory. This suggest confusion, on your part, regarding the nature of gravity and scientific theories versues laws.

Technically speaking gravity itself is neither law or theory (just as evolution itself isn't theory; the explanation of common descent using evolution as a mechanism is the theory). Gravity is the resultant force between two masses relative to their mass and distance. The law of gravity is the equation that describes this force and can be used to predict the resulting force of two bodies in future events. The theory of gravity is an explanation for what causes that resulting force.

[elbucko]

At least myself and the other creationists have the gonads to tell the rest of the world that what we believe is what we believe, not what is the fact.

Can I take that to mean that you and your kind, would be perfectly willing to behead me and my kind (if you could get away with it), in order to teach creationism as ID in US public schools? How very "C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n" of you! Praise be to you, Brother, and those like you who follow the Prince of Peace in His praise.

However, until you can become wise in the ways of the Almighty and His sciences, why don't you chosen people just move to the Middle East . I am sure you can find some other fanatics to share your vision(s).

[Dimensio]

Can I take that to mean that you and your kind, would be perfectly willing to behead me and my kind (if you could get away with it), in order to teach creationism as ID in US public schools?

I didn't exactly infer that from TrailofTears's post.

[dmanLA]

"The crux of the matter is that many if not most atheists hold up evolution as evidence or proof of the nonexistence of God, and they don't want any interference."

That is it in a nutshell. Excellent response.

[Dimensio]

That is it in a nutshell.

dsc failed to substantiate his assertion that "many if not most atheists hold up evolution as evidence or proof of the nonexistence of God". Do you have any means of substantiating that assertion?

[RunningWolf]

Well duh.., how about getting a response from one atheist at a time? Say here for a start? Or one could even deny atheist or atheisism.

Well what say you?

Wolf