Posted on 02/22/2005 7:34:15 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Why didn't they just evolve into giraffes?
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.
There are numerous other flaws. For example, astronomers, who seem to have
a fetish for gravity, tell us that the moon rotates on its axis but at the
same time it always presents the same face to the earth. This is patently
absurd. Moreover, if gravity were working on the early earth, then earth
would have been bombarded out of existence by falling asteroids, meteors,
comets, and other space junk. Furthermore, gravity theory suggests that the
planets have been moving in orderly orbits for millions and millions of
years, which wholly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since
everything in the Universe tends to disorder according to the 2nd Law,
orderly orbits are impossible. This cannot be resolved by pointing to the
huge outpouring of energy from the sun. In fact, it is known that the flux
of photons from the sun and the "solar wind" actually tends to push earth
away.
There are numerous alternative theories that should be taught on an equal
basis. For example, the observed behavior of the earth revolving around the
sun can be perfectly explained if the sun has a net positive charge and the
planets have a net negative charge, since opposite charges attract and the
force is an inverse-square law, exactly as the increasingly discredited
Theory of Gravity. Physics and chemistry texts emphasize that this is the
explanation for electrons going around the nucleus, so if it works for
atoms, why not for the solar system? The answer is simple: scientific
orthodoxy.
The US Patent Office has never issued a patent for anti-gravity. Why is
this? According to natural law and homeopathy, everything exists in
opposites: good-evil; grace-sin; positive charges-negative charges; north
poles-south poles; good vibes-bad vibes; etc. We know there are
anti-evolutionists, so why not anti-gravitationalists? It is clearly a
matter of the scientific establishment elite protecting their own.
Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peer-reviewed journals, and
scientists who propose anti-gravity quickly lose their funding. Universal
gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.
Even Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, knew there were
problems with the theory. He claims to have invented the idea early in his
life, but he knew that no mathematician of his day would approve his theory,
so he invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to
"prove" his theory. This became calculus, a deeply flawed branch having
to do with so-called "infinitesimals" which have never been observed. Then
when Einstein invented a new theory of gravity, he, too, used an obscure bit
of
mathematics called tensors. It seems that every time there is a theory of
gravity, it is mixed up with fringe mathematics. Newton, by the way, was
far from a secular scientist, and the bulk of his writings is actually on
theology and Christianity. His dabbling in gravity, alchemy, and calculus
was a mere sideline, perhaps an aberration best left forgotten in describing
his career and faith in a Creator.
To make matters worse, proponents of gravity theory hypothesize about
mysterious things called gravitons and gravity waves. These have never been
observed, and when some accounts of detecting gravity waves were published,
the physicists involved had to quickly retract them. Every account of
anti-gravity and gravity waves quickly turns to laughter. This is not a
theory
suitable for children. And even children can see how ridiculous it is to
imagine that
people in Australia are upside down with respect to us, as gravity theory
would have it. If this is an example of the predictive power of the theory
of gravity, we can see that at the core there is no foundation.
Gravity totally fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not.
It utterly fails to account for obesity. In fact, what it does "explain" is
far out-weighed by what it does not explain.
When the planet Pluto was discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh, he relied on
“gravitational calculations”. But Tombaugh was a Unitarian, a liberal
religious group that supports the Theory of Gravity. The modern-day
Unitarian-Universalists continue to rely on liberal notions and dismiss
ideas of anti-gravity as heretical. Tombaugh never even attempted to
justify his "gravitational calculations" on the basis of Scripture, and he
went on to be a founding member of the liberal Unitarian Fellowship of Las
Cruces, New Mexico.
It is safe to say that without the Theory of Gravity, there would be no talk
about a "Big Bang", and important limitations in such sports as basketball
would be lifted. This would greatly benefit the games and enhance revenue
as is proper in a faith-based, free-enterprise society.
The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a
hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall. Since
anti-gravity is rejected by the scientific establishment, they resort to
lots of hand-waving. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the
default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this is obviously
true for Northwest airplanes (relying on "A Wing and a Prayer"), it appears
that Jet Blue and Southwest have a superior theory that effectively
harnesses
forces that overcome so-called gravity.
It is unlikely that the Law of Gravity will be repealed given the present
geo-political climate, but there is no need to teach unfounded theories in
the public schools. There is, indeed, evidence that the Theory of Gravity
is having a grave effect on morality. Activist judges and left-leaning
teachers often use the phrase "what goes up must come down" as a way of
describing gravity, and relativists have been quick to apply this to moral
standards and common decency.
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.
E. Schempp
Excellent!
Different starting genomes. That's the difference between evolution and creationism. Both are able to successfully account for observations. However, that statement is true of creationism no matter what the observations are. It is not true for evolution. There are things that evolution says could not be observed, such as a subpopulation of apes evolving into giraffes. When everything is evidence in favor of something, finding evidence in favor of it is meaningless. That's the main reason evolution is science and creationism is not.
I did not exclude evolution, I merely stated his ‘world view’ does not come from Darwinism and ironically the link you provided shows this…
So you don't like it when people disagree with you? Believe me, a lot of intelligent people a whole lot smarter than I am think evolution is foolish. Contrary to your vaunted opinion of yourself, you don't have all the answers.
The sky is falling! THe sky is falling! Thank goodness we have our friends over at the American Prospect to straighten us out.
I'm sorry - I had forgotten you are an atheist. That's why creationism doesn't apply to you.
Of course we know MICROgravity exists, but nobody's ever observed MACROgravity. Gravity keeps us from flying off the earth. That's just microgravity. It can't explain the orbits of the moon, the sun and the planets as they travel around the earth, however. There's no such thing as macrogravity. All these theories of macrogravity are just attempts by atheists to eliminate God. Everyone knows God pushes the planets, the sun and the moon in their orbit around the earth. /creationist mode off
Your original statement was:
So we're genetically close because we are descended from them, but genetically too far apart to reproduce. Okay
Gorillas and Chimps are genetically the closest-related species to humanity. That does not mean, however, that they're close enough to us to interbreed. We've simply drifted too far away from them, evolution-wise.
What's not logical about that?
Tell me what scientific evidence leads you to conclude that humans are not apes.
A world view the "comes from Darwinism" means nothing more than a world view that acknowledges the overwhelming scientific evidence in support of evolution. If you did not exclude evolution, then your statement is nonsensical without clarification.
Perhaps you meant to say that the liberal world-view derives from secularism. If so, try to say what you mean next time.
Ah. Another potential recruit for my campaign against Craterism.
"I'm sorry - I had forgotten you are an atheist. That's why creationism doesn't apply to you."
Yes, I am. Since the theory of evolution has nothing to do with how life first appeared, many Christians believe that the theory of evolution is correct.
No need to be sorry, though. Atheists are members of the species Homo Sapiens, too.
Before they drifted so far away, what offspring did they produce?
How do you conclude they are?
Absolutely. Even if there were rocks in the sky, why would they ever fall and hit the earth? Microgravity only makes things ON earth fall. Things in space can't fall since there is no macrogravity.
It's not a joke, and, Hoyle's strange ideas aside, it's not absurd. Ask yourself whether the simplest form of life isn't as complicated or more than a 747. If you begin with the impersonal premise, the replicating "life" wasn't always self-replicating. Something produced a high level of organization (hierarchy) without the intervention of a designer. Look up logical entropy, as opposed to thermodynamic entropy.
And I can prove there's no macrogravity. If there's macrogravity, why don't the sun, the moon and the planets all fall down and hit the earth. Gravity makes things fall down, not spin in circles. It's just obvious that there's no such thing as macrogravity, so there can't be craterism either.
At one point, our ancestors were probably close enough to the ancestors of other apes to interbreed. I'm not sure at what point we diverged enough so that interbreeding no longer remained possible. There was probably significant overlap between the precursor species for quite some time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.