Page 1 of 2

Gravity vs Creation

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:21 pm
by AlgyTaylor
The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught by Gravitationalists in public schools as a "fact." It is not a fact. It is not even a good theory.


Circular reasoning or elliptical reasoning?

According to gravitationalists, gravity is a force between objects with mass; Lines of gravitational force are straight. Gravity does not make objects spin in circles or ellipses. But planets are observed to move in elliptical orbits around the sun. Trying to dodge this contradiction, gravitationalists turn logic on its head and claim orbits somehow prove gravity. Circular reasoning and elliptical reasoning are common among gravitationalists.

The universe is tuned.

The moon rotates on its axis but at the same time always presents the same comforting face to us, gazing up from earth. Little Willie Dembski has calculated the chances of that happening at random and it is exactly 1 in 15 septdecillion. That exceeds the probabombastic resources of the universe, proving the intervention of an intelligent agent. Only an intelligent designer could arrange such a happy coincidence, always presenting the familiar side of the moon to us. Imagine how it might have altered human history if, for all these millennium, we had been gazing at the unfamiliar face of the moon.

Boltzmann bounces Newton.

Gravitational theory suggests that the planets have been moving in stable orbits for millions and millions of years. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all spontaneous processes increase the entropy of the universe. So where is the entropy increase arising from the spontaneously orbiting planets? Gravitationalists scan the universe with special entropy telescopes, searching for the missing entropy. But they cannot find it.

Microgravity? Yes! Macrogravity? No!

Microgravity is observable. Release an egg from three feet above your kitchen floor to observe microgravity in action. It will fall. But don't take our word for it. Try it yourself. Next observe macrogravity in action. Perform the same experiment with a very massive object, say an object with the mass of the moon. Oh, wait. The moon is suspended above us. It does not fall. This proves to us that macrogravity does not exist. Microgravity only makes small objects on earth fall. If there is macrogravity, why don't the sun, the moon, and the planets all fall down and hit the earth? Heavenly bodies do not fall, obviously, because there is no macrogravity.

God of the gaps.

The failings of the theory are obvious. Gaze up into the sky. The moon obviously rotates around the earth. You can see that. Why don't humans rotate around mountains? Why don't insects rotate around cars? Why doesn't the moon rotate around the sun? Sometimes the theory of gravity seems to work and other times not. There are obvious gaps in gravity theory. Gravitationalists cannot find the missing gravitational links.

Newton knew nada.

Every time there is discussion the theory of gravity, it leads right into "fringe" mathematics. Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, had all sorts of problems developing the theory. Newton invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to "prove" his theory. Fluxions became calculus, a deeply flawed branch of mathematics having to do with so-called "infinitesimals". Scientists have searched and searched for infinitesimals, but to this day no one has experimentally observed an infinitesimal. Then Einstein invented a new theory of gravity. He used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. Polling has shown that 82% of the residents of Kansas do not believe in tensors. Enough said.



.......


you get the picture

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:34 pm
by heavycola
:sticks fingers in ears: LALALALALALA
:buries head in sand: lalalalala

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:38 pm
by The Weird One
are you serious. . . I've just noticed a few holes in this argument and I haven't even finished reading it :!: :roll:

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:39 pm
by sheepofdumb
This really has nothing to do with creation. Please, I do not care for people arguing about scientific laws.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:42 pm
by hecter
Well that's just great... Kansas doesn't believe in math... Whoopdeefuckingdoo. It's good to know you don't believe in gravity...

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:44 pm
by ignotus
actually moon falls forwards the Earth. Every year a few centimeters...

So if i throw a brick in the direction of your head would you stop making these silly topics or will "the almighty gravity" save your ass? ](*,) :-k

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:50 pm
by heavycola
sheepofdumb wrote:This really has nothing to do with creation. Please, I do not care for people arguing about scientific laws.


Who said anything about creationism? This is a masterful refutation of 'gravity', a purely theoretical and currently unproveable branch of scientific dogma.

Re: Gravity vs Creation

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:51 pm
by hecter
AlgyTaylor wrote:Heavenly bodies do not fall

May we drop the pope off of a large building to test that theory?

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:56 pm
by The Weird One
I'm game if you are, hecter!!! :twisted:

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:57 pm
by 2dimes
This has been said here but I'll repeat it.

Gravity is a law.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:58 pm
by CoffeeCream
heavycola wrote:Who said anything about creationism?


The author of this thread did. It is also interesting to note that 2 of the people he mentioned in his original post, Newton & Einstein, believed in a creator.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:58 pm
by ignotus
The Weird One wrote:I'm game if you are, hecter!!! :twisted:


*pushes hecter and weird one of the Eiffel tower*

....
*they scream and end looking like bloody pancakes*



Yep, gravity works just fine!
:wink:

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:00 pm
by hecter
The Weird One wrote:I'm game if you are, hecter!!! :twisted:

Woot woot!!!

I have one question though: how is it that satellites stay in orbit after they've run out of fuel and all that jazz if there is no gravity? 'Cause, I mean, since there is of course no macrogravity, I suppose that COULD apply, though a satellite really isn't big enough for that... Are these artificial human creations considered heavenly bodies, along with every other moon of every other planet in the universe, including the space shuttles and stuff?

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:00 pm
by hecter
ignotus wrote:
The Weird One wrote:I'm game if you are, hecter!!! :twisted:


*pushes hecter and weird one of the Eiffel tower*

....
*they scream and end looking like bloody pancakes*



Yep, gravity works just fine!
:wink:

But we're not heavenly bodies...

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:02 pm
by J-Duds
Circular reasoning or elliptical reasoning?

This is because all orbiting bodies are actually moving forward. Gravity is the force that keeps it moving in a circle/ellipse rather than flying forward into space. Spin around a yo-yo on a string and you get the same effect.

The universe is tuned.

And its those same kinds of odds that were required for life to form on this particular rock an acceptable distance from a star with adequate amounts of water, oxygen, carbon, and all other elements, ect, ect, ect. Just because the odds of something happening are extremely small doesn't mean it can't happen.

Boltzmann bounces Newton.

Who said that they truly are stable? Since gravity acts both ways, the body orbiting and the body orbited are slowly getting closer to each other. Its an extremely insignificant distance/rate, but it is happening. That's why satellites and space stations need periodic readjustments or else they re-enter the atmosphere and burn up.

Microgravity? Yes! Macrogravity? No!

Get that egg moving forward as fast as the moon is and it will orbit the earth just like anything else. Just dropping it will cause the earth to exert a force on it and drag it down as there is no horizontal force/velocity to cause orbiting. The moon/sun/ect falling was explained in the first point.

God of the gaps.

Why would we rotate around a 50 ton hill when there are a few trillion tons of dirt right below us pulling us down. The effect of Earth's gravity is so much greater than anything you would consider "large" on its surface, that the forces caused by them are insignificant in comparison.

Why doesn't the moon rotate around the sun?

The same reason why we don't fall towards the sun. The earth exerts a much greater force on it because it is much closer.

Newton knew nada.

What a surprise. A scientist has to create a new formula in order to explain his theory. I'm shocked.

82% of the residents of Kansas do not believe in tensors

Right, because, you know, 100% of Kansas residents have a PhD in either particle physics or astronomy.

Alright, I'm done responding to stupid ideas. Time to quite stalling and write my BME paper.[/i]

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:10 pm
by got tonkaed
unless you guys are using a more subtle sense of sarcasm than i am, i believe each one of you has missed the entire point of this thread.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:11 pm
by Stopper
J-Duds wrote:Circular reasoning or elliptical reasoning?

This is because all orbiting bodies are actually moving forward. Gravity is the force that keeps it moving in a circle/ellipse rather than flying forward into space. Spin around a yo-yo on a string and you get the same effect.

The universe is tuned.

And its those same kinds of odds that were required for life to form on this particular rock an acceptable distance from a star with adequate amounts of water, oxygen, carbon, and all other elements, ect, ect, ect. Just because the odds of something happening are extremely small doesn't mean it can't happen.

Boltzmann bounces Newton.

Who said that they truly are stable? Since gravity acts both ways, the body orbiting and the body orbited are slowly getting closer to each other. Its an extremely insignificant distance/rate, but it is happening. That's why satellites and space stations need periodic readjustments or else they re-enter the atmosphere and burn up.

Microgravity? Yes! Macrogravity? No!

Get that egg moving forward as fast as the moon is and it will orbit the earth just like anything else. Just dropping it will cause the earth to exert a force on it and drag it down as there is no horizontal force/velocity to cause orbiting. The moon/sun/ect falling was explained in the first point.

God of the gaps.

Why would we rotate around a 50 ton hill when there are a few trillion tons of dirt right below us pulling us down. The effect of Earth's gravity is so much greater than anything you would consider "large" on its surface, that the forces caused by them are insignificant in comparison.

Why doesn't the moon rotate around the sun?

The same reason why we don't fall towards the sun. The earth exerts a much greater force on it because it is much closer.

Newton knew nada.

What a surprise. A scientist has to create a new formula in order to explain his theory. I'm shocked.

82% of the residents of Kansas do not believe in tensors

Right, because, you know, 100% of Kansas residents have a PhD in either particle physics or astronomy.

Alright, I'm done responding to stupid ideas. Time to quite stalling and write my BME paper.[/i]


I don't know what a BME paper is, in which case I may be missing a subtle joke.

But if I am not, you are weirdly literal-minded.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:12 pm
by The Weird One
weirdly. . . HANG HIM! :wink:

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:14 pm
by Stopper
got tonkaed wrote:unless you guys are using a more subtle sense of sarcasm than i am, i believe each one of you has missed the entire point of this thread.


Except heavycola.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:16 pm
by The Weird One
I figured it was a mimicry of the other religious threads. but a debate on here is always funny :lol:

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:23 pm
by Stopper
'k.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:35 pm
by hecter
*missed the point*

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:41 pm
by unriggable
Where's jay.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:46 pm
by The Weird One
unriggable wrote:Where's jay.


after 'I' and before 'K' :wink:

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:48 pm
by unriggable
The Weird One wrote:
unriggable wrote:Where's jay.


after 'I' and before 'K' :wink:


This jay.

Image