Intelligent Falling Theory
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
KANSAS CITY, KS-As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Burdett added: "Gravity-which is taught to our children as a law-is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."
Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.
According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.
The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."
"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.
Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.
"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall-just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."
Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.
"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."
"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"
Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.
"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."
KANSAS CITY, KS-As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Burdett added: "Gravity-which is taught to our children as a law-is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."
Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.
According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.
The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."
"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.
Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.
"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall-just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."
Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.
"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."
"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"
Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.
"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."
0
-
You know, I'm a Bible-believing Christian. These people, however, make the sane of us look like fools. Shame on them. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
You know, I'm a Bible-believing Christian. These people, however, make the sane of us look like fools. Shame on them.
It's not clear to me whether you mean the intelligent design folks, or the people who wrote the parody.0 -
Burdett has got to be captain of the varsity WHACKO TEAM.
He is a classic example of the longer you hang around institutions of higher learning and bury your head in books, the nuttier you get.0 -
Next time I fall, i'm gonna take the Lord's name in vain for pushing!!! 0 -
First the white man, now God. Everybody is pushin' us down! 0 -
Gotta be the Onion.
Still, funny, and a fairly decent crack in the ID folks--the descendants of those who said Galileo was wrong...0 -
This is going to cause me some issues, when I fell of my ladder and hurt myself I blamed gravity now I have to contend with the possibility God doesn't like me? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by LaidbackDan
This is going to cause me some issues, when I fell of my ladder and hurt myself I blamed gravity now I have to contend with the possibility God doesn't like me?
It sounds that way.0 -
quote:Originally posted by HandgunHTR52
First the white man, now God. Everybody is pushin' us down!
THAT was funnier than the article. [:D][:D]0 -
Made me think of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmviHBCqKow0 -
only in the state of Kansas do these mental midgets try to drag us back into the 13th century...wish we could contain this type of reasoning to the church schools...so then if a rocket makes it to space then man has visibly exerted more power than god or was he just taking a nap... 0 -
Could you guys explain where the theory fails?
Dean0 -
No wonder this god cant do anything to eliminate starvation, murder of kids, and all the evil in the world, it is to busy holding everything down.[:D][:D][:D]I guess everytime I shoot into the air this god is pushing my bullets back to earth. LMAO...... 0 -
This reminds me of the Great Collapse theory I surmized one day on top of a mountain. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Dean Cascio
Could you guys explain where the theory fails?
Dean
We dont need to explain where it fails, as we are not making a claim.
Burdett has come out and made this claim, so the burden is on his shoulders to prove what he says........and he cant.
He is free to believe anything he wants, like "there is no water in the ocean" or "the sun does not shine", but we dont have to subscribe to his lunatic thinking.0 -
Lefty
Are you pulling my leg? Do you have any concept of what it means to debate?
First thing where in the world did you come up with the "ROYAL WE"
quote: We dont need to explain where it fails, as we are not making a claim.
I did not write that someone has made a claim! I'm asking a question!
I did not direct my question towards you. Various posters posted inuendos directed toward the theory. No one made a cogent refudiation of the theory. I ask again "Can anyone explain where this theory fails"?
Dean
quote:Originally posted by Laredo Lefty
quote:Originally posted by Dean Cascio
Could you guys explain where the theory fails?
Dean
We dont need to explain where it fails, as we are not making a claim.
Burdett has come out and made this claim, so the burden is on his shoulders to prove what he says........and he cant.
He is free to believe anything he wants, like "there is no water in the ocean" or "the sun does not shine", but we dont have to subscribe to his lunatic thinking.
Sorry, had to edit out a word we shouldn't use.0 -
Falling Down?
[img][/img]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Dean Cascio
Lefty
Are you retarded? Do you have any concept of what it means to debate?
First thing where in the world did you come up with the "ROYAL WE"
quote: We dont need to explain where it fails, as we are not making a claim.
I did not write that someone has made a claim! I'm asking a question!
I did not direct my question towards you. Various posters posted inuendos directed toward the theory. No one made a cogent refudiation of the theory. I ask again "Can anyone explain where this theory fails"?
DeanOriginally posted by Laredo LeftyOriginally posted by Dean Cascio
Could you guys explain where the theory fails?
Dean
No Iam not, are you?... You must be to want to debate such a silly idea.
I know what debates are and this guys theory does not even warrant one. Its just his belief, and thats all it is.
You said "Could you guys explain"... "We" and "guys" are both plural, not a difficult concept. Who mentioned "Royal" except you?
I did not say that YOU made a claim, the claim was made by Burdett.
To answer your question... Of course not, and conversly, Can anyone explain where this theory has any validity whatsoever.... Of course not.0 -
Lefty
So what I take from your writing is you can't point out where the theory fails so your going to shoot off your mouth/writing and hope for the best? Am I wrong? Where does the theory fail?
Dean
quote:Originally posted by Laredo Lefty
quote:Originally posted by Dean Cascio
Lefty
Are you retarded? Do you have any concept of what it means to debate?
First thing where in the world did you come up with the "ROYAL WE"
quote: We dont need to explain where it fails, as we are not making a claim.
I did not write that someone has made a claim! I'm asking a question!
I did not direct my question towards you. Various posters posted inuendos directed toward the theory. No one made a cogent refudiation of the theory. I ask again "Can anyone explain where this theory fails"?
DeanOriginally posted by Laredo LeftyOriginally posted by Dean Cascio
Could you guys explain where the theory fails?
Dean
No Iam not, are you?... You must be to want to debate such a silly idea.
I know what debates are and this guys theory does not even warrant one. Its just his belief, and thats all it is.
You said "Could you guys explain"... "We" and "guys" are both plural, not a difficult concept. Who mentioned "Royal" except you?
I did not say that YOU made a claim, the claim was made by Burdett.
To answer your question... Of course not, and conversly, Can anyone explain where this theory has any validity whatsoever.... Of course not.0 -
Dean..... Open your eyes and read the last 2 lines of my last post. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Laredo Lefty
Dean..... Open your eyes and read the last 2 lines of my last post.
I just re-read the last two lines of your post. Here is what you wrote.
quote:To answer your question... Of course not, and conversly, Can anyone explain where this theory has any validity whatsoever.... Of course not.
As I wrote before you're just shooting off your mouth/writing. You wrote you can't explain either theory so what is your point?
I asked a question I never stated I can explain either theory. My point is that the theory of gravity may be FOS as well. If no one can explain the "force" then it's only a leap of faith, nothing more.
Dean
quote:"Gravity..... laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force".0 -
There is no point, thats just it, neither side can be proved. Iam just trying to reason with a guy who doesn't recognize reason.
I never suggested YOU try to explain either theory. Thats Burdett's job.
If you think gravity may be FOS, jump off a 30 story building and keep telling yourself that on the way down.0 -
I'm pretty sure that gravity can be explained! Objects in space are attracted to each other as well - this is the exact same thing as gravity. So what are they saying about that? God is pushing in whatever direction is necessary to get these objects towards each other?
This is one of the dumbest things I've heard of in a long, long time. It's too bad these morons don't have anything better to do with their time that try to get their 15 minutes of fame with some rediculous obstinate argument.0 -
quote:who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
And if he had a truck he would be qualified for garbage hauling.
Dean, it fails thus: He has asserted that god or at least a god is pushing us down. He has failed to prove there is such a god, he has make an apriory assumption. Belief is acceptable for religion, but this flat earther is attempting to pass this off as science, and it simply does not meet scientific criteria. Science deals with measurable phenomena, and gods are not measureable, thus outside the purview of science.
Does it not seem telling that these evangelical attempts to refute science attempt to pass themselves off as science? It seems sad to me that religious folk would attempt to justify faith, which requires no proof, by passing it off as science.0 -
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
quote:who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
And if he had a truck he would be qualified for garbage hauling.
Dean, it fails thus: He has asserted that god or at least a god is pushing us down. He has failed to prove there is such a god, he has make an apriory assumption. Belief is acceptable for religion, but this flat earther is attempting to pass this off as science, and it simply does not meet scientific criteria. Science deals with measurable phenomena, and gods are not measureable, thus outside the purview of science.
Does it not seem telling that these evangelical attempts to refute science attempt to pass themselves off as science? It seems sad to me that religious folk would attempt to justify faith, which requires no proof, by passing it off as science.
I think what they are trying to do is to show the errors in science...b/c most of science trys to explain God away...notice I said most, not all. From what I can tell, all they are doing here is putting the ball back in science's court...telling them that they need to figure out the problems with their theory.0 -
ECC Science DOES NOT try to explain god away. Nor can science prove the existence of god. Science does not deal with god or gods at all. Science has nothing whatever to do with god, and nothing whatever to say about god except that gods are out side the realm of science. INDIVIDUAL scientists may say things about god or gods, but those are opinions worth exactly as muc as the opinions of any one else. God is solely a matter of faith and science requires things to measure and observe. Gods are darn hard to measure. 0 -
quote:telling them that they need to figure out the problems with their theory.
By proposing utter ballon juice as an alternative theory? Science cannot test their theory, nor can they, thus it is not science but pure imigination. The formulae on the board behind them are gibberish; that is not only not good science, it is not science. Faith is all that is required for belief and religion. Why do these idiots see science as a threat, science does not deal with gods at all, if fundimentalist belief is at odds with proven facts, the belief must be mistaken in it's details, but that certainly does not strike down religion or render it meaningless. It obviously has profound meaning to many humans (of several religions), and is a very important human institution. And now, once again, I will follow my own previous resolution and bow out of this religious thread with my best compliments to you Eric.0 -
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
ECC Science DOES NOT try to explain god away. Nor can science prove the existence of god. Science does not deal with god or gods at all. Science has nothing whatever to do with god, and nothing whatever to say about god except that gods are out side the realm of science. INDIVIDUAL scientists may say things about god or gods, but those are opinions worth exactly as muc as the opinions of any one else. God is solely a matter of faith and science requires things to measure and observe. Gods are darn hard to measure.
I could not agree more...but there are a huge number of scientists that do.0 -
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
quote:telling them that they need to figure out the problems with their theory.
By proposing utter ballon juice as an alternative theory? Science cannot test their theory, nor can they, thus it is not science but pure imigination. The formulae on the board behind them are gibberish; that is not only not good science, it is not science. Faith is all that is required for belief and religion. Why do these idiots see science as a threat, science does not deal with gods at all, if fundimentalist belief is at odds with proven facts, the belief must be mistaken in it's details, but that certainly does not strike down religion or render it meaningless. It obviously has profound meaning to many humans (of several religions), and is a very important human institution. And now, once again, I will follow my own previous resolution and bow out of this religious thread with my best compliments to you Eric.
I completely agree with your statements HeDog...and I'm not defending the approach these guys are taking, b/c I do not know enough of the true science behind their claims (about the errors in the current theory). I will say that I believe that you try to remain detached when it comes to science and religion and by doing so, I believe you try to find the real facts...regardless of the final outcome. Sadly, many scientists do not. Some have made it their agenda to disprove God and Christianity. I wish all scientists were more objective...0 -
Y'all do realize this is from The Onion..right???...
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/395120
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
43 comments