Some front line views of the war against God.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Just a request from you bro, can you quote people properly? It's hard to dissect a long long post and make sure to reply to all the point directed at me without clear indicators. Not that it's impossible, it's just difficult, we don't all have super memory like you.

Yes it does have negatives, it does not have to be exactly related to the example of evolution, but I could use another analogy which would suit your oh so accurate requirements.

I already willingly pointed out a few negatives of shit, I was agreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that there are no moral negatives associated with it.

Because if my memory serves correct you are clearly a master on analogies, ones you yourself cant even understand lol.

Okay, lets use, totalitarianism, there are positives of this system being it would create a more secure state and increase the speed of decision making etc.. But there are a few lol moral negatives lol, I hope this is good enough of an example.

Because do you think if we actually taught this in our schools and not looked at the negatives, would you recommend that?

There are moral negatives with Totalitarianism. Of course they should be taught.

Donâ??t try and refute my previous example of SHIT, your attempts are just parallel to the content of the example, clearly if I held you down and suffocated you in shit there would be moral issues which must be addressed in the classroom lol.

Correct, moral issues with your behaviour. You could use any instrument of suffocation you'd like, like bubble wrap, eggs and bacon, a grocery bag... whatever you'd like. It reflects badly on you, not the instrument of suffocation.

Your giving me links to creation science and how to disprove it, im talking about intelligent design here.

How on earth can you, with your vast degree of evidence behind evolution even think of ruling out intelligent design?

I am not and cannot rule out ID. I sent you the link because there was simple information on evolution there, not specifically for the creationist parts.

An intelligent designer could have intervened at certain stages of evolution, an intelligent designer could have created the force of evolution.

Why do we have the belief in schools that this is not so?

In philosophy class, this is fine. would have/could haves are common place. In science class, we use evidence. Even in things that aren't proven, they give a laymen theory and they show the evidence pointing toward that theory, and generally point out why it's not an actual scientific theory as of yet.

My beliefs in intelligent design would attract the amazing nature and open thinking of evolution, and many other theories, the ability to disprove intelligent design will in itself bring answers and create other posibilities. A staggeringly profound theory to develop and imploy ALONGSIDE intelligent design and evolution.

This is all I ask.

If we want to teach ID alongside science, we need proof of it, that's all I ask.

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is â??universal.â?� Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, â??the moon goes around the earth.â?�

This of course, is correct in it's first statement. No one's measured gravity for every atom.

Case in point, Newton vs Einstein. Newton proposed his theory, which was tested, and fit into all measurable instances. Einstein proposed his theory, which put newton's to rest, because of Einstein, which tested in different way, like near light speed.

Gravity is real, the theory on how it works may change if there is conflicting information that can be tested. Infact, Newton was so close that NASA still uses Newton's theory in it's equations because there's no point in using Einstein's theory, as they won't be put in a situation where it deviates more than and insignificant amount.

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.

Really? Only if you ignore distance. Weird how they use the theory of gravity, amongst other things, to keep over 2000 man made satellites in orbit.

The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's â??gravityâ?� 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?

Gravity is only a theory kids, and so is evolution!

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.

Do you ever actually look into the things you assume are false? Is this how you assume scientists talk?

Sci1: Well, maybe the moon pulls the water using gravity, thus making tides
Sci2: What about the fact that there are two tides for every one revolution of the moon?
Sci1: Fuck it, no one will ever know!

"The tidal force and is responsible for the is a secondary effect of the force of gravitytides. It arises because the gravitational field is not constant across a body's diameter."

Tidal force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

How so? If the moon only revolves once every time it makes a revolution, rotating in the correct direction, then that's what happens.

Do you have any alternate theories that have proof?

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.

Care to elaborate on why?

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.

For someone who isn't a creationist, you sure like to use their arguments.

" Disorder and entropy are not the same. The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy, not disorder (although disorder defined to apply to microscopic states can be relevant to thermodynamics). There are no laws about disorder as people normally use the word."

CF001.1: Disorder by neglect

I think we have grasped the fact that evolution is a theory, and so is intelligent design and so is gravity.

No, we haven't. Only in your head have we equated them.

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

We already use the inverse-square law to describe how how gravity works, it's just used differently than the theory you're proposing to me.

If these charges are actually measurable, then it'd be worth looking into. But then if this is so, the sun has a positive charge, the planets a negative charge, do satellites such as the moon have a positive charge as well? How about man made satellites? What about man made satellites that have orbited around both the moon and the earth? An accommodating charge with no observable intervention?

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.

Because regardless of what your girlfriend tells you, size matters. (...and electric charges too).

So yes, hardcore thank you for bringing up the issue of the theory of gravity, because it really is another example of the plain ignorance of the educational system by not looking at other theories.

No problem. Oh wait...

Why do you play into the hands with so much trust the educational system? Do you seriously think that there is no hidden agenda and cencorship of information within the educational system?

Yeah, I see corruption, they're trying to make ID a scientific study!

They don't teach the bad effects of pot in science class, they teach it in phys ed, at least where I'm from. I trust science a lot more than our schools.

Research on a guy called Norman Dodd who exposed the cencorship of education in America. Then come back to me with the same trust you place within the educational system.

Always willing to research.

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?

Homeopathy? And which (or whose) definition of natural law are you using?

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.

Probably because they're using flawed science, just as any ID study will lose it's funding, because they're not operating on proof.

Wow great observation, what this has to do with the fact that intelligent design should be just as viable as evolution I have no idea.

Because you keep stating the equivalent of the arguement "since evolution is only a theory" shows that you have no understanding of what theory means in regards to science.

Infact hardcore newbie, I have a few questions for you.

Are you an evolutionist?

Do you completley disagree with the theory that there just might have been an intelligent designer?

By evolutionist, you mean someone who believes that the process of evolution is real and observable? yes.

And of course it's impossible to rule out an intelligent designer. Just because I'm not ruling it out, that doesn't mean I believe it, or that it is 'just as viable' as things with proof.

-------------------------------------------------

Anyways, my friend has just arrived so I'll answer the rest of your post when I get time. I'm telling you this so you don't preempt me with questions in bold asking why I didn't answer the rest of your post.