RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling

RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

vincentML -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/25/2010 2:31:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow IF is not a real theory. Intelligent design is a scientific theory. This is the funniest thing i have read here today. Thanks Fellow! He hasn't come back to hear the applause and fetch his prize, poor fuck.

MrRodgers -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/25/2010 3:32:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Intelligent falling is at least as much a valid scientific theory as intelligent design, I'd say more so because the theory of gravity isn't nearly as well proven as evolution. Gravity is not a theory it being one of the natural forces we depend upon to live and evolution through natural selection has been witnessed in laboratories and is not a theory.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/25/2010 5:30:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy From your source: "The anomaly has no universally accepted explanation. The explanation may be mundane, such as measurement error, thrust from gas leakage or uneven radiation of heat. However, it is also possible that current physical theory does not correctly explain the behaviour of the craft relative to the sun." I.E. it's still in analysis. And has been for years. Because they can't find a reason, and it flies in the face of current theories of gravity. Firm

thornhappy -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/25/2010 7:23:48 PM)
They're looking for an incredibly small anomaly in the theory, and the only way to shake it out is with more test data; preferably a dedicated satellite mission like they talked about on the site. The fact that they need more data, which they don't have at the moment, doesn't void the general theory. You saw the comment on how the anomaly doesn't show up with planets?

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/25/2010 8:59:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy They're looking for an incredibly small anomaly in the theory, and the only way to shake it out is with more test data; preferably a dedicated satellite mission like they talked about on the site. The fact that they need more data, which they don't have at the moment, doesn't void the general theory. You saw the comment on how the anomaly doesn't show up with planets? uhhh, Thorn ... it's always the "small anomaly" that leads to a new theory ... If gravity works in perfect accord with theory - except on Mondays - then there is something wrong with the theory. If gravity works perfectly within the Solar System, but not outside the Solar System ... then there is something wrong with the theory. It's always the "small inconsistencies" that lead to new theories. That's actually how science works. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/25/2010 9:00:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy They're looking for an incredibly small anomaly in the theory, and the only way to shake it out is with more test data; preferably a dedicated satellite mission like they talked about on the site. Annually, the difference between where the crafts are suppose to end up, and where they actually do end up, is on the order of 8,000 miles. Firm

vincentML -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/25/2010 9:05:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy They're looking for an incredibly small anomaly in the theory, and the only way to shake it out is with more test data; preferably a dedicated satellite mission like they talked about on the site. The fact that they need more data, which they don't have at the moment, doesn't void the general theory. You saw the comment on how the anomaly doesn't show up with planets? uhhh, Thorn ... it's always the "small anomaly" that leads to a new theory ... If gravity works in perfect accord with theory - except on Mondays - then there is something wrong with the theory. If gravity works perfectly within the Solar System, but not outside the Solar System ... then there is something wrong with the theory. It's always the "small inconsistencies" that lead to new theories. That's actually how science works. Firm And that is a very good thing, doncha think? I know you do. No need to answer. Hiya doin, Firm?[:D]

vincentML -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/25/2010 9:09:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Intelligent falling is at least as much a valid scientific theory as intelligent design, I'd say more so because the theory of gravity isn't nearly as well proven as evolution. Gravity is not a theory it being one of the natural forces we depend upon to live and evolution through natural selection has been witnessed in laboratories and is not a theory. I differ. Natural Selection is not a theory in the street definition and use of the term. But as a scientific model from which predictions can be made it is very much a Theory. True, it is no longer a hypothesis much in question, but a Theory (Model) it is.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 6:15:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY ... it's always the "small anomaly" that leads to a new theory ... If gravity works in perfect accord with theory - except on Mondays - then there is something wrong with the theory. If gravity works perfectly within the Solar System, but not outside the Solar System ... then there is something wrong with the theory. It's always the "small inconsistencies" that lead to new theories. That's actually how science works. And that is a very good thing, doncha think? I know you do. No need to answer. Hiya doin, Firm?[:D] Yuppers, it's a good thing. I appreciate Thorn's response, but it was really brainiacsub that I was trying to get a point across to: that when someone claims to "understand it all, and willing to 'splain it to ya country bumpkins", there is likely a problem. That attitude of absolute surety and understanding in science isn't much different than a religious person having the same attitude about their faith: and just as likely wrong as well. Firm

rulemylife -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 7:00:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Yuppers, it's a good thing. I appreciate Thorn's response, but it was really brainiacsub that I was trying to get a point across to: that when someone claims to "understand it all, and willing to 'splain it to ya country bumpkins", there is likely a problem. That attitude of absolute surety and understanding in science isn't much different than a religious person having the same attitude about their faith: and just as likely wrong as well. Firm So you are saying that science is faith-based?

brainiacsub -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 9:38:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I appreciate Thorn's response, but it was really brainiacsub that I was trying to get a point across to: that when someone claims to "understand it all, and willing to 'splain it to ya country bumpkins", there is likely a problem. That attitude of absolute surety and understanding in science isn't much different than a religious person having the same attitude about their faith: and just as likely wrong as well. Firm Firm, you are likely my favorite hillbilly, but I just don't want to get into another equivocation debate with you. The knowledge I gain from scientific study is not the same as your beliefs due to your religious Faith. There are things we can know with great certainty - like gravity - because we can observe, measure, test and verify. That was my point. Your point is that we can never really be certain of anything, therefore everything we think we know is all just based on faith, putting religion on parity with science. This is a theme that runs through all of your posts and you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this matter.

brainiacsub -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 9:41:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Yuppers, it's a good thing. I appreciate Thorn's response, but it was really brainiacsub that I was trying to get a point across to: that when someone claims to "understand it all, and willing to 'splain it to ya country bumpkins", there is likely a problem. That attitude of absolute surety and understanding in science isn't much different than a religious person having the same attitude about their faith: and just as likely wrong as well. Firm So you are saying that science is faith-based? Yes, he is, and after nearly 60 pages of debate between two recent threads no one was able to make a dent with him. It is what it is.

kdsub -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 11:50:47 AM)
GODS hand HERE Butch

mnottertail -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 12:11:04 PM)
The theory of intelligent falling is not strictly a parody: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBe8OgZVDg arrigato.

RedStapler -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 12:16:57 PM)
quote: Intelligent design is a scientific theory. In order for something to be a scientific theory, it has to be disprovable. If you can't disprove it, its not a scientific theory. Its not even a scientific hypothesis. Its pure conjecture. ID is one possible explanation that is impossible to disprove. Therefore its not scientific. People are free to accept it on faith if they so choose. Personally, I support the teaching of ID. But not in science class (because its not science). It should get a mention in a history or civics class, as should other controversial politically-charged topics. EDIT: Almost forgot, I think that "abstinence-only" sex education belongs only in history class too. If kids don't learn about sex at their public school, they'll learn about it at the School of Hard Knocks (and Knock-ups).

DomKen -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 12:17:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy They're looking for an incredibly small anomaly in the theory, and the only way to shake it out is with more test data; preferably a dedicated satellite mission like they talked about on the site. Annually, the difference between where the crafts are suppose to end up, and where they actually do end up, is on the order of 8,000 miles. Firm Actually you greatly exagerate the effect. Annually the pioneer spacecraft travel about 400km less than expected. The unaccounted for acceleration is roughly 8 * 10^-10 m/s^2 towards the sun.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 12:30:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy They're looking for an incredibly small anomaly in the theory, and the only way to shake it out is with more test data; preferably a dedicated satellite mission like they talked about on the site. Annually, the difference between where the crafts are suppose to end up, and where they actually do end up, is on the order of 8,000 miles. Firm Actually you greatly exagerate the effect. Annually the pioneer spacecraft travel about 400km less than expected. The unaccounted for acceleration is roughly 8 * 10^-10 m/s^2 towards the sun. Never heard of lateral distance, huh? Measure the curved distance from the expected location, calculated using current theory, and then plot the actual location along the curve. Not just the difference between the end points directly from the straight line distance from the sun. You need to find more detailed sources. I'm taking my info from a reference book I have on hand. Here's a picture. Maybe that'll help you visualize it. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 12:37:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I appreciate Thorn's response, but it was really brainiacsub that I was trying to get a point across to: that when someone claims to "understand it all, and willing to 'splain it to ya country bumpkins", there is likely a problem. That attitude of absolute surety and understanding in science isn't much different than a religious person having the same attitude about their faith: and just as likely wrong as well. Firm Firm, you are likely my favorite hillbilly, but I just don't want to get into another equivocation debate with you. The knowledge I gain from scientific study is not the same as your beliefs due to your religious Faith. There are things we can know with great certainty - like gravity - because we can observe, measure, test and verify. That was my point. Your point is that we can never really be certain of anything, therefore everything we think we know is all just based on faith, putting religion on parity with science. This is a theme that runs through all of your posts and you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this matter. Expand your thinking a bit and educate yourself a bit more. It's about epistemology, not religion. btw ... how's your "great certainty" about gravity holding up? Firm

rulemylife -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 12:43:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub GODS hand HERE Butch An idiot doing something stupid to get an adrenaline rush is God's hand at work? Or did I misunderstand what you were trying to say?

rulemylife -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 12:50:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKy btw ... how's your "great certainty" about gravity holding up? Firm She's insane. Who in their right mind believes in that gravity nonsense? By the way, did you know that your screen name appears at the top of every post? So we really don't have to see your name at the bottom to to know it was you who posted it.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875