Evangelical Scientists Refute mavity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Ironically, I had to explain to someone on here that mavity is, in fact, just a theoretical model and not fact per se.

Sure, it happens, and we can model it, but we don't know how or why it happens.
No, mavity is a fact and a theory, just like evolution. The theory relates to the predicted mechanism by which the observed behaviour occur.
 
So what if God is busy on the day I fall out of an airliner?, will I float? Also if God is universal why isn't he pushing in deep space? I was led to understand that mavity pulls not pushes anyway. I think they should apply some of this intelligent falling and jump off the nearest tall building. If they are as rightousness as they beleive, God wont push and their theory is proven.
 
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."

He was very religious so if they're taking the **** with that part too its a bit of a fail :p
 
I read this whole article thinking WTF?, then read, from the onion, great stuff as usual

Did exactly the same!

Gotta love The Onion! I think I've still got some of the newspapers from when I went to the states about 8-10 years ago now somewhere!
 
He was very religious so if they're taking the **** with that part too its a bit of a fail :p

He was very religious, but he attributed the laws of science to nature, not to God.

;)

It'll do. At least it'll put Neil Fawcett out of his misery.

(post wasn't entirely serious, i was just bored)

The only thing that'll put Neil Fawcett out of his misery is James Cameron with a jar of chocolate body paint.
 
degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics
This is part of the joke, right?

No, mavity is a fact and a theory, just like evolution. The theory relates to the predicted mechanism by which the observed behaviour occur.
Every time I hear "scientific fact" I wince. The whole point to science is that it's a continually evolving (meaning "to roll out", iirc) model, as soon as you enshrine something as factual people stop questioning it and things tend to stagnate. Describing evolution as a fact before it is even a completed theory strikes me as particularly premature. Or perhaps this is just another case of the public using terms vaguely when they have specific definitions in the sciences.

He was very religious, but he attributed the laws of science to nature, not to God.

Not so sure about this one. He lived in a time where it was important to phrase everything as investigating Gods work, it would have been very unwise to publish as an atheist. I believe he was generally considered a very unpleasant man, though this is perhaps not incompatible with Christianity. Is there any evidence that he was a religious man beyond the politically sensible phrasing of his work?
 
This is part of the joke, right?

The whole thing is satirical.

Not so sure about this one. He lived in a time where it was important to phrase everything as investigating Gods work, it would have been very unwise to publish as an atheist. I believe he was generally considered a very unpleasant man, though this is perhaps not incompatible with Christianity.

He didn't publish as an atheist; in fact, he was a member of the Church of England. But he was fortunate to live in a time when it was acceptable to say "nature" and "science" instead of "God does everything."

Is there any evidence that he was a religious man beyond the politically sensible phrasing of his work?

Absolutely! Newton was a self-confessed Anglican, though his private theological views would have been considered heretical (he rejected Trinitarianism and did not believe in the Devil). He was an enthusiastic Bible scholar and wrote more on religion than he did on science.

Newton is particularly famous for his work on the prophecies of Daniel and the Book of Revelation (Observations on Daniel and The Apocalypse of St. John) and an incisive piece of textual criticism (An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture).
 
Back
Top Bottom