NationStates Jolt Archive

A common argument used against scientific advances is "We're playing God! It's wrong!"
I've recently heard this applied to some other things as well. Like all healthcare.

Do "playing God" arguments hold water? Ever?
Is there a time when we should just stop advancing?
How do we know God doesn't want us to advance?

I figgure somebody has to play god, and since the real one doesn't seem to show up anymore, it falls to us.

If God had intended us to fly, he would have given us wings.

Someone I used to know used that argument for not flying anywhere.

I'd say... think about it. Can we, per definition, ever 'play god'? I mean, no matter how advanced our technology is or will be, we can't achieve true omnipotence. Isn't that obvious? Therefore, we never can truly 'play god'...

This argument could be spread to the point where we can justify just not doing anything to/for anyone. Why have police or a court system? Let God punish the wicked, isn't that what he's supposed to do?

I'm not saying there aren't ethical considerations about science, this is just the worst argument ever to try and convince people that because something can be done, it doesn't necessarily follow that it should be done...

I am a born again Christian. I think that there are certain things that we should not do like human cloning. Do we have the right to bring into this world someone who might be mentally challenged or deformed? In this case I would say "playing God" is wrong because we are making decisions that could hurt other people. The same reason I think murder and abortion are wrong. However God gave us this amazing intelligence (which alot of people often fail to use) and he expected us to use it to make these advances. In this case I think inventing and making scientific advances are good, just not advances that destroy or harm people, God's greatest creation.

However God gave us this amazing intelligence (which alot of people often fail to use) and he expected us to use it to make these advances. In this case I think inventing and making scientific advances are good, just not advances that destroy or harm people, God's greatest creation.

But... but... but we're descended from a common ancestor we share with Chimpanzees... :p

God schmod. I say we shouldn't play Shiva! Now there's a deity that packs a punch.

How do we know God doesn't want us to advance?

That is the problem with religion. No one is ever truly certain what deities want.

That's mostly why I have such a problem with people claiming they are the vessel of God and that the Bible is the absolute word of God (even if it is written by man).

In my opinion, we can never be "God", much less "play him", as everything we do will always be within the constraints of mortality and the laws of the universe.

God schmod. I say we shouldn't play Shiva! Now there's a deity that packs a punch.


you know who I feel sorry for? Vishnu. The maintainer.
"oh, Shiva, don't..-put that down!"
*BOOM*
"oh... who's going to have to clear that up? Muggins here, t'oh..."
-Bill Bailey

But on the matter of "playing God", I don't see why we should limit ourselves. if there wasn't a real benefit at the end, then scientists wouldn't be "playing God" in the first place.

One of the reasons we were put on Earth was the pursuit of knowledge and so I think God wouldn't mind all this cloning stuff and whatnot.

Islamic perspective on Stem Cells: http://www.islam101.com/science/stemCells.htm

You quoted me and then said that we are desended for chimpanzees. This is one of my pet peeves. If you do some research then you will find things like irreducible complexity and other such topics in the scientific community that are being completely ignored by many people. There is evidence for creationism if people would be objective. However, this is hard to do, I won't deny that I'm biased quite often but what the scientific community is doing is rediculous. Which if you look in the proposals there is a proposal about Equal Rights for Creationism which would allow it to be taught along side Evolution. Take a look at it and if you like it please support it.

There is evidence for creationism if people would be objective.

i'll call you out on that one.

i'll call you out on that one.t,

Don't bite for the bait! Creationism doesn't deserve your attention. Or anyone else's for that matter...

i'll call you out on that one.
No actually I'll call you out on that one. Look up irreducible complexity for starters. If you can't find anything on the regular web (because of the seeming ban on facts for creationism try going to www.family.org and typing it in) If you want for I'm the degeba system. Telegram me, I got alot more.

t,

Don't bite for the bait! Creationism doesn't deserve your attention. Or anyone else's for that matter...


i wanted him to back that up, so i could show him how wrong he was.

You quoted me and then said that we are desended for chimpanzees. This is one of my pet peeves. If you do some research then you will find things like irreducible complexity and other such topics in the scientific community that are being completely ignored by many people. There is evidence for creationism if people would be objective. However, this is hard to do, I won't deny that I'm biased quite often but what the scientific community is doing is rediculous. Which if you look in the proposals there is a proposal about Equal Rights for Creationism which would allow it to be taught along side Evolution. Take a look at it and if you like it please support it.

Yes, i quoted you. Creationism is folly. It has been said over and over again, but you Creationists won't learn it. Face reality.

Regarding teaching Creationism at school, it should be taught alongside with Lamarckism: as an obsolete hypothesis, not a "veritable theory".

t,

Don't bite for the bait! Creationism doesn't deserve your attention. Or anyone else's for that matter...
Why not? Doesn't every scientific theory deserve a valid look. Look up at the quote that was used from me. Notice that I said if people were objective theres evidence. Thanks for proving my point about people being biased.

i wanted him to back that up, so i could show him how wrong he was.

You'll be wasting your time. To fall for creationist claptrap, one has to be pretty ignorant of science (most often willfully). Thus, countering creationist sillyness with science is a dead-end.

Doesn't every scientific theory deserve a valid look.

Yes, yes they probably do. Too bad for you creationism is not a scientific theory.

Why not? Doesn't every scientific theory deserve a valid look. Look up at the quote that was used from me. Notice that I said if people were objective theres evidence. Thanks for proving my point about people being biased.

Well, evidence? You Creationists are cherrypickers. You adopt everything that fits into your world view (which you won't change, anyways), and discard any other evidence. That's not a scientific theory, that's clinging to an outdated dogma...

www.family.org


what does this have to do with providing evidence for creationism?

absolutely nothing.

You say that I'm ignorant of science because I believe in creationism. I can tell that you haven't done much research because there is plenty of facts to back it up, it just that the scientific community seems to be in love with evolution and they refuse to question it.

Also it is a scientific theory if evolution is. It's a proposed idea of how the world started. Which how the world started is science and a proposed idea would be a theory. Just because a God existing seems to the logic of today doesn't mean that it can't be a theory. It was inconcievable that the world is round to the philosophers of that day, and it was inconcievable that the universe didn't revolve around the earth.

Also it is a scientific theory if evolution is. It's a proposed idea of how the world started. Which how the world started is science and a proposed idea would be a theory. Just because a God existing seems to the logic of today doesn't mean that it can't be a theory. It was inconcievable that the world is round to the philosophers of that day, and it was inconcievable that the universe didn't revolve around the earth.

A scientific theory's hypotheses need to be falsifiable. Creationism's aren't. Thus it is not a scientific theory.

Also, there are no "facts" to support it. Creationists don't actually have facts to support their view, they instead try to poke holes in the theories of evolution (whichever of them) as if that would make a case for creationism.

You say that I'm ignorant of science because I believe in creationism. I can tell that you haven't done much research because there is plenty of facts to back it up, it just that the scientific community seems to be in love with evolution and they refuse to question it.

Also it is a scientific theory if evolution is. It's a proposed idea of how the world started. Which how the world started is science and a proposed idea would be a theory. Just because a God existing seems to the logic of today doesn't mean that it can't be a theory. It was inconcievable that the world is round to the philosophers of that day, and it was inconcievable that the universe didn't revolve around the earth.

You're showing further evidence of being ignorant of the facts. The idea that everyone thought the world was flat until the voyage of Columbus is a misnomer. People as far back as the Greeks in Aristotle's time, indeed many cultures that had developed seafaring, could tell that the world was curved rather than flat by simple observation.

I am a born again Christian. I think that there are certain things that we should not do like human cloning. Do we have the right to bring into this world someone who might be mentally challenged or deformed?

Um, by that argument, wouldn't it follow that we don't have a right to reproduce at all, since any child might be mentally challenged or deformed?

You say that I'm ignorant of science because I believe in creationism. I can tell that you haven't done much research because there is plenty of facts to back it up, it just that the scientific community seems to be in love with evolution and they refuse to question it.

You are ignorant because you ignore evidence from various scientific fields that fits so well together. The "evidence" for creation you are talking about does not exist. All Creationists have brought up so far are hoaxes, lies, misquotations and misconceptions.

Also it is a scientific theory if evolution is. It's a proposed idea of how the world started. Which how the world started is science and a proposed idea would be a theory. Just because a God existing seems to the logic of today doesn't mean that it can't be a theory.

Hello? Evolution has nothing to do with how the universe came into existence? Why do you Creationists always mix that up?

It was inconcievable that the world is round to the philosophers of that day, and it was inconcievable that the universe didn't revolve around the earth.

Then, why is it inconceivable to you that we are the product of an evolution that took millions of years? It's reality.

Also it is a scientific theory if evolution is. It's a proposed idea of how the world started. Which how the world started is science and a proposed idea would be a theory. Just because a God existing seems to the logic of today doesn't mean that it can't be a theory. It was inconcievable that the world is round to the philosophers of that day, and it was inconcievable that the universe didn't revolve around the earth.


you have no idea what a theory is.

here is how science works:

Science 101

1) Observe a natural phenomenon
2) Develop a hypothesis that explains how it happens/happened/will happen
3) develop an experiment to test the validity of your hypothesis
3b) If it happens over extended periods of time, and cannot be reproduced in labratory conditions, find some natural evidence that supprots your hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt (note: it must be independant of the original observation)
4) If the result of the experiment/observation supports the hypothesis, publish your findings. If not, go back to step 2 and develop a new hypothesis.
5) Other scientists will look at your findings, and either repeat your experiments on their own (to validate your findings) or they may develop their own experiments.
6) As new things are discovered and added or subtracted from the original hypothesis, it begins to develop from a hypothesis to a theory.

Theory - A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

OK. You got me there. Creationism can't neccesarily be defined as a theory. However, what my main point is, is that the information against evolution should be taught along side the information for it. The only way that I can see this happening is if you call it creationism, because thats what people think the information against evolution is. Right now they teach us as if evolution is a proven fact, all evidence supports it, and that there are no other theories.

Right now they teach us as if evolution is a proven fact, all evidence supports it, and that there are no other theories.
Well duh. That's because evolution is a fact (You're confusing the ToE with evolution), all evidence supports evolution (Irreducible Complexity is bullshit. Read Richard Dawkins sometime.), and there are no other theories.

Last time I checked it was the Evolution THEORY. If the scientific community who is adamently for it says its a theory I don't think you can say its a fact.

Ye gods! The one time I make any thread with any actual content, it turns into a mostly unrelated creationism vs. evolution debate.

Then again, it was probably to be expected...
:(

Last time I checked it was the Evolution THEORY. If the scientific community who is adamently for it says its a theory I don't think you can say its a fact.

Again you prove that you have no idea of what a scientific theory is. Let me guess, you think gravity is not a "fact" because it is explained/described by a theory?

Last time I checked it was the Evolution THEORY. If the scientific community who is adamently for it says its a theory I don't think you can say its a fact.

You still don't get what a *scientific theory* is. The Theory of Relativity is 'just a theory', too. It has been verified over and over again via experiments and observations. So what? You don't think that the speed of light in vacuum is constant? Do you believe that there is something like the aether? If you do so, then i have to tell you that there's no evidence for it.

So... it's basically just the same with evolution, which has been verified over and over again, too. And there's no evidence for Creationism (or Lamarckism, while we're at it, either). Get it?

Ye gods! The one time I make any thread with any actual content, it turns into a mostly unrelated creationism vs. evolution debate.

Then again, it was probably to be expected...
:(

Sorry about this inconvenience, Neo. To get back to the topic, i think that the phrase is usually largely out of religious context and more associated with a generic dislike towards technological progress.

we can't achieve true omnipotence. Isn't that obvious?
of course, the concept of omnipotence is inherently flawed; omnipotence is impossible.

Can an omnipotent person create a rock that is so heavy he cannot lift it himself? Or a tree so high he cannot see the top of? Don't bother answering. Either way, omnipotence is disproven. (An explaination will be given if needed.)

Again you prove that you have no idea of what a scientific theory is. Let me guess, you think gravity is not a "fact" because it is explained/described by a theory?
Gravity is a theory. Any scientist will tell you that.

of course, the concept of omnipotence is inherently flawed; omnipotence is impossible.

Can an omnipotent person create a rock that is so heavy he cannot lift it himself? Or a tree so high he cannot see the top of? Don't bother answering. Either way, omnipotence is disproven. (An explaination will be given if needed.)
No it isn't, omnipotence means all powerful. An omnipotent being has all powers. There is no power that allows you to make a rock so big you can't move it, it's impossible. As long as the rock is of finite mass, a force will accelerate it, if only a little bit. You might as well say, "Can God Thursday"? Both are stupid examples of stupid people trying to disprove something they don't understand.

Gravity is a theory. Any scientist will tell you that.

Gravity is a fact (or have you just hurled off into space?). We have theories to explain how it works.

I think people are missing the point when they use the phrase "playing god" (at least to my understanding)

"Playing God" does not mean to medically heal someone, or decide if you're going to have a child. That isn't "playing god"

"Playing God" refers to acting as if you are somehow a higher power, and have the right to judge people as God would (usually used in a life or death situation). So, an example of "Playing God" would be a doctor who says "I'm going to heal this person, and not that person" just because he can choose who lives or dies.
A doctor who heals everyone, or who heals the person who has the most chance of surviving is NOT playing god, they are just healing.

So...yeah, the argument that medical research is playing god is nonsense.
The argument that human cloning is "playing god" has more weight, as we're creating life (the same as the doctor choosing who dies, but in reverse). Having children doesn't count as "playing god", because God (if he exists) is still choosing to give life.

"Playing God" is seen as a bad thing, because it means someone is excercising their complete power over someone else in the situation. This is a fairly modern idea, once upon a time it was quite acceptable for nobles to remind their serfs that the serfs only live by the nobles sufferance.

Many people also enjoy pretending to "play god". For example, a lot of emergency room surgeons or ambulence drivers like the feeling that someone elses life rests in their hands, it makes them feel powerful. I have no problem with this, it's good they enjoy their job. They aren't actually "playing god" if they always try to help the person.

I enjoy "playing god" when I play computer games. Evil Genius is a good one. Of course, there isn't the moral "naughty you" connotations when you do that, as it's not real people that we're talking about.

Of course, this is just my interpretation, I could be wrong.

Also, it bears noting that "playing god" is just a phrase that is used, there is no real religious connection. An atheist can "play god" or use the phrase just as easily as a religious person.

Gravity is a fact (or have you just hurled off into space?). We have theories to explain how it works.
You're calling the fact we stay on the ground gravity. That isn't gravity. That's the RESULT of a force. The force is what we call gravity. Maybe we've got gravity pegged exactly. Maybe it's microscopic angels pushing us down. Doesn't change the fact that gravity is a theory.

You might as well say, "Can God Thursday"?
I totally bet he could!

You're calling the fact we stay on the ground gravity. That isn't gravity. That's the RESULT of a force. The force is what we call gravity.

The force is gravity. Thus it is a fact. The force is called gravity.

Maybe we've got gravity pegged exactly. Maybe it's microscopic angels pushing us down. Doesn't change the fact that gravity is a theory.

You are confusing the fact of gravity with the theories that explain how it works.

You're calling the fact we stay on the ground gravity. That isn't gravity. That's the RESULT of a force. The force is what we call gravity. Maybe we've got gravity pegged exactly. Maybe it's microscopic angels pushing us down. Doesn't change the fact that gravity is a theory.
Maybe it's both. Who said that angels are tiny people with wings?
Can't an "angel pushing us down" be represented, in scientific terms, as a force?
Can't God acting on the world be represented in scientific terms as the physical laws?

See? We can all play nice!

But good point about "facts" we take for granted. We see the results and assume the theories are right. It's a perfect example of theories that are almost certainly mostly-correct. I'm sure there's more going on at the subatomic or ultra-large level that we don't understand, but for practical uses, I think we can assume that the theory of gravity *works*.

The force is gravity. Thus it is a fact. The force is called gravity.

You are confusing the fact of gravity with the theories that explain how it works.
Are you completely ignorant? There is no theory explaining how gravity works. It just is. There's no accepted idea for WHY this force pulls things together, it just is. There's no accepted idea for HOW a black hole can be infinitely dense at its singularity, it just is. The force is THEORIZED to be gravity, a THEORETICAL and UNPROVEN force. It's very hard to prove or disprove the idea that this invisible force with no origin just pushes people down because it does.

I'd say... think about it. Can we, per definition, ever 'play god'? I mean, no matter how advanced our technology is or will be, we can't achieve true omnipotence. Isn't that obvious? Therefore, we never can truly 'play god'...

^

Sorry about this inconvenience, Neo. To get back to the topic, i think that the phrase is usually largely out of religious context and more associated with a generic dislike towards technological progress.

Perhaps, but then there is a lot of new territory in science that some people feel steps too far into the jurisdiction of "the Almighty."

Case in point: Cloning. Let's say you clone a human being using genetic material not from zygotes. You've sucessfully created a human using abilities outside nature. So, does this new person have a soul? Since this person, let's call him "Adam," was created outside the boundaries of the way God put things in order, does that mean that this person is outside laws of God? This is scary stuff to consider from a theological perspective. What happens if Adam wants to join a church? Will he be rebuffed because he isn't "really" human? What if he has children the normal way with a woman? Do those children have souls?

Granted, I'm being slightly facetious with my example, but you probably see what I'm saying...this is territory that could be scary for some people.

Maybe it's both. Who said that angels are tiny people with wings?
Can't an "angel pushing us down" be represented, in scientific terms, as a force?
Can't God acting on the world be represented in scientific terms as the physical laws?

See? We can all play nice!

But good point about "facts" we take for granted. We see the results and assume the theories are right. It's a perfect example of theories that are almost certainly mostly-correct. I'm sure there's more going on at the subatomic or ultra-large level that we don't understand, but for practical uses, I think we can assume that the theory of gravity *works*.
An angel pushing us down would be pushing with force, yes. But equally possible is that everything in the universe is expanding at a constant rate. So when you jump, the earth is just rising up to meet you. You can't measure things, because your meter sticks get longer too.

Stem cell reserch, abortions etc can be forces of double plus goodness.
Sometimes a doctor can only heal one person, and the other must die, wheather because the doctor has time/resources or because there are two bodies attatched to one heart.
Sometimes god must be played in order for the greater good. In some cases like cloning, I cannot understand what the problem is anyway, and i can just barley grasp why people might not want to 'kill mary to save joedy'

Are you completely ignorant? There is no theory explaining how gravity works. It just is.

No, there is no theory that explains what gravity is. We, however, have theories that explain how it works (the bending of space and all that). The theories of relativity deal greatly with gravity.

There's no accepted idea for WHY this force pulls things together, it just is. There's no accepted idea for HOW a black hole can be infinitely dense at its singularity, it just is. The force is THEORIZED to be gravity, a THEORETICAL and UNPROVEN force.

That the force is there is a fact. What it is, we don't really know. What its effects are, we do. We call the force gravity, though.

It's very hard to prove or disprove the idea that this invisible force with no origin just pushes people down because it does.

Really, try thinking a bot before you write. You're just basically dealing with semantics here. Gravity is a fact. Even a law in Newtonian ohysics. You are confusing it with the theories that explain how it works, and them you further confuse with the lack of a good theory that explains what it is exactly.

No, there is no theory that explains what gravity is. We, however, have theories that explain how it works (the bending of space and all that). The theories of relativity deal greatly with gravity.

That the force is there is a fact. What it is, we don't really know. What its effects are, we do. We call the force gravity, though.

Really, try thinking a bot before you write. You're just basically dealing with semantics here. Gravity is a fact. Even a law in Newtonian ohysics. You are confusing it with the theories that explain how it works, and them you further confuse with the lack of a good theory that explains what it is exactly.
Please post a theory explaining how gravity works.

That we come down after jumping is a fact. That a force is involved is theory. The expanding universe hypothesis provides for a way to come down with no force involved.

Try thinking a "bit" before you write. Gravity is a theory. Black holes are a theory. Just because it's accepted doesn't make it true.

Stem cell reserch, abortions etc can be forces of double plus goodness.
Sometimes a doctor can only heal one person, and the other must die, wheather because the doctor has time/resources or because there are two bodies attatched to one heart.
Sometimes god must be played in order for the greater good. In some cases like cloning, I cannot understand what the problem is anyway, and i can just barley grasp why people might not want to 'kill mary to save joedy'

Ah, but a doctor who can only heal one person at a time isn't "playing god". S/He is just performing triage. If a doctor says "I'm going to let you die, because I can, and I'll save the other person instead" THEN the doctor is playing god.

If the doctor is following some theory or order to who they save (such as the person with the best chance of survival) then they aren't "playing god"

I, too, have trouble with why people might not want to "kill mary to save joedy". That is, assuming that they are both going to die if you don't do anything. I have trouble with the idea of killing mary to save joedy, if mary would otherwise live.

Please post a theory explaining how gravity works.

That we come down after jumping is a fact. That a force is involved is theory. The expanding universe hypothesis provides for a way to come down with no force involved.

Try thinking a "bit" before you write. Gravity is a theory. Black holes are a theory. Just because it's accepted doesn't make it true.

Ok... I don't accept gravity!..... ..... .... Hrm... I'm still stuck to my chair right now...well damn it. Oh wait, maybe I am just theorizing that I am stuck to my chair, yeah... just because I have theorized that I am stuck here in my chair and not floating randomly around doesn't mean it's true.

Please post a theory explaining how gravity works.

Einstein already has, and it's the best we have so far.

That we come down after jumping is a fact. That a force is involved is theory. The expanding universe hypothesis provides for a way to come down with no force involved.

Try thinking a "bit" before you write. Gravity is a theory. Black holes are a theory.

Black holes have been observed (i.e. their effects, as it cannot be observed due to the "blackness"). How they end up being black holes is a theory. They themselves are not.

And you still deal with semantics.

Playing god is a simple phrase used to control someone. Generally the conversation goes... "You are playing god!" and the answer is "I am not!" Each age has unwritten laws about what morality is and they change from age to age. Much of what we have today in the lines of health care and other areas of science was learned at some other creatures harm and pain. Take careful notes... it will change in the future only in the fact that different things will be considered immoral which were moral in the ages past (and visa versa). :cool:

Einstein already has, and it's the best we have so far.



Black holes have been observed (i.e. their effects, as it cannot be observed due to the "blackness"). How they end up being black holes is a theory. They themselves are not.

And you still deal with semantics.
Well, then tell him to post it, since I asked you to show me one, rather than saying one exists. I'm not taking your science on faith.

Their effects have been observed, they have not. I could similarly argue the effects of God have been observed, but He has not. Stop being childish.

An angel pushing us down would be pushing with force, yes. But equally possible is that everything in the universe is expanding at a constant rate. So when you jump, the earth is just rising up to meet you. You can't measure things, because your meter sticks get longer too.

That's just a joke made up by Scott Adams, not a real theory.
It's gravitational fields that pull us down. The fact that the universe is expanding is irrelevant on the scale of a person jumping up and down.

I thought that was just a joke made up by Scott Adams, not a real theory.
It's gravitational fields that pull us down. The fact that the universe is expanding is irrelevant on the scale of a person jumping up and down.

...right?
Prove a gravitational field. Replicate one. Change the gravity. Can't? Then it's not replicable and thus is a theory, not a fact. The universe may well be expanding on the atomic level, a hydrogen may be twice the size that it was a few minutes ago. If everything else similarly increased, you wouldn't have any way to tell.

Well, then tell him to post it, since I asked you to show me one, rather than saying one exists. I'm not taking your science on faith.

Their effects have been observed, they have not. I could similarly argue the effects of God have been observed, but He has not. Stop being childish.

You accuse him of being childish, yet from reading your posts you seem to be the one acting that way. It is always much easier to sit back and say X doesn't exist, and I am not changing my mind until you post a theory, than it is to actively go out and do some work and prove your side of the arguement.

but He has not.

Nevermind. You shouldn't wear your religion so visibly. It's tacky.

And you don't have to see things to be able to proove they exist.
The fact that there are black spots where no radiation is emmited prooves the existence of black holes...

Prove a gravitational field. Replicate one. Change the gravity. Can't? Then it's not replicable and thus is a theory, not a fact. The universe may well be expanding on the atomic level, a hydrogen may be twice the size that it was a few minutes ago. If everything else similarly increased, you wouldn't have any way to tell.

Sorry to post twice in a row but here it is again. Prove everything is growing? Of course you won't, you'll sit back and wait for everybody else to get information for you, and even if they do you will not change your mind.

Please post a theory explaining how gravity works.
Um, the theory of gravity explains the mathematics of what is observed. To my (extremely limited) understanding, it doesn't explain why gravity works. It just explains how gravity works

That we come down after jumping is a fact. That a force is involved is theory. The expanding universe hypothesis provides for a way to come down with no force involved.
Sure, but an expanding universe requires a universal centre point (which is fine, and probably exists). It also means that "gravity" would only work on the outside of that centre point. Which means us poor people in Australia would keep falling off into space.

Try thinking a "bit" before you write. Gravity is a theory. Black holes are a theory. Just because it's accepted doesn't make it true.
Of course not. The ancient greeks were really clever people. They looked at the stars and thought "hey, it looks like the earth is travelling through space. Cool theory! How to test it". Well, things that move have wind rush against them (just try running). So, if the earth is moving through space, then there should be a great wind pushing against us. There isn't. Therefore, the earth is *probably* not moving through space.
It's a scientific hypotethis that was verified (incorrectly, due to lack of background information). We don't always get things right, no matter how "obvious" it might seem. Or how "accepted" the theory becomes.

Gravity seems to be a fact (that there is some force of attraction between bodies of mass) as it has been observed. The theories of gravity are attempts to describe how this force works. They seem to be mostly-right so far, with exceptions that we haven't completely discovered.
There well might be some other way of describing gravity that we don't know, which will work better.

Prove a gravitational field. Replicate one. Change the gravity. Can't? Then it's not replicable and thus is a theory, not a fact. The universe may well be expanding on the atomic level, a hydrogen may be twice the size that it was a few minutes ago. If everything else similarly increased, you wouldn't have any way to tell.

As I said, that's childish logic that was mocked by Scott Adams in one of his Dilbert collections. And gravitational fields have been replicated, and they are different depending on the relative mass they are near...
Haven't you taken any [real] science?

Gravitation and black holes are facts supported by theories.

Basically, as per gravity, it is theorized that gravitational fields are simply places of distortion in space...
As for black holes, they are theorized to be places where light can't exist.

Well, then tell him to post it, since I asked you to show me one, rather than saying one exists. I'm not taking your science on faith.

Pick up a book on physics. His theories should be there. Unless creationists in the US have tried to remove them, too.

Their effects have been observed, they have not. I could similarly argue the effects of God have been observed, but He has not. Stop being childish.

You are the one being childish. Here, I will even stoop to quoting a dictionary to prove that you are dealing with semantics.

Main Entry: grav·i·ty
Pronunciation: 'gra-v&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French gravité, from Latin gravitat-, gravitas, from gravis
"3 a (1) the gravitational attraction of the mass of the earth, the moon, or a planet for bodies at or near its surface"

See. The observed attraction exists. Gravity is a fact.

Now Gravity signifies other things, too:

(2) : a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (as stars and planets), and between particles (as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 1039 times weaker than the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter -- called also gravitation, gravitational force;

You are simply confusing the fact that "gravity" can mean several different things. Get over it.

See. The observed attraction exists. Gravity is a fact.


Indeed. But how gravitation works is simply a theory. End of discussion.

Prove a gravitational field?
I can't. Simple as that. I'm not an experimental physicist. So I'm going to have to take some of what they say on faith.

However, I can offer you this:
Hypotethis: My limited understanding of gravity (that of it being a force of attraction between two objects of mass, where the force of attraction is relative to the mass of the objects and the distance between them) is workably correct.
Observation: unpowered objects orbit the earth. This also relies on the observation that the earth is spinning (which is probably true due to observations of stars moving across the sky). The object "falls" due to gravity, but as the earth is moving and spinning, and if it's falling just right, it ends up a bit to the side, at the same height above the earth. This "falling" continues, as it "falls" around the earth in a circle, never actually landing.
Not a particularly good explanation (I can explain it better if I can wave my arms), but it does explain both how satellites can work, as well as verifying my hypotethis.

Just because I don't have the knowledge to understand something doesn't mean it's wrong. I'm going to have to trust the people that do have more knowledge, to a certain extent. Then test their hypotethes in ways that I understand (such as the satellite) to see if they still appear credible.
I do have the luxury of an astrophysicist friend who I can query when I don't understand something well enough to be convinced.

Indeed. But how gravitation works is simply a theory. End of discussion.
Yes.
The fact that a force that stops us floating into space exists is a fact.
The theories of how and why that force works are simply theories.
end of discussion.

You accuse him of being childish, yet from reading your posts you seem to be the one acting that way. It is always much easier to sit back and say X doesn't exist, and I am not changing my mind until you post a theory, than it is to actively go out and do some work and prove your side of the arguement.
I don't have to post a theory on gravity! That's not how debate works! I'm the one saying it's a theory and not a fact. You're one of the many idiots arguing that.

Nevermind. You shouldn't wear your religion so visibly. It's tacky.

And you don't have to see things to be able to proove they exist.
The fact that there are black spots where no radiation is emmited prooves the existence of black holes...
So is idiocy in style now? Cause otherwise you should change your outfit.

You have to be able to replicate something to prove it to be true beyond a reasonable doubt in scientific court. Scientific method? It doesn't prove anything other than radiation doesn't go there. It doesn't prove why it happens or how it happens.

Sorry to post twice in a row but here it is again. Prove everything is growing? Of course you won't, you'll sit back and wait for everybody else to get information for you, and even if they do you will not change your mind.
Goodness, your parents must be proud. I never said I didn't believe the theory of gravity, all I've said then, and all I've said now, is that gravity is a theory. It's not fact. It's theory. Ask any scientist. Go read a periodical. They talk about the theory of gravity. Not the law of gravity. Not the fact of gravity. The THEORY of it.

Um, the theory of gravity explains the mathematics of what is observed. To my (extremely limited) understanding, it doesn't explain why gravity works. It just explains how gravity works
Circular reasoning. Something doesn't add up. Gravity makes it not add up. How do we know there's gravity? Because something doesn't add up. I'm asking for someone to post any respected scientist who says gravity is a fact, and why.

Sure, but an expanding universe requires a universal centre point (which is fine, and probably exists). It also means that "gravity" would only work on the outside of that centre point. Which means us poor people in Australia would keep falling off into space.
Australia is the center of the universe now?

Gravity seems to be a fact (that there is some force of attraction between bodies of mass) as it has been observed. The theories of gravity are attempts to describe how this force works. They seem to be mostly-right so far, with exceptions that we haven't completely discovered.
There well might be some other way of describing gravity that we don't know, which will work better.
There seems to be, yes. But it hasn't been PROVEN. It's a THEORY.

As I said, that's childish logic that was mocked by Scott Adams in one of his Dilbert collections. And gravitational fields have been replicated, and they are different depending on the relative mass they are near...
Haven't you taken any [real] science?

Gravitation and black holes are facts supported by theories.

Basically, as per gravity, it is theorized that gravitational fields are simply places of distortion in space...
As for black holes, they are theorized to be places where light can't exist.
I'll try again, because you're just not getting it. Post a theory. Not something you pulled out of your ass. Go to google, and find anyone who agrees with you.

-snip-
My mistake, an online dictionary with no peer review is clearly the authority on astrophysics. Silly me.

Yes.
The fact that a force that stops us floating into space exists is a fact.
The theories of how and why that force works are simply theories.
end of discussion.
The fact that we don't float off into space is a fact.
The idea that a force is doing it is a theory.
The idea behind how that force works is a theory.

I don't have to post a theory on gravity! That's not how debate works! I'm the one saying it's a theory and not a fact. You're one of the many idiots arguing that.

You misunderstand my post, I am saying you are telling everybody else to prove they're right and you're wrong, yet you post nothing to say you're right and they're wrong. Also, it is cheap to responde to such things by calling people idiots simply because they think different than you.

You misunderstand my post, I am saying you are telling everybody else to prove they're right and you're wrong, yet you post nothing to say you're right and they're wrong. Also, it is cheap to responde to such things by calling people idiots simply because they think different than you.
When they think idiotically, they're idiots. That's how definitions work. What I have said is that gravity is a theory. Fass is insisting it isn't. The burden of proof falls on him to prove something is factual. Not on me.

My mistake, an online dictionary with no peer review is clearly the authority on astrophysics. Silly me.

That was cut from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which is not only an online dictionary. And as your problem is semantic, it is appropriate. Gravity - ie the attraction observed - is a fact. You were semantically confused. Get over it, already.

When they think idiotically, they're idiots. That's how definitions work. What I have said is that gravity is a theory. Fass is insisting it isn't. The burden of proof falls on him to prove something is factual. Not on me.

Oh so your job is to sit around and call everybody idiots, I see. And where is your proof that everyone is thinking idiotically except you?

Oh so your job is to sit around and call everybody idiots, I see. And where is your proof that everyone is thinking idiotically except you?
It's not a job, any more than you posting about things you don't understand is your job. My proof is in the fact that you don't understand the scientific method, and yet are arguing about it.

That was cut from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which is not only an online dictionary. And as your problem is semantic, it is appropriate. Gravity - ie the attraction observed - is a fact. You were semantically confused. Get over it, already.
An English dictionary != astrophysics glossary. When someone talks about the speed of light, are they talking about the speed at which things that aren't heavy move?

I'll try again, because you're just not getting it. Post a theory. Not something you pulled out of your ass. Go to google, and find anyone who agrees with you.

I just posted theories, unlike what you have done, which would be the latter. I don't take to being called an idiot or someone who makes up facts. I have no agenda other than the persuit of truth, as should every other sentient being, let alone scientists.

So, let me reiterate, have you ever taken a course in Physics, Astronomy, et al, beyond a grade school level? I'm not being sardonic or trying to flame, I'm dead serious. You obviously lack a serious grasp of understanding of quantum mechanics, physics, and astrophysics, and I need to understand where you're working from in order to have any hope of rectifying the course of the discussion.

what about Brahma :(.
if god gave us the power to develop medicine, then why should we go against his wishes?

It's not a job, any more than you posting about things you don't understand is your job. My proof is in the fact that you don't understand the scientific method, and yet are arguing about it.

Oh of course, I'm sorry. You know me well enough to know what I understand and what I do not. I guess I better just be quiet now, since Arammanar the almighty has spoken, and he is the only one who knows what he is talking about. -smirk-

An English dictionary != astrophysics glossary.

Really, can you explain which part of "your problem is semantic" that eluded you? Gravity = the attraction observed. Are you trying to claim that the observed attraction does not exist? No. Even you have admitted that the attraction is there. Thus gravity is a fact, as gravity is "attraction of the mass of the earth, the moon, or a planet for bodies at or near its surface".

I just posted theories, unlike what you have done, which would be the latter. I don't take to being called an idiot or someone who makes up facts. I have no agenda other than the persuit of truth, as should every other sentient being, let alone scientists.

So, let me reiterate, have you ever taken a course in Physics, Astronomy, et al, beyond a grade school level? I'm not being sardonic or trying to flame, I'm dead serious. You obviously lack a serious grasp of understanding of quantum mechanics, physics, and astrophysics, and I need to understand where you're working from in order to have any hope of rectifying the course of the discussion.
You posted sentences without a source. That's what I've done. I don't care what you do or do not take to, prove gravity is fact and not theory or go away, you don't belong here if you plan on wasting everyone's time.

You're only trying to flame, as my education or lack thereof isn't relevant to the discussion if you're wrong and I'm right. You lack an understanding of grade school level science if you can't tell the difference between fact and theory.

Really, can you explain which part of "your problem is semantic" that eluded you? Gravity = the attraction observed. Are you trying to claim that the observed attraction does not exist? No. Even you have admitted that the attraction is there. Thus gravity is a fact, as gravity is "attraction of the mass of the earth, the moon, or a planet for bodies at or near its surface".
The fact that you get your semantics from English dictionaries and not from Physics textbooks. I'm claiming I believe the attraction is there, I can't prove it is there. Neither can you. Neither has anyone.

You posted sentences without a source. That's what I've done. I don't care what you do or do not take to, prove gravity is fact and not theory or go away, you don't belong here if you plan on wasting everyone's time.

You're only trying to flame, as my education or lack thereof isn't relevant to the discussion if you're wrong and I'm right. You lack an understanding of grade school level science if you can't tell the difference between fact and theory.

Actually, none of us belong here. We're all off topic, which you seem to be forgetting. So before you take it upon yourself to decide who does and who does not belong, remember this isn't even your topic.

All this talk about "playing god" reminds me of that book . . . The Cider House Rules, by John Irving. I never saw the movie. I wonder if it was any good? :confused:

Actually, none of us belong here. We're all off topic, which you seem to be forgetting. So before you take it upon yourself to decide who does and who does not belong, remember this isn't even your topic.
Before you decide what is and what is not off-topic, remember that this isn't even your topic.

I found some information online:
"One way to sniff out a troll is that when cornered, he attacks the person.."

Err...:
"Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the gravitational field" Albert Einstein (1930)."

Here's a nice page to look at. Go wild. Then talk:
http://www.astronomycafe.net/gravity/gravity.html

The fact that you get your semantics from English dictionaries and not from Physics textbooks. I'm claiming I believe the attraction is there, I can't prove it is there. Neither can you. Neither has anyone.

Dictionaries deal with semantics, if you haven't noticed.

So you are denying that the attraction is there? You are denying the observed world?

Before you decide what is and what is not off-topic, remember that this isn't even your topic.

Read back several posts, the person who did make the topic commented on how this is not what he had planned for the topic.

The fact that we don't float off into space is a fact.
The idea that a force is doing it is a theory.
The idea behind how that force works is a theory.
Aw, c'mon man!

I agree on 2 out of 3 of these.
The idea that a force is doing it? C'mon! It's definately a force. I can physically feel the force!
Whether the force is caused by a magical attraction between mass, by the universe expanding, by pixies or angels...there's still a force.
Right?

The only other explanation I can come up with, if there isn't a force (caused by whatever reason) would be that I am free of the restraints of gravity, and, due to some interesting mental phenomena, cause myself to feel this imaginary force. But that doesn't explain other objects also seemingly affected by some force.

...as my education or lack thereof isn't relevant to the discussion if you're wrong and I'm right. You lack an understanding of grade school level science if you can't tell the difference between fact and theory...

Commonly known "facts" about facts and theories don't need sources.
And "www.family.org", isn't an unbiased source, so you're point is void.

If you've already made up your mind and are looking only for proof in your favor, then there is no point in arguing, and I suggest you leave the thread before someone reports you for baiting.

An angel pushing us down would be pushing with force, yes. But equally possible is that everything in the universe is expanding at a constant rate. So when you jump, the earth is just rising up to meet you. You can't measure things, because your meter sticks get longer too.
... You do realize that if that was true, people on the other side of the world from the direction the earth is moving would float away into space when they jumped, right? Or are you really that dense?

"Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the gravitational field" Albert Einstein (1930)."

Here's a nice page to look at. Go wild. Then talk:
http://www.astronomycafe.net/gravity/gravity.html
It is a very nice page:
"the force we call gravity..."
What, so it's a force and not the attraction itself? Interesting...
The exact, mathematical, way to show this unity - called Superstring Theory - remains experimentally untested. According to some skeptical physicists, this theory may be permanently untestable
Wait, so it's unprovable? Sounds like a theory to me.
The exact, mathematical way to prove God-called Creationist Theory-remains experimentally untested. According to some skeptical theologians, this theory may be permanently untestable.
Currently, physicists are exploring two of its most fundamental predictions
Again, the predictions are being explored, but have not been proven. Gravity = theory.
Observationally, they have not been directly detected yet.
So all you really have after making me go through all that is that there is a very nice theory that seems to work but that has not been proven. Nice work.

... You do realize that if that was true, people on the other side of the world from the direction the earth is moving would float away into space when they jumped, right? Or are you really that dense?
Are you really so dense as to not understand how an expanding sphere works?

o ---> O

Gasp! Looks like it gets bigger equally ON ALL SIDES!

Aw, c'mon man!

He's right. The idea of a force is a theory. But the existence of gravitational attraction is a fact...

Now then, we were talking about "Playing the role of a god/dess", weren't we?

Commonly known "facts" about facts and theories don't need sources.
And "www.family.org", isn't an unbiased source, so you're point is void.

If you've already made up your mind and are looking only for proof in your favor, then there is no point in arguing, and I suggest you leave the thread before someone reports you for baiting.
Gravity is a commonly accepted theory. That's why you need facts to prove it's fact. And what does family.org have to do with any of this?

So you're saying that I could convince you that gravity is theory and not fact? Because otherwise stop being hypocritical before I go cry to the mods.

Read back several posts, the person who did make the topic commented on how this is not what he had planned for the topic.
Read any of the mod's posts where they have said the topic starter is not in control of his topic once he starts it.

Children play, and part of their play is imitating their parents.

Now if God is our parent, then imitating him can hardly be wrong, hmm?

And one day we might all just grow up. ;)

The Degeba System
New Member




Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 14 I am a born again Christian. I think that there are certain things that we should not do like human cloning. Do we have the right to bring into this world someone who might be mentally challenged or deformed? In this case I would say "playing God" is wrong because we are making decisions that could hurt other people. The same reason I think murder and abortion are wrong. However God gave us this amazing intelligence (which alot of people often fail to use) and he expected us to use it to make these advances. In this case I think inventing and making scientific advances are good, just not advances that destroy or harm people, God's greatest creation.



No offense dude but as a christian i can't help you with your fight. Because you missed something in you initail post. God did not give humans knowlege, we took it. Therefore God did not want humans to advance, if he did then he would have created Adam and Eve with knowlege, they would not have had to take it by eating the forbidden fruit. You show and utter lack of knowlege for the Bible and you claim to be a born-again christian, yet you missed the reason for Jesus Christ to come in the first place. How can you claim to be a born-again christian and a follower of Christ is you don't even know or recognize why Christ came to Earth and HAD to die for our sins on the cross.

Before you decide what is and what is not off-topic, remember that this isn't even your topic.
you could not possibly have deteriorated from logic into hypocrisy any more than you just did.

Aw, c'mon man!

I agree on 2 out of 3 of these.
The idea that a force is doing it? C'mon! It's definately a force. I can physically feel the force!
Whether the force is caused by a magical attraction between mass, by the universe expanding, by pixies or angels...there's still a force.
Right?

The only other explanation I can come up with, if there isn't a force (caused by whatever reason) would be that I am free of the restraints of gravity, and, due to some interesting mental phenomena, cause myself to feel this imaginary force. But that doesn't explain other objects also seemingly affected by some force.
You can't "feel" gravity anymore than you can "feel" strong force anymore than you can "feel" the electroweak force. You feel the sensation of you approaching the earth. That is not gravity. That is movement, which is picked up by your vestibular sense. Different things entirely. The universe expanding wouldn't be a force, it'd be a property of matter.

you could not possibly have deteriorated from logic into hypocrisy any more than you just did.
Irony is lost on the ignorant.

So all you really have after making me go through all that is that there is a very nice theory that seems to work but that has not been proven. Nice work.

You seemed to be arguing against that point. If I misunderstood you, my apologize. You were being quite caustic and antagonistic, so your assertion wasn't all that clear.

And please don't try and put creationism on the same level as Superstring or string theory.


Incidentally, y'all (I can't believe I said such an atrocious phrase) could've picked a more concrete theory that doesn't overlap into so many areas of science. Gravity is the one [or at least most notable] area were inconsistancy between relativity, conventional physics, and quantum mechanics still abounds.

You can't "feel" gravity anymore than you can "feel" strong force anymore than you can "feel" the electroweak force. You feel the sensation of you approaching the earth. That is not gravity. That is movement, which is picked up by your vestibular sense. Different things entirely. The universe expanding wouldn't be a force, it'd be a property of matter.
force ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fôrs, frs)
n.
The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power: the force of an explosion.

Power made operative against resistance; exertion: use force in driving a nail.
The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain: a confession obtained by force.

Intellectual power or vigor, especially as conveyed in writing or speech.
Moral strength.
A capacity for affecting the mind or behavior; efficacy: the force of logical argumentation.
One that possesses such capacity: the forces of evil.

A body of persons or other resources organized or available for a certain purpose: a large labor force.
A person or group capable of influential action: a retired senator who is still a force in national politics.

Military strength.
The entire military strength, as of a nation. Often used in the plural.
A unit of a nation's military personnel, especially one deployed into combat: Our forces have at last engaged the enemy.
Law. Legal validity.
Physics. A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application.
Baseball. A force play.
it would be a force. if you wish to debate the definition of a "force" there is no point. in order to prove your point you would have to change the definition of force as any motion requires force under the "laws of physics." everyone here is using the definition found in any common dictionary to define force. i dont know about you but thats typically how my arguments work.

You seemed to be arguing against that point. If I misunderstood you, my apologize. You were being quite caustic and antagonistic, so your assertion wasn't all that clear.

And please don't try and put creationism on the same level as Superstring or string theory.


Incidentally, y'all (I can't believe I said such an atrocious phrase) could've picked a more concrete theory that doesn't overlap into so many areas of science. Gravity is the one [or at least most notable] area were inconsistancy between relativity, conventional physics, and quantum mechanics still abounds.
I believe in gravity. I believe that we have it pegged probably exactly, if not closely. But we haven't proved it. When someone proves it, no one will care, except select scientists, because everyone already knew it. But it hasn't been proven. That's all I'm saying. It's a theory. It's a theory that's almost certainly correct, widely accepted, and logically valid, but it's a theory.

And scientifically, no, I don't put Creationism anywhere near Superstring theory. Creationism is like gravity, even if true, it can't be proven.

Gravity is a commonly accepted theory. That's why you need facts to prove it's fact.

I said gravitation is a fact supported by a theory of gravity.

I thought you were arguing one of several things:
1. That an expanding universe is a more viable theory for gravitation
2. Gravitation isn't a fact
3. Gravity doesn't have enough evidence to be theory

I think we all agree on the same thing and that your initial post simply through most of us off.

Are you really so dense as to not understand how an expanding sphere works?

o ---> O

Gasp! Looks like it gets bigger equally ON ALL SIDES!
And you're calling everyone else an idiot... Then why, pray tell, can you feel yourself falling down again after you jump? Why don't you just stay up in the air till the earth expands to meet your feet? Quite idiotic indeed.

And you're calling everyone else an idiot... Then why, pray tell, can you feel yourself falling down again after you jump? Why don't you just stay up in the air till the earth expands to meet your feet? Quite idiotic indeed.
the expanding sphere theory would contradict inertia based on what ive heard so far.

And you're calling everyone else an idiot... Then why, pray tell, can you feel yourself falling down again after you jump? Why don't you just stay up in the air till the earth expands to meet your feet? Quite idiotic indeed.

Um, he's right. The "theory" works, it's just not practical, nor scientific. In fact, I'm sure if you looked hard enough, there are scientific FACTS that disprove it. He was just using it as a counterarguement.

-snip-
Jesus Christ people, let's see what Physics has to say about force, rather than your NONSCIENTIFIC DICTIONARIES (Physics, Sixth Edition, Cutnell and Johnson):
First of all, gravity is an action-at-a-distance force (pg. 81)

An action-at-a-distance force is a non-contact forces that exerts a push or pull on atomic particles. How you can feel something affecting your particles is beyond me.

Jesus Christ people, let's see what Physics has to say about force, rather than your NONSCIENTIFIC DICTIONARIES (Physics, Sixth Edition, Cutnell and Johnson):
First of all, gravity is an action-at-a-distance force (pg. 81)

An action-at-a-distance force is a non-contact forces that exerts a push or pull on atomic particles. How you can feel something affecting your particles is beyond me.
I don't know about you, but I can certainly feel myself being pulled down to the ground after jumping...

And you're calling everyone else an idiot... Then why, pray tell, can you feel yourself falling down again after you jump? Why don't you just stay up in the air till the earth expands to meet your feet? Quite idiotic indeed.
Your vestibular sense. That's why you feel falling. Why do you see red? Nothing is "red." Red is a construct your brain creates to understand your world. "Red" as you think you know it does not exist, bees see red as blue. Pigeons see colors as discrete units, which means they see green as more yellow than blue. You do stay in the air until the earth expands to meet your feet (not to scale):
you--> o after expansion O
Earth--> o after expansion O
Carry that on, and eventually the circles touch.

I don't know about you, but I can certainly feel myself being pulled down to the ground after jumping...
No, you don't. Your brain realizes you're approaching the ground and sends a signal that you interpret as movement, based on the inertia of the fluid in your inner ear.

Creationism is like gravity, even if true, it can't be proven.

Creationism isn't a theory; gravity is, and a damn good one at that.
But yes, neither can be proven, though one is has no basis in logic or science.

And with that, I'm out.
My apologies Arammanar, please try and be more clear about what you are arguing (as will I). Still, the theory "[I] pulled out of my ass" about gravity was true and in high standing. (Admit it.)

Jesus Christ people, let's see what Physics has to say about force, rather than your NONSCIENTIFIC DICTIONARIES (Physics, Sixth Edition, Cutnell and Johnson):
First of all, gravity is an action-at-a-distance force (pg. 81)

An action-at-a-distance force is a non-contact forces that exerts a push or pull on atomic particles. How you can feel something affecting your particles is beyond me.
Nirvana

No, you don't. Your brain realizes you're approaching the ground and sends a signal that you interpret as movement, based on the inertia of the fluid in your inner ear.
then how does your theory hold water if you recognize inertia?

I think that if God did not want us to advance in technology, we would have not been created with the inteligence that we hold.

I believe in gravity. I believe that we have it pegged probably exactly, if not closely. But we haven't proved it. When someone proves it, no one will care, except select scientists, because everyone already knew it. But it hasn't been proven. That's all I'm saying. It's a theory. It's a theory that's almost certainly correct, widely accepted, and logically valid, but it's a theory.

By science, it can never be "proven". It will always be a theory.

And scientifically, no, I don't put Creationism anywhere near Superstring theory. Creationism is like gravity, even if true, it can't be proven.

Creationism cannot be disproven and is thus not a scientific theory. Period.

If God had intended us to fly, he would have given us wings.

Someone I used to know used that argument for not flying anywhere.I say, if a "god" had wanted us to fly, he or she would've given us frequent flyer miles.

String theory is also considered a valid scientific theory, even though it also cannot be disproven.

String theory is also considered a valid scientific theory, even though it also cannot be disproven.

I am not familiar with string theory. However, if it cannot be disproven, then it is not a scientific theory, by definition.

Edit: Having looked at it briefly, it absolutely can be disproven. All it would take is a single observation that didn't fit the model.

All I can say right now is, this argument is more about gravity and theory than playing god. Gravity exists because a force is pulling us to the earth. We call that force gravity, even though we don't know exactly what it is. Whatever that force is, we'll call it gravity. If it turns out that the force is not the force that is pulling us towards the earth, than it is no longer gravity. Gravity is a fact. That's why there are laws of gravity. There are theories explaining how gravity works and what it exactly is. They are not proven facts. There are just facts that help prove it, yet it could still be wrong. A theory is just a very very good guess that has many facts backing it up, yet is not proven to be 100% true. 99.9999999999999%, maybe, but not the big hundred. A law is a fact. There is no other way around it. A law in science is one that you can never break. Gravity has laws involving it. Evolution is a theory. Unless You show me absolute proof or if someone was there for the supposed millions of years video taping it or something, I won't accept it as absolute fact. A very good guess, maybe. Just not a fact. I know there is evolution because evolution means change and everything is changing. I just don't think we came from some hairy vermin that also branched into monkeys and apes. I don't think life began a billion years ago, even thoug it is a cool thought. I don't agree on that form of evolution happening in the way scientists call theory, but treat as law.

As for staying on topic and about playing god, playing god is doing god's work for him. If you create life without using the tried and true sperm in egg in womb proccess that takes about 9 months to complete, you are playing god. Cloning is playing god. Cloning is wrong on so many levels. Not only are we going to enter the realms we were never supposed to go in with cloning, we are most likely going to make horrible mistakes like having the clone die the next day of clone disease #342. If god is really doing this, like I BELIEVE, he won't make such horrible mistakes. He might do it on purpose to test everyone or something might happen to it when the mother is a moron who punches her gut while getting stoned, but he won't make mistakes. Not only is he supposed to be a super-genious who can predict every move your great-grandkids are going to make using advenced mathematics and other "impossible" feats, he also had all those millenia to practice. Making life without the pain and pleasure of intercourse is just wrong. I don't want a million me's running around, even though that may have its benefits. Cloning is not only wrong, it is illegal even though we don't have the technology to do it good enough for the thing to even look human.

Another way of playing god is to create life, but not through cloning(or sex). No test tube dinos quickly evolved from bacteria. I don't want test-tube bacteria.

A law is a fact. There is no other way around it. A law in science is one that you can never break.

Incorrect. Take, for instance, Newton's laws. Wrong. Been disproven. They are close, certainly. They work fine with relatively large objects at speeds below the speed of light. But they are wrong and have been replaced with a better theory.

Historically, a law was simply a theory we were so sure about that we started to call it a law. There is a reason that science no longer calls things that have not historically been called laws by that name. It is because scientists have realized that, by the scientific method, nothing is ever proven.

I won't accept it as absolute fact. A very good guess, maybe. Just not a fact.

You should never accept anything in science, whether we call it theory or law, as absolute fact. Everything is open to question.

I don't agree on that form of evolution happening in the way scientists call theory, but treat as law.

If we still categorized things as laws, evolution would be one. It is not, because we no longer use that nomenclature. It was improper when it was first used and will continue to be so, as the scientific method can never prove anything.

Cloning is playing god. Cloning is wrong on so many levels. Not only are we going to enter the realms we were never supposed to go in with cloning, we are most likely going to make horrible mistakes like having the clone die the next day of clone disease #342.

Why do you assume that all cloning must be reproductive cloning?

Making life without the pain and pleasure of intercourse is just wrong.

In vitro fertilization out the window, eh?

Cloning is not only wrong, it is illegal even though we don't have the technology to do it good enough for the thing to even look human.

Not in the US it isn't. People are so busy bickering and trying to insert therapeutic cloning, rather than just reproductive, cloning into the mix that they can't get a law passed.

By science, it can never be "proven". It will always be a theory.



Creationism cannot be disproven and is thus not a scientific theory. Period.
With today's instruments and understand, gravity currently cannot be proven. Maybe in the future it will be. Maybe not. But I think you and I see somewhat eye to on this.

Gravity cannot be disproven either, with our current understanding and technology. It doesn't change the fact that it is a theory based on observations and evidence. Creationism could be disproven, I suppose, if you resurrected a dead person and asked them about the after-life. But I don't think this is really relevant to anything.

With today's instruments and understand, gravity currently cannot be proven. Maybe in the future it will be. Maybe not. But I think you and I see somewhat eye to on this.

It will not be proven by the scientific method, as the method itself cannot prove anything. No matter how many measurements we make, we cannot say with absolute certainty that the next won't be unexplained and change our view of the phenomenon.

Gravity cannot be disproven either, with our current understanding and technology. It doesn't change the fact that it is a theory based on observations and evidence.

Actually, it could. All it would take to disprove the current theory would be one measurement that did not coincide with it. Will it be disproven? I doubt it. There is so much behind it and there have been so many observations that fit the theory that it is unlikely to every be disproven. It may or may not be altered in the future.

Creationism could be disproven, I suppose, if you resurrected a dead person and asked them about the after-life.

How would asking a dead person tell you anything? What makes you think that you suddenly gain all knowledge when you die, even if you go to heaven? What makes you think that dead people cannot lie?

Creationism cannot be disproven because God cannot be disproven. No matter what evidence seems to contradict Creationism, a proponent can just say "God works in mysterious ways" or some other such phrase.

But I don't think this is really relevant to anything.

If it cannot be disproven using the scientific method, it cannot be considered a scientific theory. I think that is pretty relevant.