NationStates Jolt Archive

http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2

It's from the onion, but it's no less scientific than "intelligent design".

Well, the theory of gravity does have holes in it. This doesn't, relatively, seem so unreasonable.

Must...hold....back....

Well, the theory of gravity does have holes in it. This doesn't, relatively, seem so unreasonable.

Well it is a relatively solid theory backed by substantial facts. Intelligent design and all its components are full of holes.

Ahhh... the Almighty Onion.

Well it is a relatively solid theory backed by substantial facts. Intelligent design and all its components are full of holes.
YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT?!?! WHAT ABOUT THE HOLES THAT EXIST! YOU CAN'T PROVE MATHMATICALLY THAT IT ISN'T GOD PUSHING US DOWN, I MEAN AN INTELLIGENT BEING THAT SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS?!?!!!!

http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2

It's from the onion, but it's no less scientific than "intelligent design".

LOL!


KANSAS CITY, KS(1)—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University(2).

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.(3)

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics(4). This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."


(1) Kansas City, that's the Capital of Kansas! (LOL)
(2) Yes, because we know Oral Roberts University is the bastion of Scientific Understanding!
(3) Yes, we need a literal interpretation of all that is from the Bible....
(4) One wonders what this "constradiction" is....

No, the theory of gravity doesn't hold true in all cases. At this point I should point out I know nothing about physics and am in no way qualified to talk. That, however, has never stopped me. Basically though, the universal gravitational force is too weak compared to the other major universal forces. In addition, they haven't successfully isolated the graviton, the sub-atomic particle theorised to be responsible for gravitational attraction.

Ah, what would we do without the Onion to make sense of this senseless existence? :p

YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT?!?! WHAT ABOUT THE HOLES THAT EXIST! YOU CAN'T PROVE MATHMATICALLY THAT IT ISN'T GOD PUSHING US DOWN, I MEAN AN INTELLIGENT BEING THAT SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS?!?!!!!

Whoa dude, you drink too much coffee?

oh gravity actually works considering they found dark matter the force pushing it apart, just we didnt realise there was a counterpoint to gravity..now god pushes it down. Sorry you yankee's are fucked, its over for you, broke as shit an ailing military idiotic leaders, terrible education and now you are about ot go iback to the middle ages, i only pray as many of you sane ones can get out as fast as you can, go to australia though its much harder to get in to canada then it is to get in to the states australia wants more immigrants and has 16 dollar minimum wage about 10 american so there ya go, i feel so bad for all of you ; ;

i feel so bad for all of you
I wouldn't go that far. Some of them are bringing it upon themselves, through action, or inaction. And anyway, Tannelorn... it's actually a joke.

Whoa dude, you drink too much coffee?
I don't drink coffee :D

I don't drink coffee :D

then what... you consume too much sugar? :)

then what... you consume too much sugar? :)
Hyperactive sarcasm gland, I'm afraid.

oh and intelligent gravity and evolution are the most retarded things i have ever heard..whats wrong with evolution, and why in gods name is it a theory! anyone who went to science class in grade 6 played with the electron microscopes and watched bacteria and studied them for hours on end to see them change in to new forms...didnt you? please tell me that its evolution and not evolution theory in your schools, it was evolution in mine, please tell me they gave you the proofing experiments...please otherwise i really have lost all hope forthe US and am about to learn chinese as well, they are progressive right now, and that means yup you guessed it, only superpower ; ; lol and by the way i am still on the intelligent evolution one lol thats the really scary one

Hmm, It's funny how the thoery of evolution is disputed for it's small missing link but these members of organized religion are willing to make other leaps of faith :rolleyes:

Anyway I think this thoery is just another dumb-ass proposition from evangelists. Organized religion has done more harm to this world than good. :(

Anyway.

I think it's funny, but quite seriously, there are problems with the theory of gravity as it stands. And, you're absolutely right, there is as much science in this as in intelligent design.

oh and intelligent gravity and evolution are the most retarded things i have ever heard..whats wrong with evolution, and why in gods name is it a theory! anyone who went to science class in grade 6 played with the electron microscopes and watched bacteria and studied them for hours on end to see them change in to new forms...didnt you? please tell me that its evolution and not evolution theory in your schools, it was evolution in mine, please tell me they gave you the proofing experiments...please otherwise i really have lost all hope forthe US and am about to learn chinese as well, they are progressive right now, and that means yup you guessed it, only superpower ; ; lol and by the way i am still on the intelligent evolution one lol thats the really scary one


Evolution is a theory, gravity is a theory, I think electricity is a theory. No one knows if the first is correct or why the latter two work.

Do they work? Most things point to yes. Does anyone know WHY gravity works or why electrons/protons do what they do? Or if evolution is really 100% correct? No.

That's what makes it a theory.

Now, if you can find out why they work and provide points for EVERY anti-evolution (which would probably involve you being millions of years old) then you can call them proper laws.

Until then, they're theories.

Oh, and watching bacteria change into new forms like that.... no. In most cases, bacteria makes copies of itself. Not evolution, birth. Asexual birth, but birth.

So wait... does this mean that if we don't believe in God he is going to just let go and we will float off into space? Hmmm... perhaps I should invest in a company selling velcro soled shoes and velcro carpets to atheists just in case.

Evolution is a theory, gravity is a theory, I think electricity is a theory. No one knows if the first is correct or why the latter two work.

Do they work? Most things point to yes. Does anyone know WHY gravity works or why electrons/protons do what they do? Or if evolution is really 100% correct? No.

That's what makes it a theory.

Now, if you can find out why they work and provide points for EVERY anti-evolution (which would probably involve you being millions of years old) then you can call them proper laws.

Until then, they're theories.

Oh, and watching bacteria change into new forms like that.... no. In most cases, bacteria makes copies of itself. Not evolution, birth. Asexual birth, but birth.

This is the typical thing that creationists fall back on.. not recognizing these theories are far stronger then anything they can make up.

This is the typical thing that creationists fall back on.. not recognizing these theories are far stronger then anything they can make up.

I'm not saying they're not right or they're not proven. I do in fact believe in Evolution, if I didn't believe in gravity I'd be an idiot, and I do believe in electricity... it's powering my computer. Unless the elves got to it again.

But they are theories, until something proves beyond all doubt.

But they are theories, until something proves beyond all doubt.

For the umpteenth time, they will forever be theories because it is impossible to prove them beyond all doubt.

This is the typical thing that creationists fall back on.. not recognizing these theories are far stronger then anything they can make up.

What it comes down to is that they are SCIENTIFIC theories, they have been tested repeatedly, using methods that are repeatable by others, and by people who are also attempting to prove the theory doesn't provide the best possible answer. In the end, a scientific theory is one that after testing proves to be the one that best fits all the facts. Evolution is a fact, evolutionary theory is the best possible explanation of how it works. Likewise gravity and electricity and the scientific theories which explain them. Intelligent Design, however, is not a scientific theory as there are no tests that can prove it, or facts that support it. It is a theory in the sense that most people use the word, that is a collection of ideas and conjectures, as opposed to a scientific theory, as described above.

For the umpteenth time, they will forever be theories because it is impossible to prove them beyond all doubt.


...that's what I'm trying to say here.

I need to work on my communication skills.

I'm not saying they're not right or they're not proven. I do in fact believe in Evolution, if I didn't believe in gravity I'd be an idiot, and I do believe in electricity... it's powering my computer. Unless the elves got to it again.

But they are theories, until something proves beyond all doubt.
No need to "beleive" in gravity or in evolution. Both happen. The evidence is too overwhelming. Theory comes in when we discuss how they happen.

No need to "beleive" in gravity or in evolution. Both happen. The evidence is too overwhelming. Theory comes in when we discuss how they happen.

wtf.

I'm agreeing with you here.

And yet, still people telling me they both happen and there is evidence for it?

broke as shit an ailing military idiotic leaders, terrible education and now you are about ot go iback to the middle ages, i only pray as many of you sane ones can get out as fast as you can, go to australia though its much harder to get in to canada then it is to get in to the states australia wants more immigrants and has 16 dollar minimum wage about 10 american so there ya go, i feel so bad for all of you ; ;
Ugh! thanks, I need some pity of this sort... Australia, eh? might look in to that XD

wtf.

I'm agreeing with you here.

And yet, still people telling me they both happen and there is evidence for it?
Maybe I misunderstood. Maybe it could have been worded better. I mean if several people misunderstood it, maybe it's how you typed it.

anyone who went to science class in grade 6 played with the electron microscopes and watched bacteria and studied them for hours on end to see them change in to new forms...didnt you?You had electron microscopes in sixth grade? And you watched things moving and reproducing?

The Scientific definition of "Theory" is not the same as the English Language definition of "Theory". A Scientific Theory, such as Natural Selection or Gravity, is a hypothesis that's survived scrutiny from other scientists, and has got a lot of research evidence supporting it (see also: Horses, Finches).

Oh, and I'm a [C of E Christian] Creationist as well. But one who accepts that trying to deny Darwin's findings will get us positively nowhere, and most likely set us back a bit. Natural Selection and Microevolution happens. I don't entirely subscribe to Intelligent Design as a Scientific Theory, because it's different; it doesn't focus on the How anymore. Nor does it need to; it's different. I feel it (and proper hardcore Creationism from lots of religious angles) should be taught in RE lessons though, Biology is for Science.

...that's what I'm trying to say here.

I need to work on my communication skills.

Ok, sorry about that. Just when you said "untill someone proves them beyond all doubt" I thought you meant it was possible to do that.

Maybe I misunderstood. Maybe it could have been worded better. I mean if several people misunderstood it, maybe it's how you typed it.


All I said is no one understood why gravity/electricity works, making them a theory, not a law. And no one had absolute proof for evolution, making it a theory too. I didn't see the need to use 'scientific theory', as no one else was.

Ah, well, my communication skills online pretty much suck, so that's probably part of the problem.

All I said is no one understood why gravity/electricity works, making them a theory, not a law. And no one had absolute proof for evolution, making it a theory too. I didn't see the need to use 'scientific theory', as no one else was.

Ah, well, my communication skills online pretty much suck, so that's probably part of the problem.
Meh, my reading skills online suck. I tend to skim alot of posts.

All I said is no one understood why gravity/electricity works, making them a theory, not a law.

In science, a law is simply a subset of the word theory. It is a theory that has held up to so much testing over time that it might as well be absolute. Of course, it is still open to being disproven. Newton's "laws" have been found to be wrong. In the large scale, and at relatively slow speeds, the difference is negligible, but they do not actually hold for all matter. Thus, enter the theory of relativity, which thus far does hold, both in the situations for which Newton's "laws" have negligible error and in those for which the "laws" cannot be used.

And no one had absolute proof for evolution, making it a theory too.

In science, there is no such thing as "absolute proof." You may know this, but I felt that it needed to be pointed out.

No, the theory of gravity doesn't hold true in all cases. At this point I should point out I know nothing about physics and am in no way qualified to talk. That, however, has never stopped me. Basically though, the universal gravitational force is too weak compared to the other major universal forces. In addition, they haven't successfully isolated the graviton, the sub-atomic particle theorised to be responsible for gravitational attraction.

The theory of gravity doesn't hold true in all cases? News to me. I'd *love* to live where you live, where apparently gravity is sorta "touch and go."

The gravitational force is weaker compared to the other forces, but as you so kindly pointed out, you know nothing of physics. I don't want to sound overbearing, but the point you missed was that the other forces are all bound to certain cases and small areas of mass - the electromagnetic force is not always applicable to all massive bodies, while gravitation is. The strong force only applies on an atomic scale. The weak force only applies in on the scale of a proton. And the fact that they haven't yet discovered the graviton doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist, or that it needs to exist.

Once again, popular ignorance of the correct scientific meaning of the term "theory" wins out over it's proper usage. Kids, a scientific theory is an INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS IN THE MOST LOGICAL FORM GIVEN SAID FACTS. End of story.

What frightens me most is that there are some people who don't recognize that this article is satire, as is everything else from the Onion.

To everyone else, I say that none of you exist, as you are only theories of mine.

What frightens me most is that there are some people who don't recognize that this article is satire, as is everything else from the Onion.

To everyone else, I say that none of you exist, as you are only theories of mine.
Yep, I'm a figment of your diseased imagination.

Yep, I'm a figment of your diseased imagination.
Is that what all this sticky crud is? Diseased tissues?

Gross! I thought those were leftovers...

i have one thing to say these scintist are nut's no way.these theory is crap :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

i have one thing to say these scintist are nut's no way.these theory is crap :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

As is your spelling? I count... 9 grammatical/spelling errors in 16 words. I do believe that's a new record!

The theory of gravity doesn't hold true in all cases?
The Theory of Gravity does not hold true at the quantum level. That's why it's currently being revised.

The Theory of Gravity does not hold true at the quantum level. That's why it's currently being revised.

Well, if he had just made that clear...

No, I know what you're referring to. That is, if you're referring to string theory. If not, then I have no idea what you mean.

As is your spelling? I count... 9 grammatical/spelling errors in 16 words. I do believe that's a new record!

Nine? I only got 6.

Wizard Glass- don't knock yourself- these guys were just justifing the creationists argument that "evolutionism" is a religion. They didn't even try to understand (your grammatically and technically correct) argument.

NB; I agree with evolution, gravity and Santa Claus.

LOL!



(1) Kansas City, that's the Capital of Kansas! (LOL)
(2) Yes, because we know Oral Roberts University is the bastion of Scientific Understanding!
(3) Yes, we need a literal interpretation of all that is from the Bible....
(4) One wonders what this "constradiction" is....
Amen, bruddah!!!! *bows*

This seems AWFULLY familiar ..... ;)

Well it is a relatively solid theory backed by substantial facts. Intelligent design and all its components are full of holes.
Two, count them, TWO cookies for Mesatecala. Ah, ha, ha.
*thunder rolls*

It's from the onion, but it's no less scientific than "intelligent design".
I wouldn't say that. Heard of the anthropic hypothesis? I don't want to explain it, as I know nothing about physics. But if it is true, its implications may potentially revolutionize the entire field, and maybe even life as we know it.

The most scarry thing about this is that even the people who do seem to understand science don't understand what a scientific law is. I haven't seen the word used correctly once in this thread. A law is nothing more than a description of what happens. A theory (or hypothesis) attempts to explain why that happens.
Example
The Law of Gravity states: F=GMm/d^2
That's it. No attempt at explanation.
The theory of gravity tries to explain why F=GMm/d^2. There have been several attempts to explain why over the years.

So, to recap:
A law is not a very good theory. It is different.

Does this mean we are in a permanent semi-smote state?

Hyperactive sarcasm gland, I'm afraid.
They can cure that now. Continuous repeats of Barney, I believe.

For the umpteenth time, they will forever be theories because it is impossible to prove them beyond all doubt.
No, given our current level of technology and knowledge they are impossible to prove. We don't know what things will be possible in the future.

No, given our current level of technology and knowledge they are impossible to prove. We don't know what things will be possible in the future.

No, as has been stated many times before science can never prove anything, only disprove hypotheses. Tell me what would you consider as absolute proof of gravity?

No, as has been stated many times before science can never prove anything, only disprove hypotheses. Tell me what would you consider as absolute proof of gravity?
See, I love that. You cannot imagine a state where science can prove something, therefore such a state cannot exist. That's faulty logic.
I know nothing about gravity. Maybe it's what we think it is, maybe it's actually just a kind of magnetism, maybe it's a molecular bond with everything around us, maybe it's an obscene number of extra-dimensional tiny hooks that hold everything together. Maybe everything is continually moving away from everything else, but growing at the same time so it only looks like everything is stable (Scott Adams). I don't know.
I just like to annoy people who assume we are living at the exact time in human history where all true knowledge is available to us.

Screw this shit. I can't believe that people would argue gravity. Call it what you like, it still makes the apple fall from the tree. From this moment on, I declare sex to be called "Intelligent humping"

No, as has been stated many times before science can never prove anything, only disprove hypotheses. Tell me what would you consider as absolute proof of gravity?

The sheer fact that relativity has been proven in the macroscopic realm proves gravity. The detection of black holes prove gravity. A scientific theory is solely based on one's ability to predict the world around us. Gravity has been proven over and over. More bizarre topics of gravity such as the graviton particle has yet to be proven, but they have experiments in line to test it.

See, I love that. You cannot imagine a state where science can prove something, therefore such a state cannot exist. That's faulty logic.
I know nothing about gravity. Maybe it's what we think it is, maybe it's actually just a kind of magnetism, maybe it's a molecular bond with everything around us, maybe it's an obscene number of extra-dimensional tiny hooks that hold everything together. Maybe everything is continually moving away from everything else, but growing at the same time so it only looks like everything is stable (Scott Adams). I don't know.
I just like to annoy people who assume we are living at the exact time in human history where all true knowledge is available to us.

When did I say all of human knowledge is available to us? Of course of quest for knowledge will continue unabated probably for as long as we're around and we will advance a hell of a lot more than we are now. The thing is you cannot prove the universe is logically consistent, that the same combination of events will lead to the same results however many times you test it. You cant even prove beyond all doubt that the whole universe is not an illusion to you created by extremely sophisticated computer.

And if you're looking to annoy people try talking to some of the christians about ID.

The sheer fact that relativity has been proven in the macroscopic realm proves gravity. The detection of black holes prove gravity. A scientific theory is solely based on one's ability to predict the world around us. Gravity has been proven over and over. More bizarre topics of gravity such as the graviton particle has yet to be proven, but they have experiments in line to test it.

We have collected evidence for things, mountains of it in some cases, but that can never prove it. Try asking some of the scientist on this board for a more detailed explanation, its been a few years since I've been through this type of thing.

When did I say all of human knowledge is available to us? Of course of quest for knowledge will continue unabated probably for as long as we're around and we will advance a hell of a lot more than we are now. The thing is you cannot prove the universe is logically consistent, that the same combination of events will lead to the same results however many times you test it. You cant even prove beyond all doubt that the whole universe is not an illusion to you created by extremely sophisticated computer.

And if you're looking to annoy people try talking to some of the christians about ID.
If you say, "I know as fact that this can never change," you are saying you know everything about it.
I said we don't know what the future could hold, you said we did. Science will never be able to prove anything. Therefore, you are saying we now know everything there is to know about science. (The methodology more than the topics studied.)
Nah, that's been done to death already. Actually, that's been killed, zombified, rekilled, rezombied, rekilled, rezombied etc. etc.

We have collected evidence for things, mountains of it in some cases, but that can never prove it. Try asking some of the scientist on this board for a more detailed explanation, its been a few years since I've been through this type of thing.

Um, I'm a general relativist. I would assume I know what the hell I'm talking about. GR explains gravity down to the scale of Planck Length.

EDIT: I assume I know what I'm talking about because I have actually done the math behind many of these theories, something many NSers could not even fathom.

...as has been stated many times before science can never prove anything, only disprove hypotheses.

This is correct and the postion held by the entire scientific community. Its what defines science: hypotheses (idea, concept outlined) -> experimentation -> Theory || disproved -> futher experimentation -> refinment of Theory || disprove -> [repeat].


See, I love that. You cannot imagine a state where science can prove something, therefore such a state cannot exist. That's faulty logic.

It does not, however mean we do not "know" things. We know with absolute 100% certainty that gravity does exist, that the Sun exists, that the sea is blue. We know these things as that which we define them as. The role of science is to *explain* them. What is Gravity? Where is the Sun? Why is the sea blue.

Proof != Knowledge and vice versa.

Heard of the anthropic hypothesis? I don't want to explain it, as I know nothing about physics. But if it is true, its implications may potentially revolutionize the entire field, and maybe even life as we know it.

oh yes, :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D. stop it, please.

Um, I'm a general relativist. I would assume I know what the hell I'm talking about. GR explains gravity down to the scale of Planck Length.

EDIT: I assume I know what I'm talking about because I have actually done the math behind many of these theories, something many NSers could not even fathom.
Reading the both of your postings, I think you're both talking about the same thing and agreeing on it.

Though if you wanted to kill this thread fast you could post some of your calculations. That'd do it in real quick.

Reading the both of your postings, I think you're both talking about the same thing and agreeing on it.

Though if you wanted to kill this thread fast you could post some of your calculations. That'd do it in real quick.

Maybe I should look through some of my old notebooks. See this kind of thing is similar to solving Kepler's laws of motion. You do it once, thank God you're done and got the right answers, then assume its true. Any other physicist would understand what I'm talking about. I apologize that I am to the point I assume it's true.

Also, I'd love to explain differential geometry and GR for anyone who wishes it. Though I lack the knowledge on putting this kind of stuff onto a computer.

I would also agree, that you are correct, we all are saying the same thing. Gravity can be proven to exist by simple Newtonian observations. Einstein's calculations and development of a use for differential geometry can be use to prove why gravity exists and how to make crazy speculations off of it. Also, gravity looses grips on the scale of Planck length and time, so to say the theory is complete is untrue. To say we can prove gravity exists, yes we can.

Also, I'd love to explain differential geometry and GR for anyone who wishes it. Though I lack the knowledge on putting this kind of stuff onto a computer.
I, for one, wouldn't mind the science lesson if you have the time and energy for it. I got my head around GR sometime ago, but I'm sure my understanding of it has some serious holes in it and refresher courses are always welcomed.

I would also agree, that you are correct, we all are saying the same thing. Gravity can be proven to exist by simple Newtonian observations. Einstein's calculations and development of a use for differential geometry can be use to prove why gravity exists and how to make crazy speculations off of it. Also, gravity looses grips on the scale of Planck length and time, so to say the theory is complete is untrue. To say we can prove gravity exists, yes we can.
It's the how of gravity we're having a hard time with. Of course if we ever get a good grip on THAT, we might be able to figure out a way to turn it off.

EDIT: I assume I know what I'm talking about because I have actually done the math behind many of these theories, something many NSers could not even fathom.

It never pays to make such generalisations, my friend... it just makes it look like your argument rests on "Yah boo, I'm smarter than y'all"...

Flaw#1:Evangelist sientists is an oxymoron. emphasis on the MORON.

Flaw#2:"Intelligent falling" does that mean that if you slip and fall, you are being intelligent?

Flaw#3:
"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety?(2) This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."
1a)Is that pehaps because gravity had not yet been named?
1b)And who ever says, "He slipped on the banana peel and, because of gravity, he fell"
1c)He doesn't mention "intelligent falling" either.
2)Because the heat pushes them up! Or should I say "Intelligent warming"?

Flaw#4: WARNING: THIS FOLLOWING MESSAGE CONTAINS AGNOSTIC/ATHEISTIC MESSAGES. AVID CHISTIANS PLEASE DO NOT READ!

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.
That is, assuming that a bunch of guys 2000+ years ago were right about everything.

Flaw#5=Amendment#1
The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."
"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Too bad ESTABLISHING religion in a school is unconstitutional, and has been decided so by the Supreme Court.
And have you ever noticed that you never hear about any other religions trying to force their belifs upon schools?

For starters, there are the basic postulates which define relativity. Time dilation, Lorentz Contraction, and simultaneity. One major assumption is that 2.98x10^8 m/s is the speed limit. This number easily falls out of the solutions of the Electromagnetic wave equation, for it is just Sqrt(1/u0e0) where u0 is the magnetic permitibility(mu naught) constant and e0 is the electric (epsilon naught). Basic E&M terms.

The speed limit is placed due to the nature of E&M field theory in space-time (ct,x,y,x). To permit a velocity of the speed of light would imply that one could create a system where BOTH Electric and Magnetic fields could be created from a system where neither source is present. Also placed due to the nature of energy and momentum in space-time. RestMass-Energy of a particle is mc^2 as most anyone knows who lives outside of a cave. Though for moving particles E=m(gamma)c^2, where gamma is 1/Sqrt(1-beta2) and beta is v/c. As v/c->1 gamma->infinity and that means the energy is infinity and that is impossible. Now everyone knows why the speed of light is the limit.

Einstein proposed the following consideration before moving into GR. Suppose one person is being pulled in a box at a constant acceleration, let's say 9.8 m/s^2. Einstein proposes that that person would not be able to ell the difference from being in an accelerating reference frame or in a gravitational field on Earth. This means any calculations for an accelerating reference frame can be used as an argument for gravity.

Using the same labeling system for gamma and beta, we can begin to take gradients of our four vectors (ct,x,y,z). Though from know on I will use a four vector as (t,x), where t is ct and x is a three vector (x,y,z). We are now capable of writing new four vectors for accelerating reference frames (t',a) where t' and a (our acceleration three vector, x'') is a function of beta and t. This is where my limitations of computer skills play a large effect cause I don't know how to get crazy equations into a post. But you should get the idea of this constantly expanding four dimensions where the best tracked invariant is the inner product of a four vector.

Please ask more questions to get my explanation on track.

I wouldn't say that. Heard of the anthropic hypothesis? I don't want to explain it, as I know nothing about physics. But if it is true, its implications may potentially revolutionize the entire field, and maybe even life as we know it.
Yes I have, and it's unscientific due to being unfalsifiable.

This is correct and the postion held by the entire scientific community. Its what defines science: hypotheses (idea, concept outlined) -> experimentation -> Theory || disproved -> futher experimentation -> refinment of Theory || disprove -> [repeat].

It does not, however mean we do not "know" things. We know with absolute 100% certainty that gravity does exist, that the Sun exists, that the sea is blue. We know these things as that which we define them as. The role of science is to *explain* them. What is Gravity? Where is the Sun? Why is the sea blue.

Proof != Knowledge and vice versa.

Thank you, some people know what I'm talking about.