How many Christians do you think understand GRAVITY is a THEORY?

Question

tim:
lol, coming from a person who poses the question "if you have sex with a virgin, can you feel the hymen?"
lol. loser.

Answer 1

Look at rockets taking off and astronauts floating in space. Clearly the theory doesn't explain everything. Otherwise the moon would fall onto the Earth at night. But this unproven theory is blindly repeated by those whose "faith" is in science. And scientists can't even agree among themselves. Newton said gravity is constant. Einstein said it changes space.

We should require that all school children be taught the more godly "Theory of Intelligent Falling".

Answer 2

Oh, I understand. What a lot of people DON'T understand is that in science, a theory is a statement that predicts a pattern based on previously observed evidence. Compare with theory of relativity and theory of evolution. I doubt anyone will refute gravity based on our experience of it, but it's still called the theory of gravity because, like anything in science, it's open to change based on future observation, perception by any senses. (Something some evolution preachers will not accept.)

It doesn't sound like you're calling Christians stupid with this question, but if you are, how much longer do you think we'll take it?

Answer 3

I think your question is interesting because it points out that many people who try to discredit valid scientific theory as just conjecture or hypothesis do not understand the scientific definition of a theory. And you are correct that there is a Theory of Gravity.

A theory (in science) is the equivalent of a law, and the only difference is that different fields of science use different terminology for these two things. In many scientific fields the highest level of verification is called a theory, while in other fields like mathematics or physics a concept that is considered fully verified is called a law. Either theory or law can still be open to being disproved or changed. That is the way of science.

It is also not true that a "theory" will later become a "law", because in the scientific definition of the word, it is already nearly equivalent. There is no ranking scale where theory moves up to become law. A theory can't go any higher in terminology.

The phrase "it's still just a theory" is often repeated on this forum, especially by those who do not understand what a scientific theory is. They often disclose their lack of knowledge by making the semantic mistake of equating theory with hypothesis. In common usage, many people do use the word theory to describe a hypothesis, but this is not how it is used in science. Your question alludes to the many detractors of the Theory of Evolution who dismiss it by demonstrating they don't even understand the definition of the word theory.

Wikipedia (which I am not endorsing) does do a good job of explaining scientific theory and scientific law. Because Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, I think its explanation is especially relevant in explaining how the general scientific body understands theory:
Theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Scientific Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

By the way, the changes wrought by evolution are just as visible and apparent as the effect of gravity. Anyone who argues differently isn't looking (and probably doesn't really understand gravity).

edit:
You are welcome to disagree with me on this, but gravity itself is not at all apparent. Just because you can see things falling and calculate the force does not mean you understand or can even explain gravity, yet most people take it for granted. As a geologist I can see the evidence of the forces that drive evolution all around me, and even as a casual observer can see the same sort of indirect evidence of evolution as that of gravity in my everyday life. I find it just as easy to accept that gravity of the moon and sun causes tides as I do to understand that plate tectonics has forced species into isolation that has allowed them to evolve into unique and separate groups. Why does Australia have so many unique species? Kangaroos? Why are there no polar bears in the Antarctic? I ask, that isn't something everyone knows about "in their everyday life"? I can't *see* gravity or evolution, but I can see evidence of the process everywhere. I've been in multiple caves that have trogloditic species that are unique to that specific cave. These creatures cannot survive outside of that cave environment. They must have evolved as this confined isolated environment was formed. How could this not be evidence of evolution?

Arguing over "theory" and "law" is one of the primary techniques that Creationists use to discredit evolution as hypothesis. If it weren't for semantics, and the resulting misunderstandings, most of this debate would not exist.

Scientists don't consider theory to be infallible (and by the way, laws are not infallible either). Theories are just less likely to be fallable. That is what science is all about. There is no faith in science. The string theorists may still change Gravity, and Evolution is still subject to change. Arguing that theory is falsifiable is just more semantics.

Answer 4

Wow, there are a lot of dumb*** answers on both sides here.

First, lay off the hating jane. I am a physicist and a Christian and can guarantee I understand gravity better than you do.

Also, there is gravity which is a fact (a law).
However, there IS still the THEORY of gravity which
describes how we think it works, what causes it etc.
General Relativity is a theory of gravity, for example.

I love when two sides of an issue bash each other, each
sounding like a bigger idiot than the other!

Answer 5

The effects of gravity can be seen and directly measured using experiments. If you are comparing it with evolution, well no one has directly observed an ape evolving into a human, even in a lab.

One of the basic axioms of science is that for a hypothesis to be considered to be scientific at all, then it must be falsifiable -- that is, capable of being proven false.

Since evolution is considered to be infallible by most of the atheists who seem to defend it so vehemently, then evolution is by definition a "tautology", not a theory, because it does not admit to the possibility of any logical counterexamples -- at least not in practice.

That makes evolution more of a faith than a science.

BTW, evolution is not merely the assertion that living things change (we all change as we grow older) -- it is the idea that complex life forms originated from less complex life forms by purely random chance.
......................
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

In science and the philosophy of science, falsifiability, contingency, and defeasibility are roughly equivalent terms referring to the property of empirical statements that they must admit of logical counterexamples. This stands in contradistinction to formal and mathematical statements that may be tautologies, that is, universally true by dint of definitions, axioms, and proofs. Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that no empirical hypothesis, proposition, or theory can be considered scientific if it does not admit the possibility of a contrary case.

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

***edit***

With all due respect to the guy below me, I wonder if he could give an example of his unsupported conclusory statement that "the changes wrought by evolution are just as visible and apparent as the effect of gravity. Anyone who argues differently isn't looking"?

As I said, evolution is not merely the assertion that living things change (we all change as we grow older) -- it is the idea that complex life forms originated from less complex life forms by purely random chance. So do we have an example in recorded human history of a simple species (like a fish) mutating into more complex species (like a frog)? Not the silly moths in England (The grays ones which survived the industural revolution were already present in the white moth population prior to the event, and they are not a new species; same with the Darwin's Finches). But I degress.

And arguing over the difference between a "theory" and a "law" seems to be mere semantics, and seems to be missing the point that I was trying to make about Evolution being considered to be infaliable by its proponents (which transports evolution from the realm of science to the realm of philosophy).

Answer 6

Wow, this is a fun thread. Though it is true that there is a theoretic basis to gravity (how it actually works on masses - from warping of space in other dimensions to general relativity to gravitons...doing whatever it is they do) there are also laws of gravitation. These are the equations to describe mathematically the behaviors of masses in a gravitational field and extrapolate predicted gravitational effects on other masses by a mass.

Although I am a neurobiologist and a ferverent believer in evolution (and really think everyone should be), I would like to take the time and congratulate RandyG on the most clever and well constructed argument in opposition that I have ever seen in this forums. While most opposers just manage to make me angry, you made me think, RandyG, and I thank you.

I also disagree with corbonates quote: "By the way, the changes wrought by evolution are just as visible and apparent as the effect of gravity. Anyone who argues differently isn't looking (and probably doesn't really understand gravity)." Science should be an open debate (that's why there is dissent amongst scientists on pretty much every topic out there). The fact is, examples of evolution are not as apparent as gravity because they are not obvious to casual observation in the average person's life.

Nevertheless, the evidence of evolution is all around us when you look at scientific data to support it. When you look at the genome of any living thing, you will see an amazing conservation of the base genes that are required for survival (biosynthesis of proteins, replication of DNA, transcription of RNA, metabolition of nutrients, architecture of cells themselves) that tell us that the occurrence of everything "coming together" probably only happened once. However, in looking at genes of the species we see all sorts of gradual changes that spread away from central sources like spreading cracks in breaking glass (known as phylogenic trees) that tell a story of small changes dividing lineages and resulting in all sorts of changed (happening very slowly over time at the beginning but seemingly accelerating when organisms have more parts to play with (such as mutation in genes producing a nonnecessary part, like an arm).

Opponents often cite gaps in the fossil record as evidence that evolution does not exist but the fossil record provides us with much more support than it does "flaws'' when it comes to evolutionary theory. The gaps themselves can be explained by the way in which things fossilize (which I don't have space to get into here) but basically tiny little creatures and animals with soft parts fossilize poorly for predictable reasons. A shining example is the evolution of the jaw. Very very ancient fish species did not have moving jaws to speak of (if you want to see a "living fossil" example of this, look up the lamprey or the hagfish), but over time in the fossil record we can see how certain bones around the mouths of fish species enlarged, got reinforced and attained control from muscles.

Another example is the eye. There is evidence that the eye evolved separately as many as 8 times (the eye of the octopus is similar in function but occurred differently than ours). This tells us that sophisticated structures are not a rarity and not "random" but at some point are an "eventuality" because some features, such as the ability to detect the presence and directionality of light, is a tremendous advantage in most environments.

The theory of evolution is not some half-hatched plan that a bunch of scientists blindly believe or made up while passing a J around the campfire with their bongo drums. There is overwhelming support pretty much everywhere we look that tells us that this must be the truth.

Answer 7

I do not understand gravity as a theory. But I know it is there because everytime I jump, I fall back down. Similarly, I do not know how to prove that there is a God, but I know He is there because everytime I pray, He listens and helps. To prove gravity: take a leap and you'll feel it. To prove God: take a leap of faith and you'll feel it too.

Answer 8

Well, it's been called the Law of Gravity or some such.

But yes, I understand that it is a theory (thanks to recent calculations which suggest that galaxies hold together too well -- exotic dark matter, and that the universe is being pushed apart -- exotic dark energy).

Answer 9

I don't think you know what you are talking about. Theory means something that has been said to be probable but not proved. Gravity has been here for longer than history and therefore cannot be proved.

Answer 10

Yeah, because it fails so often. -rolls eyes-

How many christians thought for years that the fact that earth was ROUND was just a THEORY?

Oh you hardline christians. Like a bunch of naive children.