|« 20 August 2005 « - Back||Archives||Next - » 29 August 2005 »|
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
"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.I especially like the authors' spot-on use of the attack on scientists' honest admission of their incomplete understanding of certain phenomena.
It's how science works ("Anybody know why X happens? No? OK, we'll look into it") but it means they can be painted as 'unable to explain it all fully'. Thppbpth.
Along a similar line is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who may well have created everything.
We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.If we're going to be bringing in alternate theories into the classroom, who's to say which of them is right? And if you favor a particular one over the FSM, can you prove it? (There's a reward...)
Kansas should provide students with the Pastafarians' (I prefer "Spaghettiites") testimony as well, if they want to add Intelligent Design to the curriculum. Current Events 0 comment(s) Add a comment...
inessential.com: Weblog: ongoing · Not 2.0
Brent Simmons: Tim Bray: Not 2.0: “I just wanted to say how much I’ve come to dislike this ‘Web 2.0’ faux-meme. It’s not only vacuous marketing hype, it can’t possibly be right.”I sympathize.. maybe it'd be easier to swallow as build versions vs marketing versions. The web is just about to, say, build 0.2.0, but the marketing department wants to print up all new materials, so here we are.
Just like 'IE 6' is really build number '[6.]0.2800.1106'.
Bray, contrarily, says it's more like 3.0, Tim O'Reilly says maybe even 8.0, but Web 2.0 sure is a handy term. OK, ok. Web 0 comment(s) Add a comment...
Links, exploration and|
Photo by my wife
RSS Feed / Atom Feed
More Like This
Q Daily News
Laurel's TV Picks
Randall Bramblett: Thin Places
Doctors, Professors, Kings & Queens: The Big Ol' Box of New Orleans
Tears for Fears: Everybody Loves a Happy Ending
Ye olde Wishe Liste
|« 20 August 2005 « - Back||Next - » 29 August 2005 »|