Talk:Intelligent falling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I found the first reference to Intelligent Falling in a note by Sue Gamble, a member of the Kansas school board, which was published in an article about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the Wichita Eagle. Due to the visibility on the Internet I concluded it is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia, so I created it (I was not logged in at the time). Groeck 17:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The Onion article isn't the first place where Intelligent Falling is talked about. See Teaching gravitySciguy47 17:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You are right. Also, on May 26, 2005, it was described in Inspiration. I updated the main article, but did not include the link to the comic (it seems to be low bandwidth). Groeck 10:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"Intelligent falling" sounds an awful lot like aristotelian theories of gravity, based on final causes, which were current for many centuries in the west. For example, a stone fell to the ground because that was its rightful place. Does anyone have enough philosophical background to flesh this out into a paragraph int he article? (EW)

I thought the aristotlian theories of gravity were based on supposed potentials and elemental composition, not direct divine intervention. Either way, I think you missed the point entirely.

[edit] Scott Adams

Does anyopne want to mention Scott Adam's theory (might not be origionally his) that everything in the universe is constantly doubling in size, thus producing a gravity-like effect, perhaps as an example of other alternate theories of gravity? Dont' knwo if that fits in this article, maybe under gravity.. Kuroune 01:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early insight on intelligent falling theory

[creationist]

In 1925, rev William A. Williams in his book evolution of Man Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproven shows what I think that is one of the earliests of the modern gut feelings that falling is intelligent, not random (as we never fall to the sides, or up, except on the evolutionist videoclip of the band Blur, "song 2"). Here I quote the book:

Who can say that God does not intervene, in this case to save all life? It is a striking proof that God is not absent nor inactive.

Gravitation requires the computation of countless millions of the most complex and difficult problems, every instant, by the divine mind. The attraction of all matter for all other matter is in proportion directly to the mass and inversely to the square of the distance. The exact weight of every object is determined by the attraction of the earth and every particle thereof, the mountain that may be nearby, the elevation and altitude of the place, the attraction of the sun and the moon, and every star in heaven, even though too small to be computed by man-- all these are computed precisely by the divine mind. These innumerable calculations prove that God is everywhere We are continually in the immediate awesome presence of an infinite God.

Following he says a bit about what could be developed into the intelligent hydrodinamics theory, or maybe, intelligent fluid-filling theory. Have you ever noticed how the oceans fit the roundness of the Earth? How communicant vases "know" the level they all must be? Could that be randomly evolving? I don't think so.

I think the rev. worth be mentioned in the article. Other point the article totally miss is that evolutionists never explained how the so called gravity evolved in ther first place. [/creationist] --Extremophile 01:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Damnit. You think you find a perfect example to make clear the sillyness of the ID movement, and it turns out that some people were spreading the idea as serious 80 years ago. SanderJK 00:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is that I sincerely hope he is kidding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FVZA Colonel (talk • contribs). 06:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Circular reasoning is funny. Start with the premiss that there is a God, describe how powerful he'd have to be if that premiss was true, then say it is therefore proved that there is a God. And physics evolving from something, as if it were a living creature... there's an interesting concept. Hell, didn't gravity evolve from apples? <sigh> Capi 14:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inflammatory Article

While I am certainly not a creationist, I cringe somewhat to see this article. While there is some historical significance, and even contemporary reference, it would be extremely easy for an article like this to turn into the encyclopedic equivilant of a troll. I think we should be particularly careful as to what we put in the article. --Ignignot 15:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is not inflamatory at all but is merely a presentation of a fact of thought and action which stems from very old religious arguments on natural phenomena. I think I.F. it is relevant culturally, and important for debate between those who understand what science is and those who do not understand science - ideas like this move individuals to ask themselves important questions about the natural world. And in my opinion there isn't anything particularly inflamatory about getting people to use logic, deduction, and the other staples of intelligence which we humans have. Astrobayes 10:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

For religious freak, Reality is inflammatory thing itself, considering that all pesky thingies like proofs, evidence and so-called "facts". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.207.245.228 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC).