I Don't Believe in Gravity!

[Enoch07]

So you are in agreement with my hypothesis that people accept the gravity because of subjective experience, but reject evolution due the lack thereof?

There is a great deal of evidence for evolution. One can simply go to a natural history museum to observe it. Does this not qualify as subjective experience because one is not able to witness the actual process due to time constraints?



Oh, and this statement...

...made me twitch.​

Like I say I put it simply as possible so that everyone can understand it. So twitch away!

Going to a museum to see evidence obviously doesn't cut it. I don't know if there is a way for evolution to be experienced or tested in real time. But until a way is found it is going to be remain disputed by people who don't blindly accept it as fact.

 

[Skwim]

Sounds like a silly statement, doesn't it?

Coming from you, not at all.

So why do we buy into gravity?

How about because it keeps things grounded?

Is it because we buy into Newton's mathematical equation? Is it because of evidence presented through scientific method? Or is it because we know the earth spins at 1000 miles per hour (at the equator) and we have an understanding that without it, we would be flung into space like fleas being shaken off of a dog (until they hit the ground because of gravity)?

It's because, other than those things lighter than air, nothing is floating off into space.

So is it fair to say that we buy into this scientific theory because we have subjective experience, and not because of evidence presented through scientific method?

What scientific theory? I don't see any scientific theory.

Another scientific theory is Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection. Like gravity, it is a scientific theory arrived at through use of the scientific method.

Err, evolution, like gravity, is not a theory. It's a reality. Where theory comes into the picture is in explaining how it works. NOT that it works.

Yet 42% of the population (according to a poll I made up for this thread) does not buy into evolution or natural selection even though it uses the same scientific method used to arrive at the theory of gravity (systematic observation, measurement, experimentation, formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses).

So what? If 0.01% of the population doesn't believe in gravity does that mean they're floating around in the air?

One can hypothesize (as I do) that the only reason that one would not believe in evolution is because s/he lacks subjective experience.

Hardly a good hypothesis because as been shown time and again the vast majority of those opposed to evolution are Christians who have a need to preserve creationism. To admit that evolution is true is to deny the truth of the Bible as they read it.

.

 

[Lester Tryon]

Can you present any evidence for this claim?

Science, experiments, to explore and understand our environment and place in the universe. With each one, we gain a little more knowledge and insight into the nature of our reality.

 

[Kemosloby]

Of course gravity is a lie. The theory of gravity says magnetic forces pull everything down to earth, But magnets only work on metal. How dumb do they think we are. It is Gods hand pushing things up and pulling things down.

 

[Lester Tryon]

Actually, both are facts.

You may wish to read this article...

What Is a Scientific Theory?

There is no such thing, as a scientific fact. Theory is the best you get. Science gives us snapshots of understanding, based on the evidence so far available. We take the evidence and extrapolate to better explain that which was unexplained previously, but, as our collective knowledge grows, so to does our understanding of just how little we really know. Fact of yesterday is myth of today, and so on. The world is not flat. The universe does not revolve around the Earth, and Royalty, no matter what they think, are no more direct descendants of God, than anyone else.

 

[Lester Tryon]

Of course gravity is a lie. The theory of gravity says magnetic forces pull everything down to earth, But magnets only work on metal. How dumb do they think we are. It is Gods hand pushing things up and pulling things down.

I'm hoping that was sarcasm. *facepalm*

 

[Lester Tryon]

Like I say I put it simply as possible so that everyone can understand it. So twitch away!

Going to a museum to see evidence obviously doesn't cut it. I don't know if there is a way for evolution to be experienced or tested in real time. But until a way is found it is going to be remain disputed by people who don't blindly accept it as fact.

Behold the endogenous retrovirus! These tiny critters, can attach to and become part of the human genome. Once they are there, the person infected has a slightly different DNA than before, which can be passed on to their offspring, who are then born with the slightly different DNA. A minuscule change, granted, but nonetheless a slightly different human than the parent.

 

[sun rise]

gravity is a fact, evolution is a theory. The earth has gravity, so do other planets and stars.

Gravity and evolution are facts.

 

[sun rise]

Meanwhile, in the real world

 

[Enoch07]

Hardly a good hypothesis because as been shown time and again the vast majority of those opposed to evolution are Christians who have a need to preserve creationism. To admit that evolution is true is to deny the truth of the Bible as they read it.

True to some extent as I know some Christians believe that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. But I don't see any reason why they should be exclusive.

An argument I have seen is the giraffe argument. Amd i will try to explain the argument to the best of my understanding.

A giraffe has to have a large heart to exert the pressure needed to push blood all the way up to its head, against gravity. When it lowers its head down to get a drink of water the blood is now flowing with gravity, downhill. The giraffe had to develop a valve in its jugular veins to slow or stop this blood from rushing to the giraffe's brain instantly killing it.

So the question is how did this evolve? The long neck, large heart, and jugular vein valves all had to be in place at the same time. Because without the long neck, they would not need such a large heart, without the large heart and long neck there would be no need for the valves. If the valves were not in place from the start giraffes would not be. Because they would die, went they went for their first sip of water. Hence there is no time to adapt, then pass the adaptions on to the next generation; voila evolution.

So a good answer to questions like this is a start.

Also hard to explain evolution. Would be wood pecker tongues. As illustrated here.

These things most regular people have a hard time understanding as to why or how something like this would evolve.

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you present any evidence for this claim?

Evidence is used to falsify theories and hypothesis.

From: Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,[13] many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory,"

"Popper instead proposed that science should adopt a methodology based on falsifiability for demarcation, because no number of experiments can ever prove a theory, but a single experiment can contradict one. Popper holds that scientific theories are characterized by falsifiability."

The use of proof in science has conflicting meanings, and is most often used in a derogatory manner against science. I go with Popper.

 

[Enoch07]

Behold the endogenous retrovirus! These tiny critters, can attach to and become part of the human genome. Once they are there, the person infected has a slightly different DNA than before, which can be passed on to their offspring, who are then born with the slightly different DNA. A minuscule change, granted, but nonetheless a slightly different human than the parent.

Most regular folk do not have access to even basic microscopes. Let alone ones good enough to see dna strands and then compare them.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Coming from you, not at all.

+1 for style

What scientific theory? I don't see any scientific theory.

Hmm...doesn't gravity explain how we held in place on the planet? How the earth stays in orbit around the sun? How our solar system stays in orbit around a black hole?

Err, evolution, like gravity, is not a theory. It's a reality. Where theory comes into the picture is in explaining how it works. NOT that it works.

While it is a reality, it explains how modern day species descended from single celled microorganisms. It explains how it works.

So what? If 0.01% of the population doesn't believe in gravity does that mean they're floating around in the air?

No, it just means they, like those that don't believe in evolution, have their heads in the sand (which probably keeps them tethered to the ground in the absence of gravity.

Hardly a good hypothesis because as been shown time and again the vast majority of those opposed to evolution are Christians who have a need to preserve creationism. To admit that evolution is true is to deny the truth of the Bible as they read it.

Valid point.

 

[SalixIncendium]

There is no such thing, as a scientific fact. Theory is the best you get. Science gives us snapshots of understanding, based on the evidence so far available. We take the evidence and extrapolate to better explain that which was unexplained previously, but, as our collective knowledge grows, so to does our understanding of just how little we really know. Fact of yesterday is myth of today, and so on. The world is not flat. The universe does not revolve around the Earth, and Royalty, no matter what they think, are no more direct descendants of God, than anyone else.

I think you may be confusing the terms 'fact' and 'law.' I'm not sure what you're getting at with the phrase 'scientific fact.'

Both gravity and evolution are indisputable, and are, thereby, fact.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Of course gravity is a lie. The theory of gravity says magnetic forces pull everything down to earth, But magnets only work on metal. How dumb do they think we are. It is Gods hand pushing things up and pulling things down.

 

[SalixIncendium]

True to some extent as I know some Christians believe that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. But I don't see any reason why they should be exclusive.

An argument I have seen is the giraffe argument. Amd i will try to explain the argument to the best of my understanding.

A giraffe has to have a large heart to exert the pressure needed to push blood all the way up to its head, against gravity. When it lowers its head down to get a drink of water the blood is now flowing with gravity, downhill. The giraffe had to develop a valve in its jugular veins to slow or stop this blood from rushing to the giraffe's brain instantly killing it.

So the question is how did this evolve? The long neck, large heart, and jugular vein valves all had to be in place at the same time. Because without the long neck, they would not need such a large heart, without the large heart and long neck there would be no need for the valves. If the valves were not in place from the start giraffes would not be. Because they would die, went they went for their first sip of water.

The evolution of the heart happened concurrently with the evolution of the animal's neck. Giraffes' necks lengthened over time due in order to reach their primary food source. The heart grew larger over time to accommodate the blood flow necessary to supply blood to the brain and head through the lengthening neck.

 

[Enoch07]

Both gravity and evolution are indisputable, and are, thereby, fact.

If both are fact then why is this thread even a thing? Gravity I already explained why it is accepted as fact by common folk.

But evolution is much harder to test, for common folk, because of its nature.

The evolution of the heart happened concurrently with the evolution of the animal's neck. Giraffes' necks lengthened over time due in order to reach their primary food source. The heart grew larger over time to accommodate the blood flow necessary to supply blood to the brain and head through the lengthening neck.

But what about the valve? There would be no need for the valve until the psi was enough to harm the animal. But if the psi was enough to kill the animal, it would not have time to adapt then pass this genetic adaption on to the next generaration.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Evidence is used to falsify theories and hypothesis.

From: Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,[13] many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory,"

"Popper instead proposed that science should adopt a methodology based on falsifiability for demarcation, because no number of experiments can ever prove a theory, but a single experiment can contradict one. Popper holds that scientific theories are characterized by falsifiability."

The use of proof in science has conflicting meanings, and is most often used in a derogatory manner against science. I go with Popper.

While that's an interesting excerpt, it hardly evidence that science doesn't prove anything.

 

[Lester Tryon]

I think you may be confusing the terms 'fact' and 'law.' I'm not sure what you're getting at with the phrase 'scientific fact.'

Both gravity and evolution are indisputable, and are, thereby, fact.

Thank you, I stand corrected. Pesky language! I believe the point I was driving at was closer to Shunyadragon's post (#31). And I do agree, that they are is fact. What they are is not. Better?

 

[Enoch07]

The evolution of the heart happened concurrently with the evolution of the animal's neck. Giraffes' necks lengthened over time due in order to reach their primary food source. The heart grew larger over time to accommodate the blood flow necessary to supply blood to the brain and head through the lengthening neck.

But what about the valve? There would be no need for the valve until the psi was enough to harm the animal. But if the psi was enough to kill the animal, it would not have time to adapt then pass this genetic adaption on to the next generaration.

If the valve also developed at the same time as the heart and neck. Then I ask why and how? How does the body know it will need a valve to restrict the flow? Why would cells be able to predict a need to grow a valve, that was currently not needed until the neck and heart reached a specific level?