I Don't Believe in Gravity!

[Grandliseur]

Sounds like a silly statement, doesn't it?

So why do we buy into gravity? 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)?

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?

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

So In this thread, I would like to hear from those that believe in gravity and do not believe in evolution through natural selection. Why is gravity more valid to you than evolution?

Edited for typos

This is philosophy. I am not a great philosopher. Some philosophers can like Letterman change watch into witch, who into how, or as any good French Catholic philosopher priest, gravity into levity, holy text into moldy text.

Usually most will agree that subtraction of any number by itself = 0. According to this logic, ∞ -∞ should be 0, and 0 - 0 also should be 0. The funny thing is that the point singularity which became our universe according to science, (and in my book was initiated by God) in a sense should equal 0, but doesn't. Why 0? Because matter should have cancelled out with anti-matter, yet didn't - giving us a weird imperfect different proof of (in this case) subtraction of 1 by 1 =1 (the universe is something, a one of a kind) -- thereby poking a hole in our common math logic.

Another point being that now that matter exists, we have the gravitational field, time space field of energy of the universe equaling exactly the mass of the suns, planets, moons, and debris so that what we have here out of this singularity which should have equaled zero, a negative energy that equals a positive energy that when cancelling each other out = 0. In this then I postulate that God is the only one who can take zero and make something out of it that is beyond impressive.

Since science knows not what time is, and gravity is also being widely postulated about - we live in a reality in which things are, but about which we understand not their nature, its nature. What we do know is what we experience - experience through an awareness, a consciousness that no one understands how operates.

Through scientific experiments, it has been established that this awareness impacts how our reality behaves showing reality to be subject to awareness. What then before life existed, what awareness kept this reality subject and operating might be a question for science which religion already has answered.

The fact is that evolution is a tool for those who want to destroy the notion of a universe in which awareness operates and like Letterman shifts letters, add and delete letters, to suit their paradigm; they want to shift the universe into a material universe without anything except chemical gyrations. They call this science. I call it gravitating to the lowest common denominator of human ideology and perception.

 

[ChristineM]

I believe in gravity because I once fell off a ladder and it really, really hurt.

I don't believe in evolution because I have three kids and they are all exact replicas of their parents and there is no way any significant genetic change could have happened by chance in 6000 years which is the clearly established age of the universe because it says so in a book I once read.

So I don't really agree with the OP's hypothesis - I don't think it is enough simply to lack subjective experience of evolution, I think you have to be utterly determined to reject it as evidence even when you do!

Yes gravity works, as does evolution, despite your being unable to observe a discernable change in your children, statistically they have between 60 and 140 genetic mutations when compared to you and your partner. Now that sounds like a lot but in 40,000+ (both parents) genes that's just a 0.25% difference. And you say you can't see evolution happening, now you know why.

 

[SalixIncendium]

So these so-called "coincidences" put holes in evolutionary theory make it difficult for you to believe. But an invisible man in the sky who fathers a son on earth who is the savior of mankind, who is now in the heaven with Jehovah, and reigns in the Kingdom of God, and that 144,000 chosen individuals will be resurrected to live with him and Jehovah gives you no pause whatsoever?



As it should. Not everything about evolution has been answered. But new discoveries are made constantly.



Oh snap. The evolutionists' marketing team has been exposed!

But I disagree. They lag far behind the gravitationists' marketing team. Otherwise the amount of evolutionists would be closer to the amount of gravitationists in the world.

After sleeping on it, @Vee , I want to elaborate on this post.

In all seriousness, I don't believe there is any "marketing strategy" in play here at all. Evolution is a fact. "Evolutionists" including the scientists and researchers who study evolution, question evolution themselves. If they didn't, we wouldn't know nearly as much as we currently do. They submit hypotheses, question them, test them, and if they're plausible, they keep them as theories. If they aren't, they dismiss them. That's how science works. Science doesn't "believe". Scientists don't take an ideology and follow it blindly, as many people do. Science observes, experiments, questions, hypothesizes, and creates theories based on these. I have yet to come across one who is knowledgeable in evolution refuse to answer a question about evolution or insult someone's intelligence. IMO, claiming they do, or accusing them of having a "marketing strategy," is an excuse not to learn about it.

 

[Polymath257]

http://www.academypendulums.com/pdf/Mark2FoucaultInstallation.pdf

Also, of course, the pendelum(designed with electricity and magnetism: read link) always comes to a stop. The only things that keep them in motion are an initial startup force, and electromagnetism. Gravity doesn't keep them going. Unless the Earth also stops on it own.

It stops because of friction. That is unavoidable when there is air around. Yes, gravity does keep it going. When it is at the top of the swing, gravity is what brings it back down.

The Earth won't stop any time soon. Why would it?

 

[Thief]

gravity works.....

but I have never seen a gravity particle
or felt a gravity wave

nor have I ever had an apple fall on my head

but I have fallen on my head (black belts are at risk)

 

[Onyx]

http://www.academypendulums.com/pdf/Mark2FoucaultInstallation.pdf

Also, of course, the pendelum(designed with electricity and magnetism: read link) always comes to a stop. The only things that keep them in motion are an initial startup force, and electromagnetism. Gravity doesn't keep them going. Unless the Earth also stops on it own.

That is a museum display item designed to artificially stay in motion. The actual experiment has nothing to do with electromagnetism whatsoever.

 

[Vee]

If you have questions or doubts about any aspect of evolution, please ask. I am more than happy to clarify them as best as I can. What I am afraid of though is that your current church affiliation basically forces you to reject it apriori , since you value your church affiliation and rejecting evolution is a must for the church. If this is not the case, then I am happy to have an open ended discussion with you on evolution. Ask away.

Thank you. I appreciate your kindness but I studied evolution in as much dept as any non-scientist can long before I had any religious affiliation and no one forced me into anything. I chose my religion based on a number of factors that are important for me.
I am very familiar with the subject of evolution and when new information comes up I look into it. I like being informed.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I chose my religion based on a number of factors that are important for me.

At the risk of derailing my own thread, you've piqued my curiosity. You claim to be well versed on evolution, yet you chose, what might be considered by many, a contradictory path. Would you mind sharing these factors?

 

[sayak83]

Thank you. I appreciate your kindness but I studied evolution in as much dept as any non-scientist can long before I had any religious affiliation and no one forced me into anything. I chose my religion based on a number of factors that are important for me.
I am very familiar with the subject of evolution and when new information comes up I look into it. I like being informed.

Cool. Offer remains open.

 

[Vee]

At the risk of derailing my own thread, you've piqued my curiosity. You claim to be well versed on evolution, yet you chose, what might be considered by many, a contradictory path. Would you mind sharing these factors?

Sure. There are two different points in your question:

1) Why do I believe in a creator?

I didn’t start believing in the existence of God because some religion said so. What made me a believer was my study of science. The more I learned about how the universe works, specially life forms, the more I realized how incredibly connected and complex everything is. There is so much intelligence, so much creativity and so much purpose behind everything that I couldn’t believe it happened without someone designing it.
That's the base of it. I could develop this subject but there is so much material I would rather do it on a separate post.

2) Why I became a Jehovah’s Witness:

During my early twenties I had already looked into the main religions of the world, mostly out of curiosity, but I saw so much hypocrisy that I wasn’t able to take them seriously (no offense to any of their individual members, I’m talking about their teachings and the behavior of the leaders).

Then a few years ago I saw a form on JW.org offering a free bible study so I filled it and a few days later someone called me and we met. During the next two years that lady came to meet me about once a week to teach me about the bible. She did that for free, investing her own time and let me tell you, I wasn’t an easy student. I asked a lot of questions, many of them difficult.

We addressed all the usual questions people ask: Why does God allow so much suffering? Is there a hope for the future? What is God’s purpose for humans? What happens when we die, etc. She always answered with the bible. Even when I criticized all the bizarre accounts of the Old Testament she managed to give me the historical context so I could understand the mentally of that time. I learned a lot.

When I started going to meetings those people that had never met me before welcomed me like a member of their family. Their kindness and hospitality was outstanding. I’ve been a witness for 7 years and so far that hasn’t changed. They take the concept of brotherly love very seriously.

I was also very attracted to their high moral standards. They actually practice what they preach and I found that very refreshing. There are no smokers, no heavy drinkers, no drug use, no promiscuity. People dress nicely, they are polite and they are extremely respectful. In the beginning, sometimes I said things they didn’t agree with but they were never aggressive or rude. They always replied in a calm, kind way.

Witnesses are not perfect, far from that. I don’t want to give that idea to anyone. We have issues like everyone else, but over the years I made amazing friends and I met some of the nicest human beings I could ever imagine among JW. It is a very difficult religion to belong to because Witnesses commit to certain standards of behavior that are hard to follow in today’s world but for me it is more than worth it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

When is evolution "mechanistic", do you say?

Tell me: Why has 'creation science' never once made even the smallest scientific scratch on the theory of evolution?

Not one. Not ever.

Why is that?

You have some generalities there. We can lookup issues in evolutionary theory, gaps in knowledge and etc. and go through thousands of pages and papers without ever reading any Creationists' writings!

You are making a general case that is untrue.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is philosophy. I am not a great philosopher. Some philosophers can like Letterman change watch into witch, who into how, or as any good French Catholic philosopher priest, gravity into levity, holy text into moldy text.

Usually most will agree that subtraction of any number by itself = 0. According to this logic, ∞ -∞ should be 0, and 0 - 0 also should be 0. The funny thing is that the point singularity which became our universe according to science, (and in my book was initiated by God) in a sense should equal 0, but doesn't. Why 0? Because matter should have cancelled out with anti-matter, yet didn't - giving us a weird imperfect different proof of (in this case) subtraction of 1 by 1 =1 (the universe is something, a one of a kind) -- thereby poking a hole in our common math logic.

Another point being that now that matter exists, we have the gravitational field, time space field of energy of the universe equaling exactly the mass of the suns, planets, moons, and debris so that what we have here out of this singularity which should have equaled zero, a negative energy that equals a positive energy that when cancelling each other out = 0. In this then I postulate that God is the only one who can take zero and make something out of it that is beyond impressive.

Since science knows not what time is, and gravity is also being widely postulated about - we live in a reality in which things are, but about which we understand not their nature, its nature. What we do know is what we experience - experience through an awareness a consciousness that no one understands how operates.

Through scientific experiments, it has been established that this awareness impacts how our reality behaves showing reality to be subject to awareness. What then before life existed, what awareness kept this reality subject and operating might be a question for science which religion already has answered.

The fact is that evolution is a tool for those who want to destroy the notion of a universe in which awareness operates and like Letterman shifts letters, add and delete letters, to suit their paradigm; they want to shift the universe into a material universe without anything except chemical gyrations. They call this science. I call it gravitating to the lowest common denominator of human ideology and perception.

Amen!

 

[Sanzbir]

Someone in my very "devil's-advocate" prone philosophy club in college once posited that gravity as we understand it could be false.

He proposed instead of gravity, that there were two different forces, one that attracted objects twice as much as gravity supposedly does, and one that repelled objects at the same rate gravity supposedly attracts them.

Technically, any experiment that shows evidence for gravity also shows evidence for his proposed theory. There could be multiple forces at work, if you want to be a devil's advocate about it, there's no possible way we could prove that gravity isn't just the net result of several other existing forces.

 

[siti]

Yes gravity works, as does evolution, despite your being unable to observe a discernable change in your children, statistically they have between 60 and 140 genetic mutations when compared to you and your partner. Now that sounds like a lot but in 40,000+ (both parents) genes that's just a 0.25% difference. And you say you can't see evolution happening, now you know why.

Thanks Christine - my post was an attempt at irony - it actually seems pretty obvious to me that the strikingly observable differences between parents and children of any species is perfectly valid evidence in favour of evolution and that to deny it one has to deliberately overlook what is plainly before ones eyes.

 

[ChristineM]

Thanks Christine - my post was an attempt at irony - it actually seems pretty obvious to me that the strikingly observable differences between parents and children of any species is perfectly valid evidence in favour of evolution and that to deny it one has to deliberately overlook what is plainly before ones eyes.

I see. Cheers

 

[Grandliseur]

Amen!

Thanks!

I thought my philosophizing might be over the top for most. At least you didn't think so.

 

[blü 2]

You have some generalities there. We can lookup issues in evolutionary theory, gaps in knowledge and etc. and go through thousands of pages and papers without ever reading any Creationists' writings!

You are making a general case that is untrue.

Not at all.

The theory of evolution is the sworn enemy of the creationist ─ with rigorous science it credibly explains the origin of species, which (since magic explains nothing) creationism cannot.

The great creo revival kicked off in 1961 when Whitcomb and Morris published The Genesis Flood, so if the creos were able to make a genuine case against the theory of evolution, why have they failed to do so after having more than 55 years to do it?

Instead we've seen a steady disinformation campaign, the corruption of children with nonsense, the posturings of Ken Ham and poor looney Ken Hovind, the conscious intention to deceive with the Wedge Document and the Dover Case and more, the demonstrated lies of Wayne Gish, self-serving nonsense dished up as 'creation science' but hiding away out of scrutiny's way in parish magazines, and no shortage of thundering sermons and indignant rejections but NOTHING OF REAL SCIENCE, no case honestly. dispassionately and transparently reasoned from examinable evidence that has even once damaged the theory in any way.

And there's a reason for that. Creationism, by insisting on a notion (an invented notion, not in the bible) that the bible is magically inerrant, makes numerous falsifiable statements that have been falsified (many, like the Flood, all but effortlessly). Evolution makes falsifiable statements too, but in the course of scientific method, and the principles of the theory have grown stronger and stronger as false hypotheses are weeded out and the essentials repeatedly confirmed.

So the ongoing failure of creationism to demonstrate that its claims are objectively correct statements about reality tells us the true nature of creationism. It's false.

 

[Profound Realization]

That is a museum display item designed to artificially stay in motion. The actual experiment has nothing to do with electromagnetism whatsoever.

In other words, an actual experiment at a museum which is supposed to show proof that Earth is spinning by using nothing other than gravity.... uses electromagnetism and a force to start it?

 

[Profound Realization]

It stops because of friction. That is unavoidable when there is air around. Yes, gravity does keep it going. When it is at the top of the swing, gravity is what brings it back down.

The Earth won't stop any time soon. Why would it?

The comical irony is, that when it's stopped it's doing what it is supposed to be doing... absolutely nothing. Allegedly moving relative 1000 mph with the Earth and the atmosphere. The only places in existence that could validate this experiment are at the precise locations of the North Pole and/or South Pole.

Excluding any electromagnetism in model or that comes from the Earth and its environment, this experiment fails in so many ways... even ignoring the laws of inertia. I can suspend a weight, give it force to start it which I shouldn't have to do in the first place, since it is supposed to be pure gravity based with no other forces involved and watch it unfold with the result being the opposite amount of degrees in the opposite direction 1 hour as it should be. I can suspend a weight from a high elevation and watch it do all sorts of things. I've seen many better magicians tricks than this.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not at all.

The theory of evolution is the sworn enemy of the creationist ─ with rigorous science it credibly explains the origin of species, which (since magic explains nothing) creationism cannot.

The great creo revival kicked off in 1961 when Whitcomb and Morris published The Genesis Flood, so if the creos were able to make a genuine case against the theory of evolution, why have they failed to do so after having more than 55 years to do it?

Instead we've seen a steady disinformation campaign, the corruption of children with nonsense, the posturings of Ken Ham and poor looney Ken Hovind, the conscious intention to deceive with the Wedge Document and the Dover Case and more, the demonstrated lies of Wayne Gish, self-serving nonsense dished up as 'creation science' but hiding away out of scrutiny's way in parish magazines, and no shortage of thundering sermons and indignant rejections but NOTHING OF REAL SCIENCE, no case honestly. dispassionately and transparently reasoned from examinable evidence that has even once damaged the theory in any way.

And there's a reason for that. Creationism, by insisting on a notion (an invented notion, not in the bible) that the bible is magically inerrant, makes numerous falsifiable statements that have been falsified (many, like the Flood, all but effortlessly). Evolution makes falsifiable statements too, but in the course of scientific method, and the principles of the theory have grown stronger and stronger as false hypotheses are weeded out and the essentials repeatedly confirmed.

So the ongoing failure of creationism to demonstrate that its claims are objectively correct statements about reality tells us the true nature of creationism. It's false.

Very interesting. It almost sounds like you have an agenda--science is wonderful because it disproves the Holy Bible, the same Bible which is the last hope of our rapidly degenerating world.

Meanwhile, once you prove you exist, we can decide whether science, creationism or anything else exists.