I Don't Believe in Gravity!

[Milton Platt]

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

Gravity is simply a name we have given to a phenomenon we consistently observe to be true. The theory of gravity is an attempt to explain how and why it exists, not to demonstrate that it does exist.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Gravity is simply a name we have given to a phenomenon we consistently observe to be true. The theory of gravity is an attempt to explain how and why it exists, not to demonstrate that it does exist.

Can the same be said about evolution?

 

[Milton Platt]

Can the same be said about evolution?

Yes, the observable facts demonstrate that evolution is occurring. The theory of evolution explains the processes involved.

 

[Milton Platt]

I find people who say “I’m enlightened”, are not enlightened at all, because it is ego-talking and shameless self-promotion.

Nevermind the fact that the word "enlightened" has no more meaning than "spiritual" does.

 

[gnostic]

Nevermind the fact that the word "enlightened" has no more meaning that "spiritual" does.

True.

 

[Polymath257]

I find people who say “I’m enlightened”, are not enlightened at all, because it is ego-talking and shameless self-promotion.

"And if I claim to be a wise man,
I surely means that I don't know."
-Kansas

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

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

Well this was meant for me!

The thing about evolution is that aTheists typically claim that it is an aTheist idea,
and that it somehow (rather subtly) proves (implies) that the soul does not exist.
The result is the end of Christian morality - which is far more important than genetic theory
when it comes to avoiding social breakdown and war, for instance.

Moreover that there is something vaguely like a gene which changes from
generation to generation is empirically verifiable. Fine. But if we agree with this
we are now expected to agree that the biologists have this vast and complete
understanding of this process - which they do not. In fact almost all of biology
(like so much of academia generally) is little more than a glorified ponzi scheme.
Biology is at the level of development of medieval alchemy: based on 1 basic idea
and then BWBS until they get funding for sophistry.

So would someone please give me proof that I can verify beyond the 1st stage
of accepting that something like genes generates changes between generations.

This 2nd stage of fact would be something that I can actually use and verify in my own life
that shows that genetic theory is more than Darwin's initial observations that
lifeforms change down the generations.

So let me give 2 bad examples that others have provided in the past
that do not prove the 2nd stage of fact:

1) Vegetable Renet was constructed with genetic theory.
Answer: No proof.
All you have is cheese which is indistinguishable from other cheese,
the rest is unverifiable claims.

2) They cloned a sheep with genetic theory.
Answer: No proof.
All you have is a sheep that is indistinguishable from other sheep.

Because it seems to me that the only use of genetic theory is to try and break down
the morals of young people and make them more susceptible to immoral use by academics;
and to elicit much public funding for no verifiable reason.

 

[blü 2]

Moreover that there is something vaguely like a gene which changes from generation to generation is empirically verifiable. Fine. But if we agree with this we are now expected to agree that the biologists have this vast and complete understanding of this process - which they do not.

They expect you to agree or disagree with the conclusion by reasoning from expert knowledge and from the evidence on which the conclusion is based, that is, in the same way the conclusion was derived.

In fact almost all of biology (like so much of academia generally) is little more than a glorified ponzi scheme.

You sound bitter. You've had an unhappy collision with learning at some point?

Biology is at the level of development of medieval alchemy: based on 1 basic idea and then BWBS until they get funding for sophistry.

What example or examples did you have in mind here, exactly? If you don't have examples in mind, on what basis do you make the assertion?

So would someone please give me proof that I can verify beyond the 1st stage of accepting that something like genes generates changes between generations.

If you went to Wikipedia and looked up a starting point like, say, "Genetics", you could find all the information you desire.

This 2nd stage of fact would be something that I can actually use and verify in my own life that shows that genetic theory is more than Darwin's initial observations that lifeforms change down the generations.

If you have a vegetable garden then you could use artificial selection ─ keeping the most delicious examples in each crop (or the biggest, or the smallest, or the reddest, or the crinkliest &c) to seed the next crop ─ and see what happens. (That's just a version of natural selection, substituting your particular requirement for the normal requirements of nature, which are for the example to survive long enough to propagate in the environment it finds itself in.)

2) They cloned a sheep with genetic theory.
Answer: No proof.
All you have is a sheep that is indistinguishable from other sheep.

No, what you have is a sheep that's genetically identical to the sheep from which it was cloned. Whereas a sheep would normally have a male and a female parent and its genetics would be a unique mix of theirs. So the result with cloning is not only different to the norm, but easily shown to be so.

 

[Apologes]

It's arguing from incredulity. We know more about evolution than we do about gravity ( understandable since biology is lot simpler than the space-time fabric).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In fact almost all of biology
(like so much of academia generally) is little more than a glorified ponzi scheme.

You do realize the entirety of modern medicine is based on biology, don't you? We have sequenced the human genome as well as many other species. Farming, both agriculture and animal husbandry, are rooted in biology. We don't know everything about it, but to compare it to medieval alchemy is a statement of ignorance, denial, and desperation to discredit something you can't discredit.

Because it seems to me that the only use of genetic theory is to try and break down
the morals of young people and make them more susceptible to immoral use by academics;

Learning about biology doesn't do diddly squat to morality, except reinforce the idea we are social animals which is why something like Social Darwinism won't do for our species (and hopefully make people realize that idea has absolutely nothing to do with Darwin and is the opposite of what Darwin wrote about social animals). Biology also helps us to realize how interconnected we are, how dependent we are upon all life, and that all life is related.
And what "immoral use" are you referring to?

 

[ChristineM]

It's arguing from incredulity. We know more about evolution than we do about gravity ( understandable since biology is lot simpler than the space-time fabric).

We know it works.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Understanding consciousness, and recognizing whether or not the theory (or hypothesis) is falsifiable.

You do realize the entirety of modern medicine is based on biology, don't you? We have sequenced the human genome as well as many other species. Farming, both agriculture and animal husbandry, are rooted in biology. We don't know everything about it, but to compare it to medieval alchemy is a statement of ignorance, denial, and desperation to discredit something you can't discredit.

Learning about biology doesn't do diddly squat to morality, except reinforce the idea we are social animals which is why something like Social Darwinism won't do for our species (and hopefully make people realize that idea has absolutely nothing to do with Darwin and is the opposite of what Darwin wrote about social animals). Biology also helps us to realize how interconnected we are, how dependent we are upon all life, and that all life is related.
And what "immoral use" are you referring to?

Well the only medicine I have ever found useful is to treat my iron deficiency with iron supplements - which is a medicine used by ancient Romans. It has absolutely nothing to do with modern biology.

What your post is claiming is that before Darwin there were no farms. I know you did not mean it that way, but thats what it boils down to.

By usurping religious morality and teaching that we are predatory animals makes it socially viable to live as parasites - so long as we pay the lawyer/judge/cop. So when biology is used to try and discredit religious teaching - it certainly degrades morality.

Biology is often used to discredit even the much more simple notions of Freudian psychology which has at its root the improvement of the conscious - not even a religious morality - but still morality. That is why sexual predators are increasing their effect on society.

Science that has no ethical foundation is worse than worthless - its outright dangerous - have the Nazi's taught us nothing?

Morality is a priori to science.

 

[ChristineM]

Well the only medicine I have ever found useful is to treat my iron deficiency with iron supplements - which is a medicine used by ancient Romans. It has absolutely nothing to do with modern biology.

What your post is claiming is that before Darwin there were no farms. I know you did not mean it that way, but thats what it boils down to.

By usurping religious morality and teaching that we are predatory animals makes it socially viable to live as parasites - so long as we pay the lawyer/judge/cop. So when biology is used to try and discredit religious teaching - it certainly degrades morality.

Biology is often used to discredit even the much more simple notions of Freudian psychology which has at its root the improvement of the conscious - not even a religious morality - but still morality. That is why sexual predators are increasing their effect on society.

Science that has no ethical foundation is worse than worthless - its outright dangerous - have the Nazi's taught us nothing?

Morality is a priori to science.

What have h nazis to do with science? Nazism was a centre right authoritarian regime with strong religious (christian) leanings.

Morality is a priori to humanity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well the only medicine I have ever found useful is to treat my iron deficiency with iron supplements - which is a medicine used by ancient Romans. It has absolutely nothing to do with modern biology.

Really? Then you might be part of the problem. And you have benefited from modern medicine whether your realize it or not. You may be too young to have a small scar on your upper arm. I have one. It tells me that I got a small pox vaccination. That disease used to run rampant at times. Now it is gone. So whether you use it or not you rely on modern medicine. Unvaccinated children are a threat to all other unvaccinated children since they raise the odds of all getting a disease that can be prevented.

What your post is claiming is that before Darwin there were no farms. I know you did not mean it that way, but thats what it boils down to.

Nope, it does not do that at all.

By usurping religious morality and teaching that we are predatory animals makes it socially viable to live as parasites - so long as we pay the lawyer/judge/cop. So when biology is used to try and discredit religious teaching - it certainly degrades morality.

The Bible is hardly a source of morality. People have been reinterpreting the "morals" of the Bible almost since it was written. Man's morality is far superior to the Bible's morality.

Biology is often used to discredit even the much more simple notions of Freudian psychology which has at its root the improvement of the conscious - not even a religious morality - but still morality. That is why sexual predators are increasing their effect on society.

Science that has no ethical foundation is worse than worthless - its outright dangerous - have the Nazi's taught us nothing?

Morality is a priori to science.

Ooh Godwin violation. You lost. And you forgot that overall the Nazis were Christians. They got their morality from their own interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is no more immune from being abused than the sciences are.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

The Bible is no more immune from being abused than the sciences are.

Well I do agree that anything can be used for immoral purposes, yes, but if you claim
that the Nazi's were Christians, then you are certainly deliberately misunderstanding
what a Christian actually is.

As for vaccinations - that is just a monopolist ponzi scheme for forcing people to
accept pseudo-medical treatment by white-monopoly-capital. If it were based on true
morality it would only be administered voluntarily. Of course you have been brainwashed
into forcing people to buy snake-water.

Now you ask by what token do I back up those claims?

White monopoly capital and its medical/legal fascism encourages murder through its war
on drugs so that if Afghanis sell 'opium' that if administered in the wrong dose may kill a person.
But if its white-monopoly-capital making a FAT PROFIT from 'opiates' that results in
people dying similarly then there is no 'murder', no 'crime' - no 'war on drugs'.

All there is, is immoral racist nazi pharmaceutical companies sucking the blood of the sufferers
like vampires - full of blatant godless lies.

Now you want me to accept your vaccine?
GO TO HELL SATAN.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

What have h nazis to do with science? Nazism was a centre right authoritarian regime with strong religious (christian) leanings.

Morality is a priori to humanity.

Well I still like the idea that morality is a priori to humanity.
Nazism had nothing to do with real Christianity, how can you think
that Jesus who would rather die than pick up a weapon represents
the most murderous thugs in recent western history?

That is appaling analysis, Christine, come on!

As for why I mention nazis and science - the nazis had little or no morality.
They had the most advanced science of the day. Most of their technology
was better than Western technology. You forget that it was the likes of
Nietzsche (a passionate atheist) - and his 'Superman' concept that was the
central philosophy driving the idea of:
'Deutschland uber alles' (Germany above everything).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I do agree that anything can be used for immoral purposes, yes, but if you claim
that the Nazi's were Christians, then you are certainly deliberately misunderstanding
what a Christian actually is.

No, they merely did not go by your definition of "Christian". There is no one overarching definition of what or who is or is not a Christian. That is why there on the order of 40,000 different sects.

As for vaccinations - that is just a monopolist ponzi scheme for forcing people to
accept pseudo-medical treatment by white-monopoly-capital. If it were based on true
morality it would only be administered voluntarily. Of course you have been brainwashed
into forcing people to buy snake-water.

Sorry, but this is an incredibly incorrect and rather ignorant opinion. You also do not appear to understand the term "Ponzi scheme". That was the wrong term to use whatever you meant. The eradication of small pox is more than enough evidence that you are wrong.

Now you ask by what token do I back up those claims?

Yes, what peer reviewed science do you have that supports this. I would love to hear.

White monopoly capital and its medical/legal fascism encourages murder through its war
on drugs so that if Afghanis sell 'opium' that if administered in the wrong dose may kill a person.
But if its white-monopoly-capital making a FAT PROFIT from 'opiates' that results in
people dying similarly then there is no 'murder', no 'crime' - no 'war on drugs'.

Sorry, but we are not talking about opiates here. Your conspiracy theory is entering tin foil hat territory.

All there is, is immoral racist nazi pharmaceutical companies sucking the blood of the sufferers
like vampires - full of blatant godless lies.

Now you want me to accept your vaccine?
GO TO HELL SATAN.

Oh my!! That doe not seem to be going along with the rules of the forum at all. By the way, telling someone to go to a mythical place and accusing that they are a mythical being is hardly a way to win an argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I still like the idea that morality is a priori to humanity.
Nazism had nothing to do with real Christianity, how can you think
that Jesus who would rather die than pick up a weapon represents
the most murderous thugs in recent western history?

That is appaling analysis, Christine, come on!

As for why I mention nazis and science - the nazis had little or no morality.
They had the most advanced science of the day. Most of their technology
was better than Western technology. You forget that it was the likes of
Nietzsche (a passionate atheist) - and his 'Superman' concept that was the
central philosophy driving the idea of:
'Deutschland uber alles' (Germany above everything).

The Nazis had some engineering advantages at the start of the war, there technology was hardly any better. And their Christianity was merely different than your Christianity. You probably do have better morals than the Nazis, but that is a very low hurdle to cross. Yet by denying science you in many ways advocate the death of countless people who did not need to die.

By the way, I am late to this discussion. Do you deny that gravity exists?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Oh my!!

You are avoiding the argument:
The war on drugs is perpetuated by the same medical/legal system
that perpetuates vaccines.
It is clearly biased in favor of opiates against opium.
Therefore it is not to be trusted - because their misuse is scientifically the same.

Or are you claiming that opium-causing death is different to opiate-death,
hmmmm????

So I have no reason to trust the claims made by the peer-review ponzi-schemers

 

[ChristineM]

Well I do agree that anything can be used for immoral purposes, yes, but if you claim
that the Nazi's were Christians, then you are certainly deliberately misunderstanding
what a Christian actually is.

As for vaccinations - that is just a monopolist ponzi scheme for forcing people to
accept pseudo-medical treatment by white-monopoly-capital. If it were based on true
morality it would only be administered voluntarily. Of course you have been brainwashed
into forcing people to buy snake-water.

Now you ask by what token do I back up those claims?

White monopoly capital and its medical/legal fascism encourages murder through its war
on drugs so that if Afghanis sell 'opium' that if administered in the wrong dose may kill a person.
But if its white-monopoly-capital making a FAT PROFIT from 'opiates' that results in
people dying similarly then there is no 'murder', no 'crime' - no 'war on drugs'.

All there is, is immoral racist nazi pharmaceutical companies sucking the blood of the sufferers
like vampires - full of blatant godless lies.

Now you want me to accept your vaccine?
GO TO HELL SATAN.

Nazi Germany was a majority (67%) Protestant country with a 33% Catholic population lead by a catholic (Hitler) whom had Vatican backing. I'm pretty sure the Vatican has more say over who is one of their own than a guy wirth a vested intererest on denying nazi relion on internet forum.

Fyi.
Nazi forces were blessed by a priest before battle.
Nazi military equipment was marked with the phrase "got mit uns" which translates as "god with us"
Even the nazi emblem is a Christian symbol.