Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory

sethgodin.typepad.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory

#31

Post by kirse »

KirinDave wrote: post #30
kirse wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...E. coli is that it cannot process citrate. You must have missed that study I posted where it showed that E-coli already has the capability to process citrate within it's genetic code, it's just typically not utilized. Forcing something to adapt to an extreme environment within its genetic confines is not macro-evolution, thats micro-evolutionary adaptation. Let me repeat it: E-coli that processes glucose already h…

Once again, dodging the genetic evidence for evolution. But I understand why you do it, it's even more irritating that recent fossil evidence if you've got an axe to grind. I don't. I am particularly skeptical of Macro-Evolution because (1) it is entirely and completely unobservable Save for all that fossil evidence, genetic evidence, corroborating evidence in short-lived creatures. Completely unobservable. We have a…

Save for all that fossil evidence, genetic evidence, corroborating evidence in short-lived creatures.

Yet again, what you're saying here is "Trust me that I put all the independent pieces together properly and that's what is shown on the box."

All "scientific fact" is the creation of man. There is nothing privledged about our physical models. Indeed, it's certain that our current models of electricity, gravity, and nutrition are incomplete and probably deeply flawed models.

Of course it is! Except when we observe physical processes, we're not starting with the question "Does this even exist?" but "Ok, we KNOW this exists, but how does this work?". The difference between the two is very distinct, and both are subject to man's interpretation.

Read this carefully: ----

Physics takes existing observable processes and deconstructs them so we can understand them better. Macro-Evolution is the attempt to take processes and make them add up (or construct) into a larger process that we don't even know exists - you would agree that we've never observed Macro-Evolution since there's not enough time. To further my physics example, they just spent several billion on the Large Hadron Collider in an attempt to further deconstruct the nature of our world (notably, finding a Higgs boson).

----.

Re: Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory

#32

Post by mixmax »

nebula wrote: post #29
mixmax wrote: post #13

Seth should pick his examples more carefully, he obviously doesn't know anything about science. ----------- Seth: They say he discovered gravity. Nonsense. He just named it. Fact: He didn't discover gravity, and has never been accredited for doing so. The famous story of Gallileo dropping balls from the tower of Pisa to measure gravity happened in the 17'th century, so obviously the idea of gravity was around for a w…

Gravity has always been the odd one out and hard to explain What do you mean by this? can you please elaborate. Einstein has already explained gravity as curvature of space caused by the presence of mass. And this is a well tested theory.

I'm not a scientist, just have a casual interest in science and its history, so please allow for some inaccuracies and feel free to correct me.

It appears that gravity is somewhat different than the other forces in fundamental ways. The other three forces are adequately described using quantum mechanics - gravity not so. Gravity is explained using Einsteins general theory of relativity, and describes gravity as a curvature of the time-space continuum. Modern physics rests on two main pillars: quantum mechanics and relativity. Gravity is the only one of the fundamental forces explained by the relativity column, and so it is harder to incorporate into a unified theory encompassing all the forces.

Of course it doesn't help that quantum mechanics and relativity are by many thought to be incompatible theories: The first works well for sub-atom sizes and weights, the latter works well for planet sizes and weights. This is also one of the reasons black holes are so interesting - sub atom size and planet weight. Both quantum mechanics and relativity must be at work.

Really interesting stuff :-)

Re: Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory

#33

Post by KirinDave »

kirse wrote: post #31
KirinDave wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once again, dodging the genetic evidence for evolution. But I understand why you do it, it's even more irritating that recent fossil evidence if you've got an axe to grind. I don't. I am particularly skeptical of Macro-Evolution because (1) it is entirely and completely unobservable Save for all that fossil evidence, genetic evidence, corroborating evidence in short-lived creatures. Completely unobservable. We have a…

Save for all that fossil evidence, genetic evidence, corroborating evidence in short-lived creatures. Yet again, what you're saying here is "Trust me that I put all the independent pieces together properly and that's what is shown on the box." All "scientific fact" is the creation of man. There is nothing privledged about our physical models. Indeed, it's certain that our current models of electricity, gravity, and n…

Yet again, what you're saying here is "Trust me that I put all the independent pieces together properly and that's what is shown on the box."

"Like all of the rest of science, where this process is good enough!"

Why isn't it good enough here?

Of course it is! Except when we observe physical processes, we're not starting with the question "Does this even exist?" but "Ok, we KNOW this exists, but how the heck does this work?". The difference between the two is very distinct.

There is no difference between observations of these kinds. Our senses are so incredibly flawed and unreliable, as are our minds, that there is basically no difference when it comes to science.

The attempt to prove Macro-Evolution is the attempt to prove that it even exists (or Does man's linkage of these independent processes indeed = MacroEvolution?).

It's funny that you say this. 8-10 years ago, the micro-vs-macro-evolution argument was called "irreducible complexity", and the scale was much smaller than what you're holding to now. "How could complex things like flagellum" evolve? Well science has gone and shown that not only is it possible, it's not hard at all.

So, your camp was forced to _move the goalposts_ and say, "Well that level of complexity is okay, but now this level of complexity up here is totally unproven!" And when we show you macro-evolution you'll just move the goalposts again. Because it keeps happening over and over.

When we attempt to understand physics and other inherent universal processes, we already know they exist...

Except that even a casual understanding of science in history would tell you this statement is grossly false. Heliocentricity comes to mind.

And while we're busy debating all this proof and you're picking tiny holes in a remarkably well-researched theory that has risen to prominence as the "unifying theory of biology", where does ID start offering complex studies? Your life-origin of choice has basically nothing behind it save, "My bible tells me so, it's certainly possible, and I don't really believe your evidence to the contrary." You cannot base a theory on negative statements and the Bible.

Your position is intellectually bankrupt, your arguments presented thus far are literally over 5 years old and well-debunked, the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, and your pathological avoidance of the fundamental inconsistencies you're proposing in being an anti-evolutionist are plain as day to anyone without a religious axe to grind.

Re: Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory

#34

Post by kirse »

KirinDave wrote: post #33
kirse wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Save for all that fossil evidence, genetic evidence, corroborating evidence in short-lived creatures. Yet again, what you're saying here is "Trust me that I put all the independent pieces together properly and that's what is shown on the box." All "scientific fact" is the creation of man. There is nothing privledged about our physical models. Indeed, it's certain that our current models of electricity, gravity, and n…

Yet again, what you're saying here is "Trust me that I put all the independent pieces together properly and that's what is shown on the box." "Like all of the rest of science, where this process is good enough!" Why isn't it good enough here? Of course it is! Except when we observe physical processes, we're not starting with the question "Does this even exist?" but "Ok, we KNOW this exists, but how the heck does this…

We're really getting nowhere, but I'm curious to know one last thing. Since you seem to be speaking as an ambassador for the scientific community, which one of these processes would have a more solid foundation in fact and truth?

1. An empirically observable process that, by its very nature, is known to exist.

2. An unobservable process, where the very condition of existence is unknown.

There's a huge difference in the science of deconstructing what is known to exist (the empirical) versus trying to construct the unknown. One is based in solid fact and the extremely powerful truth of existence, the other is just a pitiful shot in the dark and based on faith that (1) man has the intelligence and capability to put things together properly (2) it even exists.

Re: Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory

#35

Post by KirinDave »

kirse wrote: post #34
KirinDave wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet again, what you're saying here is "Trust me that I put all the independent pieces together properly and that's what is shown on the box." "Like all of the rest of science, where this process is good enough!" Why isn't it good enough here? Of course it is! Except when we observe physical processes, we're not starting with the question "Does this even exist?" but "Ok, we KNOW this exists, but how the heck does this…

We're really getting nowhere, but I'm curious to know one last thing. Since you seem to be speaking as an ambassador for the scientific community, which one of these processes would have a more solid foundation in fact and truth? 1. An empirically observable process that, by its very nature, is known to exist. 2. An unobservable process, where the very condition of existence is unknown. There's a huge difference in t…

We're really getting nowhere..

You're right.

Re: Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory

#36

Post by kirse »

KirinDave wrote: post #35
kirse wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're really getting nowhere, but I'm curious to know one last thing. Since you seem to be speaking as an ambassador for the scientific community, which one of these processes would have a more solid foundation in fact and truth? 1. An empirically observable process that, by its very nature, is known to exist. 2. An unobservable process, where the very condition of existence is unknown. There's a huge difference in t…

We're really getting nowhere.. You're right.

Are you not going to answer my question then? Or do you genuinely not know the answer?

Your position is intellectually bankrupt, your arguments presented thus far are literally over 5 years old and well-debunked, the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, and your pathological avoidance of the fundamental inconsistencies you're proposing in being an anti-evolutionist are plain as day to anyone without a religious axe to grind.

If you're going to be summarily and swiftly dismissive under the premises that I'm just another "anti-evolutionist" religious type, then proceed to insult me and try to question the validity of my argument by saying I'm someone with an "axe to grind", then you will at least acknowledge that the very science we are debating certainly deserves its massive dose of skepticism from even science itself, not just religious individuals.

Re: Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory

#38

Post by logjam »

kirse wrote: post #36
KirinDave wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're really getting nowhere.. You're right.

Are you not going to answer my question then? Or do you genuinely not know the answer? Your position is intellectually bankrupt, your arguments presented thus far are literally over 5 years old and well-debunked, the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, and your pathological avoidance of the fundamental inconsistencies you're proposing in being an anti-evolutionist are plain as day to anyone without a religi…

I dismiss your "arguments" even more swiftly (you're not making any, you are merely making tired, unsupported assertions).

The answers to your "questions" can all be found here, which 30 seconds of googling would have found for you:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

You're welcome.

Re: Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory

#39

Post by kirse »

logjam wrote: post #38
kirse wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you not going to answer my question then? Or do you genuinely not know the answer? Your position is intellectually bankrupt, your arguments presented thus far are literally over 5 years old and well-debunked, the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, and your pathological avoidance of the fundamental inconsistencies you're proposing in being an anti-evolutionist are plain as day to anyone without a religi…

I dismiss your "arguments" even more swiftly (you're not making any, you are merely making tired, unsupported assertions). The answers to your "questions" can all be found here, which 30 seconds of googling would have found for you: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ You're welcome.

Thanks for the link, it's all so obvious now! How can you ever go wrong when you're the one who gets to define both the end result and then fill in the means of getting there?

Of course the evidence will always point to the end result, because you're the one who made up the damn end result in the first place! Evidence can always be twisted and shaped to fit your view when you're the one who gets to define what the picture looks like.

This isn't about whether the evidence points to the picture, it's about whether or not we even have the right picture in mind. It's pretty clear that since the end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action, it is a contrivance of man of which it's existence is still unknown.

Re: Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory

#40

Post by KirinDave »

kirse wrote: post #39
logjam wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dismiss your "arguments" even more swiftly (you're not making any, you are merely making tired, unsupported assertions). The answers to your "questions" can all be found here, which 30 seconds of googling would have found for you: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ You're welcome.

Thanks for the link, it's all so obvious now! How can you ever go wrong when you're the one who gets to define both the end result and then fill in the means of getting there? Of course the evidence will always point to the end result, because you're the one who made up the damn end result in the first place! Evidence can always be twisted and shaped to fit your view when you're the one who gets to define what the pi…

The end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action.

Neither can God.

I do feel bad for you, kirse. 10 years ago I went through the same dilemma, debate and denial. If you want to be rational, you have to learn the evidence. If you learn the evidence and you apply rational, even-handed criterion to the subject, the conclusion that evolution exists and at least partly explains our modern world is undeniably apparent.

You literally have no rational leg to stand on. Your argument that the conclusion was made up and the data forced to fit it is so obviously false that it's almost laughable (few theories are as rigorously opposed as evolution has been, if there were any significant holes the scientific community would tear it apart).

This isn't about whether the evidence points to the end result, it's about whether or not we even have the right end result in mind.

This is exactly 180 degrees from reality. If the evidence points to a specific conclusion and that evidence can be replicated by diverse, neutral, competent observers the conclusion is true regardless of if we like it or not. Science isn't about picking a result then gathering data to support it, although if you hang out with the ID crowd I can see why you might get that impression.

If you want an example we can look again to heliocentricity. It was not a popular viewpoint, but the data forced people to accept that position, despite the fact that it went against all the contemporary common sense and religious belief (and despite the fact that it's difficult to observe contrary evidence without a lot of bookkeeping and some optics).

P.S. I didn't answer your question earlier because I've already answered a very similar question in debates dozens of times. Your crowd really needs a revised playbook, because you can basically google ever question as presented and get a powerful rebuttal to your every potential argument.

Post reply on HN