Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
The stupid question is the question not asked
 
PerlMonks  

Re^8: Who is your favorite scientist and why?

by james28909 (Deacon)
on Dec 14, 2017 at 15:53 UTC ( #1205536=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^7: Who is your favorite scientist and why?
in thread Who is your favorite scientist and why?

some of the evidences, that leads me to believe that there is a creator, have already been laid out in this thread.

personal past life experiences are one. the way we progress in knowledge of our surroundings and technology. evolution leads me to believe as well. scientific discoveries... are just some. can you name a scientific discovery that actually disproves a creator? science does not really rip me away from my personal belief, and my personal belief in a creator does not rip me away from science. they do co-exist fine and easily too. the universe was setup with laws and if they were slightly different then i wouldnt be sitting here typing this. for some people it is easy to see, i think it has to do with perception or feelings. i mean i dont know why or who created it, that would be purely, and only, speculation, but i have a solid belief it was created. the main kickers for me are the results from double slit experiment and the quantum eraser.

what is your beliefs and what is your evidence thats backing that belief?

  • Comment on Re^8: Who is your favorite scientist and why?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^9: Who is your favorite scientist and why?
by Arunbear (Prior) on Dec 14, 2017 at 23:51 UTC
    Evolution used to be controversial because it removed the need for a creator as a means of explaining natural phenomena. So you're not making much sense when you mention Evolution.

    What you're calling evidence is far too vague and just seems like an Argument from Ignorance.

    From Dr Tyson again:

    But why confine ourselves to things too wondrous or intricate for us to understand, whose existence and attributes we then credit to a superintelligence? Instead, why not tally all those things whose design is so clunky, goofy, impractical, or unworkable that they reflect the absence of intelligence?

    Take the human form. We eat, drink, and breathe through the same hole in the head, and so, despite Henry J. Heimlich's eponymous maneuver, choking is the fourth leading cause of unintentional injury death in the United States. How about drowning, the fifth leading cause? Water covers almost three-quarters of Earth's surface, yet we are land creatures—submerge your head for just a few minutes, and you die.

    ...

    Stupid design could fuel a movement unto itself. It may not be nature's default, but it's ubiquitous. Yet people seem to enjoy thinking that our bodies, our minds, and even our universe represent pinnacles of form and reason. Maybe it's a good antidepressant to think so. But it's not science—not now, not in the past, not ever.

      how about instead of downvoting something because you dont agree, you leave a response with those things that were requested? why come and downvote without even responding? do you think a downvote hurts my feelings? xD let me point out to you that i do not care if you down or upvote any comment i have OR will ever make. to me that is not the point. the point is that you downvoted WHILE ALSO not saying anything at all or supplying the requested information.
        It's off-topic. Take it somewhere else.

      would you agree that life evolves from ignorance to intelligence? please point out to me a life form that goes from intelligence to ignorance. the universe we live in has sculpted us into existence. one factor that is stopping this theory is the fact that we have not found other intelligent life in the universe... YET. which would signify that evolution happens the same way on other planets/solar systems/galaxies. i am not sure of the reasoning as to why our species picked to stay on land, but i am glad they did, it seems that it has propelled us into deeper thoughts/thinking than those counterparts in the ocean. not saying that life in the ocean cant one day do the same things we do eventually, but we seem to have got there faster. and by "got there faster" i mean we got to "intelligence" faster. so, in my eyes, intelligence is more than likely inevitable in this universe. in other words it is not a random fluke if it happens more than once. other animals seem intelligent on this planet, just not as intelligent as humans.why should it stop with our planet?

      another thing, why did there have to be so many species? why werent the first single cell organisms the last species of anything on this planet? why did it multiply into thousands of different species on our planet? if single cell organisms thrived, then what was the point of evolving any further at all? if mutation or other biological factors are your argument then you have only proven my point and beliefs. the very fact that this universe has molded us into what we are today... is a hint of "design". why are we as smart as we are now? why are we not still trying to hide from predators?

      now look down into the quantum realm. you have particles that come into existence simply by observing them or measuring them (double slit experiment). these particles also change their properties and/or paths depending on WHEN AND WHERE they are observed or measured (Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser). now i am no scientist, but it sure seems like the particle itself, or whatever function that particle resides in, knows we are observing it. like i said, i am agnostic and i do believe in a creator. i do not need or want to worship this creator. i do not want to sacrifice any animals in celebration of this creator lol.

      i would like to point out that one of dr tysons biggest arguements is against those who believe in a creator. he is just the other side of the "scale" because you have people that say "oh its all just randomness" and get tired and stop learning about our environment/universe. the same can be said about those who believe to strongly in a "god", they see something they cant explain and say "oh god is wonderful". one can still go on in both scenarios and make scientific discoveries. for either side to sit back and try to mke the other side look ignorant, is ignorant itself. how about you spill your beans instead of spilling other peoples beans. you can quote a charming phrase, but that does not mean it should be the only path to intelligence.

        would you agree that life evolves from ignorance to intelligence?
        Sometimes it does. Most of the time it doesn't.
        please point out to me a life form that goes from intelligence to ignorance
        Homo Sapiens e.g. the Dark Ages, The Islamic Reformation etc (just read some history).
        if mutation or other biological factors are your argument then you have only proven my point and beliefs.
        How does mutation require a creator?
        like i said, i am agnostic and i do believe in a creator
        Then please check the definition of agnostic - it's someone who doesn't know if there's a creator or not. True Agnosticism means admitting we don't know how something works, not looking for an easy answer like a creator.
        why are we not still trying to hide from predators?
        Oh but we are. Where do you think racism comes from. Why are so many people unwilling to give up their guns, etc.
        you can quote a charming phrase, but that does not mean it should be the only path to intelligence.
        The purpose of the quote is to only to reveal things that you haven't considered or are ignoring.
        also, show me evidence of stars that dont form out of gas clouds. show me planets that dont form when the environment is right. show me a planet that doesnt form life if it supports it. show me evolution that doesnt progress. these are all just more things that lead me to my beliefs. if it were all just randomness, then why do things like galaxies/solarsystems/planets/life even evolve? life is so easily extinguished. dont you find it odd that me or you are sitting here on a computer thats based off of the same mathematics that explain our universe? my question is WHY can we use the same mathematics that we use to create computers and programs and also explain fundamental static laws with it? if any of those laws were a single decimal place different, we wouldnt be here having this discussion. show me a universe that doesnt do these things, you cant? me neither. because i live in this universe, and we havent evolved to a level that we can understand anything outside of our universe. that is why i say let the question answer itself. but to me, there is an overwhelming sensation of intelligent design. and yes, that does sound alot better than something coming from absolutely nothing. what is your evidence of something coming from nothing? can you even explain "nothing"? nope because questioning/explaining it brings it into existence, which means it is no longer "nothing". i can argue points all day long. i aint even had any coffee yet. if you want to lay out your facts and let me go down the list, then that will be great. i like contrasted things. it helps others understand and possibly lets them understand on a level different than me or you.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1205536]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others drinking their drinks and smoking their pipes about the Monastery: (7)
As of 2020-04-01 18:57 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    The most amusing oxymoron is:
















    Results (18 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?