Jump to content

Scotty99

Senior Members
  • Posts

    383
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Scotty99

  1. If i can deduce the earth is in a special spot in the cosmos surely some of you that post here regularly have as well. 

    I do feel i am a pretty bright guy but honestly this was not that hard for me, nor should it be for anyone else with an inquisitive mind.

    What id like to know is how haven't more people come to the same conclusions i have? Like i stated above i do think i am bright but surely there are lots of people as smart or smarter than me who easily disregard the notion we are cosmically significant. I think most of it is people taking for granted long held beliefs and not bothering to do the research for themselves on the what and the why's that got a person like myself to this spot. Second could be they just dont want to admit their thoughts on a public forum, at least not on an avatar that is associated with them. Lastly i guess would be the people who just read forums such as this and never bother to post, maybe there are a good number of them who think like i do but would rather keep to themselves.

    I just feel so strongly about this one and its curious to me how science hasnt put the copernican principle through more scrutiny and even revist ideas that could possibly be better alternatives with what we know now.

    If people were simply able to remove biblical coincidences from scientific observance i think a real breakthrough could be made.

     

  2. 10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    I think we've given Scotty99 way more credence than he/she deserves with our continued replies, however cogent; it's just water off a duck's back, even when it's just ridicule.

    Oh im sure i sound like a fruit loop to you guys but thats fine im just spitballing. I noticed one thing interesting tho, the real hardcore science only guys never seem to post their ideas about a creator,  even when you know they at least have an opinion.. The method prevents you from talking about it because there isnt observable evidence, does that not bother some of you a bit?

    1 minute ago, koti said:

    How old are you Scotty? Not that it matters around here but if you’re a kid it would certainly get you some additional patience from the people who struggle with you in this thread.

    Im 36. Never been good with people and decided if im not going to succeed in a normal life im gonna dedicate my time to something different, you know be the best you can be and all.

  3. Because simply the knowledge of a creator would change everything, not sure how you can even ask that question. I also have employed occam's razor in getting to where im at now funny enough.

    As to the creator question ive never given a creator much thought beyond it wouldnt be one that writes a guide on how to live, i think that is taken care of automatically with natural selection.

    Edit, natural selection may be the wrong wording. I think in all honesty it was a set it and forget it type situation, the seed was planted and then everything else happened as it did. Probably the best way i could explain that.

  4. 5 minutes ago, Itoero said:

    I don't think you've told this...What do you mean with a creator?  Is a creator the same as a creative force?

    No idea what a creative force even means. My best guess is nothing changes from how it is now, we are simply missing the knowledge of a creator. The universe is there to make us wonder and be inquisitive, simply knowing we have a creator does not change that. A lot of religions today can stimey that wonder, thats a big part of why i cant buy into any of them.

    1 minute ago, Strange said:

    A religious tract is not scientific evidence. You might as well recommend reading Genesis or watching an episode of Star Trek.

    There is no reason to think they got anything right, as it is entirely based on their religious beliefs and the usual creationist lies. Given the title of the thread, I'm not sure why you want to associate yourself with them.

    The reason for the title is this, i feel that eventually science is going to have to reconcile we have a creator (again my opinion) but to get to THAT point people are going to need to seperate religious teachings from a creator. If we have a creator none of our religions have it right, people need to accept this first before they can accept a creator. 

     

    A big ask but i feel its the truth and the only way we are going to move forward.

  5. Again with the selective quoting strange, my goodness ive never seen such a pro troll lol. You need to be commended simply on your forum quoting skills.

    I already recommended the documentary the principle, while not exactly in line with my thoughts on the matter they get a LOT right. That is far easier to simply show people what kind of viewpoint i have here than listing 500 things in bulletpoint form.

  6. 1 minute ago, DrP said:

    They will thank for you for it  -  if you give them credible evidence supporting this claim rather than just stating it...  otherwise they will think you are a troll or a loon.

    Im not sure you realize how deep the rabbit hole goes. You cant just casually have a conversation that upends the foundations of cosmology, it takes time to not only process the information but to decipher it.

  7. Just now, Area54 said:

    .

    As you wish.

    Text of the Report.

    "I recommend that Scotty 99 not only have this thread closed for persistent refusal to present evidence but that he be permanently banned from the forum, primarily for being a devious, ignorant asshole."

    Why the hostility tho? I did in fact link a harvard study that suggests we need a whole new approach to inflation, this is where cosmology is at today......the big bang or CP has to go.

  8. 6 minutes ago, Area54 said:

    I am specifically interested in your thoughts, your beliefs, your evidence, your reasons for reaching your conclusions, your interpretation of items such as the documentary you reference. Agree to start delivering specifics here, or I request immediate closure and recommend you be banned. Enough equivocation is enough! It is discourteous in the extreme.

    Oh im sure it will get closed, people round these parts will not hear that the precious CP is in jeopardy.

    1 minute ago, koti said:

    Last chance to share evidence on your nonsensical statement that „the science community is debating behind closed doors the validity of the copernican principal” Your next post will contain data/evidence or I am reporting this thread to get trashed and locked.

    Whats funny about this whole deal is that what im telling you guys is actually whats happening in the elite discussions of science today, you should be thanking me....

  9. 1 minute ago, Strange said:

    I'm not worked up. I am just trying to get you to accept that evidence-free, faith-based claims are a pointless way of arguing on a science forum.

    The ones where you have lied and misrepresented evidence to support your faith? The ones that have been closed for refusing to present evidence and for preaching? Those threads?

    You are definitely worked up, you post instantly to my comments in a rather brash manner, while also ignoring the relevant parts of my posts. Maybe you should change your avatar to "selective quoter".

  10. Just now, Strange said:

    If your goal is to demonstrate that faith-based arguments don't work on a science forum, then you are doing well.

    I realize you are just trying to get the thread locked at this point (even tho why i explained why i wasnt going into specifics in this thread) and thats fine, but what is it about my way of thinking that has you so worked up? I mean there really isnt a mystery on the specifics of what im talking about here, all you would need to do is search my past threads ive only made a few. 

    Not sure if you are actually paying attention but most of the evidence that lead me to this conclusion is based on what we see in the sky, where exactly am i using faith based arguments?

  11. 1 minute ago, Area54 said:

    Answer me this, before my patience wears out completely, how can I possibly look at the problem if you won't clearly state it and provide the associated evidence? I am willing to consider your hypothesis with an open mind, but you need start delivering more than "You need to believe me, because I am right."

    If you are genuinely curious just go watch the documentary "the principle". Now dont get me wrong the producers of that film definitely have alterior motives, but i believe a lot of what is put forth is actually worth looking into.

  12. 3 minutes ago, Strange said:

    You are not going to be more persuasive by not presenting any evidence and saying, "but I believe it is true". Not on a science forum.

    As a result, I guess that this thread will be closed for "preaching" like all your other threads.

    Thats fine, as long as the thread exists my work is done.

    To be clear its  not as if i didnt present evidence in my other threads, you just chose to disagree with the points that were brought up. The whole idea here is to make people aware of the problems in cosmology today, and its my belief that eventually science is going to have to revist the copernican principle if they want to move forward.

  13. 1 minute ago, Area54 said:

    If I understand you correctly you have made that argument before and others disagreed with the accuracy of your evidence. So this time you've decided to present your argument without the evidence in order to avoid controversy.

    How's that working out for you?

    Spot on, people disagree and the thread gets no where. 

    Im not looking to avoid "controversy" as you put it, i just know where that road leads and people are unwilling or rather unable to look at these problems in a fresh manner as someone new to all of this did 2 years ago.

  14. Just now, Strange said:

    You haven't presented any evidence. When asked, you have refused to present any evidence. So, as far as I can tell, your "evidence" is based on unicorn shit.

     

    Again ive made that thread here before, it devolves into nonsense because people agree to disagree on what the history ACTUALLY says. This isnt a black and white issue as it takes TIME to sort these things out when researching such difficult topics. 

    If people are genuinely curious and have no idea what im talking about you would need to go back to galileo as a starting point of where i feel the discourse began.

    10 minutes ago, Area54 said:

    Scotty, consider the following:

    I have been contemplating the meaning of life, the origin of the universe, the role of humanity, and the like for half a century. It has taken a major effort to determine what is relevant and what is not and assemble it into a cohesive whole. With that work complete it is apparent that by adopting methdological naturalism, humanity has obscured the importance and reality of teleology in the emergence first of structure, then of life and finally intelligence and self awareness. The source of the guidance and direction of evolution, in the general and the biological sense, I have determined to be recursive action by what humanity will become, influencing the universe from its very earliest moments.

    Faced with that statement would you not be inclined to ask for evidence? If the author of the statement replied the evidence was too much for this place, what would your reaction be? The rational reaction would be to say, "Fine. Thank you very much. If you ever change your mind let me know."

    Again, i feel the evidence is there. Whoever's quote that is assumes a creator and evolution are incompatible, i dont see it that way at all......never have actually.

  15. 1 minute ago, Strange said:

    Nobody cares about your feelings or beliefs. If you want people to take you seriously, you need to present some evidence. You are unable to do that and so your beliefs can be dismissed as baseless.

     

    That is not a problem with scientific thinking (after all, it has been shown to work).

    It is a problem with you (and other religious people) who think their guesses are as valid as objective evidence.

    Hint: they aren't.

    But im using science and cosmology as the basis of my evidence? If it wasnt for the things ive found in the past two years about the universe i likely would continue to be a nonbeliever as i once was, just like you.

  16. 1 minute ago, koti said:

    What you feel is irrelevant in this case. You keep on telling us that we should trust you and that you feel that science took a wrong turn and now you tell us to deduce things from your utter nonsense which you insist you have data/evidence on but refuse to give it. That is not how we roll here buddy. 

    That is simply a failure of the education system,  as you have not been taught the true history cosmology far enough to understand what i am talking about. You took everything that was told to you for face value, i went the other direction and found some very interesting problems.

  17. 9 minutes ago, DrP said:

    Then there is no conversation is there...  you can't just state "Marsians did it" or "I can fly with the power of my mind" without presenting some kind of evidence - especially here on a science site. Present your evidence or get off of the stage!   Boooo!

    Again, i feel science took a wrong turn at the CP.......what more else do i have to say besides that? Surely you guys are bright enough to deduce some of the bullet points that would be inferred here.

    Edit:

    Here is the problem with scientific thinking minds, and why we could never see eye to eye. 

     

    You dont care if you are right, as that isnt the goal of science. 

    I put a challenge to myself two years ago to see how close to right i could get, and this is my best guess.

  18. 2 minutes ago, Strange said:

    1. No, that is not where your "conversation" came from, so I still think you made it up.

    2. That article is about inflation; I struggle to see the relevance to either a creator or the Copernican principle. Perhaps you could explain. why you think it is.

    3. It is about a widely accepted idea being discussed and challenged by scientists, which rather goes against your religious belief that this doesn't happen.

    Look up the Copernican principle on Wikipedia. It points out that (a) it is a "working assumption" (which means it very much not the same as The Truth) and (b) it has been tested and there are suggestions of other ways of testing it. Why would people be testing an idea if they were so "scared" it might turn out to be wrong.If scientists found evidence that the universe was created or that the Earth is at some special place, then the overall reaction would be "Wow!" (and Nobel Prizes all round).

    Basically, it looks like you are trying to invent some sort of martyrdom to make your religion more authentic sounding. No one is buying into  your faith. You need to try harder. Or stick to science.

    To me the evidence is already there to be honest. But first science would rather chop at the big bang and what kind of variations they can come up with before messing with the CP, which is a mistake imo.

    You keep thinking i am some sort of religous person, i came to this conclusion based on what we see in the sky and earths bewildering history. Not one ounce of "evidence" from the bible or other religious text has me convinced we were created.

    You are like, the troll of the century actually. 

  19. 3 minutes ago, koti said:

    You are convinced that there is some secret debate behind closed doors amongst the scientific community about the validity of the copernican principle. You are not backing up this ridiculous nonsense with evidence. Start doing so please.

    I think the debate would look something like this:

    "well crap space is definitely not as homogenous as first expected"

    "what do we do bob"

    "well we cant go back on the copernican principle thats for sure"

    "why not bob"

    "that would mean geocentrism could make a return to popularity"

    "why is that bad bob?"

    "because fred, if we arent random its possible were in a special place, and you know what that means"

    "oh i see, well cant we just get rid of the big bang bob"?

    "thats what were working on now fred"

     

    These are discussions that are happening today, bob and fred arent real people btw :)

     

  20. 4 minutes ago, koti said:

    Science takes intuition into account but on a very different level from what you are presenting. Talented physisists and mathematicians for example,  have better results dealing with extremely difficult problems when using intuition but that needs a lot of knowledge and rigour - you need to be very smart, experienced and knowledgeable to be able to use intuition effectively. When not having basic knowledge (like yourself), intuition is a dead end. 

    What basic knowledge do you presume i lack? The only thing you know about me is that i disagree that the earth is in a random position in the universe. Actually disagree is probably the wrong wording, its not exactly at odds with our current understanding of the universe.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.