The debate "Science questions thread" was started by
February 5, 2017, 3:02 pm.
3 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 4 people are on the disagree side.
There needs to be more votes to see what the common perception is.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
PoliticsAsUsual posted 13 arguments, Blue_ray posted 6 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PoliticsAsUsual, Blue_ray, TheExistentialist agree.
4 visitors disagree.
First off, you don't donate your eyes. You donate portions of it (the cornea is the most common). Second, you need a brain to process the information your eyes relay, so even if a whole eye were to be transplanted, it wouldn't be connected to your brain, so you wouldn't get any of the information the eyes are receiving. They don't work on wifi...
naaaaaahhhhh, i meant that if i donate my eyes after my death to a blind person, will i be able to see the world again, through my eyes which has been donated to the blind man.
sure. if someone donates their eyes to you, or some form of artificial eyes.
Will i be able to see the world again if i donate my eyes?
I was hoping there would be a simpler, initial method for that discovery, but no.
it was a heck of a debate until finally being resolved with the discovery of carbon dating.
How do we determine the age of earth?
it hasn't been demonstrated conclusively.
Is telekenesis real?
all senses are created by the brain. vision is just a translation of light waves. sound is just vibrations. and smell is just based on which molecule comes in contact with which receptor.
taste, for example. whatever is good for you and energetic, our brain evolved to taste as sweet. most poisons are bitter. feces is revolting to us, but probably tastes and smells amazing to a fly or other insect.
What makes compounds smell?
I believe it was from studying earthquakes and how they travel through the earth creating mini quakes on opposite sides of the earth. the speed with which the waves travel depends on the density of the substance and whether it is solid/liquid/gas.
whats at centre of earth? i know what it is, but still how did they come to know?
apparently this was done purely mathematically using newton's law of gravity and newton's 2nd law of motion.
then add in a few variables, the diameter of the earth found by greeks, the acceleration from gravity found by galileo, and solve for M (the variable for the mass of the Earth)
how is the weight of the earth determined?
I'm hoping to move away from answers to existential questions and more on HOW we know what we know.
how did we figure out the distance or composition of stars. how do we know the age of the earth. how did we figure out life is made of cells, or atoms, etc.
the why and what can change with new info, but the how is what determines how accurate those findings are and that is what most classical, lay science education completely missed and led to misconceptions about what science is.
science is not a story, it's a method of discovery. it's only limited by technology, and human ingenuity. it's ultimate potential is unknown.
Can science explain everything? like universe and god?
I said the universe didn't exist. I never said nothing existed before. I believe space and time are something that exist beyond our universe.
because we chose to do good. we didn't always, but we are for the most part at the moment.
atoms do form molecules, and some atoms can form complex molecules. carbon can form infinitely long chains which can result in a variety of complex, organic molecules. as long as energy input continues, complexity increases.
we may not want to be moral personally, but we want others to be moral. thus we create laws where we give up some of our freedom in exchange for limiting the freedoms of others. this freedom is of course the freedom to hurt others, this is in no way an argument to restrict rights of certain groups.
Id also like to add something else- people do not be moral because they WANT to. People be moral, or at least try to, because they have the inherent need to FIT IN to society. This means that if the society they lived in promoted immoral behaviour (like the one we live in now), then people would act like that in order to fit in. That explaims why so many Germans supported the discrimination of jews in Nazi Germany and why so many people cared not to bat an eye towards the attrocities that were committed against slaves in America and why slavery lasted for almost 3 centuries. Its all about fitting in.
You are also wrong again on your third paragraph. People are taught morals by their parents, and if you werent then you were clearly raised by 2 terrible people. Any sociologist could tell you that morals are learnt durimg primary and secondary socialisation. The key word here is SOCIALISATION, which means you are taught it, not born with some inherent knowledge of it. If a child is raised without being taught about morals and thinks everything is ok (which would be the case in an atheist society), they will do some terrible things when they get older.
Your second paragraph is also wrong. Yes molecules will form from the atoms, but life will not. Cells will not. In fact "evolutionarily" speaking, what would be the need? atoms and molecules are inanimate substances of matter which do not need to adapt in order to "survive". If the conditions are too "tough" for them, they will be destroyed. It wont "hurt" them because they are inanimate. If you placed your TV outside for whatever reason and it started to rain, would your tv evolve to create a protective water proof layer lmfao? no, because it is inanimate. Hopefully you get the gyst. As with helium, it is hydrogen which is required for star formation- not helium. The hydrogen atoms fuse together to make a helium atom and it is an exothermic process, therefore it releases heat. The helium is simply a useless by product. No "life" or cells are created in such a reaction, so you are wrong on that too.
why though? why is it humans nature to do good?
Your first paragraph didnt answer my question. If nothing existed before the big bang, where did the matter/energy which caused the big bang come from of nothing existed before it? Nothing means nothing: which means no energy. Nothing = 0, not 0.1, not 0.00000001, it means absolute 0. So if there indeed was no God or greater being before the bang, the universe could never have come into existence. Also most scientists already agree that it was a pressure based explosion. Meaning an external force pushed the matter so close with so much force that it exploded.
the universe didn't exist before the big bang. we don't know about anything outside of the universe. matter is energy. once the universe cooled enough from its hot state, matter simply condensed like water on the outside of a cold cup. I'm not sure if you can consider it a pressure based explosion, more like some quantum effect, but what may very well be the dark energy that continues to accelerate the expansion to this day.
the origin of life is still being worked on. I have no answer there. and depending on the atoms, yes you will. I'm not sure if your talking about the early universe or early life but if you got enough helium for star formation it will naturally occur. and if you have elements of the top right periodic table and input energy and not suffocate it in a metal chamber, organic molecules will form, and in millions of years, life.
we choose our morals as humans, and collectively as a society. we can choose to be vile, but we do not. not because daddy told us to, but because we want to be moral.
If nothing existed before the big bang, how did the matter for the big bang get created and what applied so much pressure as for it to explode?
If God doesnt exist, how was life created? atoms randomly floating around does not create life. If you fill a chamber with nothing but atoms and molecules, rid it of all organisms and then seal it shut, there will still be no organisms in it millions of years later.
If one is atheist, they are automatically accepting of all crimes no matter how vile they are because morals dont exist to them. As the famous atheist Dawkins said, right and wrong does not exist, only indifference- to an atheist anyway.
well, people were curious. and people got tired of guessing.
that's the generic answer. heard a more specific one as well.
back in the 17th century or so, everyone believed the stars were just glued on a single thing shell and absolutely stationary and unchanging. even copernicus's revolutionary model and the outer shell be a shell of stationary stars... and then a supernova shattered everything.
well past the point of making stuff up and spreading via word of mouth, they needed a new way to get to answers, and began down the scientific path. it may have been less of a natural curiousity, and more of a sudden unraveling of what they considered to be their reality.
a necessity rather than a hobby.
why is science a pursuit for truth?
unless your trying to set up your own experiment at home, in which case the scientific method is an extremely helpful guideline in how to set up your experiment properly and to make sure you get an accurate result.
I don't think it's supposed to.
the scientific method is a technique for setting up experiments and eliminating researcher bias.
I'm not sure why a lay person would need it at all.
how does the scientific method help the average Joe?