Is the bible a fairy tale?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2728 Jun 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, we know that GR is not a quantum theory and has to be modified. It also works whenever we have tested it. We need QM because it works when we investigate small things. We need GR when we investigate very massive things. It isn't very common that both come up in the same situation, so we have no way to test any of our proposed quantum theories of gravity.

[QUOTE]Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out."

And the changes can be as minor as adding additional assumptions. For example, a couple hundred years ago, Newton's laws were not working with the orbit of the planet Uranus. So they had to be 'modified or changed'. In that case, the change was to add an additional planet. In that way Neptune was discovered. Notice that the basic theory of gravity was itself not 'modified or changed', only the particular assumptions for that specific situation.

And that is how science works. When observations do not agree with theory, we first see if we have missed something in the environment and include it in the theory. This alone can be a very tricky thing. it is only after that when the basic theory is modified. Often this consists of minor changes. And after repeated attempts at minor changes have failed, it is only then that we change the overall theory.

[QUOTE]A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science."

Although often the conclusions are irrelevant. For example, the theory of tectonic plates in geology has no bearing on quantum mechanics. For that matter, general relativity has no bearing on quantum mechanics in any case where we have actually been able to measure. That is why both are still used.
"Yes, we know that GR is not a quantum theory and has to be modified. It also works whenever we have tested it. We need QM because it works when we investigate small things. We need GR when we investigate very massive things. It isn't very common that both come up in the same situation, so we have no way to test any of our proposed quantum theories of gravity."

A theory must work everywhere in the universe. We can't have two everywheres can we?

"S. JAMES GATES, JR.: The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres."

"Although often the conclusions are irrelevant"

While this maybe true it's not the situation with QM and GR.
those have huge issues with each other.

"BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"

These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain but whenever we try to combine them, to solve some of the deepest mysteries in the universe, disaster strikes."
Imhotep

Sanford, FL

#2729 Jun 15, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
" In other words, it didn't happen."
My point exactly. Nothing is simply nothing incapable of anything.
The universe had to be created.
"when' there was no time. Do you get that???"
Ok word gamer: no when, no time, no matter, no energy, no space, no words.
Somehow changed into everything.
No matter how many word games you play that is still your obstacle to over come if there was no creator.
Created?
How about 'always existed' and continues to expand?

A thing is not proved just because no one has ever questioned it. What has never been gone into impartially has never been properly gone into. Hence scepticism is the first step toward truth. It must be applied generally, because it is the touchstone.
Denis Diderot
French author, encyclopedist, & philosopher (1713 - 1784)

Watch out for the fellow who talks about putting things in order! Putting things in order always means getting other people under your control.
Denis Diderot, Supplement to Bougainville's 'Voyage,'

“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest”

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#2730 Jun 15, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes and where did the singularity come from? Was it always there? If it was always there then the whole 13.7 billion year old universe is wrong. as the singularity would have still been the whole universe just really really small.
Can you explain how the smallest most dense thing that ever existed over came the most powerful gravitational force ever known to expand to where it is now?
And if you're going to give the one trillionth of a second the laws of physics did not apply thing, don't bother. even if it was true in one trillionth of a second gravity would have smashed that singularly back together.

It formed in the nothing........
The universe's ground state.

The nothing that had a potential.

Because even nothing has a potential, or there wouldn't ever have been anything. You can call that god if you like, but science see's it as a zero condition, or the lowest possible state anything can be reduced to. This has to be true whether there was a creator god or not. If the universe was created , the ground state and it's potential was god and his whim to create it.

If the universe sprang from nothing , then nothing
or the ground state is just a potential. And like poly said nothing would be best described as unstable.

Since there is no evidence there is a creator god, the default position is the ground state, or nothing.
Was an unstable potential, and the potential is why there is something, instead of nothing.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2731 Jun 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps you should learn the 'rules of science' from scientists instead of from Wikipedia. What you quote is an incredibly naive description that only works in broad outline. In practice, we do not modify or change the basic theory before we first see if there are other things we haven't taken into account. So, for example, we fully understand that GR is not a quantum theory of gravity. It is a classical theory of gravity. We also know that the universe is quantum mechanical in essence. We know this from repeated experiments.

The problem is that we have only two quantum theories of gravity: string theory and loop quantum gravity. Neither has done well at making testable predictions because the energies involved are much larger than we can produce.

You like to claim that string theory has failed its tests. In actuality, the tests that it has 'failed' have all been based on assumptions that are not part of the core theory. They have been 'boundary' assumptions, often pertaining to possible geometries of collapsed dimensions. OK, so the dimensions don't collapse that way. There are many other ways they could collapse.

Or, for example, we have the non-observations of supersymmetry. This is a valid prediction of string theory. But string theory has a wide variety of possible energies when supersymmetry begins. All that our observations show is that supersymmetry does not happen at the very lower energies that are considered possible.

So the observations do not require either a modification or a abandonment of string theory. Far from it. At this point, the observations put a few constraints on the theory, but are very far from breaking it or, for that matter, even stressing it.
That conflict was reflected in the title of the museum event, the Hayden Planetarium’s 10th annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate:“The Theory of Everything ... Still Searching?” The five professors were introduced and seated, and the TV was turned on. There appeared the head of a sixth professor: Brian Greene of Columbia University, author of several popular science books including The Hidden Reality (which just hit stores and discusses extra dimensions and parallel universes), who joined the panel from out of town via Skype. Planetarium director Neil deGrasse Tyson reminded the crowd that Greene had appeared on the very first Asimov panel back in 2001, which also tangled with string theory. That was shortly after he helped found Columbia’s Institute of Strings, Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics (ISCAP).

Einstein’s laws and those of quantum dynamics each work well in their own realm, explained Greene, but become “fierce antagonists” when you try to meld them.

"Tyson asked Greene to boil string theory down to one sentence.“It will be a long sentence,” Greene replied.

A unified theory is something of a Holy Grail in physics, and a long line of brilliant minds from Einstein on down have failed to craft one that can be proven to work. The trick has been to find a single theory that explains all of physics, from the quantum forces that control subatomic particles to the relativity that holds sway over the greater cosmos.

Consider, for example, black holes. These objects, formed from collapsed stars, are believed to be compressed to a size that reaches the atomic level. But no physical law has ever been devised to explain how gravity works at that scale. Einstein’s laws and those of quantum dynamics each work well in their own realm, explained Greene, but become “fierce antagonists” when you try to meld them."

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2732 Jun 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps you should learn the 'rules of science' from scientists instead of from Wikipedia. What you quote is an incredibly naive description that only works in broad outline. In practice, we do not modify or change the basic theory before we first see if there are other things we haven't taken into account. So, for example, we fully understand that GR is not a quantum theory of gravity. It is a classical theory of gravity. We also know that the universe is quantum mechanical in essence. We know this from repeated experiments.

The problem is that we have only two quantum theories of gravity: string theory and loop quantum gravity. Neither has done well at making testable predictions because the energies involved are much larger than we can produce.

You like to claim that string theory has failed its tests. In actuality, the tests that it has 'failed' have all been based on assumptions that are not part of the core theory. They have been 'boundary' assumptions, often pertaining to possible geometries of collapsed dimensions. OK, so the dimensions don't collapse that way. There are many other ways they could collapse.

Or, for example, we have the non-observations of supersymmetry. This is a valid prediction of string theory. But string theory has a wide variety of possible energies when supersymmetry begins. All that our observations show is that supersymmetry does not happen at the very lower energies that are considered possible.

So the observations do not require either a modification or a abandonment of string theory. Far from it. At this point, the observations put a few constraints on the theory, but are very far from breaking it or, for that matter, even stressing it.
Ploy do you believe in things that are unprovable?

"At the museum debate, after panelists took a diversion into whether we all actually live in “the Matrix,” Tyson asked whether string theorists were just “chasing a ghost.”

“We are ambitious,” said Greene on the screen. He holds out hope that future experiments and technology will be able to provide the proof of strings that has so far eluded everyone.

“Do I believe in string theory?” he said.“No. I only believe in things that are proven."

"For nearly 30 years, many in physics circles have believed that string theory might help unlock the secrets of the universe and possibly reveal hidden realities beyond our own. But skeptics have charged that instead of aiding scientific discovery, and helping young physics post-docs get on the path to professorships, string theory has actually become a dead end."

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2733 Jun 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>From Krauss' new book:

A century ago, had one described "nothing" as referring to
purely empty space, possessing no real material entity, this might
have received little argument. But the results of the past century
have taught us that empty space is in fact far from the inviolate
nothingness that we presupposed before we learned more about
how nature works. Now, I am told by religious critics that I
cannot refer to empty space as "nothing, " but rather as a "quantum
vacuum, " to distinguish it from the philosopher's or theologian's
idealized "nothing. "

So be it. But what if we are then willing to describe "nothing"
as the absence of space and time itself? Is this sufficient? Again, I
suspect it would have been ... at one time. But, as I shall
describe, we have learned that space and time can themselves
spontaneously appear, so now we are told that even this "nothing"
is not really the nothing that matters. And we're told that the
escape from the "real " nothing requires divinity, with "nothing"
thus defined by fiat to be "that from which only God can create
something."

It has also been suggested by various individuals with whom I
have debated the issue that, if there is the "potential " to create
something, then that is not a state of true nothingness. And surely
having laws of nature that give such potential takes us away from
the true realm of nonbeing. But then, if I argue that perhaps the
laws themselves also arose spontaneously, as I shall describe
might be the case, then that too is not good enough, because
whatever system in which the laws may have arisen is not true
nothingness.

Turtles all the way down? I don't believe so. But the turtles are
appealing because science is changing the playing field in ways
that make people uncomfortable. Of course, that is one of the
purposes of science (one might have said "natural philosophy" in
Socratic times). Lack of comfort means we are on the threshold of
new insights. Surely, invoking "God" to avoid difficult questions
of "how" is merely intellectually lazy. After all, if there were no
potential for creation, then God couldn't have created anything. It
would be semantic hocus-pocus to assert that the potentially
infinite regression is avoided because God exists outside nature
and, therefore, the "potential" for existence itself is not a part of
the nothingness from which existence arose.

I think this points out the moving goalposts quite well.
We established the goal post back quite a few post. Remember? Zippo! A complete absents of everything. I laid this out quite clear before I moved so you could not move the goal post.

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying when there was no time there was nothing....Zipville.....elnodd o...goose Egg?
And time started "about" 13.7 billion years ago? Is that right?
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>That is *one* of the possibilities, yes.
I think that made it pretty clear what we were discussing.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2734 Jun 15, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>Created?
How about 'always existed' and continues to expand?

A thing is not proved just because no one has ever questioned it. What has never been gone into impartially has never been properly gone into. Hence scepticism is the first step toward truth. It must be applied generally, because it is the touchstone.
Denis Diderot
French author, encyclopedist, & philosopher (1713 - 1784)

Watch out for the fellow who talks about putting things in order! Putting things in order always means getting other people under your control.
Denis Diderot, Supplement to Bougainville's 'Voyage,'

“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest”
"How about 'always existed' and continues to expand?"

Ok so you don't buy into sciences date on the universe at 13.7 billion years.

See we are a lot closer in our believes then you thought.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2735 Jun 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>It formed in the nothing........
The universe's ground state.

The nothing that had a potential.

Because even nothing has a potential, or there wouldn't ever have been anything. You can call that god if you like, but science see's it as a zero condition, or the lowest possible state anything can be reduced to. This has to be true whether there was a creator god or not. If the universe was created , the ground state and it's potential was god and his whim to create it.

If the universe sprang from nothing , then nothing
or the ground state is just a potential. And like poly said nothing would be best described as unstable.

Since there is no evidence there is a creator god, the default position is the ground state, or nothing.
Was an unstable potential, and the potential is why there is something, instead of nothing.
"Because even nothing has a potential,"

And where is the scientific data backing this?

Your MYTH!
Imhotep

Sanford, FL

#2736 Jun 15, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"How about 'always existed' and continues to expand?"
Ok so you don't buy into sciences date on the universe at 13.7 billion years.
See we are a lot closer in our believes then you thought.
Universe age should be discussed in a science forum.

We should be agnostic about those things for which there is no evidence. We should not hold beliefs merely because they gratify our desires for afterlife or immortality.

The only thing any Church, Mosque or Temple has saved so far is itself.

We live in a twisted world, where right is wrong and wrong reigns supreme.

It is a chilling fact that most of the world's leaders believe in nonsensical fairytales about the nature of reality.

They believe in Gods that do not exist, and religions that could not possibly be true.

We are driven to war after war, violence on top of violence to appease madmen who believe in gory mythologies.

These men are called Christians, Muslims and Jews.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#2737 Jun 15, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"Because even nothing has a potential,"
And where is the scientific data backing this?
Your MYTH!
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/0...

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#2738 Jun 15, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"Because even nothing has a potential,"
And where is the scientific data backing this?
Your MYTH!


Since you are in the lake in water over your head, and you are dog paddling for your life.
We don't want to get into how the ground state may be a false ground state. And the potential may have a lower potential state of nothing. lol

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2739 Jun 15, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>Universe age should be discussed in a science forum.

We should be agnostic about those things for which there is no evidence. We should not hold beliefs merely because they gratify our desires for afterlife or immortality.

The only thing any Church, Mosque or Temple has saved so far is itself.

We live in a twisted world, where right is wrong and wrong reigns supreme.

It is a chilling fact that most of the world's leaders believe in nonsensical fairytales about the nature of reality.

They believe in Gods that do not exist, and religions that could not possibly be true.

We are driven to war after war, violence on top of violence to appease madmen who believe in gory mythologies.

These men are called Christians, Muslims and Jews.
"They believe in Gods that do not exist, and religions that could not possibly be true. "

Please show the proof of your claim.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2740 Jun 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
Oh yea that BLOG proves your claim.

LOL

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2741 Jun 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Since you are in the lake in water over your head, and you are dog paddling for your life.
We don't want to get into how the ground state may be a false ground state. And the potential may have a lower potential state of nothing. lol
Cop out!!

Can't hang with the deep stuff. Figured.

A_Myth

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2742 Jun 15, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>Universe age should be discussed in a science forum.

We should be agnostic about those things for which there is no evidence. We should not hold beliefs merely because they gratify our desires for afterlife or immortality.

The only thing any Church, Mosque or Temple has saved so far is itself.

We live in a twisted world, where right is wrong and wrong reigns supreme.

It is a chilling fact that most of the world's leaders believe in nonsensical fairytales about the nature of reality.

They believe in Gods that do not exist, and religions that could not possibly be true.

We are driven to war after war, violence on top of violence to appease madmen who believe in gory mythologies.

These men are called Christians, Muslims and Jews.
"Universe age should be discussed in a science forum."

Not so the universe age that science claims is 13.7 billion years old is a MYTH. Not science.

It doesn't belong in any science foam.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#2743 Jun 15, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yea that BLOG proves your claim.
LOL
You are beyond proof and evidence, you have faith.
That means nothing but your belief can be true, despite any evidence.
Duk 13.5

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2744 Jun 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>You are beyond proof and evidence, you have faith.
That means nothing but your belief can be true, despite any evidence.
Duk 13.5
Yes, God is real despite what satan shows you.
Learning

Brooklyn, NY

#2745 Jun 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
The problem is that the decisions of history are based on the understandings of the time, not on the science of today. That means that modern historians have to be able to both analyze from the modern scientific perspective AND the older ideas. As we move back in time or to other cultures, it becomes harder and harder to put oneself in the mindset of the time.
Kudos polymath! This is my point exactly! That's what ethnocentrism is with regard to history. Judging one historic culture as inferior based upon our own observations and experiences within our own culture will ALWAYS cause misunderstandings and false assumptions. So how do we avoid these mistakes? With simple rules for evaluating history.

1) The "embarrassment" rule- if a historical account doesn't contain something embarrassing for the group or individual telling the story, it's usually propaganda and not history.

2) Enemy Attestation rule- If an enemy acknowledges some portion of a historical subject, it's a safe assumption that the event occurred although bias on both sides may highlight or downplay the significance.

3) Multiple Attestation- Many accounts of a historical topic is a great way to determine the historicity of any event. The more perspectives one has, the better off for the critical historian.

These are just a few of the principles. The important thing is to cast aside previous assumptions before starting the research, and I think that applies in a lot of situations.

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#2746 Jun 15, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"Universe age should be discussed in a science forum."
Not so the universe age that science claims is 13.7 billion years old is a MYTH. Not science.
It doesn't belong in any science foam.
Do you have the slightest idea how the age of the verse is measured?

Who are you to say what should or should not be in a science forum?

The only reason you would make such a silly statement is because you are a YEC and you are s!ht scared of anything which contradicts your bibull.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2747 Jun 15, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>Do you have the slightest idea how the age of the verse is measured?

Who are you to say what should or should not be in a science forum?

The only reason you would make such a silly statement is because you are a YEC and you are s!ht scared of anything which contradicts your bibull.
"Do you have the slightest idea how the age of the verse is measured?"

Yup. You count the candles on the cake.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min Ronnie 34,164
News Is Atheism Just a Religion In Disguise? (Feb '08) 16 min Eagle 12 38
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 20 min superwilly 255,498
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 14,844
Reasoning with Insanity 6 hr Eagle 12 40
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 9 hr Eagle 12 4,463
News Why I quit atheism 9 hr Eagle 12 259
More from around the web