Is the bible a fairy tale?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2911 Jun 22, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>That's not true, GR is a REAL Theory.
The assumption you're making is a theory could explain the very tiniest scale to the atomic scale all the way to a universal scale. But there may not be a complete bridge between these gaps. We just assume there should be, and perhaps there should be.
But our failing doesn't discount what we do know, which we know is incomplete. We just don't know everything yet.
I don't make fun of your faith, It is the ridiculousness of YOUR denial that I poke at. When most of us say god doesn't exist, what we really mean is the biblical rendition of god is completely and utterly preposterous. There is too many mistakes about it to be true, and to believe it is over science is well sorry ,,,,stupid as hell.
Sorry but I'll take real scientist words over yours.

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

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

From Nova:

"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.
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.

BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...

...and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...
There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...

and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.

So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?

Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2912 Jun 22, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>That's not true, GR is a REAL Theory.
The assumption you're making is a theory could explain the very tiniest scale to the atomic scale all the way to a universal scale. But there may not be a complete bridge between these gaps. We just assume there should be, and perhaps there should be.
But our failing doesn't discount what we do know, which we know is incomplete. We just don't know everything yet.
I don't make fun of your faith, It is the ridiculousness of YOUR denial that I poke at. When most of us say god doesn't exist, what we really mean is the biblical rendition of god is completely and utterly preposterous. There is too many mistakes about it to be true, and to believe it is over science is well sorry ,,,,stupid as hell.
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.

Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.

As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#2913 Jun 22, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry but I'll take real scientist words over yours.
" If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.
A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science. "
From Nova:
"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.
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.
BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...
...and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...
There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...
and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.
So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?
Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.
You got it wrong though , it isn't the center that can't be measured . Or the compressed state of the universe.
It's the transition between them, or the event horizon of a BH that can't be measured accurately. It doesn't break down it just can't measure the opposing forces accurately. With the early universe it isn't so much a problem as it is with a BH.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2914 Jun 22, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>You got it wrong though , it isn't the center that can't be measured . Or the compressed state of the universe.
It's the transition between them, or the event horizon of a BH that can't be measured accurately. It doesn't break down it just can't measure the opposing forces accurately. With the early universe it isn't so much a problem as it is with a BH.
I got it wrong? Me? Really?

I quoted "S. JAMES GATES, JR. BRIAN GREENE "

I am neither one of them. These boys are on your side, they are true Scientist.
They don't believe in God. They how ever are honest. And know when and where scientific theory's fail and admit it rather then your style of covering up science failures at all cost.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#2915 Jun 22, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
I got it wrong? Me? Really?
I quoted "S. JAMES GATES, JR. BRIAN GREENE "
I am neither one of them. These boys are on your side, they are true Scientist.
They don't believe in God. They how ever are honest. And know when and where scientific theory's fail and admit it rather then your style of covering up science failures at all cost.
Your inability and failure to understand what exactly what they are saying isn't my failure. They are not on my side and I don't care what they believe, or think about GR's inability to measure the event horizons forces, or god or anything else.

I'm telling you what the "breakdown" is. At the event horizon space is curved infinitely and gravity become infinite.
In physics it is assumed infinities cannot exist. So in a BH that has a definite solar mass its event horizon's forces should be measurable.
But with the universe itself , it maybe infinite so that's not as big a problem as the event horizon of a BH. But it's because we are missing something here, and why poly and I both think we need to be able to probe them or create the conditions to solve the problem.

But you cannot discount everything we DO Know, because there are some things we DON'T know , End of story, and now I will try to pretend you are anything but a science denying evolution refuting turbo religatard that try's to belittle all of science to keep your fantasy god from evaporating.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#2916 Jun 22, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
I get that. My point is "nothing including Time or Matter or Space or Energy can come forth from NOTHING"
So either god doesn't exist or something created god - which is it?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2917 Jun 22, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
So either god doesn't exist or something created god - which is it?
Obviously, it's gods (or turtles) all the way down...

... <laughing>

Since: Nov 12

Pittsburgh, PA

#2918 Jun 22, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
So either god doesn't exist or something created god - which is it?
Pointing out the special pleading of the claim that everything has a creator except god is done to point out the absurdity in that reasoning.

If that is not clear enough.... I can help with future questions by reminding you that atheists do not believe that any gods presented so far exist.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2919 Jun 22, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>You got it wrong though , it isn't the center that can't be measured . Or the compressed state of the universe.
It's the transition between them, or the event horizon of a BH that can't be measured accurately. It doesn't break down it just can't measure the opposing forces accurately. With the early universe it isn't so much a problem as it is with a BH.
It does break down. That's why one of the experts in the field said "it breaks down".

They both break down.

Do you not get that a theory needs to work everywhere. At least that's what the experts claim. The lower class doesn't seem to care if it works at all.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2922 Jun 22, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Your idiot rules don't bind God.
Get real! Try and think for once.
Your god?

Only exists within your putrid little imagination.

Wherein people are subject to infinite torture for failing to bow and scrape to your massively bloated ego (you, in the guise of your imaginary god).

It's kinda sick, really.

But from a **real** god? I would expect... better than the god **you** espouse.

As a bare minimum of standards.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2923 Jun 22, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Your idiot rules don't bind God.
Get real! Try and think for once.
The two sentences together?

Are the very definition of irony.

Look it up.

Most amusing.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#2924 Jun 22, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You like "a-myths" and not true science.
Again these two scientist are among the best in the field. You are arguing with them not me I am just quoting them.
2% of the universe is known, hardly enough for your definitive attitude.
Well if it's any consolation prize to you ,
Michio Kaku explains this inadequacy from god being smarter than we are.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#2925 Jun 22, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Your idiot rules don't bind God.
Get real! Try and think for once.
Nice dodge, fundie!

Bravo!

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#2926 Jun 22, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You like "a-myths" and not true science.
Again these two scientist are among the best in the field. You are arguing with them not me I am just quoting them.
2% of the universe is known, hardly enough for your definitive attitude.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
2% of the universe is known, hardly enough for your definitive attitude.
Are you sure you wanna go with that?

Mulligan?

Yes?

Think about it, please.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2927 Jun 23, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
It does break down. That's why one of the experts in the field said "it breaks down".
They both break down.
Do you not get that a theory needs to work everywhere. At least that's what the experts claim. The lower class doesn't seem to care if it works at all.
A scientific theory breaking down is miles away from the theist strategy of basically lying about god as much as possible until enough stupid people come along and believe it...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2928 Jun 23, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Your idiot rules don't bind God.
Get real! Try and think for once.
You need to prove your god, otherwise we atheists will think you're just a plain old cult of liars like every other dishnest belief system.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2929 Jun 23, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Your inability and failure to understand what exactly what they are saying isn't my failure. They are not on my side and I don't care what they believe, or think about GR's inability to measure the event horizons forces, or god or anything else.

I'm telling you what the "breakdown" is. At the event horizon space is curved infinitely and gravity become infinite.
In physics it is assumed infinities cannot exist. So in a BH that has a definite solar mass its event horizon's forces should be measurable.
But with the universe itself , it maybe infinite so that's not as big a problem as the event horizon of a BH. But it's because we are missing something here, and why poly and I both think we need to be able to probe them or create the conditions to solve the problem.

But you cannot discount everything we DO Know, because there are some things we DON'T know , End of story, and now I will try to pretend you are anything but a science denying evolution refuting turbo religatard that try's to belittle all of science to keep your fantasy god from evaporating.
"I'm telling you what the "breakdown" is"

Your last post stated there was no break down. Weird.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2930 Jun 23, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Well if it's any consolation prize to you ,
Michio Kaku explains this inadequacy from god being smarter than we are.
Oh boy a human who thinks he knows why God can't be smarter then us.

Boy that sure swayed me. I think I'll become atheist now.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2931 Jun 23, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>Nice dodge, fundie!

Bravo!
Sorry it's a Ford.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2932 Jun 23, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>The Almighty Tzar wrote, "<quoted text>
2% of the universe is known, hardly enough for your definitive attitude.
"

Are you sure you wanna go with that?

Mulligan?

Yes?

Think about it, please.
If I use the Mulligan can I at least still go looking for my first ball? Those things ain't cheap!

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Regolith Based Li... 32,169
hell is a real place. so.. ahtiesm is a faux li... 2 hr Eagle 12 - 12
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 2 hr Eagle 12 - 760
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Science 76,945
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 8 hr Dogen 4,309
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 9 hr superwilly 258,476
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Jul 18 John 4,952
More from around the web