Is the bible a fairy tale?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3359 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets look at one item.
What existed when there was no time?
There was no existence when there was no time.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3360 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
We know that matter is energy arranged in intricate, law-abiding ways. Matter is anything that has weight, and occupies space. Even air is "matter." Where did it come from? What was before it?
First, your definition of 'matter' is problematic. Having 'weight' and having 'mass' are two very different things: an astronaut can be weightless, but not massless.

Second,'occupying space' is problematic when we get to the atomic level and below. For example, a pion has mass, but is a boson, so does not 'occupy space'. Unlike fermions, which cannot have two with exactly the same characteristics (including being in the same location), bosons *can* and even prefer to be in the same location. But a boson such as a pion can also have mass.

Third, the arrangement of matter in 'law abiding ways' is due to the fact that there *are* laws of physics and chemistry. But unlike human laws, there are descriptive rather than prescriptive: there is no violation of true natural laws (if you have a violation, you don't have the correct law).

Next, when you ask where something 'comes from', you are assuming many things, such as causality, the existence of time, and the operation of the laws of physics (so causality applies).
go to a public library, and study the articles in an encyclopedia about such mundane and every day, taken-for-granted things such as "air," or "water," or "light." I promise you, you will be fascinated!"
I agree. These, and many other things, are fascinating. You have shown a complete lack of understanding of these and other things that are well known about the universe.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3361 Jul 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>To say it 'appeared' suggests, incorrectly, that it didn't exist at some point and then did exist at some other point. Since *points* only exist when there was time, this shows your lack of understanding.

There is no 'conservation of time' that is violated here.
There was not a time when there was no time? LOL

Look I asked you what was there when there was no time. You agreed that "nothing" existed with out time. As you put it "that's one possibility"

There was no time and there was nothing.

Then the Big Bang and everything that exist including time appeared.

Nice MYTH.

Of course you know that anything to appear from nothing would required at the very least time. Nothing can happen with out time. Nothing can change with out time. Nothing can exist with out time. If there was was no time then any existence MUST have been created by an outside force.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3362 Jul 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Finally! No, this is NOT impossible. And that is your fundamental point where you fail to understand.
"a concept of a time with no prior time;"
Yes this is impossible and you think it
Happened. Just WOW.

"No, this is NOT impossible"

Yes it is impossible. Nothing can happen with out time. Prove this wrong.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3363 Jul 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>This is wrong on all points. It has been established that species change over geological time. This change is known as evolution. It has been observed in many different ways, including actual observation of speciation in both the lab and in the wild.
Debunking Evolution:

problems between the theory and reality;

the false science of evolution
These top creationist arguments present the truth about evolution. Top creationist arguments - every one.

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3364 Jul 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, turning genes on or off *is* a type of evolution. Duplication of genes is another type of evolution. Mutation of genes is yet another type of evolution. In all, species change over time. And *that* is the definition of evolution.
Turning on or off switches that already exist is not evolution, the evolution that created all the vast amount of life that has ever lived.

It's like saying cutting the grass creates a new type of grass "short grass".

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3365 Jul 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>The problem is that your notion of 'kind' is not well defined and testable. It is a vaguely used idea derived from religious enthusiasm instead of actual science. By ignoring significant differences between species, you ignore the essential aspects of evolution.

As an example, you previous claimed that all trees are a single kind. THis, even though there are dramatic differences in both the morphology and the physiology of, say, the monocots and dicots as well as the flowering trees versus the conifers. Any rational classification would see that trees have a wide variety of forms and biological characteristics. To label them all as one 'kind' simply shows the lack of utility of the concept of 'kind'.

On a scale of a human lifetime, we can only hope to see evolution between fairly closely related species. But we have substantial evidence that species change over geological time as well as genetic evidence of the relatedness. Again, the concept of 'kind' has proven to be useless in categorizing and understanding the changes in species.
Trees are a classification used by science today. A frog is not a tree. Trees are a plant that fall into a certain category by definition. They are a kind.
The same with humans. Humans are a kind that were created by God. K-9 is a kind, cats is a kind.

No here is where it gets interesting....
Monkeys are a kind that include atheist and apes. The Monkey kind does not have certain rights endowed to them by their creator, that is for humans that were created as humans. Perfect from the start and as all things in nature once sin was brought into the world sickness and death followed.

Everything from that point on has deteriorated, not gotten better.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3366 Jul 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>No, a common ancestor. By the way, that common ancestor doesn't have to have been the 'first' life form. In fact, given what we know, it almost certainly was not.
Oh I see, so now life started by itself many times? And one of the self generating life forms reproduced and subsequently became the parent of all the life plant and animal and night life on earth, except of course that life that is self generation life forms from rocks. Of this you're almost certain of?

Nice Myth you have here.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3367 Jul 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>And once again, you lie when you say *anyone* believes these things. In particular, the Big Bang was NOT 'nothing exploding'; life did NOT simply come from rain falling on rocks; and NOBODY claims that plants evolved into animals.
Once again going back to time.
You agreed that when there was no time time there was nothing. That not a thing can exist, happen, change, move, be with out time. There was no before the Big Bang because time did not exist and therefore nothing existed before the Big Bang. So nothing exploded to become the Big Bang and create everything.

Nice Myth you believe in.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#3368 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"a concept of a time with no prior time;"
Yes this is impossible and you think it
Happened. Just WOW.
"No, this is NOT impossible"
Yes it is impossible. Nothing can happen with out time. Prove this wrong.
Something can happen without time.
Time can, you still have no concept of a singularity.
Try a infinitesimal singularity .

Infinitesimally small, infinitely hot and infinitely dense.
You could consider that state of the universe being eternal or infinitely absent of time, then 13.7 bya +- a billion It started expanding, creating the space/time continuum.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3369 Jul 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>And once again, you lie when you say *anyone* believes these things. In particular, the Big Bang was NOT 'nothing exploding'; life did NOT simply come from rain falling on rocks; and NOBODY claims that plants evolved into animals.
Life did not exist. It rained on the rocks for million and millions of years. The primordial soup was built by the rain washing the building blocks of life from the rocks and from the atmosphere where they settled into a puddle and waited for just the right (Doctor Frankenstein type of) lighting to hit and create life (many times you now claim) until the right kind of life started that could self replicate. Then for shits and giggles this life that could self replicate decided to bring sex into the reproductive cycle just to make it more interesting.

Nice Myth you have here.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#3370 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Trees are a classification used by science today. A frog is not a tree. Trees are a plant that fall into a certain category by definition. They are a kind.
The same with humans. Humans are a kind that were created by God. K-9 is a kind, cats is a kind.
No here is where it gets interesting....
Monkeys are a kind that include atheist and apes. The Monkey kind does not have certain rights endowed to them by their creator, that is for humans that were created as humans. Perfect from the start and as all things in nature once sin was brought into the world sickness and death followed.
Everything from that point on has deteriorated, not gotten better.
You're a kind too.
A unkind fundamental christian anti science nut.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3371 Jul 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>And once again, you lie when you say *anyone* believes these things. In particular, the Big Bang was NOT 'nothing exploding'; life did NOT simply come from rain falling on rocks; and NOBODY claims that plants evolved into animals.
"NOBODY claims that plants evolved into animals."

Then animals evolved into plants?
One had to be first.

Nice Myth you have here.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3372 Jul 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>There was no existence when there was no time.
In other words nothing existed when there was no time.

Time cannot just happen when there is no time. Nothing can happen with out time, nothing can exist with out time, nothing can change with out time, nothing can be with out time.

So time to exist now when there was no time once is impossible.

Nice Myth you have here.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3373 Jul 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>First, your definition of 'matter' is problematic. Having 'weight' and having 'mass' are two very different things: an astronaut can be weightless, but not massless.

Second,'occupying space' is problematic when we get to the atomic level and below. For example, a pion has mass, but is a boson, so does not 'occupy space'. Unlike fermions, which cannot have two with exactly the same characteristics (including being in the same location), bosons *can* and even prefer to be in the same location. But a boson such as a pion can also have mass.

Third, the arrangement of matter in 'law abiding ways' is due to the fact that there *are* laws of physics and chemistry. But unlike human laws, there are descriptive rather than prescriptive: there is no violation of true natural laws (if you have a violation, you don't have the correct law).

Next, when you ask where something 'comes from', you are assuming many things, such as causality, the existence of time, and the operation of the laws of physics (so causality applies).

[QUOTE] go to a public library, and study the articles in an encyclopedia about such mundane and every day, taken-for-granted things such as "air," or "water," or "light." I promise you, you will be fascinated!""

I agree. These, and many other things, are fascinating. You have shown a complete lack of understanding of these and other things that are well known about the universe.
"an astronaut can be weightless,"

This is of course incorrect. While an astronaut may feel weightless he or she is never completely weightless. One could never be completely unaffected by gravity. Hence one always has weight.

No matter how small you go space and time is there.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#3374 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"an astronaut can be weightless,"
This is of course incorrect. While an astronaut may feel weightless he or she is never completely weightless. One could never be completely unaffected by gravity. Hence one always has weight.
No matter how small you go space and time is there.

Weight is determined by gravity, in absence of gravity is weightlessness. This is Classic Newtonian Physics, you can be
weightless, but you are not massless.
This was determined over 200 years ago, it hasn't changed.
But for some reason you think you can redefine the laws of physics? In space, weight has no meaning except in relation to G force.
Mass and inertia determine the G force while under acceleration.
Once the speed is constant weight is meaningless again, but mass is relevant.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3382 Jul 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Weight is determined by gravity, in absence of gravity is weightlessness. This is Classic Newtonian Physics, you can be
weightless, but you are not massless.
This was determined over 200 years ago, it hasn't changed.
But for some reason you think you can redefine the laws of physics? In space, weight has no meaning except in relation to G force.
Mass and inertia determine the G force while under acceleration.
Once the speed is constant weight is meaningless again, but mass is relevant.
"Weight is determined by gravity, in absence of gravity is weightlessness"

Where exactly is there a complete absents of gravity?

In other words where is there complete weightlessness?
Thinking

Royston, UK

#3383 Jul 28, 2013
Why do you want to debunk something which is proven to exist?

You're like the 3rd series of Dallas.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Debunking Evolution:
problems between the theory and reality;
the false science of evolution
These top creationist arguments present the truth about evolution. Top creationist arguments - every one.
"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3384 Jul 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Weight is determined by gravity, in absence of gravity is weightlessness. This is Classic Newtonian Physics, you can be
weightless, but you are not massless.
This was determined over 200 years ago, it hasn't changed.
But for some reason you think you can redefine the laws of physics? In space, weight has no meaning except in relation to G force.
Mass and inertia determine the G force while under acceleration.
Once the speed is constant weight is meaningless again, but mass is relevant.
What part of this do you not understand?

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"an astronaut can be weightless,"
(this is a quote from SP)

This is of course is incorrect.

While an astronaut may feel weightless he or she is never completely weightless.

One could never can be completely unaffected by gravity. Hence one always has weight.

No matter how small you go, space and time is there.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#3385 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of this do you not understand?
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"an astronaut can be weightless,"
(this is a quote from SP)
This is of course is incorrect.
While an astronaut may feel weightless he or she is never completely weightless.
One could never can be completely unaffected by gravity. Hence one always has weight.
No matter how small you go, space and time is there.
An astronaut can be weightless. You like most of the time , are
wrong.

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 Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 18 min Eagle 12 384
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 24 min Subduction Zone 30,043
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 34 min Subduction Zone 69,736
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 4 hr yehoshooah adam 3,768
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 5 hr Elerby 258,465
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 18 hr John 575
News Atheism and cowardice (Nov '11) Mon Eagle 12 12,668
More from around the web