Is the bible a fairy tale?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1545 May 18, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
I'm not talking about the Big Bang theory as I have stated many times.
I am discussing what was there when there was "no" Time, Space, Matter & Energy. In other words what existed when there was no Big Bang or Big Bang after math. And please no "north of the North Pole statements". Shlts getting old.[/QUOTE]
Only because you continue to ignore the point.
Does a 2 dimensional plane really exist?
No.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1546 May 18, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Please define "space" that has no Time, no Matter and No energy.
[/QUOTE]

And that is the point: such does not exist.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1547 May 18, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
"Once again, the misunderstanding between space itself expanding and stuff moving through space."
What is space with out all matter and energy and time. What would this space look like?[/QUOTE]

No such thing. Again, that is the point.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1548 May 18, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Is the universe expanding?
The scientific answer is "Yes"
If its expanding then it has an edge right next to where it doesn't exist.
[/QUOTE]

Incorrect. This is one of the *basic* ideas in the Big Bang model. Every location looks the same: there is no 'center' to the expansion. Every place is expanding. There is no 'edge' to the expansion. Until you get this basic point, you simply don't have a grasp on the Big Bang model.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1549 May 18, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
"Ans: there *is* no barrier!"
Is the universe expanding?
Science says yes.
Then there is an edge / barrier.
[/QUOTE]

Wrong. That you don't get this, only shows you don't understand what the model is saying.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1550 May 18, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
"Actually, in the Big Bang theory, there are two possibilities:"
This is just plan BS.[/QUOTE]

Hey, if you choose to argue against a straw man instead of the actual scientific theory, that is your problem. I'm simply pointing out what the theory actually says.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1551 May 18, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
String Theory has failed every test put to it. It has not passed one test. Not one[/QUOTE]
There has yet to *be* a definitive test of string theory. It is still healthy and running well.
Doc String theory is a myth, it's dead it's no longer science. Get over it. The LSD trip that lead to string theory is over!
Even if that were true, it is beside the point. The qute you like to give about the failings of QM and GR is all about leading up to string theory. That is what Greene was talking about.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1552 May 18, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't be.
You just eliminated the Big Bang, as you claim there is "no time" when it could have happened.
You also eliminated the birth of the universe, as you say there is "no time" when it could have started.
Nothing happened, because there was "no time".
We do not exist.
Right, time only has t>0, not t<=0. That does NOT imply we don't exist except in your demented 'logic'.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1553 May 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, time only has t>0, not t<=0. That does NOT imply we don't exist except in your demented 'logic'.
Wrong.

It not only "implies" we do not exist; it requires that we do not exist.

If we know we exist, your assertions are wrong.

Let the audience decide whether you are wrong. I already know.

The reason you are wrong is deep-seated religion.

You have invested yourself in bundles of thought, and you think they are reality.

They provide you with your identity. They MUST be reality, or you will not know who you are. Not knowing who you are elicits terror.

You are no different than the Pharisees, or the leaders of The Inquisition.

They just got their ego-service from a differing bundle of thought.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1554 May 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, time only has t>0, not t<=0. That does NOT imply we don't exist except in your demented 'logic'.
If "time only has t>0", then there can be no boundary of time, and time could not have begun.

If so, then there could be no absence of time, so your assertion that the universe was not caused because causality requires time, and there was no time, is false.

KJV

United States

#1555 May 18, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>And your bible commands you to PRAY about it, and NEVER ask for mundane, SECULAR help-- i.e. SCIENTIFIC medicine.

However, we all know how much of a HYPOCRITE you are--- at the slightest hint of pain, you go running for SCIENCE-BASED medicine.

Instead of asking your godling to help...

... because you KNOW your god WON'T DO ANYTHING.

That is what your god does best: NOTHING.

In fact?

That is the ONLY thing your god does at all! Nothing.

Sad for you.
Just BS rants from a mindless little troll
KJV

United States

#1556 May 18, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Oh bobby please tell me what powered the Big Bang and where and when did it come from."

Quantum Mechanics has the answer. But that's over your pointy little head, isn't it?

In a perfect vacuum, scientists have observed particles suddenly appearing from nothing-- and then, annihilating themselves (they are usually matter-antimatter pairs).

This happens, UNCAUSED, all the time.

That is more than sufficient to explain both where the big bang came from, and why it began to expand--

-- NO CAUSE NEEDED.

Especially not from a DO-NOTHING deity like YOU worship.

Or shall I say, like you PRETEND to worship...!

...'cause you don't really.
bobby that's in space and time that that stuff happens.

Now I'll ask you again.

What powered the Big Bang when there was no (pay attention bobby) When there was no Space or Time or Energy or Matter, no dark matter no dark energy no anti matter no spider man or super man?

Now for the first time in your life try and engage you mind (what little is left) before blabber typing.
KJV

United States

#1557 May 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
I'm not talking about the Big Bang theory as I have stated many times.
I am discussing what was there when there was "no" Time, Space, Matter & Energy. In other words what existed when there was no Big Bang or Big Bang after math. And please no "north of the North Pole statements". Shlts getting old."

Only because you continue to ignore the point.

[QUOTE]Does a 2 dimensional plane really exist?
"

No.
You sure about that bobby?

Math claims it does exist. I guess you fail again. Or is it math that is wrong?

Now try thinking bobby.
KJV

United States

#1558 May 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Please define "space" that has no Time, no Matter and No energy.
"

And that is the point: such does not exist.
Let's see your proof on that!
KJV

United States

#1559 May 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
"Once again, the misunderstanding between space itself expanding and stuff moving through space."
What is space with out all matter and energy and time. What would this space look like?"

No such thing. Again, that is the point.
Again proof?

Links?

Anything bobby? Do you have anything?
KJV

United States

#1560 May 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Is the universe expanding?
The scientific answer is "Yes"
If its expanding then it has an edge right next to where it doesn't exist.
"

Incorrect. This is one of the *basic* ideas in the Big Bang model. Every location looks the same: there is no 'center' to the expansion. Every place is expanding. There is no 'edge' to the expansion. Until you get this basic point, you simply don't have a grasp on the Big Bang model.
Your model is wrong.

Is the universe expanding?
The scientific answer is "Yes"
If its expanding then it has an edge right next to where it doesn't exist.

This has been proven with math!
KJV

United States

#1561 May 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
"Ans: there *is* no barrier!"
Is the universe expanding?
Science says yes.
Then there is an edge / barrier.
"

Wrong. That you don't get this, only shows you don't understand what the model is saying.
Again you believe in a myth. Or is it math you don't believe in?

Math has proven you wrong here.
KJV

United States

#1562 May 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
"Actually, in the Big Bang theory, there are two possibilities:"
This is just plan BS. "

Hey, if you choose to argue against a straw man instead of the actual scientific theory, that is your problem. I'm simply pointing out what the theory actually says.
Which theory?

I've read many BB theory's with many different possibilities.

What makes those theory's no good and your two the only good ones?
KJV

United States

#1563 May 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
String Theory has failed every test put to it. It has not passed one test. Not one"

There has yet to *be* a definitive test of string theory. It is still healthy and running well.

[QUOTE]Doc String theory is a myth, it's dead it's no longer science. Get over it. The LSD trip that lead to string theory is over!"

Even if that were true, it is beside the point. The qute you like to give about the failings of QM and GR is all about leading up to string theory. That is what Greene was talking about.
String Theory Fails Another Test,

the “Supertest”
Posted on December 17, 2010 by woit
Wednesday’s CMS result finding no black holes in early LHC data has led to internet headlines such as String Theory Fails First Major Experimental Test (for what this really means, see here). At a talk today at CERN, yet another impressive new CMS result was announced, this one causing even more trouble for string theory (if you believe in purported LHC tests of string theory, that is…).

Back in 1997, Physics Today published an article by Gordon Kane with the title String Theory is Testable, Even Supertestable. It included as Figure 2 a detailed spectrum which was supposed to show the sort of thing that string theory predicts. Tevatron results have already caused trouble for many of these mass predictions. For example, gluinos are supposed to have a mass of 250 GeV, but the PDG lists a lower bound (under various assumptions) of 308 GeV. At CERN today, the CMS talk in the end-of-year LHC jamboree has a slide labeled “First SUSY Result at the LHC!”, showing dramatically larger exclusion ranges for possible squark and gluino masses. Over much of the relevant range, gluino masses are now excluded all the way up to 650 GeV. It looks like string theory has failed the “supertest”.

If you believe that string theory “predicts” low-energy supersymmetry, this is a serious failure. Completely independently of string theory, it’s a discouraging result for low-energy supersymmetry in general. The LHC has just dashed hopes that, at least for strongly-interacting particles, supersymmetry would show up just beyond the energy range accessible at the Tevatron.
KJV

United States

#1564 May 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
String Theory has failed every test put to it. It has not passed one test. Not one"

There has yet to *be* a definitive test of string theory. It is still healthy and running well.

[QUOTE]Doc String theory is a myth, it's dead it's no longer science. Get over it. The LSD trip that lead to string theory is over!"

Even if that were true, it is beside the point. The qute you like to give about the failings of QM and GR is all about leading up to string theory. That is what Greene was talking about.
I am quoting Daniel Friedan, a former string theorist at Rutgers from hep-th/0204131

"The long-standing crisis of string theory"

"String theory has no credibility as a candidate theory of physics.
Recognizing failure is a userful part of the scientific strategy. Only
when failure is recognized can dead ends be abandoned and useable
pieces of failed programs be recycled. Aside from possible utility,
there is a responsibility to recognize failure. Recognizing failure
is an essential part of the scientific ethos. Complete scientific
failure must be recognized eventually."

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) 7 min Science 81,859
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 2 hr Science 2,196
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Science 33,086
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Oct 18 Eagle 12 - 3,978
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) Oct 11 old_moose 233
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) Oct 10 blacklagoon 3 94
Deconversion (Feb '17) Oct 10 Eagle 12 - 145
More from around the web