Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The first 30 seconds proves that this idiot has no clue what she is talking about nor has even looked at a science book.

 easysauce wrote:
Einstein is smarter then smacks, he believed whole heartedly in god and science, as did many of the great thinkers of our time.

True, Albert Einstein was not an atheist. However he was at best pantheistic, much in the same vein as Spinoza (who heavily influenced his religious views) but often preferred to call himself agnostic. He was skeptical of a personal and anthropomorphic god, and he dismissed belief in them as "childlike." He was also a humanist, and served on the board of First Humanist Society of New York. He wasn't religious at all, yet the religious have tried to paint him as such for years, probably because he wasn't an atheist and often wrote about "god." Those writings are taken out of context, and when combined with a general lack of understanding about the man, are easy to use as "proof" that the devout can count Einstein as one of their own.

His views were complex, though he was by his own admission a religious nonbeliever. I think one of my favorite quotes by him sums that up pretty well:

Albert Einstein wrote:“A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”

 Asherian Command wrote:
Why is the grass green

Grass is green because of the pigment chlorophyll, which is a biomolecule that is vital to photosynthesis. Chlorophyll absorbs blue light (short wavelength, high energy) better than anything other light, which is the reason why most plant life is green. Of course, it isn't the only pigment found in plants which is the reason why plants come in a variety of colors, but it is by far the most common.

Where did we come from? what are we made of?

We are the product of billions of years of evolution through natural selection and we're made primarily of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.

There are other universes O.o

Probably, but chances are we'll never interact with them.

O.o There is fourth dimensional. Thats a Theory, but eh.

Thats a discussion for another time.

We live in a four dimensional universe, three spatial dimensions and one of time: spacetime.

We can and we even have proof of it in nature. They call them black holes. Faster than light and more powerful. Problem is that going the speed of light would destroy everything in its vicinity.

There is nothing about that statement that is even close to being correct.

What's time dilation for?

To make everything less confusing

This is wrong on both of you. Time dilation doesn't serve a "purpose;" it is part of the nature of spacetime itself.

 d-usa wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are you now saying that the theory of evolution as we know it proves the nonexistent of a divine being or a lack of involvement of one?

No, I'm saying that it provides a very strong argument the nonexistence of a god that was involved in evolution. It doesn't conclusively prove the nonexistence of a god, even one involved in evolution, because theoretically one could exist in the gaps in current knowledge. This would be a very small and barely-relevant god, but I guess you could still call it a god. However, what evolution does do is make it unreasonable to believe in the existence of this hypothetical god. Based on everything we know now the theory of evolution seems to be sufficient to explain everything that needs to be explained, and the only reason to speculate about the possible "behind the scenes" involvement of a god is if you've decided that one exists and any theory of evolution must include one. And that's bad science.

Science disagrees with you.

Clarification please?

 Asherian Command wrote:


Alright humor me why is the sky blue? Why is it that choose to blue?

The sky is blue because of Rayleigh scattering, there is no choice involved.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Not what I was asking!

That is how we are made, Not the why

That's exactly what you were asking, you just don't like the answer.

Black Holes do indeed travel faster than light :http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2853083/Scientists-lightning-sparking-supermassive-black-hole-appears-travel-faster-speed-light.html

Actually that is true about faster than light as well:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/140635-the-downside-of-warp-drives-annihilating-whole-star-systems-when-you-arrive

NASA researchers recently revisited the Alcubierre warp drive and concluded that its power requirements were not as impossible as once thought. However, a new analysis from the University of Sydney claims that using a warp drive of this design comes with a drawback. Specifically, it could cause cataclysmic explosions at your destination.

They would cause an explosion that would destroy anything basically.

Nope again. That article has nothing to do with black holes "moving," and instead is about an anomaly detected with gamma rays moving through an area of extremely high gravity. Here is the story with a less sensational headline and also the important addition where the research team says that their theory is weak due to insufficient evidence.

It does serve a purpose, if you believe in god, If you don't then it doesn't.

No, it still doesn't serve a "purpose," even in the context of believing in God.

Basically. Science cannot answer the why, Why is philosophical and idealistic. Science is not philosophical, it is concerned with hard facts and not idealistic plans of grandeur. Science is not the answer to all of lifes questions.

When I ask for why is the sky blue. I am not asking you about how it is made and the reason it is blue. I am asking why is the sky blue. Not because of scientific reasoning. I am asking you why is it blue. Then correct answer is. I have no idea. It just chooses to be blue.

Science types never get the difference, philosophers do.

I've already given you the why on just about every random question you've asked. You choose not to accept it and instead carry on with some pseudo-philosophical bull gak. Every time you refute an explanation with, "No, but why?" you aren't proving anything, you're just talking in circles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
No because that is not rational.

Nothing you've typed as been rational.

The Correct answer is I have no Idea.

Correct answer: you don't understand.