real life wrote:And you know this to be true how?
If the GR is right about singularities, then the singularity is so small that it is on a quantum scale, RL.
Quote:Since you know not the composition, nor the origin, nor the properties of a hypothetical 'singularity', it is purely speculation for you to say 'this principle would apply to it, but that one would not'.
You don't need to know the composition of a singularity to know that quantum mechanics would apply to a singularity. The singularity is by definition an infinitely small object. This puts it in the realm of quantum mechanics, which talks about the insanely small.
I state what can and cannot apply based on what physicists find out.
You, however, state what can or cannot apply based merely on your own whim. Not to mention that you're so keen on us providing evidence but not keen at all on providing evidence of your own. Instead you argue on mere semantics, which is the
modus operandi of a bankrupt intelligence.
Your definition of supernatural (i.e. anything that we don't know) is a sign of such bankrupt intelligence.
The biggest difference between our point of view, compared to yours, is that scientists are actually working on disproving these viewpoints. Therein lies the difference between real scientists and Creation scientists. Real scientists come up with theories, then go out to try and disprove their theories. If they fail, if the evidence shores up their theory, then it is taken as one more step to proving that their theory is correct.
Compare this with Creation scientists, who do no real research of their own. They don't go out to find a God particle. They don't go out of their way to do any research. They merely look at other people's work and then twist the meaning out of context. They point at gaps in our knowledge and say, "Ah God did it!" Just like you do.
Except, hm, they don't care for the fact that scientists are at the moment, working to fill those gaps in with credible scientific explanations. No! What matters is that there's a gap in our knowledge, in which to fit your precious delusion.
Sooner or later, the people at the South Pole or at the Large Hadron Collider with come up with evidence for String Theory or against it. When that happens, string theory is vindicated or abandoned, and I will be the first to abandon it when it is proved wrong.
That is the difference between our viewpoint and yours. Nothing will make you change your mind about your viewpoint, because it is not testable and not falsifiable. You will always be able to shift your goalposts.
String theory cannot have its goalposts shifted. Its statements are quite clear (although, as a biochemist, I have no idea what those statements are). Prove them wrong and string theory breaks. That is the difference between the supernatural and the natural. The supernatural can never be falsified. The natural can.
You don't get it, do you?
We've said time and time before. We've done it for the past 182 pages! There is evidence for our position, our position makes testable predictions, which are falsifiable. Your position, does not. That is why our position is scientific and yours isn't. That is why ours is better and yours isn't. Because yours is a tautology with goalposts that can be shifted as you see fit.
In the early days, God was in the sky. Then he was shifted to the Heavens, just beyond the Solar System. Then he was shifted further out of our reach. Every time science advanced, your God was shifted further and further away. You and your kind kept moving the goalposts.
So go on, move those goalposts, RL. Stubbornly dodge the question and argue semantics. And furthermore, ignore the context in which we talk about things so you can attack a strawman. You've done it countless times before, like earlier on when I talked about what Darwin said about species and variations and how species were merely variations with the intermediate variations wiped out.
