Hawking Vs Creation!

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.

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

Not that anyone is willing to admit for some reason. I don't understand the "us vs. them" that pops up so frequently.

**djones520**

Mr Mystery wrote:I just realised something...now I might be a little slow here, so apologies if this is a bit of a 'duh' moment....

But for those who seek to discredit Darwin's theory in the name of Religion, how would doing so validate their own belief in a divine creator of all things?

Just struck me that we often think of this as terribly black and white, in which one side is wrong, and the other irrefutably correct??

Are there other theories of creation beyond the Darwin and Religious?

Well I believe there is a Native American belief that claims we all just jumped out of a big hole one day.

**Mr Mystery**

Don't suppose it says where we were before that?

You know, I think I've found a new topic to research some!

**Tyyr**

In other news, scientists are human, can occasionally be wrong. Hawking will occasionally make mistakes. Hell, Einstein... ah gak, I think he didn't like the math that said the universe was expanding so he invented a constant to make it static. I can be and probably am wrong on the specifics but the point is that even the most brilliant minds in the world can occasionally be wrong, even in the face of logic. Also, they're human. Admitting you were wrong, especially publicly wrong, can be a blow to the ego (and not in a good way) so you might try to find ways to weasel out of being wrong. Incredibly smart people can also be as vapid as any of us so yeah, I can a bunch of scientists back biting Hawking because that damn media hound's writing another book.

Long story short, Hawking isn't overrated, he's just very very in the public eye which makes his mistakes more public and the jealous little bitches more vocal.

**LordofHats**

Hawking is, to my understanding, treated as somewhat of a joke among some physicists. Apparently he uses a lot of assumptions and pseudo-science to prove his theories correct. His arguments come down to "because I say so." That's my understanding of it of course. I'm not a Hawking expert.

He's more appreciated for being able to put complex things into laymen's terms so anyone with a brain can sort of get it.

I always find attempts to disprove god laughable. Anyone who believes in god always has the fallback "it's god" against any argument. I mean, after all, it's god! God can do anything

Talk about a massive waste of time.

**Monster Rain**

Mr Mystery wrote:I just realised something...now I might be a little slow here, so apologies if this is a bit of a 'duh' moment....

But for those who seek to discredit Darwin's theory in the name of Religion, how would doing so validate their own belief in a divine creator of all things?

Just struck me that we often think of this as terribly black and white, in which one side is wrong, and the other irrefutably correct??

Are there other theories of creation beyond the Darwin and Religious?

When they find the Hopi emergence tunnels it's all going to go to hell.

Neil Gaiman is awesome. Even in paraphrase.

**Ahtman**

Monster Rain wrote:
Mr Mystery wrote:I just realised something...now I might be a little slow here, so apologies if this is a bit of a 'duh' moment....

But for those who seek to discredit Darwin's theory in the name of Religion, how would doing so validate their own belief in a divine creator of all things?

Just struck me that we often think of this as terribly black and white, in which one side is wrong, and the other irrefutably correct??

Are there other theories of creation beyond the Darwin and Religious?

When they find the Hopi emergence tunnels it's all going to go to hell.

Neil Gaiman is awesome. Even in paraphrase.

That still basically falls under the religion category.

**Battle Brother Lucifer**

The Dreadnote wrote:The topic title so needs to be a film. Preferably one in which Jesus descends from heaven, restores Hawking's mobility, and then challenges him to mortal combat. Then follows an epic battle to determine the origin of the universe.

I would pay out of my *** to see that movie.

**Dreadwinter**

kronk wrote:Same one.

Also, I bought a lottery ticket. I don't know if it's a winning ticket or a losing one. So I have a 50% chance of it being a winning ticket!

But I'm not so good with the maths.

It says Munroe on the check though. Did I miss a clever joke?

**Albatross**

Wow, this thread is roughly 15% worse than usual threads on this topic - but for slightly different reasons.

**Monster Rain**

Ahtman wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
Mr Mystery wrote:I just realised something...now I might be a little slow here, so apologies if this is a bit of a 'duh' moment....

But for those who seek to discredit Darwin's theory in the name of Religion, how would doing so validate their own belief in a divine creator of all things?

Just struck me that we often think of this as terribly black and white, in which one side is wrong, and the other irrefutably correct??

Are there other theories of creation beyond the Darwin and Religious?

When they find the Hopi emergence tunnels it's all going to go to hell.

Neil Gaiman is awesome. Even in paraphrase.

That still basically falls under the religion category.

Not if it's true.

**VermGho5t**

kronk wrote:Sorry. I forgot how defensive UK folks are about Hawking. It must have been hard sitting on the side lines while the US and Russia developed their space programs. You know, space shuttles and space stations while you guys were working on your... oh. Right. Nothing. Nevermind. You guys need to feel smart, too.

Sorry I pissed on your one shiney thing.

Really, that's all you can come back with? Hooray for such a Nationalistic viewpoint? It's not like the sciences need any type of nation state boundaries to prove one is better over the other.

**Orlanth**

Ok lets get back to the subject shall we.

I havent read what Professor Hawking has written so I wont attempt to comment on it, however Hawking is neither the first, nor will he be the last to claim there is no need for a God. At least Hawking has the integrity to not make his claims until he beleived it in his own mind. His previous works have been neutral on the subject, so if he thinks the Big Bang is inevitable he is saying something which is to him new. However personal certainty is no new development, I am no less certain that the Second Coming will occur, that says nothing new either.

**Miguelsan**

As usual this will turn into a case of bad journalism when we can read the book.
In my understanding with only the preview of the book available, Hawking is saying that using modern Physics there is no need of a God to explain the Universe, the newspapers are reporting "Hawking says there is no God". Huge difference there.

M.

**Khornholio**

Didn't he also say that ETs would probably be malevolent? If they ever show up, maybe they'll confirm or deny the hypothesis attached to his work via the media...

Personally, I think it's a shame that he is only concentrating on the material and ignoring the conscious, or spiritual side of mankind. And I don't mean Nick Foley.

**Tyyr**

LordofHats wrote:I always find attempts to disprove god laughable. Anyone who believes in god always has the fallback "it's god" against any argument. I mean, after all, it's god! God can do anything Talk about a massive waste of time.

No, the problem with trying to disprove God scientifically is that God is not a scientific concept. It's not a physical, testable, repeatable thing and therefore science is impotent in regards to the question of God's existence. It's a purely philosophical question.

**Kilkrazy**

Just to re-emphasise the point, Hawking does not claim he has disproved God. He simply says that the finger of God is not required as part of the physical laws which created and operate the universe.

That does not rule out God per se.

**Monster Rain**

Kilkrazy wrote:Just to re-emphasise the point, Hawking does not claim he has disproved God. He simply says that the finger of God is not required as part of the physical laws which created and operate the universe.

That does not rule out God per se.

And frankly, it's kind of ironic considering things like Dark Matter and Super Symmetry are just as much articles of faith as The Resurrection and The Assumption of Mary in my opinion.

**Relapse**

mattyrm wrote:I know the internet is a place of needless bitteness and spite, but ill tell you guys what i like.

I like it when internet intellectualls who are usually either still in school/college or working in a field that isnt Science (or even if they are, have not yet broke any major ground in the field) insult some of the worlds most well known Scientists.

Seriously, its awesome.

Stephen Hawking...

1975 Eddington Medal
1976 Hughes Medal of the Royal Society
1979 Albert Einstein Medal
1981 Franklin Medal
1982 Order of the British Empire (Commander)
1985 Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society
1986 Member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
1988 Wolf Prize in Physics
1989 Prince of Asturias Awards in Concord
1989 Companion of Honour
1999 Julius Edgar Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society
2003 Michelson Morley Award of Case Western Reserve University
2006 Copley Medal of the Royal Society
2008 Fonseca Price of the University of Santiago de Compostela

and by no means least..

2009 Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honour in the United States.

Is overated because some dude on the internet said so?

Awesome.

Overated how?

It reminds me of Shuma (still in college) calling Richard - Zoological Society of London Silver Medal (1989), Finlay innovation award (1990), the Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002) and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest (2009) Dawkins an idiot as well.

Dawkins, listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2007, the man who coined the term meme, the man who wrote "The Selfish Gene" a world reknowned book on the subject, when he was only 35.

He is an idiot as well.

When you guys are known all around the globe for your Scientific works, then you can engage them in a debate with some credibility and explain why you think you are smarter than them.

Im well aware that its the same physically as well, and that the average internet tough guy who has "boxed a fex times with a mate" will happily boast that "Mayweather has sloppy technique" or "Manny Pacquiao leads with his chin" or whatever but...

Come on, dont you lot understand the relatively simple presmise that when you say "im awesome" all the time people will think your a douche?

That about sums it and sews up the thread win for Mat.

**dogma**

Monster Rain wrote:
And frankly, it's kind of ironic considering things like Dark Matter and Super Symmetry are just as much articles of faith as The Resurrection and The Assumption of Mary in my opinion.

The difference is that scientists are actively searching to prove or disprove those theories.

**Relapse**

kronk wrote:Sorry. I forgot how defensive UK folks are about Hawking. It must have been hard sitting on the side lines while the US and Russia developed their space programs. You know, space shuttles and space stations while you guys were working on your... oh. Right. Nothing. Nevermind. You guys need to feel smart, too.

Sorry I pissed on your one shiney thing.

U.S. used a lot of scientists not originally from the U.S to head up the space program. Ever hear of Von Bruan?

**Frazzled**

Relapse wrote:
mattyrm wrote:I know the internet is a place of needless bitteness and spite, but ill tell you guys what i like.

I like it when internet intellectualls who are usually either still in school/college or working in a field that isnt Science (or even if they are, have not yet broke any major ground in the field) insult some of the worlds most well known Scientists.

Seriously, its awesome.

Stephen Hawking...

1975 Eddington Medal
1976 Hughes Medal of the Royal Society
1979 Albert Einstein Medal
1981 Franklin Medal
1982 Order of the British Empire (Commander)
1985 Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society
1986 Member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
1988 Wolf Prize in Physics
1989 Prince of Asturias Awards in Concord
1989 Companion of Honour
1999 Julius Edgar Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society
2003 Michelson Morley Award of Case Western Reserve University
2006 Copley Medal of the Royal Society
2008 Fonseca Price of the University of Santiago de Compostela

and by no means least..

2009 Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honour in the United States.

Is overated because some dude on the internet said so?

Awesome.

Overated how?

It reminds me of Shuma (still in college) calling Richard - Zoological Society of London Silver Medal (1989), Finlay innovation award (1990), the Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002) and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest (2009) Dawkins an idiot as well.

Dawkins, listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2007, the man who coined the term meme, the man who wrote "The Selfish Gene" a world reknowned book on the subject, when he was only 35.

He is an idiot as well.

When you guys are known all around the globe for your Scientific works, then you can engage them in a debate with some credibility and explain why you think you are smarter than them.

Im well aware that its the same physically as well, and that the average internet tough guy who has "boxed a fex times with a mate" will happily boast that "Mayweather has sloppy technique" or "Manny Pacquiao leads with his chin" or whatever but...

Come on, dont you lot understand the relatively simple presmise that when you say "im awesome" all the time people will think your a douche?

That about sums it and sews up the thread win for Mat.

It don't mean gak. He's a physicist. He doesn't know how life started, any more than a physicist knows how to build a house.

As noted above, who the

cares? If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything . If atheists are wrong, they are

ed. And none of it, none of it, helps me buy my next cup of coffee.

**Monster Rain**

dogma wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
And frankly, it's kind of ironic considering things like Dark Matter and Super Symmetry are just as much articles of faith as The Resurrection and The Assumption of Mary in my opinion.

The difference is that scientists are actively searching to prove or disprove those theories.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that people that have faith require no proof, so that's not the best analogy to use?

Frazzled wrote:
Relapse wrote:
mattyrm wrote:I know the internet is a place of needless bitteness and spite, but ill tell you guys what i like.

I like it when internet intellectualls who are usually either still in school/college or working in a field that isnt Science (or even if they are, have not yet broke any major ground in the field) insult some of the worlds most well known Scientists.

Seriously, its awesome.

Stephen Hawking...

1975 Eddington Medal
1976 Hughes Medal of the Royal Society
1979 Albert Einstein Medal
1981 Franklin Medal
1982 Order of the British Empire (Commander)
1985 Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society
1986 Member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
1988 Wolf Prize in Physics
1989 Prince of Asturias Awards in Concord
1989 Companion of Honour
1999 Julius Edgar Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society
2003 Michelson Morley Award of Case Western Reserve University
2006 Copley Medal of the Royal Society
2008 Fonseca Price of the University of Santiago de Compostela

and by no means least..

2009 Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honour in the United States.

Is overated because some dude on the internet said so?

Awesome.

Overated how?

It reminds me of Shuma (still in college) calling Richard - Zoological Society of London Silver Medal (1989), Finlay innovation award (1990), the Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002) and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest (2009) Dawkins an idiot as well.

Dawkins, listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2007, the man who coined the term meme, the man who wrote "The Selfish Gene" a world reknowned book on the subject, when he was only 35.

He is an idiot as well.

When you guys are known all around the globe for your Scientific works, then you can engage them in a debate with some credibility and explain why you think you are smarter than them.

Im well aware that its the same physically as well, and that the average internet tough guy who has "boxed a fex times with a mate" will happily boast that "Mayweather has sloppy technique" or "Manny Pacquiao leads with his chin" or whatever but...

Come on, dont you lot understand the relatively simple presmise that when you say "im awesome" all the time people will think your a douche?

That about sums it and sews up the thread win for Mat.

It don't mean gak. He's a physicist. He doesn't know how life started, any more than a physicist knows how to build a house.

As noted above, who the cares? If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything . If atheists are wrong, they are ed. And none of it, none of it, helps me buy my next cup of coffee.

Very nicely done.

**reds8n**

Frazzled wrote:

If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything .

Well... unless it's the Jews, or the Muslims, or the Buddhists or etc etc etc are right of course.

*placeholder for that Rowna Atkinson sketch about the afterlife, bonus cookies to whomever can find it*

Besides, you're married, you should know you're never right by now.

**Frazzled**

reds8n wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything .

Well... unless it's the Jews, or the Muslims, or the Buddhists or etc etc etc are right of course.

*placeholder for that Rowna Atkinson sketch about the afterlife, bonus cookies to whomever can find it*

Besides, you're married, you should know you're never right by now.

Yea but I have the ear of the person who is.

**Kilkrazy**

reds8n wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything .

Well... unless it's the Jews, or the Muslims, or the Buddhists or etc etc etc are right of course.

*placeholder for that Rowna Atkinson sketch about the afterlife, bonus cookies to whomever can find it*

Besides, you're married, you should know you're never right by now.

I've got that sketch on a record, a genuine 33rpm LP. Unfortunately it's in Japan.

**Relapse**

reds8n wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything .

Well... unless it's the Jews, or the Muslims, or the Buddhists or etc etc etc are right of course.

*placeholder for that Rowna Atkinson sketch about the afterlife, bonus cookies to whomever can find it*

Besides, you're married, you should know you're never right by now.

I'll take that cookie, sir!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC6UrMTC73A&feature=related

**Doggles**

Frazzled wrote:
As noted above, who the cares? If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything . If atheists are wrong, they are ed.

Pascal's wager? - deeply unimpressive.

**Monster Rain**

Doggles wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
As noted above, who the cares? If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything . If atheists are wrong, they are ed.

Pascal's wager? - deeply unimpressive.

How so?

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

Hawking vs Creation

my money is on Creation.
It is big and powerful. Hawking is but one puny human and hasn't got a chance.

I mean, Creation has like black holes and volcanoes and dangerous gakk like that. And there is all of it! It's immense.

If I were Hawking I would not fight against Creation.