Stephen Hawking got it wrong.

[RWNJ]

Introduction
The Grand Design?
Stephen Hawking's latest book is entitled The Grand Design. However, the book's conclusion is exactly the opposite—that the universe is not designed at all, but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will.

Rich Deem
Stephen Hawking has garnered a lot of admiration and respect as a brilliant physicist and cosmologist. His book, A Brief History of Time, is a bestseller for its ability to translate physics and cosmology into terms that a layman can understand. So, when he came out recently promoting his new book claiming, "There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no Gods required" a lot of people took notice. Is our understanding of physics really sufficient to conclude that we know everything necessary to explain the existence of everything?

What new theory?
In his new book, Hawking claims that the reason the universe needs no creator is due to a "new theory" called M-theory (where "M" stands for "membrane," or just "m," or "murky" or "missing"1 depending upon one's particular version of the theory). Originally promoted as "superstring" theory 20 years ago, it has evolved from "strings" to "membranes," although all forms of the theory propose extra dimensions (11, in fact). However, M-theory is no single theory, but, rather, a number of theories through which one may obtain just about anything one wants. How one can test such a nebulous set of theories, which "predict" just about anything and everything, seems to be a problem.

M-theory: science or faith?
Stephen HawkingStephen Hawking
The nature of the universe requires that membranes from M-theory, if they exist at all, must be on the order of Planck length (10-35 m). Such a size is way less than microscopic or even well below subatomic particle sizes. In order to confirm such objects, one would need an accelerator on the order of 6,000,000,000,000,000 miles in circumference.2 It would seem likely, therefore, that confirmation of M-theory, based upon observable data, is impossible. Do such a set of theories that predict everything and anything and are not testable through observational data really fall within the realm of science?

Whence the laws of physics?
According to Stephen Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." However, neither gravity nor any other law of physics provides a mechanism by which universe can be spontaneously created. The question Hawking never answered was why those laws of physics exist? Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from "nothing," it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that such laws of physics would exist that universes to be created from nothing? Why wouldn't a true nothing consist of no laws of physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence?

Conclusion Top of page
So, Stephen Hawking wants us to believe that a nebulous set of theories, which cannot be confirmed through observational data, absolutely establishes that an infinite number of diverse universes exist, having been created from laws of physics that just happen to allow this. John Horgan, a fellow atheist, says that the popularity of M-theory is the result of "stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."3 Is it not more likely that a super-intelligent, powerful Being invented the laws of physics that produced the universe? Skeptics always ask, "Who created God?" Maybe they already have the answer to that question—Nothing! After all, they seem to think that nothing is a powerful force for creating things!

1) String People: Ed Witten.
2) Cosmic Clowning: Stephen Hawking's "new" theory of everything is the same old CRAP by John Horgan (Scientific American).
3) ibid. "For more than two decades string theory has been the most popular candidate for the unified theory that Hawking envisioned 30 years ago. Yet this popularity stems not from the theory's actual merits but rather from the lack of decent alternatives and the stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."

 

[TNHarley]

but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will
Just as believable as a man made god that is supposedly so great and knowing that he uses fear to keep his followers in line.

 

[Mac1958]

but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will
Just as believable as a man made god that is supposedly so great and knowing that he uses fear to keep his followers in line.

And, as all other scientists do, he admits it's a theory.

We don't know for sure, and we can't. But science does maintain a humility and a curiosity to admit that and keep searching.
.

 

[guno]

Introduction
The Grand Design?
Stephen Hawking's latest book is entitled The Grand Design. However, the book's conclusion is exactly the opposite—that the universe is not designed at all, but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will.

Rich Deem
Stephen Hawking has garnered a lot of admiration and respect as a brilliant physicist and cosmologist. His book, A Brief History of Time, is a bestseller for its ability to translate physics and cosmology into terms that a layman can understand. So, when he came out recently promoting his new book claiming, "There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no Gods required" a lot of people took notice. Is our understanding of physics really sufficient to conclude that we know everything necessary to explain the existence of everything?

What new theory?
In his new book, Hawking claims that the reason the universe needs no creator is due to a "new theory" called M-theory (where "M" stands for "membrane," or just "m," or "murky" or "missing"1 depending upon one's particular version of the theory). Originally promoted as "superstring" theory 20 years ago, it has evolved from "strings" to "membranes," although all forms of the theory propose extra dimensions (11, in fact). However, M-theory is no single theory, but, rather, a number of theories through which one may obtain just about anything one wants. How one can test such a nebulous set of theories, which "predict" just about anything and everything, seems to be a problem.

M-theory: science or faith?
Stephen HawkingStephen Hawking
The nature of the universe requires that membranes from M-theory, if they exist at all, must be on the order of Planck length (10-35 m). Such a size is way less than microscopic or even well below subatomic particle sizes. In order to confirm such objects, one would need an accelerator on the order of 6,000,000,000,000,000 miles in circumference.2 It would seem likely, therefore, that confirmation of M-theory, based upon observable data, is impossible. Do such a set of theories that predict everything and anything and are not testable through observational data really fall within the realm of science?

Whence the laws of physics?
According to Stephen Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." However, neither gravity nor any other law of physics provides a mechanism by which universe can be spontaneously created. The question Hawking never answered was why those laws of physics exist? Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from "nothing," it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that such laws of physics would exist that universes to be created from nothing? Why wouldn't a true nothing consist of no laws of physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence?

Conclusion Top of page
So, Stephen Hawking wants us to believe that a nebulous set of theories, which cannot be confirmed through observational data, absolutely establishes that an infinite number of diverse universes exist, having been created from laws of physics that just happen to allow this. John Horgan, a fellow atheist, says that the popularity of M-theory is the result of "stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."3 Is it not more likely that a super-intelligent, powerful Being invented the laws of physics that produced the universe? Skeptics always ask, "Who created God?" Maybe they already have the answer to that question—Nothing! After all, they seem to think that nothing is a powerful force for creating things!

1) String People: Ed Witten.
2) Cosmic Clowning: Stephen Hawking's "new" theory of everything is the same old CRAP by John Horgan (Scientific American).
3) ibid. "For more than two decades string theory has been the most popular candidate for the unified theory that Hawking envisioned 30 years ago. Yet this popularity stems not from the theory's actual merits but rather from the lack of decent alternatives and the stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."

Introduction
The Grand Design?
Stephen Hawking's latest book is entitled The Grand Design. However, the book's conclusion is exactly the opposite—that the universe is not designed at all, but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will.

Rich Deem
Stephen Hawking has garnered a lot of admiration and respect as a brilliant physicist and cosmologist. His book, A Brief History of Time, is a bestseller for its ability to translate physics and cosmology into terms that a layman can understand. So, when he came out recently promoting his new book claiming, "There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no Gods required" a lot of people took notice. Is our understanding of physics really sufficient to conclude that we know everything necessary to explain the existence of everything?

What new theory?
In his new book, Hawking claims that the reason the universe needs no creator is due to a "new theory" called M-theory (where "M" stands for "membrane," or just "m," or "murky" or "missing"1 depending upon one's particular version of the theory). Originally promoted as "superstring" theory 20 years ago, it has evolved from "strings" to "membranes," although all forms of the theory propose extra dimensions (11, in fact). However, M-theory is no single theory, but, rather, a number of theories through which one may obtain just about anything one wants. How one can test such a nebulous set of theories, which "predict" just about anything and everything, seems to be a problem.

M-theory: science or faith?
Stephen HawkingStephen Hawking
The nature of the universe requires that membranes from M-theory, if they exist at all, must be on the order of Planck length (10-35 m). Such a size is way less than microscopic or even well below subatomic particle sizes. In order to confirm such objects, one would need an accelerator on the order of 6,000,000,000,000,000 miles in circumference.2 It would seem likely, therefore, that confirmation of M-theory, based upon observable data, is impossible. Do such a set of theories that predict everything and anything and are not testable through observational data really fall within the realm of science?

Whence the laws of physics?
According to Stephen Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." However, neither gravity nor any other law of physics provides a mechanism by which universe can be spontaneously created. The question Hawking never answered was why those laws of physics exist? Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from "nothing," it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that such laws of physics would exist that universes to be created from nothing? Why wouldn't a true nothing consist of no laws of physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence?

Conclusion Top of page
So, Stephen Hawking wants us to believe that a nebulous set of theories, which cannot be confirmed through observational data, absolutely establishes that an infinite number of diverse universes exist, having been created from laws of physics that just happen to allow this. John Horgan, a fellow atheist, says that the popularity of M-theory is the result of "stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."3 Is it not more likely that a super-intelligent, powerful Being invented the laws of physics that produced the universe? Skeptics always ask, "Who created God?" Maybe they already have the answer to that question—Nothing! After all, they seem to think that nothing is a powerful force for creating things!

1) String People: Ed Witten.
2) Cosmic Clowning: Stephen Hawking's "new" theory of everything is the same old CRAP by John Horgan (Scientific American).
3) ibid. "For more than two decades string theory has been the most popular candidate for the unified theory that Hawking envisioned 30 years ago. Yet this popularity stems not from the theory's actual merits but rather from the lack of decent alternatives and the stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."

an education




"Scientific Theory" Meaning
Now I just used the word "theory". "Theory" in the scientific use of the word is different than the everyday language usage today. Most people today use "theory" as just a hunch, guess, belief, or proposal. Science uses the original meaning of "theory": a logical, systematic set of principles or explanation that has been verified—has stood up against attempts to prove it false. In my astronomy class, students learn about how Newton's theory of gravity explains the motions of falling objects on the Earth and the motions of objects orbiting each other and we also dabble a little in Einstein's theory of General Relativity to understand what happens with black holes and the development, the evolution, of the universe. Astronomy students also learn about the atomic theory and how it explains the type of light we see from objects and what we see when we spread that light out into its rainbow of colors. Physics and chemistry students learn those theories too and how those theories explain other observations. Since I'm an astronomer, I hope you'll understand if I toot astronomy's horn: astronomers have been able to verify that nature uses the same rules or laws everywhere in the universe and since it takes light a long time to travel the great distances, astronomers have verified that nature has used the same rules or laws throughout its entire history. Another thing astronomers have discovered is that the universe has changed, or evolved, throughout time, just as geologists have discovered that the Earth has changed, or evolved, throughout its history.

Scientific theory meaning

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Introduction
The Grand Design?
Stephen Hawking's latest book is entitled The Grand Design. However, the book's conclusion is exactly the opposite—that the universe is not designed at all, but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will.

Rich Deem
Stephen Hawking has garnered a lot of admiration and respect as a brilliant physicist and cosmologist. His book, A Brief History of Time, is a bestseller for its ability to translate physics and cosmology into terms that a layman can understand. So, when he came out recently promoting his new book claiming, "There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no Gods required" a lot of people took notice. Is our understanding of physics really sufficient to conclude that we know everything necessary to explain the existence of everything?

What new theory?
In his new book, Hawking claims that the reason the universe needs no creator is due to a "new theory" called M-theory (where "M" stands for "membrane," or just "m," or "murky" or "missing"1 depending upon one's particular version of the theory). Originally promoted as "superstring" theory 20 years ago, it has evolved from "strings" to "membranes," although all forms of the theory propose extra dimensions (11, in fact). However, M-theory is no single theory, but, rather, a number of theories through which one may obtain just about anything one wants. How one can test such a nebulous set of theories, which "predict" just about anything and everything, seems to be a problem.

M-theory: science or faith?
Stephen HawkingStephen Hawking
The nature of the universe requires that membranes from M-theory, if they exist at all, must be on the order of Planck length (10-35 m). Such a size is way less than microscopic or even well below subatomic particle sizes. In order to confirm such objects, one would need an accelerator on the order of 6,000,000,000,000,000 miles in circumference.2 It would seem likely, therefore, that confirmation of M-theory, based upon observable data, is impossible. Do such a set of theories that predict everything and anything and are not testable through observational data really fall within the realm of science?

Whence the laws of physics?
According to Stephen Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." However, neither gravity nor any other law of physics provides a mechanism by which universe can be spontaneously created. The question Hawking never answered was why those laws of physics exist? Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from "nothing," it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that such laws of physics would exist that universes to be created from nothing? Why wouldn't a true nothing consist of no laws of physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence?

Conclusion Top of page
So, Stephen Hawking wants us to believe that a nebulous set of theories, which cannot be confirmed through observational data, absolutely establishes that an infinite number of diverse universes exist, having been created from laws of physics that just happen to allow this. John Horgan, a fellow atheist, says that the popularity of M-theory is the result of "stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."3 Is it not more likely that a super-intelligent, powerful Being invented the laws of physics that produced the universe? Skeptics always ask, "Who created God?" Maybe they already have the answer to that question—Nothing! After all, they seem to think that nothing is a powerful force for creating things!

1) String People: Ed Witten.
2) Cosmic Clowning: Stephen Hawking's "new" theory of everything is the same old CRAP by John Horgan (Scientific American).
3) ibid. "For more than two decades string theory has been the most popular candidate for the unified theory that Hawking envisioned 30 years ago. Yet this popularity stems not from the theory's actual merits but rather from the lack of decent alternatives and the stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."

You didn't write this.

Why do you RWNJ traitors always believe they can get away with stealing the words of others. One would think they would have learned from Melania getting caught but no ...

 

[aris2chat]

Introduction
The Grand Design?
Stephen Hawking's latest book is entitled The Grand Design. However, the book's conclusion is exactly the opposite—that the universe is not designed at all, but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will.

Rich Deem
Stephen Hawking has garnered a lot of admiration and respect as a brilliant physicist and cosmologist. His book, A Brief History of Time, is a bestseller for its ability to translate physics and cosmology into terms that a layman can understand. So, when he came out recently promoting his new book claiming, "There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no Gods required" a lot of people took notice. Is our understanding of physics really sufficient to conclude that we know everything necessary to explain the existence of everything?

What new theory?
In his new book, Hawking claims that the reason the universe needs no creator is due to a "new theory" called M-theory (where "M" stands for "membrane," or just "m," or "murky" or "missing"1 depending upon one's particular version of the theory). Originally promoted as "superstring" theory 20 years ago, it has evolved from "strings" to "membranes," although all forms of the theory propose extra dimensions (11, in fact). However, M-theory is no single theory, but, rather, a number of theories through which one may obtain just about anything one wants. How one can test such a nebulous set of theories, which "predict" just about anything and everything, seems to be a problem.

M-theory: science or faith?
Stephen HawkingStephen Hawking
The nature of the universe requires that membranes from M-theory, if they exist at all, must be on the order of Planck length (10-35 m). Such a size is way less than microscopic or even well below subatomic particle sizes. In order to confirm such objects, one would need an accelerator on the order of 6,000,000,000,000,000 miles in circumference.2 It would seem likely, therefore, that confirmation of M-theory, based upon observable data, is impossible. Do such a set of theories that predict everything and anything and are not testable through observational data really fall within the realm of science?

Whence the laws of physics?
According to Stephen Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." However, neither gravity nor any other law of physics provides a mechanism by which universe can be spontaneously created. The question Hawking never answered was why those laws of physics exist? Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from "nothing," it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that such laws of physics would exist that universes to be created from nothing? Why wouldn't a true nothing consist of no laws of physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence?

Conclusion Top of page
So, Stephen Hawking wants us to believe that a nebulous set of theories, which cannot be confirmed through observational data, absolutely establishes that an infinite number of diverse universes exist, having been created from laws of physics that just happen to allow this. John Horgan, a fellow atheist, says that the popularity of M-theory is the result of "stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."3 Is it not more likely that a super-intelligent, powerful Being invented the laws of physics that produced the universe? Skeptics always ask, "Who created God?" Maybe they already have the answer to that question—Nothing! After all, they seem to think that nothing is a powerful force for creating things!

1) String People: Ed Witten.
2) Cosmic Clowning: Stephen Hawking's "new" theory of everything is the same old CRAP by John Horgan (Scientific American).
3) ibid. "For more than two decades string theory has been the most popular candidate for the unified theory that Hawking envisioned 30 years ago. Yet this popularity stems not from the theory's actual merits but rather from the lack of decent alternatives and the stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."

string theory is not new

 

[guno]

The Talking Snake Theory | Creation Science and History for Christian Children

 

[ding]

Whence the laws of physics?
According to Stephen Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." However, neither gravity nor any other law of physics provides a mechanism by which universe can be spontaneously created. The question Hawking never answered was why those laws of physics exist? Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from "nothing," it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that such laws of physics would exist that universes to be created from nothing? Why wouldn't a true nothing consist of no laws of physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence?

In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself. Alexander Viliken



Of course this still means that there was a beginning, and since we live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that beings that know and create will inevitably arise given enough time and the right conditions, the existence of beings that know and create were pre-ordained by the laws of nature which existed before space and time itself.

God loves science. He created it!

 

[RWNJ]

but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will
Just as believable as a man made god that is supposedly so great and knowing that he uses fear to keep his followers in line.

but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will
Just as believable as a man made god that is supposedly so great and knowing that he uses fear to keep his followers in line.

So, where did the Physical laws come from? What you fail to realize is that we live in a universe of cause and effect. Nothing can exist without a cause. This law does not apply to the creator, since He exists outside of time and space. Only something greater than the universe can create it. You guys think it was nothing. How silly is that?

Also, any sane person should fear God. But Christians do not obey out of fear. They obey because of love for the sacrifice He made for us.

 

[RWNJ]

Introduction
The Grand Design?
Stephen Hawking's latest book is entitled The Grand Design. However, the book's conclusion is exactly the opposite—that the universe is not designed at all, but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will.

Rich Deem
Stephen Hawking has garnered a lot of admiration and respect as a brilliant physicist and cosmologist. His book, A Brief History of Time, is a bestseller for its ability to translate physics and cosmology into terms that a layman can understand. So, when he came out recently promoting his new book claiming, "There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no Gods required" a lot of people took notice. Is our understanding of physics really sufficient to conclude that we know everything necessary to explain the existence of everything?

What new theory?
In his new book, Hawking claims that the reason the universe needs no creator is due to a "new theory" called M-theory (where "M" stands for "membrane," or just "m," or "murky" or "missing"1 depending upon one's particular version of the theory). Originally promoted as "superstring" theory 20 years ago, it has evolved from "strings" to "membranes," although all forms of the theory propose extra dimensions (11, in fact). However, M-theory is no single theory, but, rather, a number of theories through which one may obtain just about anything one wants. How one can test such a nebulous set of theories, which "predict" just about anything and everything, seems to be a problem.

M-theory: science or faith?
Stephen HawkingStephen Hawking
The nature of the universe requires that membranes from M-theory, if they exist at all, must be on the order of Planck length (10-35 m). Such a size is way less than microscopic or even well below subatomic particle sizes. In order to confirm such objects, one would need an accelerator on the order of 6,000,000,000,000,000 miles in circumference.2 It would seem likely, therefore, that confirmation of M-theory, based upon observable data, is impossible. Do such a set of theories that predict everything and anything and are not testable through observational data really fall within the realm of science?

Whence the laws of physics?
According to Stephen Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." However, neither gravity nor any other law of physics provides a mechanism by which universe can be spontaneously created. The question Hawking never answered was why those laws of physics exist? Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from "nothing," it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that such laws of physics would exist that universes to be created from nothing? Why wouldn't a true nothing consist of no laws of physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence?

Conclusion Top of page
So, Stephen Hawking wants us to believe that a nebulous set of theories, which cannot be confirmed through observational data, absolutely establishes that an infinite number of diverse universes exist, having been created from laws of physics that just happen to allow this. John Horgan, a fellow atheist, says that the popularity of M-theory is the result of "stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."3 Is it not more likely that a super-intelligent, powerful Being invented the laws of physics that produced the universe? Skeptics always ask, "Who created God?" Maybe they already have the answer to that question—Nothing! After all, they seem to think that nothing is a powerful force for creating things!

1) String People: Ed Witten.
2) Cosmic Clowning: Stephen Hawking's "new" theory of everything is the same old CRAP by John Horgan (Scientific American).
3) ibid. "For more than two decades string theory has been the most popular candidate for the unified theory that Hawking envisioned 30 years ago. Yet this popularity stems not from the theory's actual merits but rather from the lack of decent alternatives and the stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."

You didn't write this.

Why do you RWNJ traitors always believe they can get away with stealing the words of others. One would think they would have learned from Melania getting caught but no ...

WOW! You really are clueless. Did you see the name Richard Deem near the beginning of the article? I did not steal anything, you clueless punk. Nice try to deflect the conversation. Why don't you try addressing what was said in the article? That's what intelligent people do.

 

[TNHarley]

but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will
Just as believable as a man made god that is supposedly so great and knowing that he uses fear to keep his followers in line.

but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will
Just as believable as a man made god that is supposedly so great and knowing that he uses fear to keep his followers in line.

So, where did the Physical laws come from? What you fail to realize is that we live in a universe of cause and effect. Nothing can exist without a cause. This law does not apply to the creator, since He exists outside of time and space. Only something greater than the universe can create it. You guys think it was nothing. How silly is that?

Also, any sane person should fear God. But Christians do not obey out of fear. They obey because of love for the sacrifice He made for us.

I believe in fact. All we have are theories.
I know many sane people that don't fear God. Kind of an ignorant thing to say..
He didn't sacrifice anything for me. At least at this point that's how I look at it.

 

[RWNJ]

Introduction
The Grand Design?
Stephen Hawking's latest book is entitled The Grand Design. However, the book's conclusion is exactly the opposite—that the universe is not designed at all, but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will.

Rich Deem
Stephen Hawking has garnered a lot of admiration and respect as a brilliant physicist and cosmologist. His book, A Brief History of Time, is a bestseller for its ability to translate physics and cosmology into terms that a layman can understand. So, when he came out recently promoting his new book claiming, "There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no Gods required" a lot of people took notice. Is our understanding of physics really sufficient to conclude that we know everything necessary to explain the existence of everything?

What new theory?
In his new book, Hawking claims that the reason the universe needs no creator is due to a "new theory" called M-theory (where "M" stands for "membrane," or just "m," or "murky" or "missing"1 depending upon one's particular version of the theory). Originally promoted as "superstring" theory 20 years ago, it has evolved from "strings" to "membranes," although all forms of the theory propose extra dimensions (11, in fact). However, M-theory is no single theory, but, rather, a number of theories through which one may obtain just about anything one wants. How one can test such a nebulous set of theories, which "predict" just about anything and everything, seems to be a problem.

M-theory: science or faith?
Stephen HawkingStephen Hawking
The nature of the universe requires that membranes from M-theory, if they exist at all, must be on the order of Planck length (10-35 m). Such a size is way less than microscopic or even well below subatomic particle sizes. In order to confirm such objects, one would need an accelerator on the order of 6,000,000,000,000,000 miles in circumference.2 It would seem likely, therefore, that confirmation of M-theory, based upon observable data, is impossible. Do such a set of theories that predict everything and anything and are not testable through observational data really fall within the realm of science?

Whence the laws of physics?
According to Stephen Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." However, neither gravity nor any other law of physics provides a mechanism by which universe can be spontaneously created. The question Hawking never answered was why those laws of physics exist? Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from "nothing," it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that such laws of physics would exist that universes to be created from nothing? Why wouldn't a true nothing consist of no laws of physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence?

Conclusion Top of page
So, Stephen Hawking wants us to believe that a nebulous set of theories, which cannot be confirmed through observational data, absolutely establishes that an infinite number of diverse universes exist, having been created from laws of physics that just happen to allow this. John Horgan, a fellow atheist, says that the popularity of M-theory is the result of "stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."3 Is it not more likely that a super-intelligent, powerful Being invented the laws of physics that produced the universe? Skeptics always ask, "Who created God?" Maybe they already have the answer to that question—Nothing! After all, they seem to think that nothing is a powerful force for creating things!

1) String People: Ed Witten.
2) Cosmic Clowning: Stephen Hawking's "new" theory of everything is the same old CRAP by John Horgan (Scientific American).
3) ibid. "For more than two decades string theory has been the most popular candidate for the unified theory that Hawking envisioned 30 years ago. Yet this popularity stems not from the theory's actual merits but rather from the lack of decent alternatives and the stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."

Introduction
The Grand Design?
Stephen Hawking's latest book is entitled The Grand Design. However, the book's conclusion is exactly the opposite—that the universe is not designed at all, but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will.

Rich Deem
Stephen Hawking has garnered a lot of admiration and respect as a brilliant physicist and cosmologist. His book, A Brief History of Time, is a bestseller for its ability to translate physics and cosmology into terms that a layman can understand. So, when he came out recently promoting his new book claiming, "There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no Gods required" a lot of people took notice. Is our understanding of physics really sufficient to conclude that we know everything necessary to explain the existence of everything?

What new theory?
In his new book, Hawking claims that the reason the universe needs no creator is due to a "new theory" called M-theory (where "M" stands for "membrane," or just "m," or "murky" or "missing"1 depending upon one's particular version of the theory). Originally promoted as "superstring" theory 20 years ago, it has evolved from "strings" to "membranes," although all forms of the theory propose extra dimensions (11, in fact). However, M-theory is no single theory, but, rather, a number of theories through which one may obtain just about anything one wants. How one can test such a nebulous set of theories, which "predict" just about anything and everything, seems to be a problem.

M-theory: science or faith?
Stephen HawkingStephen Hawking
The nature of the universe requires that membranes from M-theory, if they exist at all, must be on the order of Planck length (10-35 m). Such a size is way less than microscopic or even well below subatomic particle sizes. In order to confirm such objects, one would need an accelerator on the order of 6,000,000,000,000,000 miles in circumference.2 It would seem likely, therefore, that confirmation of M-theory, based upon observable data, is impossible. Do such a set of theories that predict everything and anything and are not testable through observational data really fall within the realm of science?

Whence the laws of physics?
According to Stephen Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." However, neither gravity nor any other law of physics provides a mechanism by which universe can be spontaneously created. The question Hawking never answered was why those laws of physics exist? Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from "nothing," it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that such laws of physics would exist that universes to be created from nothing? Why wouldn't a true nothing consist of no laws of physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence?

Conclusion Top of page
So, Stephen Hawking wants us to believe that a nebulous set of theories, which cannot be confirmed through observational data, absolutely establishes that an infinite number of diverse universes exist, having been created from laws of physics that just happen to allow this. John Horgan, a fellow atheist, says that the popularity of M-theory is the result of "stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."3 Is it not more likely that a super-intelligent, powerful Being invented the laws of physics that produced the universe? Skeptics always ask, "Who created God?" Maybe they already have the answer to that question—Nothing! After all, they seem to think that nothing is a powerful force for creating things!

1) String People: Ed Witten.
2) Cosmic Clowning: Stephen Hawking's "new" theory of everything is the same old CRAP by John Horgan (Scientific American).
3) ibid. "For more than two decades string theory has been the most popular candidate for the unified theory that Hawking envisioned 30 years ago. Yet this popularity stems not from the theory's actual merits but rather from the lack of decent alternatives and the stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."

an education




"Scientific Theory" Meaning
Now I just used the word "theory". "Theory" in the scientific use of the word is different than the everyday language usage today. Most people today use "theory" as just a hunch, guess, belief, or proposal. Science uses the original meaning of "theory": a logical, systematic set of principles or explanation that has been verified—has stood up against attempts to prove it false. In my astronomy class, students learn about how Newton's theory of gravity explains the motions of falling objects on the Earth and the motions of objects orbiting each other and we also dabble a little in Einstein's theory of General Relativity to understand what happens with black holes and the development, the evolution, of the universe. Astronomy students also learn about the atomic theory and how it explains the type of light we see from objects and what we see when we spread that light out into its rainbow of colors. Physics and chemistry students learn those theories too and how those theories explain other observations. Since I'm an astronomer, I hope you'll understand if I toot astronomy's horn: astronomers have been able to verify that nature uses the same rules or laws everywhere in the universe and since it takes light a long time to travel the great distances, astronomers have verified that nature has used the same rules or laws throughout its entire history. Another thing astronomers have discovered is that the universe has changed, or evolved, throughout time, just as geologists have discovered that the Earth has changed, or evolved, throughout its history.

Scientific theory meaning

I know what a theory is. It is based on scientific evidence. In order to qualify as a theory, it must be falsifiable. That's how science works. Evolution, abiogenesis, string theory...There is no way to falsify them, since they are not based on observed data or experiments. Therefore, they are not science. Merely speculation.

 

[RWNJ]

but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will
Just as believable as a man made god that is supposedly so great and knowing that he uses fear to keep his followers in line.

but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will
Just as believable as a man made god that is supposedly so great and knowing that he uses fear to keep his followers in line.

So, where did the Physical laws come from? What you fail to realize is that we live in a universe of cause and effect. Nothing can exist without a cause. This law does not apply to the creator, since He exists outside of time and space. Only something greater than the universe can create it. You guys think it was nothing. How silly is that?

Also, any sane person should fear God. But Christians do not obey out of fear. They obey because of love for the sacrifice He made for us.

I believe in fact. All we have are theories.
I know many sane people that don't fear God. Kind of an ignorant thing to say..
He didn't sacrifice anything for me. At least at this point that's how I look at it.

So, you don't consider the Creator of the universe dying for you a sacrifice? What would YOU consider a sacrifice? Please enlighten us?

 

[TNHarley]

but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will
Just as believable as a man made god that is supposedly so great and knowing that he uses fear to keep his followers in line.

but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will
Just as believable as a man made god that is supposedly so great and knowing that he uses fear to keep his followers in line.

So, where did the Physical laws come from? What you fail to realize is that we live in a universe of cause and effect. Nothing can exist without a cause. This law does not apply to the creator, since He exists outside of time and space. Only something greater than the universe can create it. You guys think it was nothing. How silly is that?

Also, any sane person should fear God. But Christians do not obey out of fear. They obey because of love for the sacrifice He made for us.

I believe in fact. All we have are theories.
I know many sane people that don't fear God. Kind of an ignorant thing to say..
He didn't sacrifice anything for me. At least at this point that's how I look at it.

So, you don't consider the Creator of the universe dying for you a sacrifice? What would YOU consider a sacrifice? Please enlighten us?

I don't believe it. So why would I?

 

[RWNJ]

but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will
Just as believable as a man made god that is supposedly so great and knowing that he uses fear to keep his followers in line.

but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will
Just as believable as a man made god that is supposedly so great and knowing that he uses fear to keep his followers in line.

So, where did the Physical laws come from? What you fail to realize is that we live in a universe of cause and effect. Nothing can exist without a cause. This law does not apply to the creator, since He exists outside of time and space. Only something greater than the universe can create it. You guys think it was nothing. How silly is that?

Also, any sane person should fear God. But Christians do not obey out of fear. They obey because of love for the sacrifice He made for us.

I believe in fact. All we have are theories.
I know many sane people that don't fear God. Kind of an ignorant thing to say..
He didn't sacrifice anything for me. At least at this point that's how I look at it.

So, you don't consider the Creator of the universe dying for you a sacrifice? What would YOU consider a sacrifice? Please enlighten us?

I don't believe it. So why would I?

Let me guess. You believe that everything came from nothing, and we aren't going anywhere? Did I get it right? That's what some scientists preach. Other scientists know better. Quite a few of them, in fact. And don't even try to bring up that 97 percent of scientists believe in evolution BS. That has been completely debunked.

 

[aris2chat]

Introduction
The Grand Design?
Stephen Hawking's latest book is entitled The Grand Design. However, the book's conclusion is exactly the opposite—that the universe is not designed at all, but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will.

Rich Deem
Stephen Hawking has garnered a lot of admiration and respect as a brilliant physicist and cosmologist. His book, A Brief History of Time, is a bestseller for its ability to translate physics and cosmology into terms that a layman can understand. So, when he came out recently promoting his new book claiming, "There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no Gods required" a lot of people took notice. Is our understanding of physics really sufficient to conclude that we know everything necessary to explain the existence of everything?

What new theory?
In his new book, Hawking claims that the reason the universe needs no creator is due to a "new theory" called M-theory (where "M" stands for "membrane," or just "m," or "murky" or "missing"1 depending upon one's particular version of the theory). Originally promoted as "superstring" theory 20 years ago, it has evolved from "strings" to "membranes," although all forms of the theory propose extra dimensions (11, in fact). However, M-theory is no single theory, but, rather, a number of theories through which one may obtain just about anything one wants. How one can test such a nebulous set of theories, which "predict" just about anything and everything, seems to be a problem.

M-theory: science or faith?
Stephen HawkingStephen Hawking
The nature of the universe requires that membranes from M-theory, if they exist at all, must be on the order of Planck length (10-35 m). Such a size is way less than microscopic or even well below subatomic particle sizes. In order to confirm such objects, one would need an accelerator on the order of 6,000,000,000,000,000 miles in circumference.2 It would seem likely, therefore, that confirmation of M-theory, based upon observable data, is impossible. Do such a set of theories that predict everything and anything and are not testable through observational data really fall within the realm of science?

Whence the laws of physics?
According to Stephen Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." However, neither gravity nor any other law of physics provides a mechanism by which universe can be spontaneously created. The question Hawking never answered was why those laws of physics exist? Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from "nothing," it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that such laws of physics would exist that universes to be created from nothing? Why wouldn't a true nothing consist of no laws of physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence?

Conclusion Top of page
So, Stephen Hawking wants us to believe that a nebulous set of theories, which cannot be confirmed through observational data, absolutely establishes that an infinite number of diverse universes exist, having been created from laws of physics that just happen to allow this. John Horgan, a fellow atheist, says that the popularity of M-theory is the result of "stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."3 Is it not more likely that a super-intelligent, powerful Being invented the laws of physics that produced the universe? Skeptics always ask, "Who created God?" Maybe they already have the answer to that question—Nothing! After all, they seem to think that nothing is a powerful force for creating things!

1) String People: Ed Witten.
2) Cosmic Clowning: Stephen Hawking's "new" theory of everything is the same old CRAP by John Horgan (Scientific American).
3) ibid. "For more than two decades string theory has been the most popular candidate for the unified theory that Hawking envisioned 30 years ago. Yet this popularity stems not from the theory's actual merits but rather from the lack of decent alternatives and the stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."

You didn't write this.

Why do you RWNJ traitors always believe they can get away with stealing the words of others. One would think they would have learned from Melania getting caught but no ...

WOW! You really are clueless. Did you see the name Richard Deem near the beginning of the article? I did not steal anything, you clueless punk. Nice try to deflect the conversation. Why don't you try addressing what was said in the article? That's what intelligent people do.

try to ignore and forgive the numb skulls

they do like to pick fights

 

[TNHarley]

but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will
Just as believable as a man made god that is supposedly so great and knowing that he uses fear to keep his followers in line.

but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will
Just as believable as a man made god that is supposedly so great and knowing that he uses fear to keep his followers in line.

So, where did the Physical laws come from? What you fail to realize is that we live in a universe of cause and effect. Nothing can exist without a cause. This law does not apply to the creator, since He exists outside of time and space. Only something greater than the universe can create it. You guys think it was nothing. How silly is that?

Also, any sane person should fear God. But Christians do not obey out of fear. They obey because of love for the sacrifice He made for us.

I believe in fact. All we have are theories.
I know many sane people that don't fear God. Kind of an ignorant thing to say..
He didn't sacrifice anything for me. At least at this point that's how I look at it.

So, you don't consider the Creator of the universe dying for you a sacrifice? What would YOU consider a sacrifice? Please enlighten us?

I don't believe it. So why would I?

Let me guess. You believe that everything came from nothing, and we aren't going anywhere? Did I get it right? That's what some scientists preach. Other scientists know better. Quite a few of them, in fact. And don't even try to bring up that 97 percent of scientists believe in evolution BS. That has been completely debunked.

No.
Idk where we came from.

 

[RWNJ]

Introduction
The Grand Design?
Stephen Hawking's latest book is entitled The Grand Design. However, the book's conclusion is exactly the opposite—that the universe is not designed at all, but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will.

Rich Deem
Stephen Hawking has garnered a lot of admiration and respect as a brilliant physicist and cosmologist. His book, A Brief History of Time, is a bestseller for its ability to translate physics and cosmology into terms that a layman can understand. So, when he came out recently promoting his new book claiming, "There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no Gods required" a lot of people took notice. Is our understanding of physics really sufficient to conclude that we know everything necessary to explain the existence of everything?

What new theory?
In his new book, Hawking claims that the reason the universe needs no creator is due to a "new theory" called M-theory (where "M" stands for "membrane," or just "m," or "murky" or "missing"1 depending upon one's particular version of the theory). Originally promoted as "superstring" theory 20 years ago, it has evolved from "strings" to "membranes," although all forms of the theory propose extra dimensions (11, in fact). However, M-theory is no single theory, but, rather, a number of theories through which one may obtain just about anything one wants. How one can test such a nebulous set of theories, which "predict" just about anything and everything, seems to be a problem.

M-theory: science or faith?
Stephen HawkingStephen Hawking
The nature of the universe requires that membranes from M-theory, if they exist at all, must be on the order of Planck length (10-35 m). Such a size is way less than microscopic or even well below subatomic particle sizes. In order to confirm such objects, one would need an accelerator on the order of 6,000,000,000,000,000 miles in circumference.2 It would seem likely, therefore, that confirmation of M-theory, based upon observable data, is impossible. Do such a set of theories that predict everything and anything and are not testable through observational data really fall within the realm of science?

Whence the laws of physics?
According to Stephen Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." However, neither gravity nor any other law of physics provides a mechanism by which universe can be spontaneously created. The question Hawking never answered was why those laws of physics exist? Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from "nothing," it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that such laws of physics would exist that universes to be created from nothing? Why wouldn't a true nothing consist of no laws of physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence?

Conclusion Top of page
So, Stephen Hawking wants us to believe that a nebulous set of theories, which cannot be confirmed through observational data, absolutely establishes that an infinite number of diverse universes exist, having been created from laws of physics that just happen to allow this. John Horgan, a fellow atheist, says that the popularity of M-theory is the result of "stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."3 Is it not more likely that a super-intelligent, powerful Being invented the laws of physics that produced the universe? Skeptics always ask, "Who created God?" Maybe they already have the answer to that question—Nothing! After all, they seem to think that nothing is a powerful force for creating things!

1) String People: Ed Witten.
2) Cosmic Clowning: Stephen Hawking's "new" theory of everything is the same old CRAP by John Horgan (Scientific American).
3) ibid. "For more than two decades string theory has been the most popular candidate for the unified theory that Hawking envisioned 30 years ago. Yet this popularity stems not from the theory's actual merits but rather from the lack of decent alternatives and the stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."

You didn't write this.

Why do you RWNJ traitors always believe they can get away with stealing the words of others. One would think they would have learned from Melania getting caught but no ...

WOW! You really are clueless. Did you see the name Richard Deem near the beginning of the article? I did not steal anything, you clueless punk. Nice try to deflect the conversation. Why don't you try addressing what was said in the article? That's what intelligent people do.

try to ignore and forgive the numb skulls

they do like to pick fights

True. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen anyone comment on what was actually mentioned in the article. Have you? A lot of deflection going on here.

 

[RWNJ]

So, where did the Physical laws come from? What you fail to realize is that we live in a universe of cause and effect. Nothing can exist without a cause. This law does not apply to the creator, since He exists outside of time and space. Only something greater than the universe can create it. You guys think it was nothing. How silly is that?

Also, any sane person should fear God. But Christians do not obey out of fear. They obey because of love for the sacrifice He made for us.

I believe in fact. All we have are theories.
I know many sane people that don't fear God. Kind of an ignorant thing to say..
He didn't sacrifice anything for me. At least at this point that's how I look at it.

So, you don't consider the Creator of the universe dying for you a sacrifice? What would YOU consider a sacrifice? Please enlighten us?

I don't believe it. So why would I?

Let me guess. You believe that everything came from nothing, and we aren't going anywhere? Did I get it right? That's what some scientists preach. Other scientists know better. Quite a few of them, in fact. And don't even try to bring up that 97 percent of scientists believe in evolution BS. That has been completely debunked.

No.
Idk where we came from.

At least you're honest. Do you believe that a Creator is a possibility, or are you ruling it out?

 

[L.K.Eder]

completely copied and unsourced.