Stephen Hawking got it wrong.

[jillian]

Accepting the Big Bang as a plausible cosmic origin story doesn't mean rejecting G-d. It just means that you accept the concept that G-d works smart, not hard.

no, it means you accept science and realize the creation STORY in the bible is an allegory.

 

[fncceo]

Science is a methodology for observing nature. It in no way negates my concept of G-d.

There's nothing wrong with accepting scripture as allegory.

 

[ding]

Accepting the Big Bang as a plausible cosmic origin story doesn't mean rejecting G-d. It just means that you accept the concept that G-d works smart, not hard.

no, it means you accept science and realize the creation STORY in the bible is an allegory.

Yes, it is an allegorical account of creation. A surprisingly accurate one no less.

 

[yiostheoy]

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."

One of the most obvious white elephants in the room is that S.Hawking is a total moron.

 

[fncceo]

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."

One of the most obvious white elephants in the room is that S.Hawking is a total moron.

And Georgina Wilkins is a big fattie.

 

[Penelope]

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

Young readers will want to use a brown pen to color the face of Ham who appears right near the end of the book after God turns him into the first Negro for staring at his dad's (Noah's) hootchie.

Oh my gosh, that book needs to be burned.

Pretty much sounds like Devos.

 

[Penelope]

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?

I don't doubt a supreme being at all. I

Then there is hope for you yet. The Bible tells us that God will reveal Himself to those who diligently seek Him. Notice the word diligently.

adjective
1.
constant in effort to accomplish something; attentive and persistent in doing anything:
a diligent student.
2.
done or pursued with persevering attention; painstaking:
a diligent search of the files.

I wish you luck.

I wish you luck, if something is so difficult and painful, what an effort you put forth, I guess the Holy Spirit is not working for you.

 

[Penelope]

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

Landover-Baptizon.com: buying info: The Little Jew : Adventures of Levi, The Dancing Cockroach

The Little Jew : (Levi, The Dancing Cockroach)

 

[Unkotare]

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."

it's so cute that you think a genius is wrong, but your idiot self is smarter.

aren't you embarrassed?

never mind... trump scum are never embarrassed

Isn't what you do here -ALL you do here - pretend your idiot self is smarter than, well, anyone?

 

[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."

it's so cute that you think a genius is wrong, but your idiot self is smarter.

aren't you embarrassed?

never mind... trump scum are never embarrassed

Isn't what you do here -ALL you do here - pretend your idiot self is smarter than, well, anyone?

If some people were twice as smart as they think they are, they'd be half as smart as a door knob.