Hawking says physics proves there is no time for "Gawd".

[Youwerecreated]

No, there isn't, the Big Bang is very well supported by the evidence, and yes, yes you are a moron.



We know the Earth is much older than that from radio-isotope dating moron.

HowStuffWorks "Problems with the Big Bang Theory"

BB top 30 problems

Why the Big Bang is Wrong

I had a suspicion you'd be entirely incapable of describing anything in your own words.

Oh poopy please look up all the threads I have debated in on these issues, I am tired of repeating everything I have in other threads. You will also find my genetic argument and my mutation argument,plus many more.

People like you and daws look to argue from the stand point of ignorance this is clear.

 

[Youwerecreated]

ROTFL................a day much longer. Let's see.........the lying bible said Methuselah lived over 900 years. Using your logic that old son-of-a-***** would have been around 2000 years. The people who wrote the bible were probably confused about what a day was. They were still shitting on the ground, wiping on their hand, believed in ghosts and witches and thought the earth was flat. How goddamed stupid is that

The people you are referring to as ignorant and stupid built pyramids,temples,and coliseums. Your ignorance blossoms once again.

When you post, all is needed is to consider the source.

those same people are the ones that you claim could not have done what they did with out so called Divine intervention....again you have no valid evidence to bolster those claims
BTW the coliseum was built by romans long before the advent of their conversion to Christianity.
so their intervention must have come from the roman pantheon of gods..
next time you call someone ignorant .stop and look in a mirror first.

What I said was they could not have done what they did with just copper tools. Get it right next time. The only claim I made to them being ignorant to, was some of the things written about in the bible that they had no way to know until modern day science. That showed the scriptures were divinely inspired.

In clearer words, there is foreknowledge in the bible.

 

[koshergrl]

Good lord, is somebody using the "evidence that confirms the validity of your argument is cheating" cop out argument again?

I thought we put that idiocy to rest already.

 

[Greenbeard]

The fact that energy cannot be created does NOT beg the question "where did it come from." Since it can't be created it always existed. There is no "before it existed." There is no "prior to itself" because there is no "prior."

What you have confused is energy and time. You have them flip-flopped.

You see energy as having a beginning and an end, it doesn't!
You see time as eternal, it isn't!
Time has a beginning and an end, it is not eternal, in fact, time is not even constant, a change in motion will cause time to speed up or slow down. There was never a time before energy. Energy already existed before time began and energy will continue to exist in the same total quantity after time ends.

The fact that energy can't be created and therefore always existed is not a theory, it is a proven Law, the FLoT. It was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule and therefore cannot be pontificated away as you have been doing. To claim energy must be created you need to prove it with a repeatable experiment!

It's okay to say that about energy but Christians get ridiculed when we replace it with GOD????

to be a god energy would have to some sentient component there is no evidence that it does.
using your line of reasoning, we should be worshiping electricity and calling it our lord.

There's a strange and puzzling urge in this thread to deify a mathematical relationship. Part of me wants to blame Star Trek for its "energy being" concept.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Its dismissed based on the fact that in 1993 they would not have had the data that indicates heat death is still possible. DUH.

The data doesn't actually back it up though, it just backs up an expanding universe. Believe it or not, those are two separate issues. Boltzmann has postulated that, in an expanding universe, heat death is impossible because the expanding universe will actually increase disorder, which would reverse entropy.

The math is actually pretty simple when you consider it from the standpoint of probability. Thermodynamics is one of those things that works on a small scale and falls apart on a cosmic scale.

• Boltzmann, L. (1974). The second law of thermodynamics. Populare Schriften, Essay 3, address to a formal meeting of the Imperial Academy of Science, 29 May 1886, reprinted in Ludwig Boltzmann, Theoretical physics and philosophical problem, S. G. Brush (Trans.). Boston: Reidel. (Original work published 1886)
• Boltzmann, L. (1974). The second law of thermodynamics. p. 20
• "Collier's Encyclopedia", Volume 19 Phyfe to Reni, Physics, by David Park, p. 15
• "Collier's Encyclopedia", Volume 22 Sylt to Uruguay, Thermodynamics, by Leo Peters, p. 275

And you've actually looked at all these sources yourself? Or did you just cut and paste them from a webpage that claims these sources support what you say? Because I'm not going to waste my time going to the library unless you've done the same.

EDIT - Aren't the first two sources the same damn book? (see bold) I love it when bloggers source the same thing multiple times to make themselves look more thoroughly researched. I'm guessing you didn't bother to check these out yourself at all, and I won't bother until you do.

They are the same book, supporting different points in the article I used as a source. Feel free to go through them and prove I don;t know what I am talking about, or you could simply dismiss the entire theory because you don't like where it leads. The latter is the one I expect.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, if Hawking is right, it wasn't always there, it just suddenly was.

What I get from Hawking is that it doesn't matter where it came from. Whether it came out of nothing or is the result of a previous "big crunch" or some aliens made it in a test tube - nothing that happened before its beginning could affect anything after its beginning thus it doesn't matter. It doesn't even make sense to consider "time" itself to have existed "before" the big bang.

How is that quantitatively different than what I said?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

HowStuffWorks "How Evolution Works"

Evolution is totally irrelevant to abiogenesis.

Only if you consider abiogensis to involve something being not alive one instance and then the next instant alive. Its very likely that there existed millions of years of "gray area" - where stuff was in a state that we might consider today to be a alive or not alive. In that case evolution most certainly played a role.

It really doesn't matter what I consider to be abiogenesis, or you either, it is an actual field of scientific study that is distinct from evolution. Abiogeneisis is how life began, evolution is how life changed. Even if it changed before it began, like you want to believe, that is still separate from evolution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong, it has been proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule that energy cannot be created, meaning it has always existed, nor destroyed, meaning it will always exist. Until you come up with an experiment that proves otherwise, you are stuck with that REALITY.

Apparently you missed the OP. According to Hawing there was a point where time did not exist, which would mean that nothing actually existed because everything in this universe is a function of space-time. That would mean that energy had to have been created before we could prove it is impossible to create.

This isn't anything new - Hawking didn't come up with this idea - that time did not exist "before" the Big Bang is implicit in general relativity. Space didn't exist either.

Also, OohPoo actually posted a link showing that, under some circumstances, energy can be created.

Energy Is Not Conserved | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine

Um, wrong. Hawking is using math to show that time did not exist before the big bang. Since the big bang is not part of relativity it is not implicit in relativity unless you apply it to things it is not meant to cover.

 

[daws101]

The people you are referring to as ignorant and stupid built pyramids,temples,and coliseums. Your ignorance blossoms once again.

When you post, all is needed is to consider the source.

those same people are the ones that you claim could not have done what they did with out so called Divine intervention....again you have no valid evidence to bolster those claims
BTW the coliseum was built by romans long before the advent of their conversion to Christianity.
so their intervention must have come from the roman pantheon of gods..
next time you call someone ignorant .stop and look in a mirror first.

What I said was they could not have done what they did with just copper tools. Get it right next time. The only claim I made to them being ignorant to, was some of the things written about in the bible that they had no way to know until modern day science. That showed the scriptures were divinely inspired.

In clearer words, there is foreknowledge in the bible.

why is IT your memory goes to shit every time you get called out..
your WHOLE unprovable fairytale is based on the bogus notion that humans could not have developed intelligence with out some sentient being to create it (creationism) .
you're attempting (and failing) to dodge the issue.
as I recall I handed you your ass on the copper tools claim.


this statement: "was some of the things written about in the bible that they had no way to know until modern day science. That showed the scriptures were divinely inspired."-YWC is a bunch of shit.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Evolution is totally irrelevant to abiogenesis.

Only if you consider abiogensis to involve something being not alive one instance and then the next instant alive. Its very likely that there existed millions of years of "gray area" - where stuff was in a state that we might consider today to be a alive or not alive. In that case evolution most certainly played a role.

It really doesn't matter what I consider to be abiogenesis, or you either, it is an actual field of scientific study that is distinct from evolution. Abiogeneisis is how life began, evolution is how life changed. Even if it changed before it began, like you want to believe, that is still separate from evolution.

Yeah right, its a "distinct" field in much the same way that the study of white dwarfs and supernovae are "distinct" fields.


Where do you come up with this crap?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The data doesn't actually back it up though, it just backs up an expanding universe. Believe it or not, those are two separate issues. Boltzmann has postulated that, in an expanding universe, heat death is impossible because the expanding universe will actually increase disorder, which would reverse entropy.

The math is actually pretty simple when you consider it from the standpoint of probability. Thermodynamics is one of those things that works on a small scale and falls apart on a cosmic scale.

• Boltzmann, L. (1974). The second law of thermodynamics. Populare Schriften, Essay 3, address to a formal meeting of the Imperial Academy of Science, 29 May 1886, reprinted in Ludwig Boltzmann, Theoretical physics and philosophical problem, S. G. Brush (Trans.). Boston: Reidel. (Original work published 1886)
• Boltzmann, L. (1974). The second law of thermodynamics. p. 20
• "Collier's Encyclopedia", Volume 19 Phyfe to Reni, Physics, by David Park, p. 15
• "Collier's Encyclopedia", Volume 22 Sylt to Uruguay, Thermodynamics, by Leo Peters, p. 275

And you've actually looked at all these sources yourself? Or did you just cut and paste them from a webpage that claims these sources support what you say? Because I'm not going to waste my time going to the library unless you've done the same.

EDIT - Aren't the first two sources the same damn book? (see bold) I love it when bloggers source the same thing multiple times to make themselves look more thoroughly researched. I'm guessing you didn't bother to check these out yourself at all, and I won't bother until you do.

They are the same book, supporting different points in the article I used as a source.

You don't list a source twice in the references just because its cited twice in the text, that's idiotic. You've got very poor writing skills.

Feel free to go through them and prove I don;t know what I am talking about, or you could simply dismiss the entire theory because you don't like where it leads. The latter is the one I expect.

Why should I have to go through all those books when you haven't even cracked a single one of them? You expect me to do all the work? You just cut and pasted them from someone else's web page who claims they support what you claim to be true - but haven't actually looked at a single one of them to verify that indeed they do support your view. In fact you didn't even link to the webpage that you cut and pasted the references from. I call that intellectual laziness at best and dishonesty at worst.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I see lots of guesses.

Yeah no one really knows.

So I guess life was first made by The Thing That Made The Things For Which There Is No Known Maker And That Causes And Directs The Events That We Can't Otherwise Explain And Doesn't Need To Have Been Made And Is The One Thing From Which You Can Ask For Things That No Human Can Give And Without Whom We Can't Be Fully Happy And Is Unlimited By All The Laws Of Physics And Never Began And Will Never Finish And Is Invisible But Actually Everywhere At Once And Who Is So Perfect That Even If He Killed Millions Of People Including Babies He'd Still Be Perfect And Who Is So Powerful And Magical He Could Even Make A Virgin Pregnant If He Wanted To.

Your theories are no less preposterous than the idea of a Creator.

The Big Bang theory has successfully made predictions about observation. Genesis has not. The Big Bang theory is testable. Genesis is not.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

HowStuffWorks "Problems with the Big Bang Theory"

BB top 30 problems

Why the Big Bang is Wrong

I had a suspicion you'd be entirely incapable of describing anything in your own words.

Oh poopy please look up all the threads....

I require you actually put forth some effort at proving your point before I put forth effort at disproving it.

I am tired of repeating everything I have in other threads.

Then post links to them fart brain.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Apparently you missed the OP. According to Hawing there was a point where time did not exist, which would mean that nothing actually existed because everything in this universe is a function of space-time. That would mean that energy had to have been created before we could prove it is impossible to create.

This isn't anything new - Hawking didn't come up with this idea - that time did not exist "before" the Big Bang is implicit in general relativity. Space didn't exist either.

Also, OohPoo actually posted a link showing that, under some circumstances, energy can be created.

Energy Is Not Conserved | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine

Um, wrong. Hawking is using math to show that time did not exist before the big bang.

Lets see it then. Show me the math.

Since the big bang is not part of relativity it is not implicit in relativity unless you apply it to things it is not meant to cover.

Sure. Tell that to Alexander Friedmann or Georges Lemaître.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Only if you consider abiogensis to involve something being not alive one instance and then the next instant alive. Its very likely that there existed millions of years of "gray area" - where stuff was in a state that we might consider today to be a alive or not alive. In that case evolution most certainly played a role.

It really doesn't matter what I consider to be abiogenesis, or you either, it is an actual field of scientific study that is distinct from evolution. Abiogeneisis is how life began, evolution is how life changed. Even if it changed before it began, like you want to believe, that is still separate from evolution.

Yeah right, its a "distinct" field in much the same way that the study of white dwarfs and supernovae are "distinct" fields.


Where do you come up with this crap?

Abiogenesis is biochemistry, evolution is biology. If you don't understand the difference I suggest you pick up some books.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You don't list a source twice in the references just because its cited twice in the text, that's idiotic. You've got very poor writing skills.

You do if it is different pages.

Why should I have to go through all those books when you haven't even cracked a single one of them? You expect me to do all the work? You just cut and pasted them from someone else's web page who claims they support what you claim to be true - but haven't actually looked at a single one of them to verify that indeed they do support your view. In fact you didn't even link to the webpage that you cut and pasted the references from. I call that intellectual laziness at best and dishonesty at worst.

I read the first book you dismissed because you think you know what it says. Feel free to go through it and prove me wrong, I actually provided you with a link to the book on Google Books.

 

[jillian]

Hawking has bat shit for brains. No time for God, put plenty of time for the Big Bang when there was no time?

i'm sure he'll be very distressed that someone with a double digit IQ like you thinks a genius like Hawkings is brainless.

the irony is lovely.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lets see it then. Show me the math.

I can't follow all of Hawking's math, what makes you think you can? Or do you think that when he says that the gravity in a black hole makes time impossible he is making a wild guess, the way you handle all that science stuff?

Sure. Tell that to Alexander Friedmann or Georges Lemaître.

The Big Bang is a theory about how the universe began, relativity is a theory that describes the relationship between energy and matter, and it shows that space is curved. Believe it or not, every physicist currently alive understands the difference. As a matter of fact, Einstein created the cosmological constant because he assumed that the steady state universe was the correct theory. How does that fit in with the big bang being implied in relativity?

Lemaitre and Einstein actually disagreed about whether or not the universe was expanding. If Einstein's theory implies the big bang you would think he would have had less trouble accepting the expanding universe.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yeah no one really knows.

So I guess life was first made by The Thing That Made The Things For Which There Is No Known Maker And That Causes And Directs The Events That We Can't Otherwise Explain And Doesn't Need To Have Been Made And Is The One Thing From Which You Can Ask For Things That No Human Can Give And Without Whom We Can't Be Fully Happy And Is Unlimited By All The Laws Of Physics And Never Began And Will Never Finish And Is Invisible But Actually Everywhere At Once And Who Is So Perfect That Even If He Killed Millions Of People Including Babies He'd Still Be Perfect And Who Is So Powerful And Magical He Could Even Make A Virgin Pregnant If He Wanted To.

Your theories are no less preposterous than the idea of a Creator.

The Big Bang theory has successfully made predictions about observation. Genesis has not. The Big Bang theory is testable. Genesis is not.

Well you are right about genesis.

Job 9:8 who alone stretches out the heavens, and walks on the waves of the sea;

Isa 40:22 It is He who sits on the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in;

Isa 44:24 So says Jehovah, your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb, I am Jehovah who makes all things; who stretches out the heavens alone; who spreads out the earth; who was with Me?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I had a suspicion you'd be entirely incapable of describing anything in your own words.

Oh poopy please look up all the threads....

I require you actually put forth some effort at proving your point before I put forth effort at disproving it.

I am tired of repeating everything I have in other threads.

Then post links to them fart brain.

Just go read previous debates many here can verify I have participated in many debates here and I brought forth many arguments.

Just remember when you step in it ,I'll be there.