• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Stephen Hawking suggests 'theory of everything'

Gavik

Registered Member
Your argument sounds familiar.


We have absolutely no clue about the big questions of life.....



..but we are absolutely sure it wasn't God.
I'm still confused as to why you've brought religion into this or see my posts as an attack on religion.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
I'm still confused as to why you've brought religion into this or see my posts as an attack on religion.
I didn't bring religion into the thread. My original comment was about a very smart man trying to answer the world's oldest question and ignoring the most obvious answer.
 

Gavik

Registered Member
I didn't bring religion into the thread. My original comment was about a very smart man trying to answer the world's oldest question and ignoring the most obvious answer.
Again, why bring religion into a science debate. All he said was "god wasn't necessarily required increasing the universe" and all the sudden he's just an idiot who has "no clue" about the world that attacks god and the bible.

You're disregarding not only the actual statement, but all evidence behind it in favor of anti-science dogma where you, a mere mortal behind a screen and keyboard, know the fundamental truths of existence. And no, don't give me this "only god knows" rhetoric. It's clear from your posts that you hold your self and views in higher esteem than all of science.

This was never an attack on religion or the faithful, simply an exploration of the world around us. Why you see this as so ignorant and offensive is the real mystery here.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
Again, why bring religion into a science debate. All he said was "god wasn't necessarily required increasing the universe" and all the sudden he's just an idiot who has "no clue" about the world that attacks god and the bible.

You're disregarding not only the actual statement, but all evidence behind it in favor of anti-science dogma where you, a mere mortal behind a screen and keyboard, know the fundamental truths of existence. And no, don't give me this "only god knows" rhetoric. It's clear from your posts that you hold your self and views in higher esteem than all of science.

This was never an attack on religion or the faithful, simply an exploration of the world around us. Why you see this as so ignorant and offensive is the real mystery here.
1. Creation science has nothing to do with religion.
2. I had nothing but nice things to say about Hawkins. I never called the guy an idiot.
3. Yes, I do know the fundamental truths of existence. Why are we here? What are we to do here? Where are we going when we die?
4. I never said it was an attack on religion. You're the one that brought religion into the discussion.
 

Bananas

Endangered Species
I didn't bring religion into the thread. My original comment was about a very smart man trying to answer the world's oldest question and ignoring the most obvious answer.
Ive read a few articles on his book and it is not ignoring the most obvious answer, it is highlighting it. The answer being; gravity.

1. Creation science has nothing to do with religion.
It has everything to do with religion. Science makes the theory, it is not the theory that makes the science. I tell you what if your statement stands true I have a little challenge for you, find me one christian scientist who believes the Hindu creation story to be true, or find me one atheist scientist who believes the christian creation story to be true, or do this with any theist mix.

If you ask I will give you many Christians, Hindus and atheists who believe the scientific theories of creation before that and over the Creation science.

PhoenixOverdrive; said:
As for light, here is something for you to read. February 18th, 1999. There have been countless experiments like this since.
Now try doing that in a vacuum. Even the article explains how light = c.
 

Gavik

Registered Member
1. Creation science has nothing to do with religion.
Huh? It's a direct product of religion.

2. I had nothing but nice things to say about Hawkins. I never called the guy an idiot.
Oh, you merely assumed that he follows some scientific dogma and is blind to the "truth."

3. Yes, I do know the fundamental truths of existence. Why are we here? What are we to do here? Where are we going when we die?
Hey, that's really special. So just sit back and be content? If it's so obvious, then science poses no threat, right?

4. I never said it was an attack on religion. You're the one that brought religion into the discussion.
Time warp? You posted before I even saw this topic, a post that was religious.

Way to avoid all my arguments at once. I was simply pointing out that you sound like an enigmatic preacher with acute logophobia, and that your arguments are very judgmental and inconsistent.

Informed discussion means you get informed about what you discuss prior to flinging baseless ideas around. That's an outdated model, in case you're not aware, practiced by our remote ancestors. Our methods have evolved with us.

Scholarly discussion means you act all high and mighty because you've been to school for far too long and have learned nothing you couldn't have learned in a tenth of the time on your own. You get a nice piece of paper with your name on it. Whether you consider yourself a scholar or not, the facts do not change, and are available to everyone. I happen to do a lot of research on my own time.

So once again, don't try to avoid all my arguments at once with, well, nothing to show for it. Get informed, get civilized, and learn to string more than two sentences together in a coherent manner. I've debated against scholars of all kinds (a bunch with nifty abbreviations next to their names), won a good deal while learning new things, and I swear you couldn't make a grade school team the way you're going about it.

If you DO suffer from logophobia, I can cure that. I'll do it the hard way and charge extra on principle, but it would be a great investment, if you want any sort of intellectual future.
Okay, now I'm just confused. Clearly, you're a super cool, super smart guy who is just that awesome, and I have yet to receive my PhD in physics. But suddenly I'm an uniformed, judgmental, uncivilized, pretentious, logophobic preacher that refuses to see reason. Cool story, bro.

If you'd actually like to come down from your inexplicable pretension attitude and discuss theories in physics, go right ahead. But honestly, I'm still confused as to why you're even posting. After all:

Who cares?

Science is just another thing that's right until it's wrong.
 

PhoenixOverdrive

Registered Member
Okay, now I'm just confused. Clearly, you're a super cool, super smart guy who is just that awesome, and I have yet to receive my PhD in physics. But suddenly I'm an uniformed, judgmental, uncivilized, pretentious, logophobic preacher that refuses to see reason. Cool story, bro.

If you'd actually like to come down from your inexplicable pretension attitude and discuss theories in physics, go right ahead. But honestly, I'm still confused as to why you're even posting.
Because I haven't gotten an answer or even acknowledgment of my previous arguments. You're clearly avoiding them.

I'm not really sure what kind of institution would let you obtain a PhD in physics considering you're living in another decade. Confused? Read my arguments.

And science is based on having a model that fits until it doesn't, and then it needs an overhaul. I've seen it happen a few times over already, and that's just in my short lifetime. I don't care whether there's yet another theory out there, just what we'll actually accomplish with this model.

So answer the points I've made in an informed manner (i.e. learn before you preach) or don't bother next time you need oxygen. It's good to see you're using more words, but you can't fool me; you're just repeating what I told you. I know parrots who can do the same.

By the way, did you realize the implications now that we've known that the speed of light is not by any means a constant? If you're interested in physics at all, you might want to learn a few things along the way. I find myself doing a bit of research myself when an earth-shattering paradigm shift in my perception of the universe happens.

We don't live in a vacuum, you know.
 

Gavik

Registered Member
Because I haven't gotten an answer or even acknowledgment of my previous arguments. You're clearly avoiding them.

I'm not really sure what kind of institution would let you obtain a PhD in physics considering you're living in another decade. Confused? Read my arguments.

And science is based on having a model that fits until it doesn't, and then it needs an overhaul. I've seen it happen a few times over already, and that's just in my short lifetime. I don't care whether there's yet another theory out there, just what we'll actually accomplish with this model.

So answer the points I've made in an informed manner (i.e. learn before you preach) or don't bother next time you need oxygen. It's good to see you're using more words, but you can't fool me; you're just repeating what I told you. I know parrots who can do the same.

By the way, did you realize the implications now that we've known that the speed of light is not by any means a constant? If you're interested in physics at all, you might want to learn a few things along the way. I find myself doing a bit of research myself when an earth-shattering paradigm shift in my perception of the universe happens.

We don't live in a vacuum, you know.
I would love to respond to your argument. The problem is that you haven't presented one. Every one of your posts so far has just ranted about how either contemporary science doesn't know anything or I am some sort of uninformed preacher. The irony of all this is that most of your statements don't even contradict what I said. Your only "evidence" (for what is still a mystery) is an article that explicitly states that the results of the experiment don't conflict with Relativity.

And I'm afraid that I'm still just as confused by your need to make your posts increasingly personal. I was unaware that anyone was trying to "fool" you or parroting anything. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?
 

Ilus_Unistus

Registered Member
I think it is important to note seeing this debate that a Theory in the way Stephen Hawking is presenting is nothing more than speculation until proven 100% fact. There are millions of these scientific theories out there surrounding our Universe, it is even this kind of Theory about how and why we have a moon orbiting Earth. This is one concept of the word Theory I do not like, just to use the Moon as an example, this Theory was recently changed as to what we know use as fact as to how the Moon was formed. It is like science takes a Theory or idea before a board of scientist and a vote is made to say "this is the theory we will use as fact." It is still a Theory because it can not be proven with a 100% accuracy, but known as fact... Theory is a tricky word.

I accept Theories that I feel simply have no better answers or theories to answer the question of the theory, but I still see it as not 100% accurate, weather it is about evolution, creation or where the Universe comes from. Science is not perfect, but it comes very close and the fact theories or what we know as fact from theories changes occasionally tells me we are still learning more each day.

I am not sure why this became a debate over religion... but the fact is there is NO facts to prove anything either way, only Theories so why argue? It is pointless.
 

Gavik

Registered Member
It is like science takes a Theory or idea before a board of scientist and a vote is made to say "this is the theory we will use as fact." It is still a Theory because it can not be proven with a 100% accuracy, but known as fact... Theory is a tricky word.
I know you're only using this image for the argument, but what annoys me is that people actually think that this is what happens in "science."

I am not sure why this became a debate over religion... but the fact is there is NO facts to prove anything either way, only Theories so why argue? It is pointless.
There are stacks of evidence on both sides right now. The number 1 criticism of M Theory is that it might be unprovable, even if it was true. Questions like "How do we detect the predicted extra dimensions?" arise, and gravitons have yet to be found. With our current knowledge of the quantum world, M theory presents some nice ideas that tie it all together. However, with our limited understand of the key concepts, I don't see how it could be 100% right.
 
Top