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.I'm still confused as to why you've brought religion into this or see my posts as an attack on religion.
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.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.
1. Creation science has nothing to do with religion.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.
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.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.
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.1. Creation science has nothing to do with religion.
Now try doing that in a vacuum. Even the article explains how light = c.PhoenixOverdrive; said:
Huh? It's a direct product of religion.1. Creation science has nothing to do with religion.
Oh, you merely assumed that he follows some scientific dogma and is blind to the "truth."2. I had nothing but nice things to say about Hawkins. I never called the guy an idiot.
Hey, that's really special. So just sit back and be content? If it's so obvious, then science poses no threat, right?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?
Time warp? You posted before I even saw this topic, a post that was religious.4. I never said it was an attack on religion. You're the one that brought religion into the discussion.
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.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.
Science is just another thing that's right until it's wrong.
Because I haven't gotten an answer or even acknowledgment of my previous arguments. You're clearly avoiding them.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.
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.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 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."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.
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.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.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Stephen Hawking Dead at 76||Science & History||4|
|V||Lance Stephenson to Clippers||NBA||0|
|Renowned Physicist Stephen Hawking Frequents Sex Clubs||Offbeat News||3|
|Stephen Hawking: Heaven is "a fairy story"||Religion & Philosophy||6|
|You Have to Respect Stephen Hawking||Science & History||5|