Stephen Hawking Says the Universe Was Not Created by God

This appeal to authority is fallacious:

Stephen Hawking says God doesn't exist and since Stephen Hawking is smart it must be true.

Sounds just like:

My pastor says God exists and since my pastor is smart it must be true.

I care just as much of Hawking's opinion of God as I do Joe Torre's opinion of the Miami Heat.

QFT, dawkins too lol.
 


But what if there not atoms there actually something else with different physical structures and properties..

If you want a complete mind fuck imagine the galaxies are atoms for something even bigger or it's actually one big loop where atoms are actually galaxies ;)

I understand where you're coming from and I've spent time wondering things like that as well. But I think its fairly irresponsible to do so.

I don't have all of the answers and neither does the scientific community. Though, I am fairly certain that I am not a giant cluster of galaxies and neither are you and neither is the tree outside my window and the window itself and so forth. I can't subscribe to that.
 
I understand where you're coming from and I've spent time wondering things like that as well. But I think its fairly irresponsible to do so.

I don't have all of the answers and neither does the scientific community. Though, I am fairly certain that I am not a giant cluster of galaxies and neither are you and neither is the tree outside my window and the window itself and so forth. I can't subscribe to that.

But if you can't see an atom how do you know there's nothing smaller than an atom on one? ;)

Nothings impossible.
 
> If you want a complete mind fuck imagine the galaxies are atoms for something even
> bigger or it's actually one big loop where atoms are actually galaxies

Religion uses only imagination only. A ten year old could imagine what Moses invented when he came down from the mountain. Someone who claims out of nowhere that the universe was defecated into existence by a giant unicorn is doing exactly what our ancient ancestors did when they invented their religious explanations of the universe.

These religious ancestors got away with it because no-one knew any better.

But no piece of human knowledge has been invented in that way for over four hundred years. You can imagine all you want, but when it comes to making a claim, such as super strings or zero energy universe, you have to go to the table with a shitload more than your imagination.




Evolution pulls non life to live out of their ass also. Dont think its perfect (not even close).
If you walk trough a desert and see a pyramid. Do you assume its made by wind and sand over billions of years, or do you assume a designer was involved. This same principle is applicable when looking at DNA, and at very complicated systems in our bodies.
As uncomplicated as the code to make this website is compared to DNA. Do you assume random numbers and letters were thrown on a page and bam an interactive forum is born. Its more logical to believe a desinger was involved, then to assume after billions and billions of years this forum made itself. As uncomplicated as it is, compared to DNA.
 
Evolution pulls non life to live out of their ass also. Dont think its perfect (not even close).
If you walk trough a desert and see a pyramid. Do you assume its made by wind and sand over billions of years, or do you assume a designer was involved. This same principle is applicable when looking at DNA, and at very complicated systems in our bodies.
As uncomplicated as the code to make this website is compared to DNA. Do you assume random numbers and letters were thrown on a page and bam an interactive forum is born. Its more logical to believe a desinger was involved, then to assume after billions and billions of years this forum made itself. As uncomplicated as it is, compared to DNA.

If that's what you assume evolution to be, then you're right, it's complete bullshit. Fortunately your pyramid example is so unlike anything remotely resembling evolution, that the theory can still hold water.

You're so off base with that analogy, that I think it would take you at least a years worth of dedicated reading and critical thinking to come to a proper conclusion about evolution. Please don't wave it away as though it sets out to claim that with enough time water can transform itself into wine. (We all know who the raining champ is in that regard) You're not being fair to evolution and you're not being fair to yourself, because you're making a conclusion about something that you don't in anyway comprehend.
 
But if you can't see an atom how do you know there's nothing smaller than an atom on one? ;)

Nothings impossible.

I can't answer this. You'll have to read up on string theory. Since 1938 no one has said that there is nothing smaller than an atom. I mean some don't buy into string theory but, I certainly never said that. What I said was I don't believe atoms are made up of galaxies and I'm not going to waste my time thinking otherwise.
 
But if you can't see an atom how do you know there's nothing smaller than an atom on one? ;)

Nothings impossible.

There are plenty of things smaller than atoms:
The Scale of the Universe

Evolution pulls non life to live out of their ass also. Dont think its perfect (not even close).
If you walk trough a desert and see a pyramid. Do you assume its made by wind and sand over billions of years, or do you assume a designer was involved. This same principle is applicable when looking at DNA, and at very complicated systems in our bodies.
As uncomplicated as the code to make this website is compared to DNA. Do you assume random numbers and letters were thrown on a page and bam an interactive forum is born. Its more logical to believe a desinger was involved, then to assume after billions and billions of years this forum made itself. As uncomplicated as it is, compared to DNA.

You quite simply have no idea of how evolution works if this is what you think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -God-
Evolution pulls non life to live out of their ass also. Dont think its perfect (not even close).
If you walk trough a desert and see a pyramid. Do you assume its made by wind and sand over billions of years, or do you assume a designer was involved. This same principle is applicable when looking at DNA, and at very complicated systems in our bodies.
As uncomplicated as the code to make this website is compared to DNA. Do you assume random numbers and letters were thrown on a page and bam an interactive forum is born. Its more logical to believe a desinger was involved, then to assume after billions and billions of years this forum made itself. As uncomplicated as it is, compared to DNA.

^^^ This is why atheists resort to calling others retards.
 
Love is the law bitches.... Love under WILL mother fuckers....


And there are two things I absolutely KNOW FOR SURE


1. There is definitely a God

AND

2. Major religions ( christian, islam etc) are all full of shit and are not true.


The end
 
If that's what you assume evolution to be, then you're right, it's complete bullshit. Fortunately your pyramid example is so unlike anything remotely resembling evolution, that the theory can still hold water.

You're so off base with that analogy, that I think it would take you at least a years worth of dedicated reading and critical thinking to come to a proper conclusion about evolution. Please don't wave it away as though it sets out to claim that with enough time water can transform itself into wine. (We all know who the raining champ is in that regard) You're not being fair to evolution and you're not being fair to yourself, because you're making a conclusion about something that you don't in anyway comprehend.

An evolving leg is a bad leg, before it becomes a good wing (kind of beats the purpose dont you think). Plus I cant imige the kind of evolutionary process an air breathing whale would go through. From Water to Land Back to Water - take the huge size into the mix (we should have thousands of fossil records of this, before I'd just assume thats how it happened) Plus evolution never explains how you get life from non life to begin with.
 
^^^ This is why atheists resort to calling others retards.

Next time post an argument. Dont be a fuck face like most atheists who blatantly believe everything in school books.

You atheists think your so smart.
Even the Doctors are retards I suppose in your big brain.
Survey: Most doctors believe in God, afterlife - Health - Health care - msnbc.com


"DNA stores instructions for life functions in the form of a four-character digital code. Based on our experience, we know that systems possessing such information invariably arise from minds, not material processes. We know that software comes from programmers. We know that information--whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, or encoded in a radio signal--always comes from an intelligent source. So the discovery of a digital code in DNA provides compelling evidence of a prior designing intelligence. Third, those who reject ID within the scientific community do so not because they have a better explanation of the relevant evidence, but because they affirm a definition of science that requires them to reject explanations involving intelligence--whatever the evidence shows. Imagine an archaeologist confronted with the inscriptions on the Rosetta stone, yet forced by some arbitrary convention to ignore the evidence for intelligent activity in the information those inscriptions contain. That is similar to the response of many evolutionary biologists who reflexively reject the theory of intelligent design as unscientific by definition, despite the evidence of intelligent activity in the information encoded in DNA."
Stephen Meyer Reframes Christianity Today's Question on Intelligent Design (Stephen C Meyer - News)
 
Inner peace can be very helpful. I guess you'd have to experience it to understand it, I cant say I do. I know people with inner peace, its a beautiful thing. If some people find it in a church, whether you disagree with them or not. They should have the freedom to do so, without being prosecuted for it. I never said I agree with the mega church mega money mentality. When I'm good, I just live by the golden rule.
 
An evolving leg is a bad leg, before it becomes a good wing (kind of beats the purpose dont you think). Plus I cant imige the kind of evolutionary process an air breathing whale would go through. From Water to Land Back to Water - take the huge size into the mix (we should have thousands of fossil records of this, before I'd just assume thats how it happened) Plus evolution never explains how you get life from non life to begin with.

Is your bad leg/good wing analogy similar to the utterly useless wings of an ostrich or the fact that millions of human beings have poor eyesight? You wouldn't know a transitional form even if you seen one. And evidently you do not, because the fact is, we're in transitional states at all times. Evolution is never 'finished'. Ergo, the imperfections you see in all species on earth.

Secondly. Regarding your understanding of the fossil record. Do you know how extraordinarily lucky we are to have as many fossils as we do? The conditions for fossilization are very highly unlikely. I know a lot of people think in the mindset of Kirk Cameron and are expecting to be presented with the fossilized remains of a 'Crocoduck', but it just isn't like that.

Lastly. Life from non-life. Why doesn't evolution explain it... Well for the same reason that the Pythagorean theorum doesn't explain earthquakes and why the theory of general relativity doesn't explain why moss grows largely on the north sides of trees. What a ridiculous assumption that an explanation for A should explain B, C, D and so forth. I know that 'Magic' is an all-encompassing explanation of the entire universe and much, much easier for the layman. But unfortunately Charles Darwin had no magic wand, only a brilliant mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -God-
Lastly. Life from non-life. Why doesn't evolution explain it... Well for the same reason that the Pythagorean theorum doesn't explain earthquakes and why the theory of general relativity doesn't explain why moss grows largely on the north sides of trees. What a ridiculous assumption that an explanation for A should explain B, C, D and so forth. I know that 'Magic' is an all-encompassing explanation of the entire universe and much, much easier for the layman. But unfortunately Charles Darwin had no magic wand, only a brilliant mind.

Brilliant mind?
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[14] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[15] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory."
 
Is your bad leg/good wing analogy similar to the utterly useless wings of an ostrich or the fact that millions of human beings have poor eyesight? You wouldn't know a transitional form even if you seen one. And evidently you do not, because the fact is, we're in transitional states at all times. Evolution is never 'finished'. Ergo, the imperfections you see in all species on earth.

You might find this interesting.
http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=e27c0db98651be388c37
 
Brilliant mind?
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[14] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[15] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory."

Now you're being ridiculous. I don't think Charles Darwin's intellect had anything to do with the original proposition. I was merely commenting on the fact that the man was brilliant. You don't have to accept his work as fact to acknowledge that he was no simpleton. Even the Catholic church recognizes his brilliance and contributions to science.

Though I suppose its easier to pick on. But then why not continue to poke holes in his life's work? This was his best guess with regards to abiogenesis, which if you don't know, was not his area of expertise and he didn't pretend that it was. You should be embarrassed to turn this into an argument of character, which is something we usually expect from women.
 

This about settles our argument.

Not only have I watched this entire film, but I've read the original book as well. The information expressed in this film is considered pseudoscience, it is presented by the Discovery Institute which is an anti-evolution group fueled by the promotion of Intelligent Design. They are widely criticized as having an agenda to push and the only interesting thing to come out of both the publication as well as the film is the backlash from the scientific community for taking quotes of many leading scientists completely out of context.