God did not create the universe, says Hawking

[b_rod]

LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.

In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.

"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," Hawking writes.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

Hawking, 68, who won global recognition with his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time," an account of the origins of the universe, is renowned for his work on black holes, cosmology and quantum gravity.

CITED: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking

 

[joot]

If he had said Shit is healthy eating...would you believe it too...?

[Qau]

and??

[Wi_sweetguy]

I think steven has a brilliant mind and he has over 30 yrs of experience dealing with physics so he knows what he's talking about.  For all we know, we all are just normal beings, while hawking is above the normal.   As a matter of fact, the theory on gravity creating life is truly amazing.  From what i've learned, without gravity there would be no life forms except microorganisms because everything will be floating up such as lava, sand, water, and all of these are the necessary things that gives life a strong foundation.  Without gravity, there would be no oxygen and life form would die due to lack of oxygen.  Trees breathe in co2 and breathe out o2.  See there is a theory in which hawkings idea can be base on.

This theory is the basic fundamental of evolution. This theory is also known as genetic implantation or messing with dna. For an easier understanding of these terms it would be known as breeding.

For example.  When two life form meets. they date and have sex.  Then the offspring carries both of the parents genes and the child becomes 1 generation smarter, bigger, skillful wise than his parents.  Okay now, what if the parents had five sons and they all were normal, but after 5 tries of trying to have a child with a IQ, the parents finally gave birth to a son and as he got older.  His IQ is higher than all his brothers.  He will be more likely to be sucessful and wealthier than his brothers.  His kids will be more likely to be smarter than his older brother's kids.  This is simply the theory of Darwin's evolution.  The strong only survives so they will have to evolve.  In this case, only the brother with the high IQ was able to be successful and rich.
This theory is very simple.  If you want bigger muscles in the family than marry a girl whose family are big and muscular and your chance of a muscular son will increase.

[b_rod]

If he had said Shit is healthy eating...would you believe it too...?

THREE THINGS:

- 1. You are illiterate. You believe in cracker and wine making up the Human Body. You believe an OLD BOOK which is NOT accepted by any University as a Source.

 

- 2. STEPHEN HAWKING:

Search: The smartest people in the world

Despite suffering from this motor neuron disease, Hawking has gone on to become one of the most respected theoretical physicists in the world today. He is best known for his breakthrough studies regarding specific holes in space. Most recently, Hawking has been in the news for his ideas on nonhuman intellectual life and this time-sensitive theory.

CITED: http://specials.msn.com/A-List/Worlds-smartest-people.aspx?cp-documentid=24231105&imageindex=2&cp-searchtext=Stephen%20Hawking

If he ever made such a stupid comment, he would NOT be one of the SMARTEST in the world.

 

- 3. You believe in the BIBLE (word of God). If it was written in there to "eat SHIT" you would be to first to jump on the bandwagon!

 

Smart people need evidence, we need the most well respected people in the world to agree and show us the evidence for what is accepted.
YOU need.....the Bible. Proof you do NOT need evidence other than the Bible? You believe in God, cracker and wine, fishes and bread.

 

[Hung_Low]

THREE THINGS:

- 1. You are illiterate. You believe in cracker and wine making up the Human Body. You believe an OLD BOOK which is NOT accepted by any University as a Source.

 

- 2. STEPHEN HAWKING:

If he ever made such a stupid comment, he would NOT be one of the SMARTEST in the world.

 

- 3. You believe in the BIBLE (word of God). If it was written in there to "eat SHIT" you would be to first to jump on the bandwagon!

 

Smart people need evidence, we need the most well respected people in the world to agree and show us the evidence for what is accepted.
YOU need.....the Bible. Proof you do NOT need evidence other than the Bible? You believe in God, cracker and wine, fishes and bread.

 

Remember... he's a physicist theorist... that means all that he had and will ever say is theory, not concrete evidence. Once you understand what theory is... you'll understand better. I assume you believe in ET and big foot too... what's to say that these aren't evolution in progress? And if you don't believe in these... you've just shot yourself in the foot.

[b_rod]

Remember... he's a physicist theorist... that means all that he had and will ever say is theory, not concrete evidence. Once you understand what theory is... you'll understand better. I assume you believe in ET and big foot too... what's to say that these aren't evolution in progress? And if you don't believe in these... you've just shot yourself in the foot.

WHAT THE HELL IS A "physicist theorist" You are too smart for me. 

 

 

Maybe you meant Theoretical Physicist?

I guess you never went to college? How about High School? Let me clear it up for you. You lack a understanding of science are are listening to creationist crap (NOT SCIENCE). You have been misinformed and are confused. I hope you are still in middle school if you believe that a theory is like a guess. BTW, go tell your science teacher that!

 

HERE: (read, or remain ignorant for the rest of your life)

scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works.

  THEORY

 1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)

 2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).

 3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

CITED: http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

"Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law"

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.


CITED: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist

"Creationists and intelligent-design boosters have a guerrilla tactic to undermine textbooks that don't jibe with their beliefs. They slap a sticker on the cover that reads, EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT A FACT, REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF LIVING THINGS.

This is the central argument of evolution deniers: Evolution is an unproven "theory." For science-savvy people, this is an incredibly annoying ploy. While it's true that scientists refer to evolution as a theory, in science the word theory means an explanation of how the world works that has stood up to repeated, rigorous testing. It's hardly a term of disparagement.

But for most people, theory means a haphazard guess you've pulled out of your, uh, hat. It's an insult, really, a glib way to dismiss a point of view: "Ah, well, that's just your theory." Scientists use theory in one specific way, the public another — and opponents of evolution have expertly exploited this disconnect.

Turns out, the real culture war in science isn't about science at all — it's about language. And to fight this war, we need to change the way we talk about scientific knowledge.

Scientists are already pondering this. Last summer, physicist Helen Quinn sparked a lively debate among her colleagues with an essay for Physics Today arguing that scientists are too tentative when they discuss scientific knowledge. They're an inherently cautious bunch, she points out. Even when they're 99 percent certain of a theory, they know there's always the chance that a new discovery could overturn or modify it.

Of course, antievolution crusaders have figured out that language is the ammunition of culture wars. That's why they use those stickers. They take the intellectual strengths of scientific language — its precision, its carefulness — and wield them as weapons against science itself.


Evolution is supersolid. We even base the vaccine industry on it: When we troop into the doctor's office each winter to get a flu shot — an inoculation against the latest evolved strains of the disease — we're treating evolution as a law. So why not just say "the law of evolution"?[/b]

Best of all, it performs a neat bit of linguistic jujitsu. If someone says, "I don't believe in the theory of evolution," they may sound fairly reasonable. But if someone announces, "I don't believe in the law of evolution," they sound insane. It's tantamount to saying, "I don't believe in the law of gravity."

Cited: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-11/st_thompson#ixzz0rY1JhK5t"

Yeah, JUST A THEORY. It is also very clear you do NOT know who Stephen Hawking is!

 

 

[joot]

What have "smart" people like Einstein and hawkins contributed to the well being of the human race ? ... Death and destruction... ATOMIC bomb...

Smart people can be fools as well...saying things they themselves don't have proofs of...

b_rod, you are FULL OF SHIT...you and your stupid quotes...you rather believe in these "smart" men...rather than the word of God...someday you will regret...

[b_rod]

What have "smart" people like Einstein and hawkins contributed to the well being of the human race ? ... Death and destruction... ATOMIC bomb...

Smart people can be fools as well...saying things they themselves don't have proofs of...

b_rod, you are FULL OF SHIT...you and your stupid quotes...you rather believe in these "smart" men...rather than the word of God...someday you will regret...

Show me your God already! You claim it is really, so prove it! Oh you can't. BTW, I would take the word of a WELL RESPECTED SCIENTIST over your Bible any day. Only a fool would believe in the Bible of interpretation s. Science deals with FACTS, not FICTION like your Bible.

 

HERE:

"Did God have a mother?" Children, when told that God made the heavens and the earth, innocently ask whether God had a mother. This deceptively simple question has stumped the elders of the church and embarrassed the finest theologians, precipitating some of the thorniest theological debates over the centuries. All the great religions have elaborate mythologies surrounding the divine act of Creation, but none of them adequately confronts the logical paradoxes inherent in the question that even children ask.

- Michio Kaku (Theoretical Physicist, Professor, Bestselling Author, Popularizer of Science.)

CITED: http://blog.gaiam.com/quotes/authors/michio-kaku

He is WAY more qualified to talk about anything, rather than a Priest or the Pope. I guess when you can't cite a Well Respected figure, you cry foul on the WELL RESPECTED SCIENTIST disagreeing with your God huh?

 

[Gracified23]

"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," Hawking writes.

That's interesting. Does he mean nothing is something? But something cannot create itself. It's a logical impossibility.
For that to be true, it must be able to perform an action. Do you see how your science presupposes logic?

[b_rod]

That's interesting. Does he mean nothing is something? But something cannot create itself. It's a logical impossibility.
For that to be true, it must be able to perform an action. Do you see how your science presupposes logic?

 

HERE:

Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA (born 8 January 1942) is a British theoretical physicist and cosmologist, whose scientific career spans over forty years. His books and public appearances have made him an academic celebrity and he is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and in 2009 was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States.

Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge for thirty years, taking up the post in 1979 and retiring on 1 October 2009. He is also a Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge and a Distinguished Research Chair at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario. He is known for his contributions to the fields of cosmology and quantum gravity, especially in the context of black holes. He has also achieved success with works of popular science in which he discusses his own theories and cosmology in general; these include the runaway best seller A Brief History of Time, which stayed on the British Sunday Times bestsellers list for a record-breaking 237 weeks.

Hawking's key scientific works to date have included providing, with Roger Penrose, theorems regarding gravitational singularities in the framework of general relativity, and the theoretical prediction that black holes should emit radiation, which is today known as Hawking radiation (or sometimes as Bekenstein–Hawking radiation).

CITED: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

Who are you?.........

 

[evil-in-deed]

Remember... he's a physicist theorist... that means all that he had and will ever say is theory, not concrete evidence. Once you understand what theory is... you'll understand better. I assume you believe in ET and big foot too... what's to say that these aren't evolution in progress? And if you don't believe in these... you've just shot yourself in the foot.

so you rather believe in something that is/can never be proven to be true or false than something that is proven to work?...

[evil-in-deed]

That's interesting. Does he mean nothing is something? But something cannot create itself. It's a logical impossibility.
For that to be true, it must be able to perform an action. Do you see how your science presupposes logic?

how does the bible explain this?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW6Mq352f0E

[wadupgee]

"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," Hawking writes.

Look at what I put in bold. 

then go back and ask Hawkins as to who puts gravity there. 

[wadupgee]

If what I say is not enough then let a scientist to say it instead.  

As a scientist I'm certain Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God

"But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.

What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine." -By Professor John Lennox

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html