Stephen Hawking tackles Creation on 'Curiosity' - New Discovery Channel Program

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker


Well there's been a story floating around since the beginning of man about how an all powerful supreme being brought everything into existence. Of course that story has been passed down from generation to generation for thousands of years so it's most likely false. Nevertheless, it might be worthy checking into.

Man will never discover how the universe was created simply because it is always expanding. It's just to large to be figured out with human eyes or modern day technology, or even future technology for that matter.

That 'story' has been looked into for the past 2000 years, and has failed to reveal any confirmable, testable information that helps us understand the universe and reality in any way. The fact this tale has been passed down through the generation says nothing about its credibility.

How does the fact that the universe is expanding mean we will never discover how it came into being? what do you have to substantiate this claim?

How does the fact that the universe is of a certain size mean we will never be able to 'figure out' how it came into existence?

How do you know we will not ever be able to know this?

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker


Well there's been a story floating around since the beginning of man about how an all powerful supreme being brought everything into existence. Of course that story has been passed down from generation to generation for thousands of years so it's most likely false. Nevertheless, it might be worthy checking into.

Man will never discover how the universe was created simply because it is always expanding. It's just to large to be figured out with human eyes or modern day technology, or even future technology for that matter.

That 'story' has been looked into for the past 2000 years, and has failed to reveal any confirmable, testable information that helps us understand the universe and reality in any way. The fact this tale has been passed down through the generation says nothing about its credibility.

How does the fact that the universe is expanding mean we will never discover how it came into being? what do you have to substantiate this claim?

How does the fact that the universe is of a certain size mean we will never be able to 'figure out' how it came into existence?

How do you know we will not ever be able to know this?

In order to discover how something came into being wouldn't you need a sample first? How can one say the universe was created in the fashion they claim when we haven't even gone past our own Moon? Pictures from space could not possibly tell this story.

Every thing we know about Earth we have learned because we are here on Earth. Therefore, it is only logical to conclude that in order to learn the true nature of the universe we need to go beyond our own solar system. Not impossible, but how many lives and sacrifices will it take to learn such knowledge? Moreover, how many more Milena will it take?

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

wow..............just wow

Its painfully clear you have not got a clue about this subject, or about science itself

Do you make a habit of making claims about things of which you are ignorant?

Science does not claim to know the origins of the universe, or the origins of life. But all the evidence (and there is a lot if you care to look for it, there is more than one book out there) points to a completely natural process, and tests and models (scientific models not the ones in magazines or those you build with glue) have so far added to this conclusion.

There is not one iota, not a jot or a tittle, of evidence for a space god type being responsible, never mind existing.

To claim that to learn about the universe we need to leave the solar system is a logical fallacy, what is it about leaving the solar system that would help us understand the universe? is it that you think we would then be that much closer to everything else.....?

Isn't our planet part of the universe?

Originally posted by Prezbo369
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
Science does not claim to know the origins of the universe, or the origins of life.

If what your saying is true then we need to put both "The Big Bang" and "Evolution" theory's in the religion category, because they are just fairy tales.

Are not both of these apart of science with their own ideas of how things came into being?

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

It's just to large to be figured out with human eyes or modern day technology, or even future technology for that matter.

That's a bold bold statement. It was so bold, I had to use the word "bold" twice. It was so bold that I used the "bold" feature to make it stand out. How can you even make a statement like that? How do you know what kind of advancements we will make in the future?

Imagine people 2000 years ago. I bet you they thought that the things we have today, something as simple as a refrigerator, would be impossible.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by Prezbo369
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
Science does not claim to know the origins of the universe, or the origins of life.

If what your saying is true then we need to put both "The Big Bang" and "Evolution" theory's in the religion category, because they are just fairy tales.

Are not both of these apart of science with their own ideas of how things came into being?

Again, the ignorance is simply astounding......

Science does not deal with absolutes, it does not claim to absolutely know anything, a scientific fact is something that can be verified by other people by following a described procedure. If the fact is more closely examined or the conditions change, the fact may be reformatted. Largest and clearest example is Newton's Laws of Motion, but ofc this is probably a bit over your head......

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

If what your saying is true then we need to put both "The Big Bang" and "Evolution" theory's in the religion category, because they are just fairy tales.

Yes, gravity's just an illusion too.

It's painfully obvious that you don't care for truth, you only care for YOUR truth. Your arguments and comments are narrow-minded and spiteful.

You'd be doing yourself a favour if you changed your debate style, and read up on the refutations to your monotous arguments before you smuggly attack others user's views with your prejudice.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

If what your saying is true then we need to put both "The Big Bang" and "Evolution" theory's in the religion category, because they are just fairy tales.

Are not both of these apart of science with their own ideas of how things came into being?

Nah, these things have evidence to back up their claims. Could they be wrong? Yes. But as of right now, that's where the evidence points.

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by Prezbo369
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
Science does not claim to know the origins of the universe, or the origins of life.

If what your saying is true then we need to put both "The Big Bang" and "Evolution" theory's in the religion category, because they are just fairy tales.

Are not both of these apart of science with their own ideas of how things came into being?

Again, the ignorance is simply astounding......

Science does not deal with absolutes, it does not claim to absolutely know anything, a scientific fact is something that can be verified by other people by following a described procedure. If the fact is more closely examined or the conditions change, the fact may be reformatted. Largest and clearest example is Newton's Laws of Motion, but ofc this is probably a bit over your head......

edit on 2-8-2011 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)

Your missing the point, that's why you can't understand where I'm coming from. I'm fully aware of what real science is. The point is, where talking about the universe and how it was created. Science has not proven how it was created, yet they teach it in schools and tells our kids that's how we got here. It's a lie, and you expect me to teach my kids that.

The answer to how we got here is right in front your face, yet people through that right out the window. How can anyone disregard the millions upon millions of testimonies and stories of those who lived before us? Intelligent Design is the only logical explanation of how we got here.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

 

If what your saying is true then we need to put both "The Big Bang" and "Evolution" theory's in the religion category, because they are just fairy tales.

Yes, gravity's just an illusion too.

It's painfully obvious that you don't care for truth, you only care for YOUR truth. Your arguments and comments are narrow-minded and spiteful.

You'd be doing yourself a favour if you changed your debate style, and read up on the refutations to your monotous arguments before you smuggly attack others user's views with your prejudice.

It's not my fault if people get brittle. And why I can't use my own form of prejudice? Is it because I'm a believer? I see non-believers doing this stuff all day long to those who believe in God, yet no one says anything about it, you probably sit back and laugh at those remarks. Yet soon as a believer starts to strike back then all of sudden he is prejudice or rude. Give me a break

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

The answer to how we got here is right in front your face, yet people through that right out the window.

What is in front of my face that gives me the answer?

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
How can anyone disregard the millions upon millions of testimonies and stories of those who lived before us? Intelligent Design is the only logical explanation of how we got here.

Which testimonies? Do you take into consideration every story out there of every belief system, or do you pick one belief system? If so, why, as they all claim to be the truth....

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

I'm not saying science in general is a fallacy.

I didn't assert that you said that. I said that your response is based on a fallacious understanding of how science is carried out.

What I'm saying is that the big bang is science biggest fallacy. They have drawn this conclusion without any evidence to back it up.

No evidence? Really? The measurements take by COBE are consistant with those predicted by the Big Bang theory regarding cosmic microwave background radiation. So by saying that it's without any evidence to support it is, simply, wrong.

Science can't even give a solid answer to how the Moon was created, so how in the world could they possible know how the universe can to be?

There's a difference between "can't" and "hasn't yet". I realize it's a subtle difference and hard to understand, but you should give it a try.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

It's just to large to be figured out with human eyes or modern day technology, or even future technology for that matter.

That's a bold bold statement. It was so bold, I had to use the word "bold" twice. It was so bold that I used the "bold" feature to make it stand out. How can you even make a statement like that? How do you know what kind of advancements we will make in the future?

Imagine people 2000 years ago. I bet you they thought that the things we have today, something as simple as a refrigerator, would be impossible.

I'm not saying man won't make new discoveries or even travel through space. But again, we are talking about creating a universe. The only way it could ever be proven with 100% certainty would be to create a device which could do such a thing and then somehow go outside of our universe in order to create another.

Now I guess something like this might be possible, but if what they say about the Big Bang is true, how would anyone survive the blast ?

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

Well there's been a story floating around since the beginning of man about how an all powerful supreme being brought everything into existence.

Creation stories vary widely and are hardly universal in a single supreme being creating the universe. Do some research before making silly claims.

Of course that story has been passed down from generation to generation for thousands of years so it's most likely false. Nevertheless, it might be worthy checking into.

Along with all of the other competing supernatural explanations of the origin of the universe. And all of them are equally worthless as tools for understanding the nature of the world around us.

Man will never discover how the universe was created simply because it is always expanding. It's just to large to be figured out with human eyes or modern day technology, or even future technology for that matter.

What an intellectually lazy assertion - "we'll never know, so we may as well stop trying."

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

The answer to how we got here is right in front your face, yet people through that right out the window.

What is in front of my face that gives me the answer?

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
How can anyone disregard the millions upon millions of testimonies and stories of those who lived before us? Intelligent Design is the only logical explanation of how we got here.

Which testimonies? Do you take into consideration every story out there of every belief system, or do you pick one belief system? If so, why, as they all claim to be the truth....

It's there, you just can't see it. Does that sound familiar? Science says it all the time.

In this case I would take all belief systems into consideration. Every culture has there own version but I think it is safe to say all of the evidence when gathered up from each story would be in the favor of some kind of Supreme Being as the Creator of all things. People would have to figure out on there own which god they want to serve, I wouldn't force that anyone.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

In order to discover how something came into being wouldn't you need a sample first?

Learn the scientific method and then see if you would make the same claim. If you would, then go back and relearn the scientific method. Wash, rinse, repeat until you understand why you don't need a "sample".

How can one say the universe was created in the fashion they claim when we haven't even gone past our own Moon? Pictures from space could not possibly tell this story.

I think you need to do some reading and gain a better understanding of the data being acquired before continuing to make the claims you're making. It's not just "pictures from space" and saying that it is just shows how ignorant you are on the matter.

Every thing we know about Earth we have learned because we are here on Earth. Therefore, it is only logical to conclude that in order to learn the true nature of the universe we need to go beyond our own solar system.

And we observe things beyond our own solar system regularly.

Not impossible, but how many lives and sacrifices will it take to learn such knowledge? Moreover, how many more Milena will it take?
Why would it take lives and sacrifices? And how many years are in a Milena?

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

If what your saying is true then we need to put both "The Big Bang" and "Evolution" theory's in the religion category, because they are just fairy tales.

If you understood what you're talking about, you'd know that evolution is different from the origin of life. Again, your ignorance shines through.

Are not both of these apart of science with their own ideas of how things came into being?

Yes, and each has a significant amount of evidence supporting them. Enough evidence that they've achieved the status of a theory.

I'm interested to hear your competing theories on the origin of the universe and biodiversity and what evidence you have for them.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

Your missing the point, that's why you can't understand where I'm coming from.

No, we can't see where you're coming from because your ignorance on the subject of science in general and the Big Bang theory and modern evolutionary synthesis specifically are blinding us.

I'm fully aware of what real science is.

Essentially all of your previous posts in this thread put the lie to this statement.

The point is, where talking about the universe and how it was created. Science has not proven how it was created, yet they teach it in schools and tells our kids that's how we got here. It's a lie, and you expect me to teach my kids that.

So when all of the objective evidence gathered to date supports a theory, it's a lie?

The answer to how we got here is right in front your face, yet people through that right out the window.

And that answer is... ?

How can anyone disregard the millions upon millions of testimonies and stories of those who lived before us?

For the same reason that eyewitness testimony is given very little weight in the legal system -- it's notoriously unreliable. And where have these "millions upon millions of testimonies and stories" been documented exactly?

Intelligent Design is the only logical explanation of how we got here.

Ah, I see. "God did it" -- which has no evidence supporting it -- is a better answer than the one that has all of the evidence supporting it. That's very logical.

I don't need another evidence to link the Bible to what it claims. Science accomplishes this for us. Incredulity will get you nowhere in the conversation yet again.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Once more rephrasing your almost identical I-have-only-one-thread, and once more repeating the same pseudo-science claims, which you apparantly are unable to substantiate, when it comes to the point.

As I illustrate absurdity with absurdity, I get the point across that Atheists normally deny God as impossible. Anyone from 1900 would have called the movie Avatar the same. We understand how it can be done. God is merely a perfected example of the same. Infinity at rest. All outcomes achieved and achievable.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

The movie 'Avatar' is the worst (and most disappointing) piece of new-age 'back to nature' and 'the noble savage' propaganda trash I've seen. It's even worse than "What the bleep do we know".

And what has that to do with Hawking and cosmogony and cosmology?