Originally posted by WhoKnows100
Seriously, I couldn't stop laughing at this description. All I could think of Satan sitting back, feet up, and devising a way to TEST the peoples acceptance of the lie called evolution. He must be laughing his head off. OP, I know that you said that you kind of believed in creationism... Stick with it. Otherwise, he has convinced you of the absolute absurdity of the above.

God created Satan knowing full well what he would do. It's not our fault that god has set up all of the evidence to show evolution, yet won't even step in and clear things up as he allegedly did all throughout biblical times.

You admit that you do not know the answers to your questions. That is honesty at the very least.

I do not think your questions shall ever have thorough answers till we can understand much more than we do today. Was reading some of Stephen Hawkins work and being very uneducated in cosmology and theological physics, I could not comprehend much if any of his thinking.

Hawkins theology tells us that this universe created itself. It had no god to create it and needs no god to create other universes which he theorizes do exist. Now think about that for a moment.. An inanimate physical entity created itself out of nothing. After reading that I then assumed that Hawkins must know what this nothing is. The universe itself and all of its contents were instantaneously self created by what we call the big bang.

Now that does not mean all objects which evolved from this self creation exist in the forms that we see today but only to show that the building blocks were self created. Then Hawkins theorizes that evolution came into play. Everything was put in place with no help of a god and what we see today is the result of X amount of time. The X amount of time is also a theory but as long as it is accepted as science it is considered a fact.

Now to get back to your question as to your understanding evolution. Stephen Hawkins is a world renowned leader in the sciences and having that title he is booked in all of the leading universities today. So our little mush minds of today will swear by this guy and what he teaches. Therefore, Hawkins is the bible of science. The Hawkins philosophy is known as Theological Physics but we are not expected to utter that dastardly word "Theology" because that is the what the stupid Christians teach. Only a high bred evolutionist can use that word in the science field and get a pass.

If Hawkins Theory is correct then this may answer some of what you are confused. If the universe, which came from nothing, produced itself and all the contents of this universe, either by evolution or any other means, it had to be self created. Your answer then would have to be that it has to be evolution and not a outside entity of any sort. An example would be that people build cars. The material which they build these cars are formed by the material which came from nothing. The people who build these cars also came from substances which evolved from the self created universe which came from nothing. Therefore all of both cars and people came from nothing. Now I am not making this up. That is basically what this all amounts to. The people evolved from the materials of the universe and then formed the cars but both had to come from nothing. That my friend is called science.

Therefore the monkey thing is irrelevant simply because the evolutionist subscribe to the Hawkins theology. The monkey itself came from nothing and simply evolved into a man. Biologist can prove this by seeing where the monkey gene was split some X amount of years ago and "whala" here we are. Anyway that is their theory. But their theory is alright just like Hawkins because it's called science. Their science is therefore based upon them using the self created universe substances which came from nothing. Therefore the monkey is irrelevant because the monkey is nothing but a evolution of the materials which came from nothing. Just like the people and cars.

So instead of admitting that there is a creator, it is solvable to the atheist to embrace Hawkins and evolution. That satisfies the white coats and university professors who detest a god theology simply because the god theology has no proof. But the sciences have proof. That is what this culture is being taught and believes. Never mind the theology of big bang by Hawkins or evolution's theology of X amount of years because we are expected to believe those theologies simply because the powers to be are now in charge.

I hope this clears up the questions that you have as an atheist and evolutionist. We are the products of accidental happenings and our sciences are nothing more than explanations of this self created happening. You cannot separate Hawkins from science and you cannot separate science from Hawkins because he is the science heart beat. You are now stuck in your own quagmire and have to live with your own (theological) facts or simply come to the realization that God is the answer to all of this nonsense in the first place. Both camps are based in theology and always will be till God decides to spank all of us and then we shall all know. Don't be foolish! You can't have it both ways.

The OPs problem is they assume eyes...etc. were needed and not just one of many ways life could have evolved. Now it seems that eyes evolved early since they tend to be extremely common across life here, but that is as simple as it needs to be seeing so many things with eyes.

If we go back 10 million years humans would not be human anymore, but a different species. Evolution is slow, but never stopping. Humans 10 million years in our future will once again be a different species.

Originally posted by Astyanax
The universe did not create itself out of nothing. It has existed for as long as time has existed, and will continue to exist until time comes to a stop. Time, too, is part of the universe. There is nothing outside the universe except, possibly, another universe, in which case what I say would apply to that universe too.

Well why not "out of nothing"? It has already been proven that matter at the quantum level appears out of nothing and can disappear into nothing. Why not a beginning to our universe?

You are right that it has existed as long as time has existed for us and that is about 14.7 billion years. Just because our universe has time doesn't mean time is everywhere, and if there are infinite universes then there are also infinite types with ours just being one of them that happens to support our kind of life.

It is not – except, perhaps, by New Age types and creationists. I am a former student of physics, and I had never in my life heard the phrase 'theological physics’ until I read your post.

I don't know your age or what university you attended but you are way behind this era of so called science. Here is a brief ID of Stephen Hawking - (Sorry I misspelled his name )

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Stephen Hawking at NASA, 1980s, Born Stephen William Hawking 8 January 1942 (age 69) Oxford England,
Residence England, Nationality British, Fields Applied mathematics, Theoretical physics, Cosmology, Institutions Cambridge University, California Institute of Technology, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics,
Alma mater Oxford University, Cambridge University

Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA (born 8 January 1942)[1] is an English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, whose scientific books and public appearances have made him an academic celebrity. He is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts,[2] a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,[3] and in 2009 was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States.[4]
Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge for 30 years, taking up the post in 1979 and retiring on 1 October 2009.[5][6] He is now Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge. 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.[7] 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 best-sellers list for a record-breaking 237 weeks.[8][9]
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).[10]

Hawking godless universe was on every headline in the news media just recently. In fact I believe it has been with in the last few months. I don't understand why, if you schooled in physics, that you are not aware of this. Hawking is not a creationist but an evolutionist and his theory of a godless big bang is known by almost everyone that I have ever discussed this with.

Please. Christians are not necessarily stupid. Promoters of ‘Biblical creationism’ may be stupid or vicious, but not all Christians are Biblical creationists.

Your knowledge of Christianity is only surpassed by your own ignorance. Not all people who say they are Christians are Christians but a true Christian is a Creationist. The reason for this is that anyone with a religion is placed in a category and unfortunately Christianity became the dumping ground for the perverted. A Christian (Christ Follower) is a Creationist and can not possibly be anything other than a believer in the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. If not a believer in the Creator of Abraham then that one is not a Christian. That my friend is a fact.

The universe did not create itself out of nothing. It has existed for as long as time has existed, and will continue to exist until time comes to a stop. Time, too, is part of the universe. There is nothing outside the universe except, possibly, another universe, in which case what I say would apply to that universe too.

I agree that the universe did not create itself but you will have to take that argument to Hawking because he theorizes that the universe did create itself. Time is part of the equation of the self created universe of Stephen Hawking. Multiple universes are also a part of the Hawking theology just as you agree with the Hawking theology that there are multiple universes. So you also agree, in part, with Hawking.

What a pity, then, that you chose to share your ignorance and incomprehension with us at such length.

You seem to fit the category of a typical liberal in your name calling. I do not believe that I am the ignorant one as you were dead wrong on every issue that you undertook. I do not believe that you schooled in physics or have any knowledge of what a creationist is. I do not know who you mean by " with us" - I certainly hope that all of you "US" are not as misinformed as "YOU". Perhaps a refresher course is in order.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Virtual particles don’t appear out of nothing, strictly speaking. They appear out of the spacetime continuum. The continuum isn’t nothing; for a start, we know it is expanding, and seems to have energy. And not only have virtual particles been proven to emerge from it, but many quantum-gravitational hypotheses (unifying theories) postulate that matter and energy are in essence local distortions of the continuum.

Are you talking about string theory? From what I believe, in our universe space-time is infinite, but the universe from the big bang is not. So what we have is an instantaneous creation of infinite space-time with a slower expansion of the big bang.

The comprehension of something from nothing and zero time is hard to wrap one's brain around because we live in a universe where both are basically impossible to happen.

But such things are hard to picture, and their implicit contradictions are almost impossible to resolve. Some people like to speculate about multiple universes, but I was never fond of Russian dolls. The reality we know contains enough mysteries and contradictions to be going on with.

Ya, kind of hard to speculate outside of our space-time, but I don't think time is required outside of our universe. If we apply OUR rules we get the Russian doll scenario, which I truly doubt, so this tells me we are dealing with something that would be considered impossible within our own space time...

Originally posted by Seede
I agree that the universe did not create itself but you will have to take that argument to Hawking because he theorizes that the universe did create itself. Time is part of the equation of the self created universe of Stephen Hawking. Multiple universes are also a part of the Hawking theology just as you agree with the Hawking theology that there are multiple universes. So you also agree, in part, with Hawking.

I think Hawking believes that since space-time started for us at the beginning our universe then there could be no God to create it, but then a race of beings with lets say a 9 billion year head start would be damn close to what god would be.

So the big question would be if there is a god is he a part of our Universe or outside of it?

Originally posted by Astyanax
....but many quantum-gravitational hypotheses (unifying theories) postulate that matter and energy are in essence local distortions of the continuum.

do you have any intermediate level (no maths) articles you could link me to on this topic?

I have taken physics 1210 (not yet 1220) and I try to understand more advanced topics as a hobby. but quite a lot is too wordy or mathy.

I am trying to resolve some conflicts I am having conceptually with entropy / free energy WRT organisms and I have come to a standstill concerning the condensation of matter (vs dissipation of energies). or simply, where does matter come from? a "local distortion"?


thanks in advance.

we have ALL heard of stephen hawkins. but what you are going to need to show us is a basis for the ridiculous term "theological physics". perhaps you meant THEORETICAL physics?

---

Yes - You are correct and I stand corrected.

I am fairly familiar with the career of Prof. Hawking. Can you show me where, in that lengthy screed, the phrase ‘theological physics’ appears?

You are a day late and a dollar short- I had already apologized for my mistyping the word Theoretical Physics although the subject matter was pertaining to a Creator vs a theory by a Theoretical Physicist named Hawking.

All cosmological models adopted by physicists are ‘godless’, as you put it – not just Hawking’s. Physics is not theology. Scientific explanations for physical phenomena do not invoke God.

That was not the subject matter at all. Most all know that most scientists are ungodly and that their scientific models (as you put it) are godless. The subject was that this particular Theoretical Physicist named Hawking declared that the universe created itself with out the God factor. Hawking was the one who brought his theology to the front as a Theoretical world famous Physicist not myself or anyone else. He himself made this great declaration of a scientific revelation. He is the bible of theoretical physics and not students such as yourself.

People like yourself are very fond of identifying yourselves as ‘true Christians’ and labelling as heretical any Christian who adopts a different doctrinal or philosophical point of view. I was born into the Anglican church. I am intimately familiar with the doctrine, liturgy and music of that church from having been a choirboy at the very famous Anglican school I attended. I ceased to be a believer upwards of thirty years ago, but have retained a lifelong interest in all religion, the Christian faith included. I have read St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. I am familiar with the histories and controversies of the faith down the ages. I have probably forgotten more about Christianity than someone like you has ever known.

I will not argue any points of your prior theology because it is not fitting for me to judge you as you have judged me. I respect the office of Archbishop of Canterbury and will not go there. I take it that you were in a division of an American Anglican church as they are all self governing and differ one from another. I respect your decision to withdraw from that belief but do not want to antagonize anyone's belief. You do realize that there are also great God fearing scientists in this world and the godless do not have a monopoly on intelligence?

I have also forgotten more about physics than you will ever know. Don’t embarrass yourself.

That also was not the subject matter and you very well know it. The entire point of the post was to show that Hawking was theorizing his declared science and nothing more. He nor you nor any other human can declare his theory as fact. I realize that you believe you are brilliant and I wish you the best in whatever you choose but self grandiose is not fitting for intelligence.

You may be correct in what you believe. I could not care less what your science declares. You only borrow the tools that the Creator has given you and nothing more. You could be as a god if you could scientifically create your own tools but even you know your limits regardless whether you admit it or do not admit it. There I go with another screed.

End of conversation

Try adressessing your concerns to an evolutionary web-site. you'll at least get a factual answeer...