Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

[Jorge]

"Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking" aired for the first time last night.

Did anyone else, besides me, waste a couple of hours of their life by watching that
piece of "science" trash? The fact of the matter is that it was 10% science and 90%
pure, unadulterated, unrestrained, shameless imagination. And poor imagination
at that -- most of it was regurgitation of material that's been floating around for years.

That program is a perfect example of how science fiction is packaged via special
effects and the endorsement of a high profile name to then be fed to the unsuspecting
masses. Think 'evolution' ...

Did anyone catch how many times the word 'evolution' was used? What about the
words 'if', 'could', 'perhaps', 'maybe'? I especially loved the part where amino acids
were banging together, then they began to clump and then, voila, there were these
single-celled things swimming around. After which Hawking says something
like, "It doesn't matter how they got here, once they did, evolution took over" or words
to that effect. Hawking skipped about ten million steps --- you know, the steps
filled in by the words "And then a miracle occurs ..."

As I've said many times, those of us that are versed and mature enough see right
through that nonsense falsely called "science". But what about the innocent and
ignorant? They listen to this world-renowned figure, the 'genius in a wheelchair',
speaking authoritatively about these matters and they could easily think, "That guy
is soooo smart and, besides, he's so helpless --- surely he wouldn't lie to us!"

That's why the world needs Biblical Creationists --- so that people can hear the
other side of the story, a.k.a. the TRUTH.

Try and learn something, fellas ... got'ta run ...

Jorge

[wattsr1]

"Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking" aired for the first time last night.

Did anyone else, besides me, waste a couple of hours of their life by watching that
piece of "science" trash? The fact of the matter is that it was 10% science and 90%
pure, unadulterated, unrestrained, shameless imagination. And poor imagination
at that -- most of it was regurgitation of material that's been floating around for years.

That program is a perfect example of how science fiction is packaged via special
effects and the endorsement of a high profile name to then be fed to the unsuspecting
masses. Think 'evolution' ...

Did anyone catch how many times the word 'evolution' was used? What about the
words 'if', 'could', 'perhaps', 'maybe'? I especially loved the part where amino acids
were banging together, then they began to clump and then, voila, there were these
single-celled things swimming around. After which Hawking says something
like, "It doesn't matter how they got here, once they did, evolution took over" or words
to that effect. Hawking skipped about ten million steps --- you know, the steps
filled in by the words "And then a miracle occurs ..."

As I've said many times, those of us that are versed and mature enough see right
through that nonsense falsely called "science". But what about the innocent and
ignorant? They listen to this world-renowned figure, the 'genius in a wheelchair',
speaking authoritatively about these matters and they could easily think, "That guy
is soooo smart and, besides, he's so helpless --- surely he wouldn't lie to us!"

That's why the world needs Biblical Creationists --- so that people can hear the
other side of the story, a.k.a. the TRUTH.

Try and learn something, fellas ... got'ta run ...

Jorge

Dang Jorge, I was about to go to bed and you bobbed up.


Wrong.


Nite.



Regards, Roland

PS "What about the words 'if', 'could', 'perhaps', 'maybe'? " - that's what we call honesty. You should try it sometime, particularly if its in the same thread where you mention the word "truth".

[rogue06]

Is that the show where Hawking says he is sure there is extraterrestrial life and cautions against attempts to contact it?

[showmeproof]

Jorge, the show starts off with Hawking introducing himself as a physicist, cosmologist, and a bit of a dreamer.

This show was just talking about the possibility of extraterrestrial life and they went down many paths that are hypothetical.

Are you to tell me that you are 100% positive that in a universe with 100billion observable galaxies each with some 100billion stars, and who knows how many planets that it is impossible for extraterrestrial life?

The whole point of the show was not to say extra terrestrials exist, but rather that it is a fun thing to think about.

[princesa]

yeah, my brother used to make us all aluminum hats as kids in the hopes they would somehow pick up our "signal" and communicate with us.

[Jorge]

Jorge, the show starts off with Hawking introducing himself as a physicist, cosmologist,
and a bit of a dreamer.

Yes, I heard that. But you obviously are not listening.

This show was just talking about the possibility of extraterrestrial life and they went
down many paths that are hypothetical.

I got you : your rabid, fanatical defense of modern "science" blinds you to the point.

Are you to tell me that you are 100% positive that in a universe with 100billion
observable galaxies each with some 100billion stars, and who knows how
many planets that it is impossible for extraterrestrial life?

Mind showing me where I've said or even insinuated that?

The whole point of the show was not to say extra terrestrials exist, but rather that
it is a fun thing to think about.

And a sheep-like Baaaahhhhhhhh to you too.

The "whole point" is the relentless indoctrination into a Materialistic worldview
(Hawking is a fiery Atheist -- you do know that, right?). When a person considered
to be one of the world's top scientist makes some of the statements that he made
on that show, combined with dazzling special effects, why don't you guess what
the average 'Joe' is going to think? That he was just 'entertained' or that this is
a bona fide scientific position? What about what Hawking said about the origin
of life --- entertainment or bona fide science? What about ... ??? Hey, if it's just
entertainment then they could have gotten ANY clown to do the jig - maybe with
a bit of tap-dancing and magic tricks inserted into the routine. Why do they send
the message using a world-renowned scientist as the messenger? Baaahhhh!

Jorge

[Jorge]

Is that the show where Hawking says he is sure there is extraterrestrial life and
cautions against attempts to contact it?

*****************************************************************************

Yup - he does indeed! The aliens have used up their own resources and now travel
amongst the stars seeking to plunder the resources of other planets. Sort'a like a
super-high-tech Pirates of the Caribbean.

Seriously, if Biblical Creationists like myself were to suggest any of the stuff that these
renowned "scientists" have publicly proposed (think Hawking, Crick, Kauffman, et al.),
we'd be laughed into the next century. But they can get away with murder, because,
well, because they're based on Naturalistic "science" including evolution. Bhahahahaha ...

Here's my hypothesis : Hawking has seen Independence Day once too often.

Jorge

[ericmurphy]

Most normal people can distinguish between consensus science and speculation at the edge of science, Jorge.

You, clearly, are not one of those normal people.

Don't project your own deficiencies onto everyone else, please.

[SlapShot]

Listening to Hawking pass gas would be more enlightning than anything that came out of Jorges mouth.

Seriously, if Biblical Creationists like myself were to suggest any of the stuff that these
renowned "scientists" have publicly proposed (think Hawking, Crick, Kauffman, et al.),
we'd be laughed into the next century.

There's no if about it, you DO propose laughable stuff. I'm sure we'll be laughing the next century as we laughed during the past. The whole creationist story from start to finish is a joke.

[Adrift]

I've heard it said that astronomers and cosmologists are the main proponents of a belief in extraterrestrial intelligence and that biologists are typically less convinced. Is this true? I'm semi-familiar with the Tipler/Barrow argument against extraterrestrial life, but not sure how it fairs today.

[rogue06]

Yes, I heard that. But you obviously are not listening.


I got you : your rabid, fanatical defense of modern "science" blinds you to the point.


Mind showing me where I've said or even insinuated that?


And a sheep-like Baaaahhhhhhhh to you too.

The "whole point" is the relentless indoctrination into a Materialistic worldview
(Hawking is a fiery Atheist -- you do know that, right?). When a person considered
to be one of the world's top scientist makes some of the statements that he made
on that show, combined with dazzling special effects, why don't you guess what
the average 'Joe' is going to think? That he was just 'entertained' or that this is
a bona fide scientific position? What about what Hawking said about the origin
of life --- entertainment or bona fide science? What about ... ??? Hey, if it's just
entertainment then they could have gotten ANY clown to do the jig - maybe with
a bit of tap-dancing and magic tricks inserted into the routine. Why do they send
the message using a world-renowned scientist as the messenger? Baaahhhh!

Jorge

I think you may have confused Richard Dawkins with Stephen Hawking. Although Hawking has been described as an atheist by Victor J. Stenger and his ex-wife in their divorce proceedings I think it would be more accurate to describe him as either agnostic or possibly as some sort of deist, but certainly not a “fiery atheist.”

From Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God, by Henry F. Schaefer III (a well renowned chemist):

Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism.

Hawking himself has said "I thought I had left the existence of a Supreme Being completely open in my article. It would be perfectly consistent with all we know to say that there was a Being who was responsible for the laws of physics” although he continues by saying that to call such a being “God” might be misleading since “this term is normally understood to have personal connotations which are not present in the law of physics."

In a 2007 interview with Reuters he has said that he believes that "the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws."

And in a radio interview Hawking remarked that, "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief."

So I don’t think it would be accurate to say that he is an atheist much less a “fiery atheist,” although he is, as he describes himself, certainly "not religious in the normal sense."

[Jorge]

Listening to Hawking pass gas would be more enlightning than anything that came out of Jorges mouth.


There's no if about it, you DO propose laughable stuff. I'm sure we'll be laughing the next century as we
laughed during the past. The whole creationist story from start to finish is a joke.

*******************************************************************************

Looks like another 'genius' has joined the TWeb ranks --- just what was needed around here.

Uh ... SlapShot ... you may join the other 'geniuses' here like Tiggy, Faid, wattsr1, et al.
You'll recognize them quite easily : they're the ones drooling all over themselves while
babbling "Evolution is good ... evolution is great ... long live evolution." Feel free to join
their chorus line --- it looks like you're definitely one of 'them'.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Most normal people can distinguish between consensus science and speculation at the edge of science, Jorge.

You, clearly, are not one of those normal people.

Don't project your own deficiencies onto everyone else, please.

*******************************************************************************

Coming from you --- known as El Clueless amongst us rational people ---
the above is taken out with yesterday's trash and promptly disposed of.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I've heard it said that astronomers and cosmologists are the main proponents of a belief in
extraterrestrial intelligence and that biologists are typically less convinced. Is this true? I'm
semi-familiar with the Tipler/Barrow argument against extraterrestrial life, but not sure how it
fairs today.

****************************************************

Thanks for the worthwhile post, Adrift --- that was refreshing.

The bottom line is this : by far most Materialists subscribe to the belief (yes, it is a belief!)
in extraterrestrial life. Why? Because it goes hand-in-hand with their Materialistic
worldview which, of course, includes evolution. I've written towards this elsewhere in TWeb.
My personal experience is that if a person subscribes to evolution, that person is ten or
more times more likely to believe in ET than a person that rejects the evolutionary myth.
IOW, it has very little to do with whether they are cosmologists, biologists or astronomers,
but has a great deal to do with what their religious worldview is.

Jorge

[Faid]

****************************************************

Thanks for the worthwhile post, Adrift --- that was refreshing.

The bottom line is this : by far most Materialists subscribe to the belief (yes, it is a belief!)
in extraterrestrial life. Why? Because it goes hand-in-hand with their Materialistic
worldview which, of course, includes evolution. I've written towards this elsewhere in TWeb.
My personal experience is that if a person subscribes to evolution, that person is ten or
more times more likely to believe in ET than a person that rejects the evolutionary myth.
IOW, it has very little to do with whether they are cosmologists, biologists or astronomers,
but has a great deal to do with what their religious worldview is.

Jorge

Suppose that's true (excluding the garbage about "religious" worldviews).


SO?

Do you even have a point?