Can you give me an observable evidence that Evolution is true?

[Guy Threepwood]

The science stands on its own without any call to atheism or god. The fact that they view their work as making god redundant (and this is only one actually that has said this) makes no sway over the legitimacy of their work. If what they had contributed in any way was inherently biased without evidence for their bias, it would be called on during peer review. As I have said before most of them claim that their atheism comes from conclusions based upon science (thought not established or held by science). All of the atheists you have mentioned have gone on record stating they don't believe because there simply is not evidence of god. And that is more or less the same thing for all atheists. I know there are exceptions to this but they are rare.

Also I find it interesting that Hawking was at one time not an atheist and has since changed his opinion because of a lack of evidence. He was a well established scientists well before he was an Atheist.


Thats great. What of the thousands upon tens of thousands of religious individuals making their work about god? Especially the ones fabricating evidence and pushing fake science to prove it? If we are going to go after your view of who is the heralds of Atheism rather than the science community in general why not go after the religious fundamentalists as an apt comparison?

And again, any contributions anyone makes in science must stand on its own or it will be thrown out. No one, theist or atheist, gets a free pass on a theory to further an ideology or political goal.

well this is mainly ground we've covered, if you think their atheism and atheist theories have nothing to do with decades of being steeped in and reliant on atheist academic/media culture- that comes down to personal faith, I think they are human like anyone else. but in terms of them all being in agreement on scientific validity, that's clearly not the case..

I agree with Krauss on Hawking 'If your theory involves an infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear you even have a theory'

I also agree with Hawking on Krauss 'That moron couldn't theorize his way out of a bowl of custard'

They are skeptical of each other's atheist theories, I'm just skeptical of one more than they are..

 

[Monk Of Reason]

well this is mainly ground we've covered, if you think their atheism and atheist theories have nothing to do with decades of being steeped in and reliant on atheist academic/media culture- that comes down to personal faith, I think they are human like anyone else. but in terms of them all being in agreement on scientific validity, that's clearly not the case..

I agree with Krauss on Hawking 'If your theory involves an infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear you even have a theory'

I also agree with Hawking on Krauss 'That moron couldn't theorize his way out of a bowl of custard'

They are skeptical of each other's atheist theories, I'm just skeptical of one more than they are..

Good. You can be. However now you have also taken upon yourself to be skeptical of their scientific theories rather than their personal beliefs. Can I have you state in writing that it is not their scientific achievements but their personal views you have a problem with? If so then we can be done. But I know that you have science intertwined with belief and atheism somehow.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Good. You can be. However now you have also taken upon yourself to be skeptical of their scientific theories rather than their personal beliefs. Can I have you state in writing that it is not their scientific achievements but their personal views you have a problem with? If so then we can be done. But I know that you have science intertwined with belief and atheism somehow.

science should not be intertwined with atheism is the point

as above, whether they can even be considered 'scientific theories' is a bit of a stretch, even according to them. philosophical speculations at best, their achievements are in media sales, based on their personal beliefs, far more than any actual contribution to science.

Lemaitre never got a Hollywood movie, lucrative books deals, a Nobel prize, or even household recognition, he achieved something far greater than all that, progressing scientific understanding

 

[Monk Of Reason]

science should not be intertwined with atheism is the point

I agree. That is why it isn't.

as above, whether they can even be considered 'scientific theories' is a bit of a stretch, even according to them. philosophical speculations at best, their achievements are in media sales, based on their personal beliefs, far more than any actual contribution to science.

Their personal beliefs are not contributions to science. However each has actually made contributions to science. Hawkins in particular has contributed more to modern science than nearly anyone else currently living. None of that had to do with atheism.

Lemaitre never got a Hollywood movie, lucrative books deals, a Nobel prize, or even household recognition, he achieved something far greater than all that, progressing scientific understanding

Quite true. And I don't think there are many scientist that would deny that.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

However each has actually made contributions to science. Hawkins in particular

like what?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

like what?

He provided mathmatical proof for John Wheeler's "no hair theorem", co-discovered that black holes not only exist but emit radiation that we can use to detect them, founder of the quantum gravity theory, the "No boundary" proposal,

I can go on. In fact I will for bit. Has made contributions to the mathmatical study and understanding of expansion. cosmology, arrow of spacetime, "Large N" theories.

He IS the foremost expert on black hole phenomenon in the world. None of this has to do with atheism.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

He provided mathmatical proof for John Wheeler's "no hair theorem", co-discovered that black holes not only exist but emit radiation that we can use to detect them, founder of the quantum gravity theory, the "No boundary" proposal,

I can go on. In fact I will for bit. Has made contributions to the mathmatical study and understanding of expansion. cosmology, arrow of spacetime, "Large N" theories.

He IS the foremost expert on black hole phenomenon in the world. None of this has to do with atheism.

He came up with an entirely speculative conjecture that black holes would release radiation... but this has never been observed or verified

Was that his best one?

Again, the inventor of the Chip Clip has him beat so far.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

He came up with an entirely speculative conjecture that black holes would release radiation... but this has never been observed or verified

Was that his best one?

Again, the inventor of the Chip Clip has him beat so far.

Let me ask you this very very very seriously. Are you a troll? Am I being trolled right now? Or are you actually full on dead serious?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Let me ask you this very very very seriously. Are you a troll? Am I being trolled right now? Or are you actually full on dead serious?

I was actually not sure if you were being satirical when you said

Hawking in particular has contributed more to modern science than nearly anyone else currently living

In a career that spanned some of the most significant scientific advances in history, revolutionizing technology and modern life, Hawking contributed Hawking radiation... which has never been found . Nor have multiverses, and the Big Crunch which 'made God redundant' was thoroughly debunked. He is an 'expert' in a field that is inherently beyond scientific scrutiny, never mind practical application.

I like Hawking, he is a good writer, he seems to have preserved a genuine sense of humor despite his condition, but contributions to science? It's a very popular assumption because he is so iconic, in part for his atheist stance

 

[metis]

In a career that spanned some of the most significant scientific advances in history, revolutionizing technology and modern life, Hawking contributed Hawking radiation... which has never been found .

And you honestly think this is all he actually contributed?

Listen, this area of cosmology is sorta in its relative infancy, so what we are seeing are many, many hypotheses being put forth as models to try out and see if any of the data seems to more match one or another. This is what is done in science in all fields-- sorta like "brainstorming".

Nor have multiverses, and the Big Crunch which 'made God redundant' was thoroughly debunked. He is an 'expert' in a field that is inherently beyond scientific scrutiny, never mind practical application.

Absolutely false. The concept of both multiverse and the Big Crunch have simply not been "debunked", although the latter is believed to be less likely than a continued expansion of our universe.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And you honestly think this is all he actually contributed?

Listen, this area of cosmology is sorta in its relative infancy, so what we are seeing are many, many hypotheses being put forth as models to try out and see if any of the data seems to more match one or another. This is what is done in science in all fields-- sorta like "brainstorming".



Absolutely false. The concept of both multiverse and the Big Crunch have simply not been "debunked", although the latter is believed to be less likely than a continued expansion of our universe.

That's the biggest one, and it's still debatable if that's even a contribution or another detraction, he's a celebrity atheist writer, first and foremost- he has a habit of placing bets on the wrong side of scientific questions-

Big Crunch was certainly debunked thoroughly enough for Hawking himself to abandon it for multiverses, which of course are inherently unfalsifiable, hence unscientific

this 'area' of cosmology is a philosophical one called atheism, without any evidence whatsoever, it's sole impetus is to 'make God redundant' by circumventing a unique creation event- again Hawking's words, not mine. ever since Hoyle v Lemaitre, this guiding rationale has not proved very productive. That's why it's still 'in it's infancy' after a century.

While the primeval atom, the unique creation event atheists rejected for it's theistic implications, remains the only actually scientifically verified theory we have on the origins of the universe.

 

[metis]

That's the biggest one, and it's still debatable if that's even a contribution or another detraction, he's a celebrity atheist writer, first and foremost- he has a habit of placing bets on the wrong side of scientific questions-

Big Crunch was certainly debunked thoroughly enough for Hawking himself to abandon it for multiverses, which of course are inherently unfalsifiable, hence unscientific

this 'area' of cosmology is a philosophical one called atheism, without any evidence whatsoever, it's sole impetus is to 'make God redundant' by circumventing a unique creation event- again Hawking's words, not mine. ever since Hoyle v Lemaitre, this guiding rationale has not proved very productive. That's why it's still 'in it's infancy' after a century.

While the primeval atom, the unique creation event atheists rejected for it's theistic implications, remains the only actually scientifically verified theory we have on the origins of the universe.

Most of the above is nothing but pure bunk, and let me suggest you actually begin to read some books on cosmology or subscribe to Scientific American instead of posting stuff that's terribly wrong.

To link cosmologists and atheists as somehow being pretty much the same is nonsense. And the issue of "God" is not a cosmological issue but a personal one. The Big Crunch has not been "debunked" no matter how many times you post it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Most of the above is nothing but pure bunk, and let me suggest you actually begin to read some books on cosmology or subscribe to Scientific American instead of posting stuff that's terribly wrong.

To link cosmologists and atheists as somehow being pretty much the same is nonsense. And the issue of "God" is not a cosmological issue but a personal one. The Big Crunch has not been "debunked" no matter how many times you post it.

Hawking radiation has never been found despite much searching, he is open about his bad bets, check it out for yourself, even in glossy pop science grocery store mags like SciAm..

not all cosmologists are atheists, Lemaitre was a staunch skeptic of atheism..

measurements using supernovas as constants was the last nail for Big Crunch according to Hawking, who am I to question him?

I don't think your beliefs are nonsense, we all believe in something, but the point here was that science the academic institution and science the method are two. Getting recognized, adopted by the institution is clearly based on things other than just actual scientific contribution

Hawking is probably the most decorated, acclaimed, popular, scientist alive, without actually discovering anything..

Hoyle and Lemaitre both attended Cambridge also... I'll let you guess which one they put up a statue of..

clue; the one that got the entire universe totally arse about face.. but was an atheist

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I was actually not sure if you were being satirical when you said



In a career that spanned some of the most significant scientific advances in history, revolutionizing technology and modern life, Hawking contributed Hawking radiation... which has never been found . Nor have multiverses, and the Big Crunch which 'made God redundant' was thoroughly debunked. He is an 'expert' in a field that is inherently beyond scientific scrutiny, never mind practical application.

I like Hawking, he is a good writer, he seems to have preserved a genuine sense of humor despite his condition, but contributions to science? It's a very popular assumption because he is so iconic, in part for his atheist stance

I should have said in his field. Do you have another theoretical physicist that you feel has contributed more than Hawking?

Though again he was alreadly a household name before ever coming out as an atheist so I don't understand why you are so insistent that this is some how integral to his scientific research or his fame.

 

[shawn001]

Hawking radiation has never been found despite much searching, he is open about his bad bets, check it out for yourself, even in glossy pop science grocery store mags like SciAm..

not all cosmologists are atheists, Lemaitre was a staunch skeptic of atheism..

measurements using supernovas as constants was the last nail for Big Crunch according to Hawking, who am I to question him?

I don't think your beliefs are nonsense, we all believe in something, but the point here was that science the academic institution and science the method are two. Getting recognized, adopted by the institution is clearly based on things other than just actual scientific contribution

Hawking is probably the most decorated, acclaimed, popular, scientist alive, without actually discovering anything..

Hoyle and Lemaitre both attended Cambridge also... I'll let you guess which one they put up a statue of..

clue; the one that got the entire universe totally arse about face.. but was an atheist

"measurements using supernovas as constants was the last nail for Big Crunch according to Hawking, who am I to question him? "

It was ALL comosmologists and the fact the universe is expending faster then light that ruled out the big crunch.

 

[shawn001]

He came up with an entirely speculative conjecture that black holes would release radiation... but this has never been observed or verified

Was that his best one?

Again, the inventor of the Chip Clip has him beat so far.

He came up with a brilliant hypothesis that black holes would release radiation

"However, the evidence of the theory is very difficult. Because almost impossible to measure it."

Hawking Radiation Proven Successful For The First Time - Threelas

 

[Sapiens]

He came up with an entirely speculative conjecture that black holes would release radiation... but this has never been observed or verified

Was that his best one?

Again, the inventor of the Chip Clip has him beat so far.

Never say "never," try: "yet to be," instead, it keeps you from looking foolish.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"measurements using supernovas as constants was the last nail for Big Crunch according to Hawking, who am I to question him? "

It was ALL comosmologists and the fact the universe is expending faster then light that ruled out the big crunch.

agree

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Never say "never," try: "yet to be," instead, it keeps you from looking foolish.

insults, the most graceless form of conceding defeat once again

but sure if you prefer- after decades of searching, Hawking radiation, multiverses, M theory, String theory, big crunch, and Bigfoot are 'yet to be found'

using a term that implies more probability that they will be, doesn't change the complete lack of scientific evidence

 

[Sapiens]

insults, the most graceless form of conceding defeat once again

but sure if you prefer- after decades of searching, Hawking radiation, multiverses, M theory, String theory, big crunch, and Bigfoot are 'yet to be found'

using a term that implies more probability that they will be, doesn't change the complete lack of scientific evidence

For bigfoot no evidence, Hawking radiation is seeming a better and better bet.