Evolution of what?

[IndigoChild5559]

Oh? So the postulation is that something exploded from nothing, is that it? And you know that for certain, is that true, that space and time came into existence at the so-called big bang, right?

Nothing in science is for certain. A theory is an overarching idea that explains the empirical evidence known to date.

As to the specifics of why astrophysicists say that time and space came into existence at the Big Bang -- that is way above my pay grade. If you are really curious about why they think this, I suggest you read their journal articles and read their books, although I warn you in advance, their writings are very technical, and it is not likely that you will understand them since you lack the necessary background (as do I).

The following link to a lecture by Stephen Hawking in 1996 on the beginning of time is a little less technical, so it may be a better bet:
"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down."

Stephen Hawking Estate

www.hawking.org.uk

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh? So the postulation is that something exploded from nothing, is that it? And you know that for certain, is that true, that space and time came into existence at the so-called big bang, right?

Where did he say or even imply that it was from "nothing"?

 

[YoursTrue]

That's not the point of the Big Bang Theory. As I've posted numerous times, we will probably never know with any certainty how it all started.

Most scientists think that there was matter of some sort and that it exploded, right? And it was teeny, tiny but then blasted out and made the entire universe. I think it's wacko. Maybe not the right term, but the best I can do now. And that's another reason why I take vaccines when I deem necessary and no longer go for junk like that. Sorry.
"At this time, all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity. Suddenly, the Singularity began expanding, and the universe as we know it began." See, they think it was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density, etc. called a singularity. And suddenly, voila, there it is! (Insane)

 

[YoursTrue]

Nothing in science is for certain. A hypothesis is an overarching idea that explains the empirical evidence known to date.

As to the specifics of why astrophysicists say that time and space came into existence at the Big Bang -- that is way above my pay grade. If you are really curious about why they think this, I suggest you read their journal articles and read their books, although I warn you in advance, their writings are very technical, and it is not likely that you will understand them since you lack the necessary background (as do I).

The following link to a lecture by Stephen Hawking in 1996 on the beginning of time is a little less technical, so it may be a better bet:
"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down."

Stephen Hawking Estate

www.hawking.org.uk

As I posted just before, some things are too whacked out for me to think maybe it's true. Yes, Hawking figured that maybe the universe came from nothing also. I'm finished with this nonsense.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nothing in science is for certain. A hypothesis is an overarching idea that explains the empirical evidence known to date.

As to the specifics of why astrophysicists say that time and space came into existence at the Big Bang -- that is way above my pay grade. If you are really curious about why they think this, I suggest you read their journal articles and read their books, although I warn you in advance, their writings are very technical, and it is not likely that you will understand them since you lack the necessary background (as do I).

The following link to a lecture by Stephen Hawking in 1996 on the beginning of time is a little less technical, so it may be a better bet:
"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down."

Stephen Hawking Estate

www.hawking.org.uk

I'd sooner say fantasizes about the "empirical evidence," rather than explain it. But thanks anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd sooner say fantasizes about the "empirical evidence," rather than explain it. But thanks anyway.

Why must you make false claims about others just because an idea is beyond your understanding? There are all sorts of people that will have the ability to understand all sorts of things that I do not understand. For example there are artists that can easily craft something which if I tried to do would turn into a hideous mess. I do not fault them for their ability to do what I cannot do, why do you do that in regards to people that understand the sciences?

 

[YoursTrue]

Nothing in science is for certain. A hypothesis is an overarching idea that explains the empirical evidence known to date.

As to the specifics of why astrophysicists say that time and space came into existence at the Big Bang -- that is way above my pay grade. If you are really curious about why they think this, I suggest you read their journal articles and read their books, although I warn you in advance, their writings are very technical, and it is not likely that you will understand them since you lack the necessary background (as do I).

The following link to a lecture by Stephen Hawking in 1996 on the beginning of time is a little less technical, so it may be a better bet:
"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down."

Stephen Hawking Estate

www.hawking.org.uk

Anyway, Dr. Hawking, poor person, had a rather debilitating malady. Not necessarily continuing in the survival of the fittest realm. And he is dead. Maybe I will see him in the resurrection. I hope so, and he will not have his debilitating illness, and I hope he sees his mental gymnastics as -- ridiculous.

 

[Soandso]

Anyway, Dr. Hawking, poor person, had a rather debilitating malady. Not necessarily continuing in the survival of the fittest realm. And he is dead. Maybe I will see him in the resurrection. I hope so, and he will not have his debilitating illness, and I hope he sees his mental gymnastics as -- ridiculous.

I like how you describe the contributions of one of the greatest minds since Einstein as "mental gymnastics"

 

[YoursTrue]

I like how you describe the contributions of one of the greatest minds since Einstein as "mental gymnastics"

Thank you. That's how I now consider it. Again -- I look forward to the time when he will be well and can figure what his thoughts were -- (ridiculous).

 

[YoursTrue]

I like how you describe the contributions of one of the greatest minds since Einstein as "mental gymnastics"

They were...and I do not think all scientists agree that Dr. Hawking was of the greatest minds genre. Maybe popular. Yeah well, that's it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Anyway, Dr. Hawking, poor person, had a rather debilitating malady. Not necessarily continuing in the survival of the fittest realm. And he is dead. Maybe I will see him in the resurrection. I hope so, and he will not have his debilitating illness, and I hope he sees his mental gymnastics as -- ridiculous.

Stephen Hawking disability did not adversely effect his mind, which was absolutely brilliant. What may look like mental gymnastics to you or I is just another day at the office for a genius.

 

[blü 2]

I believe scientists are still not able to figure out with any degree of certitude how the mass, if it were, got there in the first place.

At least they're looking.

How's your church going in their study of miracles? Are they formulating hypotheses, testing them against reality, publishing evidence-based papers on how miracles work and ways we can perform them?

 

[Soandso]

Thank you. That's how I now consider it. Again -- I look forward to the time when he will be well and can figure what his thoughts were -- (ridiculous).

They were...and I do not think all scientists agree that Dr. Hawking was of the greatest minds genre. Maybe popular. Yeah well, that's it.

I mean, everyone has an opinion, but you're quick to dismiss his accomplishments. Based on what? Seems like unmitigated arrogance to me. Why do you judge his contributions to science as ridiculous?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

They were...and I do not think all scientists agree that Dr. Hawking was of the greatest minds genre. Maybe popular. Yeah well, that's it.

It is a generally accepted fact that Hawkings was a genius. His IQ was 160.

• 85 to 114: Average intelligence
• 115 to 129: Above average or bright
• 130 to 144: Moderately gifted
• 145 to 159: Highly gifted
• 160 to 179: Exceptionally gifted
• 180 and up: Profoundly gifted

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I posted just before, some things are too whacked out for me to think maybe it's true.

Your inability to understand or conceive of something, is not an argument against it.

Yes, Hawking figured that maybe the universe came from nothing also. I'm finished with this nonsense.

Translation: I'm not even going to try to understand and instead am just going to give in to my intellectual lazyness and stick to my dogmatic a priori faith based beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Anyway, Dr. Hawking, poor person, had a rather debilitating malady.

Sounds like a pathetic attempt at ad hominim.

Implying his physical condition prevented him from thinking straight.

Maybe you should ask yourself why all of science considered the man to be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, genius of our time.


I remember a story about when he was working on his black hole thingy, he had a team of 20 people who had to work out some big math problem. After 3 months of research and calculations, they came to him with their results. He saw the outcome and replied "this must be incorrect, review it and try again".
Sure enough, several weeks later they came back and indeed found out they made a mistake.


IOW, Hawking did the calculations in his head, by himself, and actually did a better job then the entire team put together with all the tools at their disposal.
This is the man you are trying to put down.

None of this means that he was correct about everything he said off course.
But this is the calibre of genius you are trying to put down with such silly denegrating statements. Just saying. You might want to lose that arrogance and consider that maybe, just maybe, that dude was a wee bit smarter then you.


Again, this doesn't mean he was right about everything.
But it does mean that if the man speaks about his field of expertise..... it might be a good idea to actually listen, because chances are rather huge that he has a few interesting points to make.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I believe scientists are still not able to figure out with any degree of certitude how the mass, if it were, got there in the first place.

Actually there is.

It's called Entropy.

 

[YoursTrue]

Stephen Hawking disability did not adversely effect his mind, which was absolutely brilliant. What may look like mental gymnastics to you or I is just another day at the office for a genius.

Not putting him down but he also made money that way. And yes he figured what he figured even though it was clearly mental gymnastics. Maybe this, maybe that.etc. fini say what you want, I see that. Bye for now.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not putting him down but he also made money that way. And yes he figured what he figured even though it was clearly mental gymnastics. Maybe this, maybe that.etc. fini say what you want, I see that. Bye for now.

You pretend as if he was just talking out his behind.
It seems you don't realize at all that what you call "mental gymnastics" was all underpinned by mathematical and physical models, supported by objective evidence.

 

[ElishaElijah]

What you would call people accepting religious belief, without evidence, without facts…it is called FAITH.

That’s not what faith is, you don’t even know.
That is what kind of faith atheists and other beliefs have that reject the only true God and Savior Jesus Christ, who came to the earth, performed miracles, died and rose from the dead. He has been active since Creation, has written what is to come and it’s all happening now. Faith is hearing, believing and trusting what God says, the way you live will determine your faith and trust.
God is speaking every day, why can’t you hear Him? Here’s what He spoke to me today:

”Thus says the Lord: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man And makes flesh his strength, Whose heart departs from the Lord. For he shall be like a shrub in the desert, And shall not see when good comes, But shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, In a salt land which is not inhabited. “Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, And whose hope is the Lord. For he shall be like a tree planted by the waters, Which spreads out its roots by the river, And will not fear when heat comes; But its leaf will be green, And will not be anxious in the year of drought, Nor will cease from yielding fruit. “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it? I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings. “As a partridge that broods but does not hatch, So is he who gets riches, but not by right; It will leave him in the midst of his days, And at his end he will be a fool.”“
‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭17‬:‭5‬-‭11‬ ‭NKJV‬‬