I think Mr. Cameron is a bit out of his intellectual depth.

I also don’t think that a brilliant man like Hawking needs the sympathy of a sitcom actor.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

”...He has an unfair disadvantage, and that gives him a free pass on some of his absurd ideas.”

Cameron talking about absurd ideas, pot meet kettle.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

We also got to hear from the mediocre comedian kat williams. It reminds us that many Christians are unaware that not everyone believes in the invisible Palestinian carpenter zombie. It also brings the poverty of agnosticism into sharp relief(I’m thinking of Amis this month) Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. And false beliefs have to be opposed before they will relinquish their hold on the mind.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Ah yes.  The scientific great, Kirk Cameron, who invented ... er ... I mean who discovered ... umm ... ahh ... I mean who developed ... hmm .... what the hell did he do again?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Here’s Kirk seated next to his friend Ray Comfort, AKA “the banana man”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Each and every one of the comments made above lack substance and merely reflect personal bias.  Stephen Hawkin’s position is supported by no more evidence than Kirk’s.  BOTH ARE STATEMENTS OF FAITH MADE WITHOUT EVIDENTIAL PROOF.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Chris - I hope we agree that Hawking’s model of the universe is built on more than faith. And while only a theory and perhaps subject to revision, we judge Hawking’s model superior to Cameron’s because Hawking makes predictions (based on his model) that are subsequently borne out by empirical evidence. In this way, the value - and validity - of a theory lies in it’s prophetic power, its ability to predict the future. And just on that topic - prophecy - let’s revisit this thread on May 22, after this weekend’s ‘festivities.’

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Chris: philosophically, this is true.  An absolute statement is an absolute statement, whether it is for whether something exists or something does (definitively) not exist.  However, science is built around the null hypothesis: if you can’t prove, with evidence, the positive claim that something exists, the null hypothesis is that it doesn’t.  In that case, Hawking’s statement that Heaven does not exist is a perfectly scientific one, since there is no evidence of its existence and therefore it doesn’t exist.

Philosophically, again, you have a point.  The most philosophically honest thing to do when the null hypothesis is applied is to say that something probably does not exist.  Leprechauns and unicorns may exist, because not all of reality has been observed and there are gaps they could be hiding in.  However, as far as we understand and observe to this point in time, we do not.

I think I had a point when I started typing this, but now I’m digging the pure joy of sophistry so… um… “Faith is like any other technology.  It’s either a benefit or a hazard.  If it’s a benefit, it’s not my problem.”

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I don’t think Dr Hawking’s statement is based in any way on “faith.” I really don’t understand why these people can’t listen to their own argument and get that “something from nothing can’t happen therefore god” is the silliest of arguments one can have. Again, for the forteenthbillionth time…where did god come from if SOMETHING couldn’t come from NOTHING? You’re just answering the question with the same answer people 5,000 years ago came up with because they had no idea of the vastness of the cosmos. Dr Hawking is basing his answer on evidence…what he can either see, or deduce using mathematics. Kirk, he also said that your god may exist, he/she/it just isn’t necessary for the universe to exist as it does. You need to go back to acting because pretending to be someone you’re not is a far better gig for you than being who you really are..

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Chris.

Really?  Perhaps then you would like to make a wager with me then on whether or not there is a winged purple rhinoceros living at the center of the Earth.  By your rationale the possibility of its existence is just as likely its nonexistence.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Chris, you are a bozo, if you can’t see the distinction between Steven Hawking’s expertise on cosmological issues and Kirk Cameron’s.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Mike and bannapeel,

I am really blinded by the infusion of rational thought you have brought to this arugument.  Three cheers for both of you!

Joe,

I agree with you that Stephen Hawking has put together a well thought out model.  However, the comparison should be between Hawkings and creation scientists.  Not Hawkings and Cameron.

MajorityofOne,

I appreciate being referred to in the third person and lumped together with these people.  Your warmth overwelms me.

However, ff you take time to analyze your statement you will have to acknowledge a fundamental error.  A person of faith does not claim to have absolute evidence,  Furthermore, a person of faith will acknowledge their position is based on faith!  We don’t have to realize anything in this regard.  We believe God created based on faith. 

Having said that, I must also point out that we do observe the universe to develope a model of origins that will work within that creation framework.  But we still acknowldge the necessity of faith. 

In contrast, most atheists hide behind the myth that evolutionary science is based on sound scientific proof .  This position is taken even though in reality the theory is only a brilliant stringing together of hypothetical explanations.  And the theory is developed by those who are observing the data and promoting an explanation of the evidence that fits a pre-concieved evolutionary model.  Explanations that sound good but still lack one iota of proof.  And few will admit the reality that this is the case contrary to sound common sense.

Scoloeudra,

I have never studied philosopy so I will have to ponder you null hypohesis position.  I assume this is an accepted philosophical rule.  At first blush, I would have to think this tenant has it’s limitations and it’s usefullness in this argument is also limited (flawed).

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I have met a lot of “persons of faith” who claimed that god is the one and only answer to the existence of life. And btw. Atheist don’t take anything presented by scientists on “faith”. It’s not like we’re reading “The Brothers Grimm” or the bible here. Proof has to be seen and checked before it is believed.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

My only question about this matter would be something like “Why in the world would a newspaper waste the ink and wood needed to print anything that Kirk Cameron had to say about anything related to field of science in the first place?”  Cameron does not agree with Hawking. What a surprise. He also doesn’t agree with Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Edwin Hubble, Alan Guth, etc…. So, what?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@chris:  evolutionary science is ABSOLUTELY based upon sound scientifific proof.  I don’t even know where to begin with refuting what you just said.  The level of evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming, well beyond what any reasonable mind would accept. 

This is another one of the common buzz phrases that religious people like to cling to, hoping that if they repeat it enough that it will just sort of be “accepted” eventually.  In a previous comment thread, you threw out another one, the “the apostles would have had to knowingly die for a lie” argument.  I pointed out the obvious follow-up question: what evidence do you have for how any of the apostles died, much less that they died for their beliefs?  Which you never responded to.

And thats sort of what happens whenever you point out the obvious flaws and blatant fallacies behind these common buzz phrases.  You just move on to something new.  The religious position becomes less and less and less tenable every single day.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Chris

I have always found the argument for belief based on faith to be circular.  What is faith other than belief?  What is the source of that faith?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Mike.  It’s more of a problem than that.  Faith is not a synonym just for belief in this context.  It’s belief simply for the desire for it to be true without evidence or reason.  It usually involves rejecting evidence and reason.

This type of faith is impossible to reason with so anyone trying to reason with Chris is wasting their time.  This is what makes religious faith so dangerous.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Chris, you wrote: “I am really blinded by the infusion of rational thought you have brought to this arugument.”

Well, it’s all the rational thought that you deserve.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Ryder1984 - Keep telling yourself that.
VeronicaS - IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ARTICLE - Please provide evidence that Cameron does not agree with Einstein.
Chris72 - You tell me evolution is based on sound scientific proof but did not give me any.  Please provide macro evolutionary proof to back that statement up (not micro - creationists also believe in micro evolution).
Mike - You still have not contributed anything of significance.
Patrick - I have studied both sides of the argument and evolution comes up wanting in the field of supporting observable evidence (note I say evidence not proof ).  When have you ever honestly taken your blinders off?  Who is really dangerous here?  At least I am willing to try to reason with you !  But all you can do is cast dispersion!  Admittedly, it would take a lot for you to convince me that evolutionary theory is plausible.  That is because I have studied evolutionary and creation theory and I am convinced of the strength of a creation theory over evolutionary theory.  But just because I am difficult to convince does that make me dangerous?  I think the reality is that you intellectually lazy!  All you can do is insult.
bananapeel - As always your comments are arrogant, bigoted and shallow.  If you are ever to expect to be effective for your cause you need to get over it (see response to Patrick above).
All (except Joe) - I really don’t like busting on you.  But I tire of the same old garbage that comes from most people on this site.  On this site, I rarely see the same substance from the atheist’s that they demand from me (thankfully there are some – or I wouldn’t bother).  Maybe that is because most atheists don’t have anything of substance to contribute. 
NOW - Back to the article – Cameron has criticized Hawking for saying there is not heaven.  Did Hawkings prove that SCIENTIFICALLY?  If not - why should you believe him on this point?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Chris

You continue to dismiss my comments off hand, however, I do not believe I have presented anything here that is not logically sound.  Furthermore, you ask for evidence for evolution.  Please read Richard Dawkins Greatest Show on Earth, Michael Shermers Why Darwin Matters or a biology textbook.  In the meantime you defend your position with the claim of having faith in your position.  Can you not see how this is circular and utterly unconvincing?  You state boldly above that you don’t need evidence for your invisible god but demand it from us.  If you check the sources that I have recommended you will see that this is an abundance if evidence for evolution. 

Beyond that, with regard to Hawkings claims about heaven, there is no evidence for or against the existence of such a place.  In that case why should we believe it?  Is there any reason to believe it?  I would argue that the burden of proof in the case of this extraordinary claim is on those who are making the extraordinary claim.  I think most atheists will agree that it is logically possible that God and heaven exist, it is just that the likelihood of their existence is laughably minuscule given the complete lack of evidence (think purple rhino).

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Mike,

See your quote below: !  It does not pass the rules of clasical logic.

”@Chris.

Really?  Perhaps then you would like to make a wager with me then on whether or not there is a winged purple rhinoceros living at the center of the Earth.  By your rationale the possibility of its existence is just as likely its nonexistence”

And the following did not help you either   It has nothing to do with the issue raised by Cameron..  And it doesn’t address the issue raised by me either - which is actually the same raised by Cameron.  Your point would be appropriate under a different context but not this one.

”@Chris

I have always found the argument for belief based on faith to be circular.  What is faith other than belief?  What is the source of that faith?”

Moving on to your last post. 

The begining of paragraph 1 - I asked you to defend evolution.  Not give me a primer to read.  I would like to see you present evidence for evolution.

The end of your paragraph 1 - you really didn’t pay attention to what I wrote.  Please stop attritbuting points to my posts that I did not make.  I asserted that I studied both sides and found evolution wanting.  I DO find evidence that supports the need for a creator (GOD).  I do not want to follow a fictious figure. 

Finally, because there is not evidence to support his statement - Hawkings cannot say heaven does not exist.  I have not denied your right to not believe in heaven.  I am just saying it is illogical for the Hawkings say it doesn’t - without proof.  So who really belongs in the hall of shame Cameron or Hawkings? That is really the only point that we can take from this.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Listen, man, I have already spent a lot of my own time here debating this inane article with you.  I have pointed out where you can go to see evidence for evolution, it is there.  If you are more sensitive I recommend the Shermer book, although Dawkins is far more in depth.  I am not going to write a bloody book on evolution in a comments thread about Kirk Cameron. 

Incidentally, you are right.  I will try again.  Hawking (no ‘s’) indeed cannot say with absolute, 100%, metaphysical certainty that heaven does not exist.  He can’t.  However, that does not mean that it exists, that it is likely to exist, or even that it is possible that it could exist.  Like my Rhino at the center of the Earth (or Russell’s Teapot or Carl Sagan’s Pink Unicorn).  Everything we know about anything suggests that the likelihood of these things existing is very small.  Very very small.  If I asked you if there was a rhino at the center of the Earth, would you honestly say, “I don’t know, I don’t have any proof.”  The only thing a rational person, when presented with such a bizarre proposition (unless there is very strong evidence to the contrary) is to assume that it isn’t true.  Otherwise, we open ourselves up to a level of credulity that I don’t think that you or I would feel comfortable with.

Please feel free to respond, but I am sorry, that is all I am going to say on this.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Chris - look deeper into the null hypothesis - it will clarify this issue.

The theist claims “god exists” while the atheist claims “god does not exist” - a null hypothesis - and highly disprovable. That’s the key.

No amount of evidence can PROVE the null hypothesis, but even the slightest evidence can DISPROVE it.

Disproving the null hypothesis presents the theist with the opportunity to be right. (what a gift!) So far, no theist has presented empirical evidence to disprove the null hypothesis - and so it stands.

Even among theists, there is an amazing lack of consensus about what might constitute evidence, so we are left with an infinitely subjective test of evidence. What passes muster as evidence to disprove the null hypothesis “god does not exist” is left entirely to personal taste.

If the ‘evidence’ is good enough for me, if it suits my layman’s test of evidence, then I’m satisfied that god exists. And as we’ve already seen, no amount of evidence can ‘unring’ this bell and prove a competing (null) hypothesis.

What atheists usually react to is what they see as embarrassingly thin evidence, and as has been said other places many times, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” What passes for evidence of the creator of the universe is often really goofy stuff - like how perfectly one’s hand fits a banana. *sigh* If that’s all the ‘evidence’ Kirk Cameron needs to substantiate his god story, then I’m sorry - I feel fully entitled to mock and ridicule Kirk Cameron.

Seems to me, any sincere quest for the eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient creator of the universe would turn up incontrovertible evidence at every turn. How do you hide a big ‘ol god like that?!

Instead, the god of the gaps has been shrinking for centuries. Pardon us atheists if we’re now just a little jaded - and skeptical - about all the god claims. Most of us are willing to be wrong - it’s just that the evidence has not been forthcoming.

I have an idea - how about all you believers get together and agree on a single, unified god story you think has the best evidence - and then come back to the atheists with something to prove.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Chris. Since my comment was about the thought process leading up to the writing and publication of the article, Im a bit confused on how you might have misinterpreted it be a comment on the article itself. My only thought on the article itself is to wonder why anyone would bother writing it in the first place. When the reporter was researching and fact-checking the article, certain basic questions would almost have to cross the reporter’s mind, like, ‘who is Stephen Hawking?’ a noted physicist, ‘who is Kirk Cameron?’ an 80s sitcom child star, ‘what are this child star’s views generally on cosmology?’ he thinks that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, ‘since he disagrees with Hawking, is there a scientist of note that he does NOT disagree with?’ No, there is not. So, until there is something in the physics or cosmology texts called Cameron radiation or Cameron diagrams, the appropriate response to the news of ‘Kirk Cameron disagrees with Stephen Hawking on a question pertaining to the nature of the universe’ would be something like ’ Pffft. Whatever.’

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Cameron is a qualified buffoon and Hawking is a qualified scientist. Can the buffoons of this world provide evidence for the existence of heaven? No, they have not and can not.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I don’t know why you all reasonable people trying to convince Chris who is obviously an unreasonable person that he is either know he is wrong but doesn’t want to admit or he is too ignorant to know he is wrong.

As soon as these people start want us to provide evidence or proof of evolution, I stop listen and watch. If at this point of scientific development, they still question a settled scientific fact, there is really no hope for them at all. Just like some people said, they are convinced that there is an invisible being up in the sky watching the every movement, every thought of almost 7 billion people (like he has nothing better to do) without any evidence, yet they question hundred years of development of biological science. Do you really think a group of people online can convince them?  The only argument they can make is god exist because they believe him/her/it exists. No amount of evidence can convince them otherwise, just like no amount evidence could convince some people that May 21, 2011 was not the day the Earth die.

Wait… Chris will claim that evolution is only a “theory”, too bad that we are arguing with people has no understanding of what a SCIENTIFIC theory is.

So… in summary, I suggest everyone with an ounce of intelligence just take a deep breath and ignore people like Chris. This way we will be less aggravated and understand that there are people in the world that just are not reasonable.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@echo: We could do that.  Or, we could continue to vent our feelings and frustrations on someone like Chris.

Or…we could also try to help Chris.

But, to do so, we would need to get to know him better.

@Chris: I’m curious.  Precisely which evidence for creationism have you been exposed to which you found so compelling and convincing?  Also, which evidence for evolution have you been exposed to which you did not?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Robert:  You are a sweet soul but too nice.  The Chris’ of this world are in truth intellectual bigots. There is no difference between Chris’ argument for god and the bigot’s argument that, say, Whites are superior to Blacks. 

When scientific evidence is adduced they will poke holes perhaps by saying that a White chap ‘A’ is demonstrably smarter than Black chap ‘B’.  He will misread some scientific literature and say that the jury is out.

When asked for proof he will say that Super White said so and he has faith.

We must never pander to the nonsense mongerers of this world.  They thrive and multiply on kindness.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Chris.  I didnt specify evidence because I dont really even know where to begin.  That’s like asking for evidence supporting germ theory or spherical earth theory or the-sun-isnt-a-god-in-a-golden-chariot-riding-across-the-sky theory, it’s overwhelmingly beyond any reasonable doubt.

If you want direct physical evidence of our ancestral organisms, you could look at the fossil record.  We are pretty lucky to have any fossils at all given the select set of circumstances needed for them to form.  But the fossil record is impressive nonetheless.  the talkorigins archive (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) has a great discussion on this if you would like to actually read about it instead of just making blanket unsubstantiated “there’s no evidence to support evolution” comments which do nothing but demonstrate your ignorance on the subject.

Or you could witness what happens on a daily basis at the microbiological level, particularly with regards to the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria.  Because for scientists, there really is no “micro” or “macro” evolution, there’s just evolution.  The micro and macro prefixes were invented by fundamentalist idiots to distinguish between the parts of evolutionary science that only a completely delusional nut job still rejects (“micro” evolution), versus the parts that they still stubbornly refuse to acknowledge despite all evidence to the contrary (“macro” evolution). 

If you would uncover your eyes and ears for just a moment, you would quickly realize what any reasonable minded people accepted a long time ago.  The gods of christianity are no different than any other primitive cultural superstitions.  It’s a large scale cult nothing more.  And like all other primitive cultural superstitions, it will die out over time because eventually common sense and reason always win out.  You’re on the losing side of history.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

As far as the comments above about how we should just ignore people like Chris, I disagree.  I mean, I agree that people like him are brainwashed beyond hope, and no amount of evidence will convince him.  But people like him need to be called on it, and these discussions need to be had in the open.  Rational thinking people need to be more vocal and nut jobs need to be marginalized.  We live in times where our nation’s leaders believe tales of talking snakes and invisible beings in the sky instructing them to invade Islamic countries.  Where our children are being taught ancient creation myths as “science”.  This madness needs to end.

I also would be curious to hear Chris’s “evidence”.  Although I imagine it’s the same old “something can’t come from nothing” nonsense.  We would then point out that no scientific theory (evolution or otherwise) claims such a thing, aside from the fact that the “invisible guy in the sky from ancient Hebrew mythology” theory doesn’t explain where such a “god” would have come from either.  But then he’ll probably stop posting.  Sort of like when I asked him in another thread what evidence he had for how any of the apostles died.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I once saw this individual on Fox News (O’Reilly, I think), this time adding his intellectual weight to a discussion on evolution. His claim?... That evolution was a sham and that one creature couldn’t possibly evolve from another. His proof?... ‘Where are all the croco-ducks?” (holds up picture of a half crocodile-half duck mutant). Oh dear, back to school. Perhaps his education skipped this subject altogether.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Look guys, the point here is that if you don’t believe in GOD and JESUS you are all going to burn in hell. And I will laugh at you. How much will your scientific “proof” matter then?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Chris (32)
Well that’s it, then. No need to have a rational discussion about the nature of the Universe with regard to evidence or proof. We don’t believe what you believe, so we’re going to suffer for your amusement.. Not much Christian compassion on show there.
None of us knows for certain how it all started, a fact scientists willingly acknowledge. You, on the other hand, appear certain. Yet for some reason, it’s the world of science that is regularly accused of arrogance. Step up Kirk Cameron to do just that, presumably whilst asserting the absolute ‘truth’ in the Bible, God and Jesus. Blah, blah, blah.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Ahhhh, there we go.  Just gotta keep pushing the button and eventually the paranoid craziness comes out.  Chris, the only reason you have to believe that such gods of yours exists (as opposed to all the innumerable numbers of gods throughout mankind’s history) is because you happened to live in a time and place where christianity predominated and that’s what you were TOLD to believe.  No further reason. 

Kind of understandable thousands of years ago when mankind knew very little of science and couldnt explain most of what was happening around them.  But in the 21st century, pretty damned silly.

This is why I like to have these discussions in the open.  Because any third party paying attention to this will see that once you get past the nonsensical catch phrases (“the apostles would have had to knowingly die for a lie” or “evolution has no evidence to support it”, etc), you eventually get to the bottom of what religion really is: cultural superstitions kept alive by paranoia and a cult mentality.

Grow up Chris, your gods are myths.  Time to accept that and move on.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

As a species we are young. Modern science for us began 2-300 years ago. Scientists can’t be expected to know the origins of the universe yet. It is just stupid to expect science to have all the answers and if it doesn’t to just default to “god did it”.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Chris72 said:

‘you eventually get to the bottom of what religion really is: cultural superstitions kept alive by paranoia and a cult mentality.’

A well crafted, economical description.  Excellent.

In this kind of cultish outlook, belief trumps rationality every time. To be religious, one has to accept and believe some truly incredible claims. Things we know just can’t and don’t happen. Yet for some reason, many people are content to believe that certain events occurred in biblical times that they would dismiss as fantasy in the modern world. The laws of physics and nature haven’t changed in 13 billion years, let alone two thousand.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

All,

Just to make things clear, I posted the comments oon 6, 12, 19 and 21.  The post on number 32 was not mine.  I used a capital C for my name and he post in 32 uses a lower case c.  Post #32 clearly represents the message in scripture for those who reject God/Christ it really is not a laughing matter.  It is very serious.  It will be a very sorrowful thing when those who reject God realize they made a mistake.  That is nothing to laugh at.

I have been away and a lot of comments have been made.  I would like to respond to as many comments as possible but will do so over time.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

No Chris, it’s not a “sorrowful thing” to reject superstitious nonsense.  Your paranoid ideations of eternal punishment for not praising some imaginary being in the sky is just an adult version of the boogyman in the closet that your older brother told you about to scare you at night.  It’s nothing more than that.

Just like when your mom told you that you wouldnt get any taller if you didnt eat your vegetables, or that Santa would leave coal in your stockings if you werent nice, or how the nuns told you you would go blind if you, well, ahem,  it simply aint true. 

And that’s what really keeps religions alive, just like with any cult.  Fear over what will happen if you let go.  So you keep forcing yourself to believe, squashing out any reasonable thoughts on the matter, to the point where you have so fully brainwashed yourself that you have lost any capacity for rational thought on the matter.  And since no one is around to tell you what happens after your die (and I’m talking about brain death ,not just cardiac arrest), the cult goes on and on and on… 

But, again, when all is said and done it is just that: a large scale cult.  Your religion is no different than any of the countless others throughout mankind’s history.  You just happened to have been born in a time and place where the gods of christianity (modified extensively over the past two millenia) predominated.

Now if you want to go the rest of your life believing in superstitious BS, whatever.  Just dont expect others to do the same. 

But you’re right about it being nothing to laugh at.  Paranoid delusions are a sign of schizophrenia and those who experience them should be on heavy psychotropic medication.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Look, obviously I do exist - I’m here, right in the middle of Philly, having an average cup of coffee and a pretty sad-looking burger.

Just between us folks ok, my buddy Stephen knows that I’m behind the Big Bang. The deal is….I sneezed when I was in the middle of designing him and screwed up some of the ol’ motor stuff. I made it up to him by giving him a totally massive brain so he could come up with the cool cover story for my magnificent mondo skills that has 9 out of 10 of you Americans suckered up to my programme. [Not only do I exist, but I’m British too - ]

Anyway to all of you numbnuts, the point is - since you lot only have 4 score years and ten on my little experiment, please - stop wasting them with this lame mental masturbation in the blogosphere. Go and play with your kids or something wholesome.

And @Chris: dude, your reasoning is so lame I’m going to make you my poolboy bitch, for like, eternity

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Note to file:  Chris the credulous theist never did respond to everyone’s comments over time.  Having obviously come to an intellectual gun fight unarmed, he must have been overcome by his wounds.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Scientist Stephen Hawking quoted:

“Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

The derivation of the theory of spontaneous creation is merely from the discovery of the creation of particles through vacuum by means of quantum theory from scientists in the past.  However, the experiment in the past had shown that the particles could only exist for awhile after its creation and its life could not prolong for more than half an hour and began to vanish.  It is erroneous to use this experiment to support spontaneous creation could create something out of nothing in which the created things could last forever.  Unless the experiment had shown in the past that the created substance could prolong its life more than a year, it is then rational to use it to support there could be spontaneous creation prior to the creation of universe that could cause substances, such as, planets, living things and etc., to continue to exist until nowadays.  As the existence of particles through spontaneous creation through the experiment in the vacuum in the past had shown that the created particles could not even prolong their life more than a year, how could spontaneous creation be occurred prior to the creation of this universe that could create living things that could last even up to this modern days?

Thus, Stephen Hawking’s theory for spontaneous creation that could create something out of nothing could not be acceptable especially particles that had been created through experiment could only appear a couple of minutes and then vanished.

Stephen hawking also mentions that because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.  As we know, as the earth revolves around the sun, the gravity is also accompanied with the earth to revolve around the sun.  Even if the earth would cease its movement, gravity would cease its movement simultaneously.  Thus, the gravity and the earth cannot be separated.  As gravity and the earth cannot be separated, it is erroneous to assume that gravity could exist at the collapse of stars or prior to the formation of this universe as supported by Stephen Hawking.  As gravity and the earth cannot be separated, it is erroneous to support Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity could exist prior to the creation of universe despite there was no object to be found at that time.

Isaac Newton was the founder of the theory of gravity and Stephen Hawking develops the theory through gravity.  Isaac Newton supported that gravity attaches big objects, such as, the earth.  To stay away from big objects, would cause lesser or no gravity.  Yet Stephen hawking’s theory contradicts Isaac Newton’s principle that gravity would remain at the absence of object.  The worse is that Stephen Hawking supports that gravity could exist even at the absence of the creation of objects prior to the formation of this universe.  Thus, Stephen Hawking’s theory has been found to have contradiction with Isaac Newton’s principle.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Refer to the website address at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy pertaining to dark energy.

The following is the extract of the second paragraph under the sub-title of “Negative Pressure” for the main subject of the ‘Nature Of Dark Energy’:

According to General Relativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the Stress-energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a substance and its pressure and viscosity.

As the phrase, the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is mentioned in the extracted paragraph, it gives the implication that physical quantity of matter has to exist prior to the generation of gravitational effects.  Or in other words, it opposes the principality that gravitational effects could occur at the absence of matter.  As it is described pertaining to Dark Energy, it implies that Dark Energy could only be derived from the existence of the physical quantity of matter.  This certainly rejects Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy could exist prior to the formation of the universe as if that dark energy could exist the support or influence from the physical quantity of matter.

The following is the extract of the third paragraph under the sub-title of ‘Cosmological Constant’ for the main subject of the ‘Nature of Dark Energy’:

The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is simply the “cost of having space”: that is, a volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the cosmological constant, sometimes called Lambda (hence Lambda-CDM model) after the Greek letter Λ, the symbol used to mathematically represent this quantity. Since energy and mass are related by E = mc2, Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts that it will have a gravitational effect..

E = mc2 has been used to be related to Dark Energy.  As energy and mass are related in according to General Relativity and if m = 0, no matter how big the number that c could be, E (the dark energy) would turn up to be 0 since 0 is multiplied by c2 always equal to 0.  Or in other words, E (the dark energy) should be equal to 0 at the absence of substance.  Stephen Hawking’s theory certainly contradicts Eistein’s theory in the sense that he supports that dark energy could exist even though there could not be any matter existed prior to the formation of the universe.

Refer to the website address at: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html pertaining to the law of universal gravitation.  The following is the extract of the definition of law of universal gravitation:

Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the time of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely separation between the two objects.  Fg = G(m1 m2)//r2. (Fg is the gravitational force; m1 & m2 are the masses of the two objects; r is the separation between the objects and G is the universal gravitational constant.  From the formula, we note that Fg (the gravitational force or in replacement of dark energy) has a direct influence from two masses (m1 & m2).  If either of the m is equal to 0, Fg would turn up to be 0.  Isaac Newton’s theory certainly opposes Stephen Hawking in which gravity or the so-called, dark energy, could exist at the absence of matter prior to the formation of this universe in this energy or gravity could create something out of nothing.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Big Bang theory has been used to support that this universe could be formed out of chaos. 
Refer to the website address, http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html, regarding to the 1st law of Newton’s Principle.  It is mentioned that every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.  If this concept has been applied to the formation of this universe, it implies that this universe would remain nothing as it was until external force that would cause it to change.  Or in other words, if there could be no external force or substance that could cause the formation of this universe, everything would remain as it was and the universe, that would remain nothing, would continue to remain nothing.
If this universe could be created something out of nothing, there must be the external force that would cause something to be created out of nothing.  Stephen Hawking might comment that it was gravity or quantum theory or etc.  However, there must have external force that would cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work.  If there would not be any external force to cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work in the formation of this universe, how could there be the formation of this universe since this world would remain nothing until eternity as supported by 1st law of Newton’s principle?  Thus, the concept that this universe could be created something out of nothing is questionable from scientific point of view.

Newton’s principle even mentions that every object in this universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the time of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely separation between two objects.  This theory gives the implication that there have to be some objects or masses in order to attract force, i.e. gravity.  Thus, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory in which gravity could exist at the absence of objects or masses prior to the formation of this universe.

Even if one insists that this theory could be correct, how could quantum theory or gravity or etc., be so efficient to manage the universe well in such a way that it could create sophisticated earth which plants and animals could survive here?  What made the earth to be created far from the sun and not just next to it?  For instance, if this earth was created a short distance just next to the sun, all animals and plants would not survive.  Thus, the creation of this universe could not be co-incidence and this certainly puts quantum theory to be in doubts pertaining to its creation from something out of nothing.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.