Big bang v creation.

[Hysteresis]

This is where the Bible and Science are at odds. Nothing in the Bible stands up to even a little testing, all it requires is s your vivid imagination for it to become fact.

Has as been pointed out,they do agree on the creation,only arguing how it happened.

But the science explanation survives the rigorous testing. If it fails a test then the theory is wrong and the science community accepts that and either adjusts their present theory or finds another one that does stand up to scrutiny.
The Fairy Stories in the Bible are looked upon by the likes of the Rev. Norcon as true no matter what, even if it defies testing, these people still argue that it's true 'cos the Bible said so.
That approach is a very dangerous one considering when these stories where made up. They even justify the violence and sexual depravity preached in this book. Thats where it becomes dangerous and leads directly to the Extremism that we see today.
Science can also be dangerous, but Science is just discovering the laws of nature and it is Nature that is very very dangerous. The danger of Fusion is very clear, but without it we would not exist. We could exist quite happily without Biblical Fairy Stories, and in my view we would exist in a far less dangerous world without the belief in Fairies at the bottom of the Biblical Garden.

Oh - Joe, stop being so aggressive and nasty, state your point, argue it, but don't descend into childishly insulting your fellow posters

 

[enyam]

But the science explanation survives the rigorous testing. If it fails a test then the theory is wrong and the science community accepts that and either adjusts their present theory or finds another one that does stand up to scrutiny.

Hmmm,not to sure on that,take the global warming thing,%5 don't think its down to human's,so do the other 95% accept that and change or is it down to the 5% to change.I digress.

 

[enyam]

Oh - Joe, stop being so aggressive and nasty, state your point, argue it, but don't descend into childishly insulting your fellow posters

Joe change? never.

 

[Hysteresis]

But the science explanation survives the rigorous testing. If it fails a test then the theory is wrong and the science community accepts that and either adjusts their present theory or finds another one that does stand up to scrutiny.

Hmmm,not to sure on that,take the global warming thing,%5 don't think its down to human's,so do the other 95% accept that and change or is it down to the 5% to change.I digress.

Fair Point enyam.

 

[JBR]

Just because Hawking looks like the inside of a Dalek doesn't mean he knows what he is talking about.

Aren't you brave!

If you were to develop motor neurone disease like he did (and it is perfectly possible you might) you wouldn't be so cocky, would you? Unlike Stephen Hawking, who made such a success of his life despite those overwhelming obstacles, I bet in such circumstances you'd just shrivel up and die.

 

[joe-90]

He's famous because of the way he looks, if he didn't look like that he would never have been heard of.

 

[Hysteresis]

He's famous because of the way he looks, if he didn't look like that he would never have been heard of.

DOn't be an idiot all of your life Joe.
Hawkin is one of the most intelligent men since Einstien

 

[JBR]

You're an offensive little man, Joe.

Luckily for you, I am not the sort to go complaining to the mods - unlike some.

 

[Sombrero]

He's famous because of the way he looks, if he didn't look like that he would never have been heard of.

Joe.. that's wrong.. and you (should) know it !!!



Write a book to compete with stephen hawking and I'll respect you a whole lot more !

 

[sooey]

I agree with joe, there are many theoretical physicists, if Hawking stands out more than most a lot of that is down to his disability.
He's still an amazing fella though, I believe he's the longest known survivor with his form of the disease.

 

[Sombrero]

I agree with joe, there are many theoretical physicists, if Hawking stands out more than most a lot of that is down to his disability.
He's still an amazing fella though, I believe he's the longest known survivor with his form of the disease.

Oh come on sooey, Joe was suggesting that theoretical physics only exists because we pander to a disabled theoretical physicist!

 

[sooey]

I agree with joe, there are many theoretical physicists, if Hawking stands out more than most a lot of that is down to his disability.
He's still an amazing fella though, I believe he's the longest known survivor with his form of the disease.

Oh come on sooey, Joe was suggesting that theoretical physics only exists because we pander to a disabled theoretical physicist!

Theoretical physics has existed since long before Hawking so I doubt Joe would be stupid enough to suggest that.

 

[jockscott]

Stephen Hawking's little finger has more brain power than Joe's entire brain. I think a book on theoretical physics is a bit beyond Joe. He struggles with Take a Break magazine.

 

[Sombrero]

I agree with joe, there are many theoretical physicists, if Hawking stands out more than most a lot of that is down to his disability.
He's still an amazing fella though, I believe he's the longest known survivor with his form of the disease.

Oh come on sooey, Joe was suggesting that theoretical physics only exists because we pander to a disabled theoretical physicist!

Theoretical physics has existed since long before Hawking so I doubt Joe would be stupid enough to suggest that.

Lol, yes Joe could quite easily be that stoopid !!

After all he said:
"He's famous because of the way he looks, if he didn't look like that he would never have been heard of. "

Whereas I listen to Hawking because of what he says, not because he's disabled !!

 

[sooey]

What does he say?