Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: bruinbirdman
Hawking offered no evidence to support his conclusions.

He simply stated something as if it were reasoned fact when in fact is is not.

He has every right to say whatever he wants. But he does not have the right to claim it under the banner of science.

In short he's totally blown his credibility by making major conclusions under the veil of science where he does not have evidence to back up his claims. He offers his arrogance instead.

3 posted on 09/08/2010 11:00:11 PM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: DB
"Hawking offered no evidence to support his conclusions."

Do you understand the definition of "theoretical physics"?

"He simply stated something as if it were reasoned fact when in fact is is not."

No, what he stated was his conclusion, not fact. Again, see the definition of "theoretical".

"He has every right to say whatever he wants. But he does not have the right to claim it under the banner of science."

He has every right to hypothesis, especially in his field of expertise - an expertise that I'd wager dwarfs whatever understanding you might have on the same subject.

"In short he's totally blown his credibility by making major conclusions under the veil of science where he does not have evidence to back up his claims. "

In short, time will tell. Again, you demonstrate that you don't have the first clue about how the process of theoretical science plays out. Many of the ideas that were first postulated by Newton, took hundreds of years before science could construct tests to prove them or disapprove. With Einstein's theories, it's taken decades, even generations and some yet remain to be proven.

I wouldn't bet against Hawking when he's speaking about physics. He's accomplished more trapped inside the prison of his own body, than most men accomplish in a lifetime.

5 posted on 09/08/2010 11:10:40 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: DB

Hawking is bitter. Bitterness at God for one’s condition has a tendency to cloud one’s objectivity on this topic.

I thought the scientific process looked at all relevant data prior to making conclusions—anti-God scientists (and academics for that matter) routinely exclude data that potentially support the existence of God, a creator, creation, etc.


26 posted on 09/09/2010 3:24:14 AM PDT by applpie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: DB

You can say whatever you want, yes,

but you don’t deserve any respect for your opinions
when those opinions are ARBITRARY, ie, based on nothing but personal preference.


37 posted on 09/09/2010 11:12:37 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson