The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 77    Average: 3.3/5]
247 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 28503
Rating: 3.3
Category: Science
Date: 09/02/10 05:39 PM

247 Responses to God Did Not Create The Universe, Says Hawking

  1. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 5:32 pm
    Link: God Did Not Create The Universe, Says Hawking - Eminent physicist Stephen Hawking argues that God did not create the universe, in a new book. What say you, I-A-B?
  2. Profile photo of Angelmassb
    Angelmassb Male 18-29
    15511 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 5:45 pm
    He said it just to create flame wars
  3. Profile photo of Batmanners
    Batmanners Male 18-29
    4006 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 5:46 pm
    No duh.
  4. Profile photo of DanteChief
    DanteChief Female 13-17
    100 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 5:49 pm
    >.>
    <.<
    >.>
    Hmmm.........................
  5. Profile photo of Wtfidklol
    Wtfidklol Male 13-17
    193 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 5:53 pm
    I say that this in no way disproves the existence of some sort of God.
  6. Profile photo of Ghostofme16
    Ghostofme16 Female 18-29
    386 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 5:53 pm
    I doubt he `said` anything....
  7. Profile photo of etrg92
    etrg92 Male 18-29
    43 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 5:54 pm
    I am not a christian or religious follower, but one man, being such as Stephen Hawkings, can not disprove creation, no human being is in the position to decide the true meaning of our creation, our beginning. I am not proving a "God" or "Creator" does exist, but my opinion is that no theoretical physicist can presume ideas to be fact until proven through physical means.

    Hawkings has just come to another point in his life where he wants others to try and disprove him, he wants to feel on top and in this struggle one must ultimately believe in a creator to disprove his theory.
  8. Profile photo of jak22
    jak22 Male 18-29
    154 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 5:55 pm
    yeah this will totally convince christians and all other god based religons to change their minds.
  9. Profile photo of Neyro
    Neyro Male 18-29
    148 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 5:55 pm
    the comments on that are pure comedy gold
  10. Profile photo of kurush
    kurush Male 18-29
    146 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 5:56 pm
    Who gives a crap
    Inb4 pseudo-intellectuals on both sides debate to prove their points and win an argument on the internet. THE INTERNETZ SRS BIZNIZ GUISE
  11. Profile photo of coffeekoneko
    coffeekoneko Female 18-29
    1008 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 5:56 pm
    Am I too late for the sh.it storm? No? Sweet!
  12. Profile photo of SarahofBorg
    SarahofBorg Female 18-29
    3564 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 5:59 pm
    He just said "IF" we discover an ultimate theory explaining the creation of the universe, than there would be no need to have god as part of the equation.
  13. Profile photo of Mantolwen
    Mantolwen Female 18-29
    387 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 6:04 pm
    I can understand why Stephen Hawking doesn`t believe in any god. Actually, genius people are less likely to believe in God than normal people. Maybe it`s because they think they know all the answers. But although I admire Hawking`s scientific knowledge and ability, I won`t stop believing in God.
  14. Profile photo of ghoststop
    ghoststop Male 18-29
    53 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 6:09 pm
    We have been trolled.

    And @Mantolwen, as quoted from kurush, "Who gives a crap?"
  15. Profile photo of ggolbez
    ggolbez Male 18-29
    1933 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 6:10 pm
    Gotta love how christfags still twist Einsteins, Darwins, and Hawkings words.
  16. Profile photo of HalfSandwich
    HalfSandwich Male 18-29
    145 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 6:12 pm
    @ggolbez: "christfags" lol, you are so highly evolved.
  17. Profile photo of Batmanners
    Batmanners Male 18-29
    4006 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 6:12 pm
    "He just said "IF" we discover an ultimate theory explaining the creation of the universe, than there would be no need to have god as part of the equation. "

    Unless, of course, God was actually part of the equation, which he currently is for believers.

    What this "proves" is that God didn`t create one planet, one world, where one people may live and do his bidding of killing each other while he takes care of killing everyone who has praised and obeyed him for their entire lives, by giving them painful deaths, whilst murderers and rapists get an easy quick painless death.
  18. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 6:19 pm
    Do we have really have to have a Atheist vs. Religion post 2-3 times a week ?
  19. Profile photo of SmilinSam
    SmilinSam Female 18-29
    3599 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 6:34 pm
    umm... i didn`t have to be a physicist to know THAT, Mr. Hawking...
  20. Profile photo of domisgood
    domisgood Male 18-29
    4868 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 6:37 pm
    "Do we have really have to have a Atheist vs. Religion post 2-3 times a week ?"

    Go find a different internet then
  21. Profile photo of splurbyburbl
    splurbyburbl Male 30-39
    2798 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 6:41 pm
    I have a lot of respect for Hawkings` scientific views and knowledge. But really, this subject is all just very moot because him and every other person in the world has yet to prove the existence of any god whatsoever. So until that happens, then I guess it just doesn`t matter if god created the universe or not.
  22. Profile photo of Ruswut
    Ruswut Male 18-29
    1266 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 6:41 pm
    He moves on wheels propelled by unseen forces, it must be the work of the devil! I shall instantly dismiss everything he says and stand against all he believes in!
  23. Profile photo of splurbyburbl
    splurbyburbl Male 30-39
    2798 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 6:42 pm
    "I doubt he `said` anything...."


    Awww, low blow... :P
  24. Profile photo of xhaseox
    xhaseox Male 18-29
    519 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 6:44 pm
    crakrjak 2-3 times a week ? more like 2-3 times a day
  25. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 6:47 pm
    Yes, but where did the laws of physics come from? Just sayin`.
  26. Profile photo of NotTHATbored
    NotTHATbored Female 18-29
    1101 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 6:50 pm
    "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

    Yeah but how the heck does he know that gravity spontaneously came into existance and that there wasn`t something that caused it to exist?

    I like Steve Hawking but... I think this arguement is kind of unsubstantiated.
  27. Profile photo of xKiesix
    xKiesix Female 18-29
    448 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 6:51 pm
    Bullpoo.

    That is all.
  28. Profile photo of Angelmassb
    Angelmassb Male 18-29
    15511 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 6:52 pm
    Lol Ghostofme16, yes he did, trough his voice synthesizer of course :p
  29. Profile photo of handys003
    handys003 Male 50-59
    2402 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 6:54 pm
    Yet he tries to play God on informing everyone how the Universe came to be. All hail the Lord Hawking. Prostrate to his majesty and his suppositions.

    Besides where did the law of gravity originate? Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

    I guess then he believes in spontaneous human combustion as well.
  30. Profile photo of panth753
    panth753 Female 18-29
    9258 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 6:55 pm
    "I doubt he `said` anything...."

    XD you win.
  31. Profile photo of Tacos4Brkfst
    Tacos4Brkfst Male 18-29
    620 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 6:55 pm
    >Implying Hawkings ever believed in `god`
  32. Profile photo of MrYouKnow
    MrYouKnow Male 13-17
    1081 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 6:58 pm
    Why argue against something that has no definite evidence anyway?
  33. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 7:05 pm
    The comments section on that Yahoo page is hilarious and terrifying in equal measure.
  34. Profile photo of Arandanos
    Arandanos Female 18-29
    223 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 7:09 pm
    PFT Hawkings IS god, laughing at all of us.
  35. Profile photo of IamBored29
    IamBored29 Male 18-29
    648 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 7:12 pm
    @davymid

    "The comments section on that Yahoo page is hilarious and terrifying in equal measure."

    Any more terrifying than comments on this site? Handys` comment for example?
  36. Profile photo of buttsdowhat
    buttsdowhat Female 18-29
    374 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 7:18 pm
    And now... a quote from a real Yahoo user on the subject at hand...

    "why human always question God....but why this hawking not ask his self? is the glasses made by itself?..who made ship,car and the house that hawking stay now?.....its just simple question but this stupid scientist never belive that"

    This has been a quote from an actual Yahoo user.
  37. Profile photo of KittenCereal
    KittenCereal Female 18-29
    956 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 7:21 pm
    I don`t think it`s up to anyone to decipher what the ultimate truth behind the universe is.

    Obviously, the truth is unknown and uncertain... there is a difference between knowing and believing.

    There is no f*ing way anyone knows the ultimate truth.

    The best we can do is just form our own opinions and respect the fact that the differences vary quite a bit.

    You think you know something? You don`t know a god damn f*ing thing. Deal with it.
  38. Profile photo of pnolan
    pnolan Male 18-29
    64 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 7:24 pm
    After reading the Yahoo comments section on previous occasions, I became tremendously disappointed with humanity and wanted to abandon my email.
  39. Profile photo of sheaton319
    sheaton319 Male 18-29
    560 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 7:27 pm
    Way to go Hawking!!
    Its always fun to see the religious butthurts come out of the woodwork for something like this.
  40. Profile photo of handys003
    handys003 Male 50-59
    2402 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 7:28 pm
    @KittenCereal
    I know for sure that I love my wife and kids. I know also I tell them i love them and hug them everyday. I could give you some more examples, so yeah I`m sure about a few things. Have a nice day!;)
  41. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 7:29 pm
    vv True dat pnolan. I think I`m going to go slash my wrists now. I had no idea about Yahoo comments boards... makes I-A-B seem positively cerebral by comparison.

    A sampler: "The talk of gravity.Doesnt gravity come from the earth spinning?And what would happen if it stoped spinning?"
    What do you call it when you lol, facepalm and headdesk all at the same time?
  42. Profile photo of ZNaught
    ZNaught Male 13-17
    351 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 7:30 pm
    Because humanity will be able to understand EVERYTHING, right?
  43. Profile photo of Kainonis
    Kainonis Male 18-29
    243 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 7:38 pm
    I`m agnostic and I still find his argument a little flawed... What created the laws of physics? XD
  44. Profile photo of shaboinkin
    shaboinkin Male 18-29
    456 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 7:40 pm
    This is why I go the agnostic route. I can`t make any claim to say that there is in no possible way that a god or something caused the big bang no matter how smart I am but at the same time I could be wrong bout that and there is no god. Until I am able to actually go back to that point in time and see what happened with my own eyes, I will forever call myself agnostic.
  45. Profile photo of Pooptart19
    Pooptart19 Male 18-29
    2441 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 7:50 pm
    Perhaps Hawking knows something we don`t.

    Maybe Hawking IS God! Oh yes!
  46. Profile photo of Inter237
    Inter237 Male 18-29
    2441 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 8:03 pm
    I completely agree shaboinkin
  47. Profile photo of
    Northernwolf
    304 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 8:06 pm
    We are all monkeys!!! XD
  48. Profile photo of lordtyusa
    lordtyusa Male 30-39
    301 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 8:08 pm
    I for one am tired of defending my religious beliefs to the WWW. No Christian is going to convince some atheist or vice versa about the existence or non-existence of God. I for one am tired of the circular logic used on both sides. You know what it really comes down to? Faith. No side can either prove or disprove the existence of God, so quit bickering about it! I will say that I think it`s pretty crappy for a bunch of atheists to try so hard and disprove His existence. So what if someone needs to believe in a higher power to get through the day? Why does that bother people so much? Is an atheist`s life so perfect that they don`t have any need to cling to some hope, no matter what form that comes in? What ever happened to peace and tolerance? I get the distinct impression that "tolerance" comes with an asterisk (we will tolerate you so long as you aren`t a Christian). Blah. So nuts to the whole debate. I`ll keep my belief in God, and we`ll just agree to disagree. Okay?
  49. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 8:09 pm
    With so many dimensions we can`t perceive and so many wondrous things in our world, I refuse to believe it all just designed itself from nothing.
  50. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36860 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 8:10 pm
    It all came from nothing all by itself is about as believable as some magic invisible guy in the sky did it.

    I want a 3rd theory, please.
  51. Profile photo of aprilkayyy
    aprilkayyy Female 18-29
    34 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 8:20 pm
    @ shaboinkin: I completely agree with you. That`s exactly what I tell people when they ask me what being agnostic means.
  52. Profile photo of danthew
    danthew Male 18-29
    2122 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 8:32 pm
    I`m studying physics at uni and I don`t get what`s changed all of a sudden. I think Mr. Hawking just wants some controversy so he gets lots of free publicity for his book.
  53. Profile photo of pnolan
    pnolan Male 18-29
    64 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 8:48 pm
    @lordtyusa
    Your beliefs are fair enough, and I don`t wish to debate with you, I am just presenting my point of view.
    As an atheist, I have been personally challenged many times by Christians, online, or going somewhere to grab a chai, or in train stations, among other places. So, I understand your position- feeling as if you have to defend your position. But you must understand that atheists have had to defend their positions to a much larger group than themselves, from a much more intrusive community (no offense.) In fact, Christians trust atheists less than they trust Muslims, and should an atheist group choose to gather as a community, they are not granted the same respects, some being protested, some receiving threats.
    It`s not that atheists hate hope, we just place our hope in different things that we can personally identify and relate to.
  54. Profile photo of Nick98
    Nick98 Male 13-17
    16 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 8:48 pm
    wtf Steven hawking is British??
  55. Profile photo of Volsunga
    Volsunga Male 18-29
    1548 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 8:54 pm
    Saying you`re agnostic does not make you the "neutral and fair-minded observer" you think it does. For one, if you`re "agnostic", you are an atheist because you do not have a positive belief in a deity. Theist/Atheist is binary, there are only two options. Being "unsure" is not a positive belief, thus denoting the prefix "a-".

    Agnostic means "without knowledge" as opposed to gnostic (with knowledge). Agnostic is a word synonymous with "Ignorant". While ignorance by itself is not necessarily a bad thing, as one cannot know everything and must be ignorant in some areas, when you state that agnosticism is your solid position, it becomes willful ignorance.

    What I really hate is the whole "You can`t either prove or disprove God" argument. Nobody has ever tried to "disprove God" because it is the nature of logic that you cannot prove in the negative. There is no reason to believe in a deity beca
  56. Profile photo of BenTheBug
    BenTheBug Male 18-29
    1195 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 8:55 pm
    "I`m agnostic and I still find his argument a little flawed... What created the laws of physics? XD"

    Stephen Hawking... in the future.
  57. Profile photo of Justeazy
    Justeazy Male 18-29
    137 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 9:07 pm
    If anyone knew how to read, Hawking isn`t saying "the universe WASN`T created by God" but rather "the universe wasn`t NECESSARILY created by God". Learn to understand the context of what you post please.

    @pnolan: Perhaps you care to rethink your position, as I an a Christian (of some sort or another), and I do not feel like I need to defend my position from anyone. Anyone who attacks another, or feels the need to defend themselves, obviously has insecurity and inadequacy in their beliefs.
    However, saying "Christians trust...." or anything else inclusive of a minority of the group. In fact, most Christians I do know openly welcome anyone of any religion (or lack thereof). To me it`s insulting. Plus, the fact that I have been treated just as bad as you describe by atheists, as much as receiving indirect death threats.

    I do thank you for taking the time to correctly address and respect other religions (ie capitalizing Christian
  58. Profile photo of Justeazy
    Justeazy Male 18-29
    137 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 9:08 pm
    I do thank you for taking the time to correctly address and respect other religions (ie capitalizing Christian and Muslim).

    PS: STUPID IAB for knocking my 946 character post for being over 1000 characters. (HOW!?)
  59. Profile photo of danthew
    danthew Male 18-29
    2122 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 9:14 pm
    "wtf Steven hawking is British??"
    Yes, now get your grubby American hands off him. You can keep Simon Cowell...
  60. Profile photo of JumboCookie
    JumboCookie Male 18-29
    1244 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 9:14 pm
    Stephen Hawking is losing his mental capability. If anything this will ruin his credibility.
  61. Profile photo of Volsunga
    Volsunga Male 18-29
    1548 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 9:15 pm
    The concept Hawking is describing is actually very, very simple. The mathematics proving the precedent theory (the standard model of particle physics) is difficult, but how the universe creates itself is easy to understand.

    At the theoretical T0 (exact moment of "Big Bang"), All the energy of the universe is compacted into a singularity of effectively infinite energy. At this heat the four forces (EM, Gravity, Nuclear Weak, and Nuclear Strong) act as one and are referred to as the "omniforce". At T+1 Planck Second, Gravity separates from the omniforce causing space and time (being functions of gravity) come into existence. The other forces come later, but they`re not important.
    Space and time now existing allows the universe to expand from the singularity. You can`t have a "before" without time, so technically T0 = T+1 Planck Second. The only reason there is a T0 due to quantum fluctuations (which can go back in time a few Planck seconds) caus
  62. Profile photo of chikoori
    chikoori Female 18-29
    1011 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 9:22 pm
    And somehow I remain unsurprised.
  63. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 9:26 pm
    Anyone else with me and want to withhold judgement of Stephen Hawking "losing his mental capability" or just trying to grub up "some controversy so he gets lots of free publicity for his book", until we actually get to READ THE BOOK in a week`s time when it`s released? Radical idea, I know.

    I for one enjoyed "A Brief History of Time" immensely. I also had the pleasure of meeting Stephen Hawking once. And when I say "meet", I mean, very nearly ran him over in my car in a car park at Cambridge. And no, I`m not even joking about that.
  64. Profile photo of belunan
    belunan Male 30-39
    1507 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 9:26 pm
    To paraphrase the outcrappings of Mr. Hawking`s enormously superior intellect, we still know absolutely dick.

    I`m just gonna stick with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Nobody has ever killed in His name and Pastafarians don`t show up at people`s doors on Sunday afternoons trying to convert them...even though our heaven does have a beer volcano and a stripper factory.
  65. Profile photo of MauserTM
    MauserTM Male 18-29
    1222 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 9:31 pm
    What hes saying is that we need to find a theory before the big bang, untill we do that, well just put a "God" stamp to the creation.

    Think of all the civilizations before us, they all called God, or gods to everything they didnt know. You could, in other words, change "God" for the phrase "I dont know who" in most religious writings and everything would make perfect sense.
    Basically, we dont know who made all this, but im pretty sure it wasnt the Bibles God. Till we find out what caused everything to be, well let you put the God stamp in the creation of the big bang
  66. Profile photo of pnolan
    pnolan Male 18-29
    64 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 9:37 pm
    @justeazy

    They`ve done polls on the least trusted minority groups among Christians. Atheists were last until Scientology became more popular. I believe it was like 15% of you that trust us.
    I never intended to apply that to all Christians, as I have many Christian friends, but you have to understand that YOU are in the majority, and YOU will pretty much always be safe. I have never seen an atheist yelling on the street corner about "YOU WON`T GO TO HELL BECAUSE IT`S NOT REAL! THE END OF THE WORLD WILL BE AN UNCARING ENVIRONMENT!" or handing out pamphlets.
    Defending your position is a natural response. I don`t at all believe that these people (of whatever creed or denomination) are unsure of their beliefs, but rather, they feel threatened by the opposition. My point is that Atheists get it from all angles, and have to be very zealous about our views.
  67. Profile photo of Justeazy
    Justeazy Male 18-29
    137 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 9:38 pm
    @Volsunga: Your big fancy words are useless here.
    Besides, space is not a function of gravity (what, are you on crack?). Gravity is the force attracting all objects to each other as a RESULT of the space between them.
    As to time being a function of gravity, that is all theory, and a growing scientific theory is the exact opposite, that time is the only true force and that gravity is a function of time itself.

    Until you can PROVE any of the crap you say is FACT, don`t speak of it unless you use the context of the sparsely supported theory it is.
  68. Profile photo of handys003
    handys003 Male 50-59
    2402 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 9:38 pm
    @Vulsanga
    That`s fine in the beginning of the Big Bang. However such as you stated in the singularity where the expansion begins where does the Magnetic, Gravity, Weak and Strong Force come from? If you have infinite energy compacted then it must come from another source. Therefore creation from nothing is an incorrect assumption.
  69. Profile photo of EbScrooge
    EbScrooge Male 18-29
    18 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 9:39 pm
    I`m not one to challenge Hawking`s intelligence, but he needs to maintain some scientific integrity. By this, I mean as a scientist he should accept the possibility of all things, this is how science remains self correcting-- scientific integrity--. By denying the possibility of a creator he is negating his scientific integrity. I`m not saying he should be a believer. It is just annoying when scientists close their minds like this, it leaves them susceptible to bias and can alter results of experiments. Carl Sagan never denied the possibility of a creator, nor did he admit the possibility. He died with true unbiased scientific integrity.
  70. Profile photo of DarthJay
    DarthJay Male 30-39
    339 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 9:42 pm
    There`s no doubt that Hawking is far more intelligent than just about anybody on the planet. But at the end of the day, his theory is no more provable than the theory of God. You can postulate all you want with the most complex mathematical formulas...but was he there at the "big bang" and/or the moment of creation? No - and neither was anyone here. Faith is faith - he just chooses to put it in science.
  71. Profile photo of Meeqs
    Meeqs Female 18-29
    35 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 9:48 pm
    Its pretty obvious that religion isn`t real, we just go along with it because people get all butt hurt about it and would bitch alot
  72. Profile photo of DarthJay
    DarthJay Male 30-39
    339 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 9:48 pm


    Good news everybody!! I invented a machine that makes you hear my voice in your head when you read text under a picture of me. Eat that, Hawking!
  73. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 10:13 pm
    There`s no doubt that Hawking is far more intelligent than just about anybody on the planet. But at the end of the day, his theory is no more provable than the theory of God. You can postulate all you want with the most complex mathematical formulas...but was he there at the "big bang" and/or the moment of creation? No - and neither was anyone here. Faith is faith - he just chooses to put it in science.
    I disagree Darth. Just because someone wasn`t there doesn`t mean they can`t provide evidence of what went down. Hell, that`s what forensics teams are for; if no-one was around at the time of the murder, does that mean you can`t piece together the evidence of what went down, and therefore convict the criminal?

    Heck, I`m a geologist. I find oil deposits deep underground as my day-job. I wasn`t around in the Jurassic, yet I`m pretty good at predicting where Jurassic oil should be found, using science.
  74. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 10:13 pm
    To equate science with faith is a very strange thing to do, though I hear it all the time from religious people. Faith, by its very definition, is to hold a belief without any evidence. Science is the very antithesis of faith: rather it is to demand evidential proof before belief.

    I still say I`ll wait and read the book before casting aspersions.
  75. Profile photo of Captn
    Captn Male 18-29
    31 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 10:21 pm
    @darthjay
    Dear God it works!
  76. Profile photo of daniellee_x
    daniellee_x Female 18-29
    451 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 10:24 pm
    @darthjay that is so awesome.
  77. Profile photo of yanging
    yanging Male 18-29
    172 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 10:25 pm
    "There`s no doubt that Hawking is far more intelligent than just about anybody on the planet. But at the end of the day, his theory is no more provable than the theory of God. You can postulate all you want with the most complex mathematical formulas...but was he there at the "big bang" and/or the moment of creation? No - and neither was anyone here. Faith is faith - he just chooses to put it in science."

    God, I HATE people like you. That last comment just gets my skin crawling! You discredit all of his work by just claiming he has FAITH in it!? As believers do in religion? BULLpoo. I agree that the statement is just a postulation, but to broaden and spectrum to say that it takes faith to believe in science is just IDIOTIC. Science is factual; faith is ignorant.

    Good day.
  78. Profile photo of DarthJay
    DarthJay Male 30-39
    339 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 10:27 pm
    @davymid - so you`re equating a forensics team solving a murder that happened a few days, weeks, years ago to how our universe came to be (presumably) billions of years ago? It`s a stretch.

    Faith, by definition, is belief that is not based on proof. Does Hawking, or anyone else for that matter, have PROOF to back up the things he says? I quote the article...

    "... Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant..."

    See where it says "theories"? A theory, by definition, is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural.

    Ergo, his theory is not proof and is - by definition - "faith-based".
  79. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 10:29 pm
    How ironic is it that science uses the words theory and theoretical that share the same root word `theo`, From the Greek meaning God, With words like theology, theologian, and theologize ?
  80. Profile photo of DarthJay
    DarthJay Male 30-39
    339 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 10:31 pm
    @yanging -- go back and read what I said before you start hating. I never said science == faith. I said the belief in a theory that can`t be proven is no different than faith. Belief in a proven scientific fact (i.e. - water freezes at 32 degrees) is not faith based at all.
  81. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 10:42 pm
    @davymid - so you`re equating a forensics team solving a murder that happened a few days, weeks, years ago to how our universe came to be (presumably) billions of years ago? It`s a stretch.
    Nope, just pointing out that saying "you weren`t there so you can`t say what happened" is a stretch. The other example I used was predicting the location of oil reservoirs deposited 180 million years ago. I wasn`t there either, doesn`t mean I can`t say anything on the matter, heck, I`m even quite good at it. The time frame is irrelevant.

    See where it says "theories"? A theory, by definition, is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural.
    Dude, you seem like a smart guy. You ARE aware of how science uses the term "Theory" as opposed to everyday vernacular, aren`t you? Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution, Germ Theory, etc?
  82. Profile photo of handys003
    handys003 Male 50-59
    2402 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 10:55 pm
    @yanging quote:
    but to broaden and spectrum to say that it takes faith to believe in science is just IDIOTIC. Science is factual; faith is ignorant.

    However it took faith to place in the hands of the field of science. Faith that my surgeons medical training from such would do well in Bypass surgery.
    Ah... the fact of life from the young who fail to learn the different meanings of words. That is why so many develop prejudices far to easily.
  83. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 11:21 pm
    Sorry, just had to share this. Dipped back into the comments on that Yahoo page. Not cherry-picking here, my first F5/Refresh comment hit is:

    "all is vanity what, hawking has written show that he has nothing in common with god`s believers. if he thinks that there is no god let him change anything that god has created such as himself. now that is more less a palalytic let him suggest a theory to correct his situation. i pity him so much. for me a catholic i may say a devil posessed him since his early twetys, and i advice him to repent and believe that god exists"

    Fellow intelligent Christians of the IAB community, we know you`re not retarded. But goddam, if you don`t have some f*cking retards on your team.

    Just sayin. Sheesh.
  84. Profile photo of jabberwock83
    jabberwock83 Male 18-29
    120 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 11:23 pm
    @Vanging Using a statement like "Faith is ignorant" makes you yourself sound ignorant. Just because you yourself might not understand faith does not make faith ignorant. Blind faith perhaps but not faith itself. Personally I believe that blanketing science as totally 100% factual paints an inaccurate picture of science itself. Science is the endeavour of facts but, like faith, can be quite subjective depending on who you talk to.
    Case and point it takes faith to believe in science. You have faith that the sun will set and rise, that the tide will come in and out, etc, you have faith in those because you believe them to be scientifically solid factual things that will never change.
    I personally believe in God, and before you discredit everything I just said as I sense you are likely to hear me out, I also believe in science. I don`t put faith in everything I hear but I do understand how the two, as shocking as it seems, can actually co-exist.
  85. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25420 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 11:24 pm
    ha
  86. Profile photo of Scotchy
    Scotchy Male 18-29
    592 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 11:25 pm
    Hey CrakrJak, instead of pretending you know Greek, you should do some research.

    theory (from ancient Greek theoria,meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding)

    What do you know, its another word from greek :o

    Its like saying which witch is which. Just cause they sound the same doesn`t mean it is the same.
  87. Profile photo of Buck176
    Buck176 Male 30-39
    379 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 11:35 pm
    @DarthJay Damned it, now I can`t get Farnsworth`s voice out of my head.

    @ The Rest Of You Just because Hawking doesn`t believe God created the universe doesn`t mean you can`t. So why does his theory bother you so much? If you don`t like what he has to say, don`t read it. Who cares?
  88. Profile photo of lostinkorea
    lostinkorea Female 30-39
    3727 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 11:36 pm
    I`ll stick with this:

  89. Profile photo of DeutschDude9
    DeutschDude9 Male 18-29
    473 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 11:36 pm
    Wow Hawking is the smartest troll ever. Build years of credibility as a top scientist in your field. Then BAM--- there is no God.
  90. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 11:50 pm
    Wow Hawking is the smartest troll ever. Build years of credibility as a top scientist in your field. Then BAM--- there is no God.
    To be fair, and again I say we should reserve judgment till we read the book next week; all Hawking is saying (clue`s in the post title) is that God is not required to create a universe. Not that he/she/it doesn`t exist.
  91. Profile photo of Lolboy
    Lolboy Male 70 & Over
    798 posts
    September 2, 2010 at 11:52 pm
    "How ironic is it that science uses the words theory and theoretical that share the same root word `theo`, From the Greek meaning God, With words like theology, theologian, and theologize?"

    Cool story bro.
  92. Profile photo of GRadde
    GRadde Male 18-29
    2556 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 12:04 am
    >lostinkorea
    It`s not flying! You heretic!
  93. Profile photo of katluver
    katluver Male 18-29
    321 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 12:21 am
    G*D I can`t stop thinking about Hubert... I hate you all!
  94. Profile photo of paddyt07
    paddyt07 Male 18-29
    1067 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 12:24 am
    flame
  95. Profile photo of TokioKoos
    TokioKoos Female 18-29
    412 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 12:25 am
    What else is new?
  96. Profile photo of KittenCereal
    KittenCereal Female 18-29
    956 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 1:06 am
    @handy... um I wasn`t referring to basic knowledge/understanding.

    I was referring to the unknown universal mysteries.

    You have a nice day too ;)
  97. Profile photo of handys003
    handys003 Male 50-59
    2402 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 1:26 am
    Very Good then. Aloha ala nui!
  98. Profile photo of aseirinn
    aseirinn Male 70 & Over
    877 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 1:28 am
    no s h i t Hawking/Einstien !
  99. Profile photo of handys003
    handys003 Male 50-59
    2402 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 1:29 am
    @lostinKorea. I must say I enjoy a spaghetti monster with marinara sauce!
  100. Profile photo of TheJigsaw
    TheJigsaw Male 18-29
    43 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 1:31 am
    I wasn`t aware this was questioned..
  101. Profile photo of TheJigsaw
    TheJigsaw Male 18-29
    43 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 1:43 am
    "How ironic is it that science uses the words theory and theoretical that share the same root word `theo`, From the Greek meaning God, With words like theology, theologian, and theologize?"

    Yes, because the theory is just an idea, science comes up with a possible idea then tries to prove it wrong. Religion thrives on myths that it tries to keep alive despite no evidence for them
  102. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 2:34 am
    How ironic is it that science uses the words theory and theoretical that share the same root word `theo`, From the Greek meaning God, With words like theology, theologian, and theologize ?

    As is to be expected of a theist trying to portray science and religion is being two versions of the same thing, you are wrong.

    `theory` can be traced back to Greek via Latin (the Romans incorporated a lot of Greek words into Latin, especially for things they saw as being Greek, such as philosophy), but it`s a different root. It can be traced as far back as `thea` (a view) + `horan` (to see), which became `theorein` (to look at, consider) and entered Latin as `theoria` (a looking at of things).

    `theology` et alia can also be traced back to Greek, but its roots are `theos` (god) and `logos` (meaning).
  103. Profile photo of peloos12
    peloos12 Male 18-29
    3822 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 2:37 am
    To everybody saying "shocker" and other sarcastic remarks:

    Hawking has actually said many times that it`s extremely possible that there is a god. In fact, he seems kind of torn about the subject. He was 100% atheist for most of his life, but he opened his mind up to it later. Everything he`s ever said about it is extremely vague, but if you read between the lines you do get a sense that he`s hesitantly keeping it in the back of his head.

    As Davy already pointed out, he did NOT rule it out (as far as we know, as the book hasn`t been released yet). He`s just now extremely confident that it`s not NECESSARY. Somebody read a prerelease and took that one line from it, and now the media is running with this sh*t in an embarrassing fashion. You`re all clinging to it like Hawking himself is a god and anything he says is fact, when he didn`t even say he`s certain of anything in the first place.

    I don`t believe in fantasy land either and the guy is brilliant
  104. Profile photo of peloos12
    peloos12 Male 18-29
    3822 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 2:38 am
    *I don`t believe in fantasy land either and the guy is brilliant, but relax.

    Stupid lying character limit.
  105. Profile photo of zeegrr
    zeegrr Male 40-49
    159 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 3:03 am
    It`s very funny how Non-religious people are yelled at for speaking what they believe to be the truth, and religious people can`t understand why we non-religious people laugh at them when they speak thiers.
    Every time someone talks to me about religion, I laugh at them. It is a very effective tool. It`s easier than listening to them rant about thier make-believe friend in the sky, and dismiss my belief there isn`t one. They want tolorance, but give none. So next time someone says "Oh My God!", look them straight in the eye and say-"Who?" 8-)
  106. Profile photo of Solvent
    Solvent Male 18-29
    2842 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 3:23 am
    So... when does the pointless arguing end?
  107. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 3:34 am
    Meh, I`ll wait for the book.
  108. Profile photo of TalcumX
    TalcumX Male 50-59
    561 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 3:39 am
    I`ll wait for the movie `Hawking VS God`.
  109. Profile photo of rook187
    rook187 Male 30-39
    210 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 3:52 am
    "It`s very funny how religious people are yelled at for speaking what they believe to be the truth, and non-religious people can`t understand why we religious people only want to share our faith."
    Changed a few things to show how I feel. I couldn`t copy the rest because I don`t laugh at nonbelievers, I pray for them.
    Hawkings is brilliant, but I doubt the man has any happiness in his life.

  110. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 3:54 am
    While I`m here, I will point out that all he`s doing in this sentence is putting the focus on the multiverse rather than the universe. It doesn`t actually impact any of the philosophy more so than the concept of a multiverse did years ago.

    However, he hasn`t actually changed his opinion in the last 20 odd years.

    In other words, this is not new evidence. It is the same evidence. Repeated. The debate doesn`t seem to have progressed any as a result of this.

    As in, I can`t actually see anything this statement has added anywhere. Though, it`s nice that some of you are so excited.
  111. Profile photo of SapphireHart
    SapphireHart Female 18-29
    412 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 4:06 am
    Being a scientist and a christian I still don`t see how they contradict each other.

    Zeegrr I am very sorry you feel you have been yelled at for what you believe, you must have been talking to the wrong people, you have a right to believe what you want.
  112. Profile photo of batdyke
    batdyke Female 18-29
    149 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 4:08 am
    rook187, He`s probably as happy as an atheist confined to a wheelchair could ever be, because he has the knowledge that he`s more intelligent than anyone out there who thinks that a giant invisible man in the sky made a universe that would allow him to develop ALS.
  113. Profile photo of Glowy
    Glowy Male 18-29
    354 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 4:24 am
    I thought this was obvious?
  114. Profile photo of Druss
    Druss Male 18-29
    161 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 4:33 am
    A disabled scientist denies the existence of god? Didn`t see that one coming.
  115. Profile photo of DeanoBoz
    DeanoBoz Male 40-49
    195 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 4:56 am
    "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.

    I say "Because there is such a thing as buried treasure if you dig in your back yard in the right place you`ll be richer than Bill Gates." Look, now I`M a genius!
  116. Profile photo of doomdog
    doomdog Male 30-39
    5 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 5:17 am
    Hawkings meets GOD and tells him that there is no need for him any longer. Man can create whatever he wants without HIS help. God tells Hawkings, "Fine. Le me see you create man without procreation." Hawkings says, "Ok". He has an assistant grab some dirt (because Hawkings obviously can`t do it himself because he hasn`t healed himself, yet, but that`s another story) and GOD says, "Wait right there. You go get your own dirt."
  117. Profile photo of Wundt
    Wundt Male 40-49
    410 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 5:20 am
    One of the big differences between the religious and the non-religious is that the religious often rely on the "Argument from Authority". I.e. this smart person says X so it must be true.

    However, most atheists become atheists individually, by personally seeing that god and religion don`t make any sense. While it is nice that an intelligent person agrees with you, it generally isn`t viewed as an argument FOR your view point.

    My point being, as an atheist, and as much as I respect Hawking, I don`t really care if he is an atheist or not. It doesn`t impact or change my opinion either way.
  118. Profile photo of Wundt
    Wundt Male 40-49
    410 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 5:27 am
    Doomdog, you post is nothing more than Pascal`s Wager. "What if you are wrong".

    I suggest you do some reading on Pascal`s Wager and you will see it is a very weak argument for god. The biggest problem with PW is that it assumes there are only two possibilities: God or no god. It fails to see that through the history of man there have been 1000s of god, and how do you which god or which version of god is the right one.
  119. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33134 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 5:31 am
    vv I agree @DeanoBoz, those `laws` didn`t create themselves Steve-o!
  120. Profile photo of mastrmind
    mastrmind Male 18-29
    102 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 5:53 am
    So me and my wife were coming back from shopping yesterday and a lady pulled up and asked us if we wanted a prayer paper.

    Both of us being atheist *though my wife is more anti-religous and I`m a touch more tactful * - My hands are full, sorry.

    I don`t drive around bothering people on the streets about how atheism is right and christians are wrong. Is it ok for christians to do it all the time?

    But now let`s assume there IS a "god". Being logical and because he did make "man".

    "god" - Oh, you didn`t believe but here I am, you believe now, don`t you? *Angry stare* Well come on in! * Set up the entrance in Wizard of Oz*

    But personally I`m waiting for this god character to strike me down for being a dirty heathen. C`mon... wheres the lightning bolts oh almighty Zeus, or god, or whatever name you use.

    Did you guys know that you christians and those evil muslims worship the same god?

    Both of you fo
  121. Profile photo of Dad4Life
    Dad4Life Male 50-59
    2086 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 5:58 am
    I have never seen a preacher completely renounce their faith, but have seen many atheists convert to Christianity. I wonder why that is?
  122. Profile photo of Creabhain
    Creabhain Male 40-49
    440 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 6:02 am
    Does anyone else wonder whether Hawking`s intellect is presumed to be higher than it is, simply because he is wheelchair bound?

    I think he has a great mind but greater than all others working in physics currently. Perhaps not.

    People like simple sterotypes. Weak in body but strong in mind. Blind but with great hearing. Dumb but a great athlete. Attractive but dumb. Etc.
  123. Profile photo of Creabhain
    Creabhain Male 40-49
    440 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 6:05 am
    I am not religious BTW. I don`t care whether there is a god or not. It`s none of my business and it does not concern me or how I live my life in any way.

    I couldn`t care less. Enjoy your god or lack thereof as you see fit.
  124. Profile photo of domisgood
    domisgood Male 18-29
    4868 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 6:16 am
    Me and Stephen Hawking are locked in a room,
    One of us thinks he can disprove the existance of God, the other one of us can wipe his own arse. Who wins?
  125. Profile photo of Intaresting
    Intaresting Male 18-29
    812 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 6:19 am
    Someone says god didn`t create world -> retarded internet trolling ensues. WTF?!
  126. Profile photo of peahprincess
    peahprincess Female 13-17
    137 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 6:23 am
    just in case your hearing this god and or jesus i beleive in you can i have a spot in heaven ?
  127. Profile photo of DarthJay
    DarthJay Male 30-39
    339 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 6:26 am
    "Dude, you seem like a smart guy. You ARE aware of how science uses the term "Theory" as opposed to everyday vernacular, aren`t you? Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution, Germ Theory, etc?"

    Not to start another flame war -- but there is a HUGE difference between the "theory" of gravity (or the LAW of gravity) and the "theory" of evolution (a BELIEF that natural selection evolved us from simple one-celled organisms to the complex creatures we are today).

    A law is different from a theory. We can all give our opinions as to whether or not we evolved from apes - but at the end of the day there is no conclusive evident to PROVE that we did...ergo it`s a theory. None of us can refute the fact that if it weren`t for gravity we`d all float up into space and die.
  128. Profile photo of WoozyJoe
    WoozyJoe Male 18-29
    1 post
    September 3, 2010 at 6:42 am
    @SCfan
    1
    2
    3, 4, 5, 6, 7

    7 preachers who renounced their faith. I could dig up more if you want me to.
  129. Profile photo of meepmaker
    meepmaker Male 30-39
    6694 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 7:08 am
    I thought Hawking was dead. He is like the Energizer bunny or something.
  130. Profile photo of mastrmind
    mastrmind Male 18-29
    102 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 7:11 am
    I would like to comment about your views on the word theory in science, DarthJay. Gravity is a theory because it is supported by many facts, but it cannot be completely proven because we cannot make the measurements on different planets that we would have to in order to make it a law. The same thing goes with evolution, it has many laws that make up the theory. The law of natural selection for example, the tons of fossil evidence for another example. Now don`t get me wrong my degree is in parasitology and not evolutionary biology but with even a small understanding of science I can differentiate the difference in the proper definitions of words in science, like Theory which is a wrapping of facts that support one conclusion so strong it is actually higher then a law. I`m sorry but calling gravity a law gives it less validity then calling it a theory. Therefore you should stop trying to speak about science before you hurt yourself.

    Jdiabla,
    the wife
  131. Profile photo of mastrmind
    mastrmind Male 18-29
    102 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 7:18 am
    Oh and to add onto that previous post. Another reason that gravity is a theory is that it isn`t only "we`d float up into space and die." It is the complex mathamatics behind how gravity from larger objects effects smaller objects and vise-versa. It has SO many laws and hypothesis written into it that make it up that we have to make it a theory because it is much much larger then a law. The same thing with germ theory. I AM a parasitologist, I`ve seen the germs... Hell here at fort stewart we have an outbreak of salmonella... Germ theory in action. But it is still a theory because it encompasses much more then just bacteria makes you sick, it involves the ways bacterias make you sick and therefore it is bulked into a theory. This is just to clarify more how theory is higher then law in science.

    Jdiabla,
    the wife
  132. Profile photo of DarthJay
    DarthJay Male 30-39
    339 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 7:42 am
    @mastrmind

    The you guys need to call Websters and have them change their definition of a theory. ;)
  133. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 7:46 am
    DarthJay, you could not be more wrong about what theory means in a scientific context.

    Gravity has both a theory and a law. For something to be a law, in scientific terms, it MUST be a mathematical formula that is always true under the correct circumstances. If there is no math, there is no law. For instance, the gravitation pull exerted by an object of X mass can be figured out. This is part of the Law of Gravity. "How does gravity function? Why does it work the way it does?" These are the theories.

    For something to be a scientific theory, it must have mountains of supporting evidence, and absolutely no dissenting evidence. It must survive years, decades, and in the case of evolution nearly 150 years of people actively trying to prove it wrong and being unable to. Evolution is, in fact, a stronger theory than gravity is, because we have examples of how the theory of gravity is flat out wrong in some cases. Evolution, on the other hand, has no examples to pr
  134. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 7:47 am
    Angillon: [quote"> It can be traced as far back as `thea` (a view) + `horan` (to see) [/quote">

    Thea: fem. proper name, from Gk. thea "goddess," fem. equivalent of theos "god," from PIE base *dhes-, root of words applied to various religious concepts. Etymology Dictionary

    You did dig a little bit there Angillion, Just not far enough. Nice try though.
  135. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 7:50 am
    davymid: Fellow intelligent Christians of the IAB community, we know you`re not retarded. But goddam, if you don`t have some f*cking retards on your team.

    So does the atheist team. Only their `retards` think they are smarter than any Christian just because of the side they`ve chosen.
  136. Profile photo of wertiana
    wertiana Female 13-17
    221 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 7:57 am
    people continue to fight about our existence.
    both sides `know` they are right or have a `feeling`

    logic is not always the answers, i doubt anybody, even Stephen Hawking can know how it came to be.

    everyone has their own predictions and arguments, but nobody will knows for sure.
  137. Profile photo of yanging
    yanging Male 18-29
    172 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 8:01 am
    "However it took faith to place in the hands of the field of science. Faith that my surgeons medical training from such would do well in Bypass surgery.
    Ah... the fact of life from the young who fail to learn the different meanings of words. That is why so many develop prejudices far to easily."

    You`re speaking of two different things. You had your faith in the action, not in the law. Honestly, I`m a afraid that many people have not a logical bone in their body.
  138. Profile photo of DarthJay
    DarthJay Male 30-39
    339 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 8:03 am
    @Yaezakura

    I hesitate to respond because I really don`t want to turn this into an argument about evolution...I-A-B has enough of that already. But I have to point one thing out about your argument. Yes, micro-evolution (a bird may evolve traits over time as a bird to adapt to its environment) has plenty of evidence to support it. I would argue that macro-evolution (a bird evolves into a fish over time because the air is no longer breathable) has plenty of dissenting evidence and is far from conclusive.
  139. Profile photo of Qwertyuiop95
    Qwertyuiop95 Male 18-29
    215 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 8:03 am
    Meh, we`ll never know the ultimate truth anyway. Mostly because we know the ultimate answer already. We don`t need the question.

    As for the Yahoo comments, popcorn time!
  140. Profile photo of yanging
    yanging Male 18-29
    172 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 8:06 am
    "I hesitate to respond because I really don`t want to turn this into an argument about evolution...I-A-B has enough of that already. But I have to point one thing out about your argument. Yes, micro-evolution (a bird may evolve traits over time as a bird to adapt to its environment) has plenty of evidence to support it. I would argue that macro-evolution (a bird evolves into a fish over time because the air is no longer breathable) has plenty of dissenting evidence and is far from conclusive."

    You`re playing to an argument of exclusion and you know it. Birds did not and will not evolve from fish. They came from separate ancestors. You are misrepresenting the Theory of Evolution as the Origin of Species.
  141. Profile photo of yanging
    yanging Male 18-29
    172 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 8:06 am
    Sorry, I said that backwards. Fish did not and will not evolve from birds; birds will not evolve into fish.
  142. Profile photo of DarthJay
    DarthJay Male 30-39
    339 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 8:07 am
    Yeah - there are idiots on both sides of the fence, for sure. And, let`s be honest, does anyone REALLY think that 300 pages of arguing on I-A-B is going to change people minds? We`re all just waiting for that clock to tick to 5:00 so we can go enjoy our weekend. :)
  143. Profile photo of yanging
    yanging Male 18-29
    172 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 8:10 am
    Hey guys, here is a faith test for all of you positing stupid arguments.

    Ask yourself, does my belief in something make it necessarily true for me. Will me having faith in the sun rising or setting, or water freezing change the fact that it happens?

    The answer is no. That is the difference of `faith` in science and faith in religion.
  144. Profile photo of DarthJay
    DarthJay Male 30-39
    339 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 8:13 am
    I`m not trying to "play" to any argument. I was just throwing out an off-the-top-of-my-head example, sorry for it being a bad one. I was simply trying to say that evolution postulizes that since micro-evolution occurs and is observable that, by effect, macro-evolution must take place as well.
  145. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 8:31 am
    DarthJay, the difference between micro and macro evolution is the difference between 10 feet and a mile. In other words, the difference is time. Saying microevolution is possible but macroevolution is not is akin to saying you can walk 10 feet, but walking a mile is impossible.

    You have tiny little changes, which over time build up and look like massive changes, if you ignore all the tiny little steps in between. Just look at dogs. In 10,000 years or so, humans have turned a wild wolf into a chihuahua. This is evolution at work. Yes, it`s still a dog, because evolution says it will always be a dog. Just like humans will always still be apes, and birds will always still be dinosaurs. No matter what else a dog may one day be, it will always still be a dog, because it comes from that lineage. That is why humans are still apes, and still primates, and still mammals, despite also being human. We never just stop being what our ancestors were.
  146. Profile photo of DarthJay
    DarthJay Male 30-39
    339 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 8:40 am
    Your dog argument is a textbook one. We have observed the change in dogs over time, but that doesn`t mean that evolution has occurred. You can breed wolves to get to chihuahuas, but you can`t breed chihuahuas to get wolves - variation in the genetic information has been lost. Darwin used this type of change as evidence without an understanding of the limits of genetic change that are known today.

    The typical neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation, chance, and time cannot generate new information. The failure of evolutionary models to explain how a single cell could have evolved more complex information by additive mutations challenges the entire concept.
  147. Profile photo of startech
    startech Male 30-39
    235 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 8:42 am
    Sorry Yaezakura, but you are mistaken. Micro evolution is the small changes that you are describing. Macro evolution is going from one species to another which has never been observed (even from fossil records).
  148. Profile photo of doomdog
    doomdog Male 30-39
    5 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 8:42 am
    Wundt - Answer this...where did it all come from? And if you think you have an answer for that, then ask yourself the question again. Good luck.
  149. Profile photo of DavidXJ
    DavidXJ Male 30-39
    1106 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 8:44 am
    The "Laws of Physics" are still a thing. Why do these laws exist? Something can`t come from nothing. This argument will always exist as long as mankind exists.
  150. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 8:44 am
    yanging: Explain penguins then ? Also whales ?

    Penguins are flightless birds that swim and hunt in the water better than many fish. According to evolution whales had land dwelling mammal ancestors.

    If you could fully explain the platypus, You`d likely get a Nobel prize.

  151. Profile photo of Oystah
    Oystah Female 40-49
    4032 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 8:50 am
    If I was Stephen Hawking, I`d have a tough time believing in God.
  152. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 8:50 am
    DarthJay... what on earth are you talking about?

    Mutation does generate new "information". Not that your side has ever agreed on what "information" means. You contain genetic information not found in your parents, because you are a mutant. As is every single human being alive. We are not perfect little mixes of mommy and daddy`s DNA. We are some of mom, and some of dad, and some pure random chance of mutated genes.

    To use an example, there is a family with super-dense, nearly unbreakable bones. This is "new" information in the human genome, as "new information" is generally just slightly altered "old information". There are people with mutated, highly developed musculature. More and more women are being born who can see parts of the ultraviolet light spectrum, which is invisible to most humans.

    Yes, you cannot take a chihuahua and get back to a perfect wolf. Those genes have mutated. And mutation is evolution.
  153. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 8:58 am
    Sorry Yaezakura, but you are mistaken. Micro evolution is the small changes that you are describing. Macro evolution is going from one species to another which has never been observed (even from fossil records).
    Uhm... yes. Speciation (the creation of a new species) has been observed, both in the lab and in the field. Say you have a group of lizards, and you put them on two different islands. Over time, the two separate group of lizards will evolve further and further apart. When those two groups are no longer able to produce viable children when mated together, you have two distinct species of lizards. They`re both still lizards, yes. They and their descendants always will be. But over time, they may also become something more. Even if one starts growing fur and the other starts growing feathers, they will both still always be lizards, because that is part of their lineage.
  154. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 9:00 am
    Oystah: If you`re implying that God `struck him down` or that he even believes that in any way, You`re wrong. Hawking has never believed in God.

    If you`re implying that his physical ailment would make it tough for anyone in his situation to believe in God, You`d be wrong there too. Most disabled people, In America, Believe in God (Same as does the non-disabled population).
  155. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 9:02 am
    The "Laws of Physics" are still a thing. Why do these laws exist? Something can`t come from nothing. This argument will always exist as long as mankind exists.
    Who says something can`t come from nothing? Even if you assume this to be true, and that a god did create the universe, where did the god come from? After all, god is a something, and something can`t come from nothing, by your own words.

    If you say the universe comes from god, all you`re doing is replacing one "I don`t know" with another "I don`t know". Saying the universe came from god is useless if you can`t explain where god came from.
  156. Profile photo of DarthJay
    DarthJay Male 30-39
    339 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 9:04 am
    You`re wrong. What macro-evolution argues is that genetic mutation can ADD information to genetic structure, and that has no evidence to back it up.

    Wolves have the genetic variation already in them to allow for a great deal of diversity as they continue to reproduce. In the journal Science, November 22, 2002, researchers reported, "The origin of the domestic dog from wolves has been established...We examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence variation among 654 domestic dogs representing all major dog populations worldwide, suggesting a common origin from a single gene pool for all dog populations." It is important to note that no new information exists in these mutant forms, only a loss of information from the population, resulting in distinct traits.
  157. Profile photo of neutrino
    neutrino Male 30-39
    10 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 9:06 am
    @yangying, you nailed the religion concept, but failed miserably with the `faith` in science comment.

    The true concept of science is knowledge based on testable experiments (AKA repetition) in different environments and to different observers. In short, if: I see the sun setting, you see it, a guy in Australia sees it, another guy makes a photograph of it, a fifth person predicts a model in a computer about it, we can safely say the truth: the sun appeared setting. What the hell does faith have to do with this?!!!

    It is very logical for a scientist to question the existence of good. It is not testable or provable!
  158. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 9:11 am
    Yaezakura: That is where the `species` problem breaks down, Just because one creature adapts to it`s environment, because of isolation, Doesn`t mean it couldn`t breed and have viable offspring with it`s non-adapted `cousin`. Distance and isolation has not shown to break the DNA regarding sex.

    If you take a Hawaiian finch and bring it to mainland USA, You can breed the two and have viable offspring. Unlike Donkeys and Horses, You breed a Donkey and a Horse you get a Mule that is sterile and cannot have children of it`s own. Thus, Horses and Donkeys are different species.
  159. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 9:17 am
    CrakrJak: That`s exactly my point. The difference between your finches and horses/donkeys is time. One group has drifted further apart genetically than the other. Given time, the finches will also eventually be unable to breed together.

    And we do have examples where isolation and distance has caused species to be unable to breed. A great example are "ring species". Feel free to read the wiki article on them. But the basics are, you have a species of, say, lizards, where their habitats form a large ring. A can breed with B, B can breed with C, but A and C cannot breed and produce viable offspring. B exists as a sort of "middle ground" between the evolutionary steps of group A and group C.
  160. Profile photo of DarthJay
    DarthJay Male 30-39
    339 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 9:20 am
    It is very logical for a scientist to question the existence of god. It is not testable or provable!

    And back to my orginal point, since you can`t PROVE that God exists or does not exist, a view one way or the other on the issue is faith (faith == a belief that is not based on proof).
  161. Profile photo of DarthJay
    DarthJay Male 30-39
    339 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 9:22 am
    Just FYI, quoting Wikipedia does you no favors in the area of credibility since anyone can edit the content. :)
  162. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 9:40 am
    Yaezakura: There still has not been even one demonstrable `new` species develop from another such as that the `new` species couldn`t have viable offspring with the original `species`. The only example of such a change were viruses grown in a lab, It simply hasn`t been observed in nature.

    The only changes that have been observed are adaptations, Which are no different than the many breeds of dogs, horses, cats, cattle, chickens, etc... That we have. A chihuahua is not a different species from a great dane, Even though they look completely different they are the same species.
  163. Profile photo of Tretarn
    Tretarn Male 18-29
    17 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 9:40 am
    I am an atheist because I like to try and base my life around facts and evidence.

    I reject the proposition that there is a god because there is no evidence to suggest it. I know a lot of religious people will say that, well thats what faith is. If you want to think and live by that then that is fine by me, although I will disagree with you.

    However, I accept the notion of Evolution because of the overwhelming evidence that there is for it. Paleontologists have uncovered fossils that directly show the evolution of wolf like creatures to whales, in great detail. If thats not macro evolution, then I do not know what is!

    Furthermore I have no idea why the religious have attacked evolution so much, I would have thought it would be more logical to try and attack something like abiogenesis(how life came about from nothing).
  164. Profile photo of Oystah
    Oystah Female 40-49
    4032 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 9:43 am
    @Crakrjak - I was just making a comment, dude.
  165. Profile photo of DarthJay
    DarthJay Male 30-39
    339 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 9:45 am
    @Tretarn

    There are many suggested ancestors to the whales, from wolf-like creatures to hippos. All require amazing changes that must have happened at an astonishing rate to fit the evolutionary timescale. Blubber, temperature regulation, special metabolism, countercurrent blood flow, and other functions would have to be present before natural selection could act on these traits. The development of one- or two-holed breathing structures stretches the limits of the evidence in fossils. Whale tails move up and down, while the alleged ancestors did not have this ability. The pelvis would have to be minimized while the flukes were expanded. The fossils to document these changes are absent.
  166. Profile photo of fattpill
    fattpill Male 30-39
    255 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 9:48 am
    I have seen atheist argue with even themselves. when there was no christian viewpoint the crazytheist started argueing amongst even themselves. all you want to do is argue you don`t really even care if God exsist you just want to argue.
    somebody tell me what MAKES an atheist tell the truth. do any of you have any moral statutes anything
  167. Profile photo of BrimstoneOne
    BrimstoneOne Male 30-39
    2229 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 10:20 am
    "The only changes that have been observed are adaptations, Which are no different than the many breeds of dogs, horses, cats, cattle, chickens, etc... That we have. A chihuahua is not a different species from a great dane, Even though they look completely different they are the same species."

    And to take this statement further. Humans are apes, just like gorillas. We look very different, but are the same species. It`s in the genome of all apes. And we`re in that category of species.
  168. Profile photo of tenty
    tenty Male 18-29
    425 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 10:23 am
    No poo... He`s a scientist. You kknow.. uses logic and evidence... Like saying "Vegtarians don`t believe in eating meat!".
  169. Profile photo of DJDoubleb
    DJDoubleb Male 30-39
    382 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 10:41 am
    Steven Hawkings said so, so it MUST be true..
  170. Profile photo of yanging
    yanging Male 18-29
    172 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 11:14 am
    "@yangying, you nailed the religion concept, but failed miserably with the `faith` in science comment.

    The true concept of science is knowledge based on testable experiments (AKA repetition) in different environments and to different observers. In short, if: I see the sun setting, you see it, a guy in Australia sees it, another guy makes a photograph of it, a fifth person predicts a model in a computer about it, we can safely say the truth: the sun appeared setting. What the hell does faith have to do with this?!!!

    It is very logical for a scientist to question the existence of good. It is not testable or provable! "

    I`m not sure what you read, but that was my point. Existence of faith doesn`t change the facts. Whether or not I believe the sun is setting does not change the fact that it is setting. This is a very simple example of something testable
  171. Profile photo of yanging
    yanging Male 18-29
    172 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 11:18 am
    "I have seen atheist argue with even themselves. when there was no christian viewpoint the crazytheist started argueing amongst even themselves. all you want to do is argue you don`t really even care if God exsist you just want to argue.
    somebody tell me what MAKES an atheist tell the truth. do any of you have any moral statutes anything"

    Jesus christ, I can`t even believe I`m responding to this filth. I will posit a question for you:

    Does god command things because they are good, or does his commandment make them good?

    Good day.
  172. Profile photo of yanging
    yanging Male 18-29
    172 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 11:19 am
    "And to take this statement further. Humans are apes, just like gorillas. We look very different, but are the same species. It`s in the genome of all apes. And we`re in that category of species. "

    We come from a common ancestor of apes.
  173. Profile photo of IamBored29
    IamBored29 Male 18-29
    648 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 12:08 pm
    "I have never seen a preacher completely renounce their faith, but have seen many atheists convert to Christianity. I wonder why that is?"

    Well that def. proves God exists....

    /sarcasm
  174. Profile photo of Ophanim
    Ophanim Male 13-17
    74 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 12:29 pm
    "I have seen atheist argue with even themselves." Which is, of course, something Christians never do. Nope every one of the bizarre diversity of sects, groups, gangs and cults that make up Christianity agrees exactly with each of the others. And there have never been any disputes or altercations between the three Abrahamic faiths who all believe in the same god, either. Nope, it`s all roses.

    "I have never seen a preacher completely renounce their faith, but have seen many atheists convert to Christianity. I wonder why that is?" Because you don`t get out much? There are plenty of preachers out there to have totally renounced their faith for whatever reason.
  175. Profile photo of 7390666
    7390666 Female 13-17
    18 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 12:37 pm
    I usually never post on IAB but this just reminded me of a quote I saw.
    "Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able?
    Then he is not omnipoten.
    Is he able, but not willing?
    Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able, and willing?
    Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing?
    Then why call him god?" ~Epicurus
  176. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 12:42 pm
    Evolution? How the hell did we get onto evolution? Oh well.

    Look, religious folks. Personally I have no problem with your particular flavour of faith (whatever that may be), as long as you keep it out of legal matters, and keep it the f*ck out of science.

    And if you INSIST on sh*tting all over several millenia of scientific advancement, at least pick on an area where science doesn`t have it figured out yet, like the creation of the universe or abiogenesis. In the name of God, please don`t pick evolution, it makes you look a bit silly.
  177. Profile photo of RoboPatton
    RoboPatton Male 30-39
    2424 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 1:16 pm
    I love that one quote from the article:

    "God did not create the universe," Hawking said, "if God did, why the f**k did he put me in this wheelchair and force me to use robo-voices? Seriously, wtf!"
  178. Profile photo of Land_of_Ice
    Land_of_Ice Female 13-17
    22 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 1:23 pm
    *sigh* how does this have anything to do with evolution? If you are religious, fine. But try and argue your case on something in whci there is NOT a mountain of evidence against you.
  179. Profile photo of Heureux
    Heureux Male 40-49
    1054 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 2:18 pm
    where did gravity come from?

    "Because you don`t get out much? There are plenty of preachers out there to have totally renounced their faith for whatever reason. "

    Substantiate that with evidence please. Since atheists do not believe people of faith, atheists cannot be believed in return. Your sayso is worthless - pics or it didn`t happen.
  180. Profile photo of WizardofCOR
    WizardofCOR Male 40-49
    155 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 2:19 pm
    ...You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that we are the ones that need help?

    -- Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist
  181. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 2:19 pm
    We come from a common ancestor of apes.
    Humans are apes. We don`t just share the same ancestor, but are, in fact, apes.

    The person you responded to was wrong, however. Humans are a distinct species. We are the species homo sapiens, of the genus homo (the group that includes all other human species that have died out), of the tribe hominini (includes chimpanzees and bonobos as well as humans), of the of the sub-family homininae (includes gorillas), of the family hominidae (includes all great apes), of the order primates (all simians and prosimians), of the class mammalia (all mammals), of the phylum chordata (vertebrates and a few closely related invertebrates), of the kingdom animalia (includes all animals).
  182. Profile photo of Heureux
    Heureux Male 40-49
    1054 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 2:23 pm
    "Is he able, but not willing?
    Then he is malevolent. "

    No. Evil is one of two inevitable results of free will, the other is good. To allow free will, evil is the risk God takes. Malevolence is a human trait, and Epicurus is simply trying to make a god in his own human image.
  183. Profile photo of batdyke
    batdyke Female 18-29
    149 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 2:24 pm
    WizardofCOR, you rock my socks.
  184. Profile photo of Heureux
    Heureux Male 40-49
    1054 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 2:25 pm
    " you say that we are the ones that need help?"

    Yes, because atheists insist that they, of all the billions of humans who have ever lived, are right and everyone else is wrong - about those other billions of people`s experiences.

    Of course, the fact that atheists are dishonest to the core, and cannot seem to understand metaphor, analogy, symbolism and other fundamentals of human dialogue, doesn`t help much either.
  185. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 2:32 pm
    Yes, because atheists insist that they, of all the billions of humans who have ever lived, are right and everyone else is wrong - about those other billions of people`s experiences.

    Of course, the fact that atheists are dishonest to the core, and cannot seem to understand metaphor, analogy, symbolism and other fundamentals of human dialogue, doesn`t help much either.
    Yes, I will openly say every person who`s ever had a religious experience is wrong. The mind is a funny and fickle thing. It likes to see patterns when none exist. It doesn`t like to be challenged. When it cannot comprehend something it will just outright make stuff up or lie about things.

    There is a reason eye-witness testimony isn`t very trusted in court, unless you have a large group of people who all have nearly identical stories. The human mind is hard to trust, because it likes to create details that just aren`t there.

    Also, please cite a study on the trustworthiness of a
  186. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 2:33 pm
    Also, please cite a study on the trustworthiness of atheists, as your claim is rather difficult to believe without one.

    (Stupid inaccurate character counter...)
  187. Profile photo of Heureux
    Heureux Male 40-49
    1054 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 3:02 pm
    "Yes, I will openly say every person who`s ever had a religious experience is wrong. "

    And thus you answer your own request: "a study on the trustworthiness of atheists"

    Of course, your claim also demonstrates the foundation of sin - pride. Your pride, not reason or evidence, tells you that you are so special, you just know that 99% of humanity is wrong about their own experiences - which you personally have not experienced.

    A moral person would see the irrationality of that position. Atheists simply cannot know what they claim to know.

    Because you refuse to believe people of faith when we testify about our lives, your testimony about anything is worthless. A person can only be believed or trusted as much as he or she is willing to believe and trust others.

    Atheists do not believe people of faith, so therefore, atheists cannot ever be believed.
  188. Profile photo of Heureux
    Heureux Male 40-49
    1054 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 3:05 pm
    "eye-witness testimony isn`t very trusted in court" Except that it is. Remember, that even scientific evidence, like dna tests, ultimately are a form of eye-witness testimony.

    Every day, we all take on faith things we cannot ever prove, because someone else said "electrons" or "reduces your risk of cancer" or "I like red" or "the Piazza San Marco is beautiful in spring". But atheists, without cause, evidence or rationale, insist that most of humanity is wrong about their own experiences solely because atheists do not, or say they do not, have those same experiences.

    I doubt that claim from atheists anyways, to me, they sound remarkably like ex-gays - making false claims about their own lives and everyone else`s life out of denial and malice.

    You know, atheists opining about God are like first graders opining about mathematics of quantum physics.
  189. Profile photo of Heureux
    Heureux Male 40-49
    1054 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 3:08 pm
    Atheists opining about God are like celibates opining about sexual intimacy.

    Inexperience does not equal knowledge.
  190. Profile photo of jdiabla
    jdiabla Female 18-29
    1 post
    September 3, 2010 at 3:29 pm
    Heureux, I hate to say something that might make your brain explode with religious rage but, DNA evidence is no where near equivilant to "eye-witness" evidence. There are a few main differences I would like to point out. The first is eye-witness evidence is evidence taken from a person who saw the event and is relaying the event from memory. There are many problems with this including the major one of how the brain forms memories, only taking in two or three key aspects and piecing the rest of the scene back together from former memories. This has lead to many false arrests and therefore is no longer trusted. NOW, DNA is not eye-witness in any respect because if I had enough sample I could run the test over and over and still get the same result. You can count on the DNA testing to come out the same everytime, but you cannot count on the human memory to do the same. To say that DNA or any scientific evidence is eye-whitness is ignorant and it makes you look stupid.

    J
  191. Profile photo of slayer50515
    slayer50515 Male 18-29
    988 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 3:31 pm
    "Atheists opining about God are like celibates opining about sexual intimacy.

    Inexperience does not equal knowledge."
    That made no sense at all.
  192. Profile photo of dax2009
    dax2009 Female 50-59
    322 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 3:54 pm
    oh, well, you know, if HAWKINS said it.... like, you know, o.k. then
  193. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 3:59 pm
    Yes, because atheists insist that they, of all the billions of humans who have ever lived, are right and everyone else is wrong - about those other billions of people`s experiences.

    Of course, the fact that atheists are dishonest to the core, and cannot seem to understand metaphor, analogy, symbolism and other fundamentals of human dialogue, doesn`t help much either.

    But what would you do without us to play the role of bogeyman that you can make up ludicrous babble about?

    I am mildly interested in which of the following is true:

    Either

    i) You are delusional enough to believe what you write

    or

    ii) You know it`s rubbish but think it`s effective propaganda

    or

    iii) You`re projecting your own way of thinking onto atheists.
  194. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 4:06 pm
    That made no sense at all.

    Little or nothing Heureux says about atheists makes sense. Bigots raving about whatever group they hate often don`t make any sense - it`s an extreme form of irrational prejudice, so there`s no point trying to find any rationality in it.
  195. Profile photo of SPARTAKITTY
    SPARTAKITTY Female 18-29
    2120 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 4:07 pm
    @dax2009
    ...HAWKINGS...
  196. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 4:17 pm
    I have seen atheist argue with even themselves. when there was no christian viewpoint the crazytheist started argueing amongst even themselves.

    Of course atheists will argue amongst themselves - we don`t have a church to tell us what we`re allowed to think. Thinking for yourself is part of atheism. Inevitably, people are not always going to agree and that`s a good thing.

    What`s not a good thing is forming a new religion or sect of an existing religion and arguing through war, which has consistently been the norm in religion. Many theists have devotedly slaughtered each other over minor variations *in the same religion* and many more have slaughtered each other for having different religions. Whenever religion has enough power, war or tyranny usually follows and entire continents are blighted for generation after generation.

    It`s beyond ridiculous that you could cite arguing as "proof" that atheism is inferior.
  197. Profile photo of JeffBeau
    JeffBeau Male 30-39
    180 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 4:28 pm
    @ Angillion " Bigots raving about whatever group they hate often don`t make any sense"

    IAB daily ravings and expressions of hate against religion in general and Christianity in particular, notwithstanding?

    @ davimid: "Personally I have no problem with ... faith ... as long as you keep it out of legal matters, and keep it the f*ck out of science."

    First, civilizations are built on a moral code expressed in laws. Religions are philosophical outlooks on life expressed in a moral code. (The assertion "You can`t legislate morality" is total B.S. - morality is exactly what IS legislated.)

    Second, even if you prefer to be a-religious (if that`s even possible), science doesn`t deserve such reverence. It can be and is corrupted by the money (grants) and fame game. And data collected and processed by machinery requires a measure of faith in the machinery and belief in published results requires faith that it is correct and hon
  198. Profile photo of JeffBeau
    JeffBeau Male 30-39
    180 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 4:30 pm
    belief in published results requires faith that it is correct and honest. I have seen bad science in my own work as a professional scientist.

    Religion may be dismissed as merely a human construct, but so is science.
  199. Profile photo of spanerbulb
    spanerbulb Male 30-39
    1244 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 4:33 pm
    Och just lighten up you god worshiping people and enjoy life as it is without the fear or so called love of a being that in all reasonable probability does not exist. There is no shame in being just a human with normal, so called anamialistic urges and instincts. That is all.
  200. Profile photo of ElSombrero
    ElSombrero Male 13-17
    716 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 4:54 pm
    God (at least the Christian God) in itself is a paradox by definition. Therefore, it is logically impossible to prove or disprove.

    No set of beliefs (Religion or Athiesm or any other belief system such as Democracy, Communism, etc.) is entirely correct.

    However, for myself, I sure hope that there`s some sort of afterlife.
  201. Profile photo of yanging
    yanging Male 18-29
    172 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 5:07 pm
    "belief in published results requires faith that it is correct and honest. I have seen bad science in my own work as a professional scientist.

    Religion may be dismissed as merely a human construct, but so is science."

    Yeah, but science has a structure, mainly peer review. If you have a better method of evaluating things within the context of our world then, by all means, rock the scientific community.
  202. Profile photo of Creabhain
    Creabhain Male 40-49
    440 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 5:08 pm
    @DavidX
    "The "Laws of Physics" are still a thing. Why do these laws exist? Something can`t come from nothing. This argument will always exist as long as mankind exists."

    If something can`t come from nothing then god can`t come from nothing. If god can come from nothing why not the universe? Simple.
  203. Profile photo of DDJay
    DDJay Male 30-39
    40 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 5:49 pm
    science and scientists always question the results or theories gained fron any experiment or thought process. its how we progress the frontier of human knowledge. of course people will argue with this theory, we will probably never know `The Truth` about exsistence. but the discoveries we will make searching for it are far more exciting than anything that we will find in books written centuries ago.
    sorry about the ` `. felt right at the time but reading it back looks awful.
  204. Profile photo of handys003
    handys003 Male 50-59
    2402 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 5:49 pm
    @yanging
    "You`re speaking of two different things. You had your faith in the action, not in the law. Honestly, I`m a afraid that many people have not a logical bone in their body".

    Oh yes I do little man. Go back and read the definition of faith and religion. They don`t infer spirituality alone. Getting up to have your routine of excesses is a religious example. Having faith as in hope and anticipation as a physicist that your theorems of Big Bang will be proved at CERN is another example.

    I`ve seen too many of your type coming up in the world arrogant that they know more than the next person. I promise even now going through your head your blowing off what I say as absurd. Time will educate otherwise. Because when your up in age from experience and the wisdom of learning such a young buck like yourself will act like the arrogant fool you are.
  205. Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 5:56 pm
    BREAKING NEWS: INTELLIGENT SCIENTIST IS AN ATHEIST.

    Must be a slow day for IAB.
  206. Profile photo of Namikaze
    Namikaze Male 18-29
    222 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 6:21 pm
    God never said that he created the universe. He came(thats what she said), He saw, He conquered. And he dominates the universe to this day.
  207. Profile photo of yanging
    yanging Male 18-29
    172 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 6:22 pm
    "Oh yes I do little man. Go back and read the definition of faith and religion. They don`t infer spirituality alone. Getting up to have your routine of excesses is a religious example. Having faith as in hope and anticipation as a physicist that your theorems of Big Bang will be proved at CERN is another example.

    I`ve seen too many of your type coming up in the world arrogant that they know more than the next person. I promise even now going through your head your blowing off what I say as absurd. Time will educate otherwise. Because when your up in age from experience and the wisdom of learning such a young buck like yourself will act like the arrogant fool you are."

    You`re right, your claims are absurd. You keep muddying the definition of faith to support your points. The fact is that I don`t need faith in scientific law to make it so. Sure, I have faith that my work will pay off. But your claim of faith is to explain the unknown, to a degree. It is not th
  208. Profile photo of yanging
    yanging Male 18-29
    172 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 6:25 pm
    (character limit lied)

    It is not that having faith in the action or idea will change its validity, as in that of God. Again, the sun will set whether or not I believe it to be so, but your whole concept of the truth of divinity is contingent on a fleeting idea of faithful ignorance.

    Also, theorems are not proved. A theorem is the conclusion of scientific findings; they are already proven in their own regard. Many people mix up the idea of a theory and that of a scientific theory.

    Moreover, your ad hominen attacks are REALLY not appreciated. Citing my young age and saying that because you`re older you must know the truth does nothing for your argument; attack the idea, not the man.
  209. Profile photo of yanging
    yanging Male 18-29
    172 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 6:26 pm
    "Also, theorems are not proved"

    Sorry, the wording was vague and I can see how that might be misconstrued, so let me elucidate:

    Theorems are not things which require further proof, or to be (again) proven. They are already proven in their own regard.
  210. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 7:17 pm
    It is easy to reach a level of scientific literacy where reality is consistent and makes sense. That is why science is the same no matter where you are in the entire universe. Science flourishes when you you do not become complacent with your understanding and you dig deeper and ask the hard questions.

    Religion does not offer an understanding of reality and you can never reach a level of understanding where things make sense. That is why religion differs so wildly that two people in the same church, of the same denomination, cannot even completely agree. Religion withers when you are not complacent, and dies when you ask the hard questions.
  211. Profile photo of Justeazy
    Justeazy Male 18-29
    137 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 8:16 pm
    "science is the same no matter where you are in the entire universe."
    What are you smoking? We have been NOWHERE else in the entire universe, and everything we "know" is just theory. In fact, if you cared to READ anything Stephen Hawking said, you`ll even see that HE believes that scientific principles here, such as gravity and carbon based lifeforms, could be altered or completely backwards elsewhere in the universe.

    "religion differs so wildly that two people in the same church, of the same denomination, cannot even completely agree."
    Science differs so wildly that two people in the same field, even in the same lab, cannot completely agree on their theories.

    "Religion withers when you are not complacent, and dies when you ask the hard questions."
    Science withers when new theories are brought to override older ones, and dies when you realize everything that disagrees with religion is theory on BOTH sides.
  212. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 9:11 pm
    Justeazy, you have a profound misunderstanding of science. First of all, try looking up what "Theory" means in science.

    So, the laws of thermodynamics works differently where you live? How does thermodynamics work in Tibet? Do they have the same religion as you in Bhutan? If we someday encounter aliens from a planet outside of our solar system, would you be willing to bet that they have the same religion as you, but a different set of laws of thermodynamics?

    Scientists differ on hypothesis, not on theory. Science is strengthened when a theory is overridden because that means we have made a great leap in understanding.

    "everything that disagrees with religion is theory on BOTH sides"

    That part made me laugh. There is no "theory" in religion. It is dogmatic and static. You think science dies when it disagrees with religion??? Yeah, science is on its deathbed! LOL, what are you smoking?
  213. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 9:15 pm
    Science withers when new theories are brought to override older ones, and dies when you realize everything that disagrees with religion is theory on BOTH sides.
    Actually, science thrives when new theories replace old ones. It means progress. It means correction. It means learning.

    This is the fundamental difference between science and religion. Science does not fear change. It does not fear being wrong. The entire scientific process is ABOUT coming up with ideas and then doing your best to prove them wrong. And if you`ve done everything you can think of and can`t prove it wrong, you hand it to other people who do their best to prove it wrong. And if no one can prove it wrong, you assume it has some measure of worth. But if it`s later proved wrong, that is a GOOD thing, because it means PROGRESS.

    Religion, on the other hand, can never change, because change means admitting you were wrong. And that is anathema to the entire idea of religion.
  214. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 10:18 pm
    vv What Angilion, NottaSpy and Yaezakura said.

    I get a kick out of how some religious people assault science, I really do. Goes something like this: they read a news report on a new scientific breakthrough on the news feeds on the LCD screen on their laptop, delivered through fibre-optic cables connected to a world wide web. The aforementioned religious people retort, presumably through the medium of typing binary characters into a plastic keyboard, their comment sent at the speed of light through said fibre-optics (though in some areas, geostationary orbit satellites may be involved in the data transfer process). Those data are converted back into characters for the rest of the planet to read, via basic encryption software, on their laptops. These laptops all being powered by the national electrical grid.
  215. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 10:18 pm
    I say again: Religious mouthbreathers, you`re welcome to your religion, but please don`t try to derail science. Keep it inside your church. Look around your room, wherever you are right now, and be grateful for what science has brought you. Leave science to the scientists.
  216. Profile photo of GuardinGnome
    GuardinGnome Male 18-29
    2893 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 10:46 pm
    YAY SCIENCE!!!!
  217. Profile photo of Joolin
    Joolin Male 18-29
    1002 posts
    September 3, 2010 at 11:13 pm
    Woah hold on now.. A physicist is arguing against religion? STOP THE PRESSES!!
  218. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    September 4, 2010 at 12:42 am
    I plan on making a few replies when I`m in the mood. I don`t plan on responding to anyone who is religious or theistic.
  219. Profile photo of Buck176
    Buck176 Male 30-39
    379 posts
    September 4, 2010 at 12:50 am
    Will somebody please answer me? Why does this matter? It is ONE guys theory. I`m pretty sure the book won`t contain anything along the lines of "after reading this, if you still believe God created the universe, you`re an idiot." So why the trolling? Whats the point? The guy is trying to get people to think, not change their beliefs.
  220. Profile photo of Noggin01
    Noggin01 Male 30-39
    72 posts
    September 4, 2010 at 6:03 am
    davymid: why are you so aggressive towards people who are religious? "Religious mouthbreathers" And can you explain why a religious person using a computer is so strange? I`m sure if I had a window into your life I could find things far more hypocritical in your life. Now, I don`t know you but here is a short list of common things that may apply to you:

    1. Dislike thieves, but download pirated MP3s
    2. Dislike low quality products but own many "made in China" things
    3. Afraid of the future of the country`s economy, but buy imported products such as shoes, clothing, tableware, cars, televisions, furniture, etc (is this as applicable in Europe as it is in the US?)
  221. Profile photo of pmarren
    pmarren Male 40-49
    4575 posts
    September 4, 2010 at 8:29 am
    I hate religious nuts. Yes, I said HATE.
  222. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    September 4, 2010 at 11:00 am
    "1. Dislike thieves, but download pirated MP3s"
    I would just like to point out that copying is not theft. Most people dislike thieves because it sucks when you have something, and then suddenly don`t because someone decided to take it. When I download music, the record company that owns the copyright is deprived of something which was never theirs to begin with: my money. If they want my money, then they need to offer me something I can`t download- like a kickass package (I bought Tool`s last record instead of downloading it for that very reason). I`m also more than happy to spend my money on tickets for shows and merchandise to support a band. Record companies aren`t entitled to their profits- they have to adapt to the market rather than trying to sue the competition out of existence.
  223. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    September 4, 2010 at 11:04 am
    Also- if you want to know about God, the creator of our world was kind enough to leave little packets of chemical messages to help you understand the nature of the relationship between matter, mind, and spirit all over the ground every autumn.
  224. Profile photo of SunThunder
    SunThunder Male 18-29
    97 posts
    September 4, 2010 at 11:22 am
    Of course Hawking said that, He`s an Athiest
  225. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    September 4, 2010 at 11:23 am
    davymid: why are you so aggressive towards people who are religious? "Religious mouthbreathers" And can you explain why a religious person using a computer is so strange?
    I`m not, I`m aggressive toward those religious people who denouce science in favour of their particular brand of religion. In fact, I`m like a f*cking rottweiler. I don`t find religious people using computers strange, I find religious people who attack science who then use computers strange. Very, very strange indeed.

    As I said several posts ago: You`re welcome to your religion, but please don`t try to derail science. Keep it inside your church.
  226. Profile photo of Noggin01
    Noggin01 Male 30-39
    72 posts
    September 4, 2010 at 12:04 pm
    Holy crap sbeelz, do you really believe what you said is true? It is copyright theft, plain and simple and there is no way around it. Just because you can get something for free (by theft) doesn`t mean that you are entitled to it. If you like the music enough that you want it, then you are stealing from the company that is selling it when you download it without paying for it. You are right though, they are not entitled to their profits, but they ARE entitled to being paid when you decide to obtain a piece of copyrighted music. Any belief that what you`re doing is morally right and/or legal is based on delusional idiocy.

    That being said, I`m not claiming to not have done it myself.
  227. Profile photo of Noggin01
    Noggin01 Male 30-39
    72 posts
    September 4, 2010 at 12:09 pm
    davymid: the hardcore religious denouncers of science that I`ve seen don`t care about the stuff like electricity, plastic, glass, and fire... they care about the stuff like atom smashers, big bang, unified theory, and music piracy... wait, I think I`m mixing two different topics...
  228. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    September 4, 2010 at 12:28 pm
    @Noggin01
    @sbeelz
    You know I thought talking about evolution was a bit off-topic, but now you guys are talking about intellectual property rights.
  229. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    September 4, 2010 at 12:28 pm
    Copyright law is thinly stretching the definition of theft. I believe it IS theft to TAKE CREDIT for someone else`s work as one`s own (weather or not they actually own the copyright), or to SELL someone else`s work or use it commercially without their permission. I believe that is at its root what copyright law is originally about. Copyright law was effectively written by and for copyright holders- and as end users of copyrighted material, we have the right to attempt to change the definition of what is and is not theft. So yes, I believe what I said. I do not allow those who would profit from their own extremely stretched definition of ownership to determine how I define it for myself.
  230. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    September 4, 2010 at 12:31 pm
    Also- I hope that every major record label goes out of business. It will ultimately be good for artists and the overall quality of the music we experience in our every day lives. This idea that somehow consumers would be shooting themselves in the foot if we drive music companies under is nonsense- human beings have been making music longer than we have been using money. There will be music as long as human beings walk the earth.
  231. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    September 4, 2010 at 12:39 pm
    @Anarchist God- just like any good conversation, a thread may start in one place and end up somewhere completely different. For an anarchist, you seem to be fairly hung up on rigid structure.
  232. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    September 4, 2010 at 1:18 pm
    @sbeelz
    My understanding of the benefits of a free market has nothing to do with how I define a good thread.
  233. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    September 4, 2010 at 3:56 pm
    davymid: the hardcore religious denouncers of science that I`ve seen don`t care about the stuff like electricity, plastic, glass, and fire... they care about the stuff like atom smashers, big bang, unified theory

    I`m not davymid, but I`ll give my own answer:

    They are still deliberately ignorant hypocrites who are harming society. They are using the benefits of science while trying to put an end to science.

    I am including every theist who tries to confuse religion and science. Those who talk about science being a faith. Those who talk about religion having any scientific content, e.g. creationists (including intelligent design advocates - it`s just religious creationism with a coating of deceit), and most of all, those who want to put religion in science classes.

    Liars. Hypocrites. Parasites. The lot of them.
  234. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    September 4, 2010 at 9:43 pm
    Angilion, my sentiments exactly. Bravo, and well said sir.

  235. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    September 4, 2010 at 10:38 pm
    @Angilion
    "September 04, 2010 3:56:07 PM"
    That`s not true. Be sure to check back in a few days for some of my replies.
  236. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    September 5, 2010 at 12:00 am
    That`s not true. Be sure to check back in a few days for some of my replies.

    In a few days this thread will be on page 5+ and irrelevant because no-one will be reading it. IAB isn`t really a discussion forum because it`s too transient. "That`s not true" doesn`t cut it. I might see your replies, if you make them, and I might have forgotten about this thread by then. It won`t matter either way.
  237. Profile photo of Noggin01
    Noggin01 Male 30-39
    72 posts
    September 5, 2010 at 6:41 am
    Uhhh... why did my old post come back? Oh well. And sbeelz, copyright law is NOT stretched thin by music. According to your logic, it would be perfectly reasonable for say Toyota to hop on a boat, walk into Ford`s offices, pull out a pen and paper, and copy every bit of Ford`s design on the Mustang, go home, and reproduce it all. Toyota didn`t "steal" anything, after all, they used their own paper to copy everything down and there is no reason that Toyota should have to use their own money to make their own stuff when it is so much more efficient to just make a duplicate of someone else`s work.
  238. Profile photo of Noggin01
    Noggin01 Male 30-39
    72 posts
    September 5, 2010 at 6:47 am
    I reread your argument and I see where you`ve already challenged what I`ve written as Toyota would profit. But the fact of the matter is that someone holds a copyright on the music and the whole purpose of the copyright is to keep someone from using it without permission. They do not grant you permission to use it until you pay for it. Part of holding the copyright of anything is that the copyright holder is granted DISTRIBUTION rights. They get to decide who and how it gets distributed. Downloading a copyrighted song from an unauthorized source BREAKS THE TERMS OF DISTRIBUTION. I`d be willing to bend (not break) a bit on the "theft" part of downloading an MP3, but I am not currently willing to bend on the fact that doing so is a breach of distribution terms and 100% illegal.
  239. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    September 5, 2010 at 9:58 am
    @Noggin01
    You`re on my sh*tlist.
  240. Profile photo of valleybronco
    valleybronco Female 18-29
    93 posts
    September 5, 2010 at 11:27 am
    well duh! obviously imaginary beings can not create anything.
  241. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    September 5, 2010 at 1:39 pm
    Noggin1, you are on AnarchistGod`s sh*tlist, whatever will you do???
    I plan on making a few replies when I`m in the mood.
    Be sure to check back in a few days for some of my replies.
    Maybe he hasn`t actually gotten around to making the sh*tlist (he`ll do it in a few days) and you`ll get off easy.
  242. Profile photo of Noggin01
    Noggin01 Male 30-39
    72 posts
    September 6, 2010 at 12:09 pm
    Honestly NottaSpy, you don`t want to be on AnarchistGod`s poo list. It is my understanding that he actually does some pretty terrible stuff like name calling and making fun of people. I mean, he might even have access to my IP address and might be able to figure out that I live in Austin TX! If he knew that, then he might actually threaten to come to Austin and beat me up or something! Oh poo, I just told him where I live!!!! I have to go hide now :( I`m afraid for my life. Seriously. I think my plan is to save up about $150,000 over the next 10 to 20 years so I can afford a downpayment on a new house so I can go into hiding. I think that is a pretty good plan... Yes, I think it will keep me safe for now.
  243. Profile photo of plurr4all
    plurr4all Male 18-29
    153 posts
    September 7, 2010 at 1:00 pm
    "Religion without science leads to superstition, science without religion leads to materialism."
    - Abdu`l-Bahá
  244. Profile photo of Custardface
    Custardface Male 13-17
    94 posts
    September 10, 2010 at 1:21 am
    Moves up to 1. on my books to buy list.
  245. Profile photo of xana
    xana Male 13-17
    7 posts
    September 24, 2010 at 1:33 pm
    i might by that book

    though he is an astro phisisist so its kind of his job to say that

Leave a Reply