A Complete Waste of Space

Smart man.....

HH

Spontaneous creation isn't a new theory. Steve is just taking it to the next level.
I eagerly await the release of his new book.

Reservoir_Dog wrote:Spontaneous creation isn't a new theory.

No its not. but it is a disproven theory. so reading Hawkings book expanding on a disproven theory seems like a waste of time

Spontaneous generation or Equivocal generation is an obsolete theory regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s). The theory was synthesized by Aristotle,[1] who compiled and expanded the work of prior natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations of the appearance of organisms; it held sway for two millennia. It is generally accepted to have been ultimately disproven in the 19th Century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, expanding upon the experiments of other scientists before him (such as Francesco Redi who had performed similar experiments in the 17th century). Ultimately, it was succeeded by germ theory and cell theory

His work is an asset in the Atheist argument.
There is no God, and there never was.

Cuda, I assure if his theory was disproven then Hawking
would not bother continuing his work.

Only the holy rollers "disprove" his work. Tacking on big usless words
to your "disproval" may help convince the weak minded believers.

HH

Cuda, are you suggesting that life cannot arise from inanimate(non-living) chemicals(matter)? If so, there is a rather large body of evidence which shows that it is not only conceivable, but highly probable, statistically.
It would have been crude, viral or at best unicellular life, but life nontheless.

Now, the 'matter' of where matter originated, if you will pardon the pun, could be another story.

callmeslick wrote:Cuda, are you suggesting that life cannot arise from inanimate(non-living) chemicals(matter)? If so, there is a rather large body of evidence which shows that it is not only conceivable, but highly probable, statistically.
It would have been crude, viral or at best unicellular life, but life nontheless.

no. what I am saying is that the "theory" of spontanious creation has been disproven.

Now, the 'matter' of where matter originated, if you will pardon the pun, could be another story

agreed Hawkings is basing his whole premise on the "LAW" of gravity. saying gravity is always there. the question would be where did this gravity come from and while I'm not a physist my understanding of Gravity it that it is based off mass. the bigger the mass the more gravity. even a single Atom has mass and therefore gravity. so if there was "nothing" to begin with how could there be any mass to have gravity??

HappyHappy wrote:His work is an asset in the Atheist argument.
There is no God, and there never was.

Cuda, I assure if his theory was disproven then Hawking
would not bother continuing his work.

Only the holy rollers "disprove" his work. Tacking on big usless words
to your "disproval" may help convince the weak minded believers.

HH

Did you even read the article or did you just scan the headlines on CNN???
first off Dipstick, Hawkings has done NOTHING to prove anything. he gave his opinion based on 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting a star other than the Sun.

"That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions -- the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass -- far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings."

his premise that the Earth is the ONLY planet that God made is flawed. but OBVIOUSLY your too stupid to understand when someone is giving his Opinion. so here I'll help you out

o·pin·ion   /əˈpɪnyən/ Show Spelled[uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

Actually Cuda, I do not believe in the idea of Spontaneous creation.
I also am not a believer in the big bang theory.
The further we look back in time (billions of light years distance) the more
we find observable matter. Observable means there are light emitting stars and galaxies.
It takes time to form a structure as massive as a galaxy.
To much time. So much so that the evidence points to an infinite universe
in a constant of recycling matter thanks to those super massive
black holes in the center of every galaxy.

Infinity.
No creator.
No age to the universe.
You are the product of 4.5 billion years of evolution.
It is likely that life is ubiquitous in the universe.
If a world has anything remotely capable of supporting
microbial life there is a good chance a life bearing projectile
such as an asteroid or comet has deposited life there.
There have been so many BIG collisions here on Earth in the past
4.5 billion years that Earth served as a big puffball sending
life bearing rocks and debris into space.
Yes, there is microbial life capable of surviving those hostile
conditions.

I do in face agree with Hawking on one important point. "God didn't create universe".
There has to be a God to do the creating. Fact is no one can show any evidence of a god.

As you can see, I am VERY comfortable with my belief system.

HH

I doubt you believe in anything.

If you were comfortable in your beliefs. You wouldn't work so hard at convincing people there's no God.

I'm comfortable, and you don't see me posting thread after thread about God. If you don't bring the subject up, I won't talk about it.

Too bad you can't do the same. You're like a pimple that won't go away.

Show me hard evidence of a God.

The burden of proof is on you.

I see nothing and accept the obvious.

All you have to do is show me.

HH