That might produce more conclusive
evidence of Hawking's theory.
Not exact matches
Mr.
Hawking wins easy battles against uneducated (in science) religious persons, but taking his statement on perspective, He is based on assumptions with serious underlying problems, basically everything from mathematics, to the incompatibility
of quantum mechanics and relativity, and the lack
of proof and
evidence for string theories, he is launching a very aggressive statement, probably his last effort on life to counter the anthropomorphic ideas
of God, and this is very common in all scientists.
Mr.
Hawking I can give you the greatest
evidence of God's existence and that there is a heaven and a hell.
1)
Evidence of God in Science & Math: Reading some
of the worlds leading cosmologists (
Hawking, Dawkins, Ross, Behe), etc., they make long and interesting claims
of the intricacy
of the universe and the balance
of the natural elements and gravitational forces necessary for life to exist on this planet.
hotairace The scientifically acceptable
evidence actually leans towards the unknown as existence
of intelligent life absent an infinite number
of universes (
Hawking multiverse) is impossible.
= >
evidence is in the fine tuning
of Dark Matter which when proven forced
Hawking.
You said, «Even Stephen
Hawking had to escape into the possibility
of multiverse theory (unproven with no
evidence) to escape painting himself into a corner with regard to the fine tuning in Dark Matter.
Stephen
Hawking is grasping onto M theory (no
evidence whatsoever) to avoid getting backed into a God corner where he will not go regardless
of the
evidence presented.
Even Stephen
Hawking had to escape into the possibility
of multiverse theory (unproven with no
evidence) to escape painting himself into a corner with regard to the fine tuning in Dark Matter.
One
of the main advantages
of science is that it can show disagreement (just remember the bet on black holes by
Hawking and Kip Thorne) and be proud
of it, as long as both sides are willing to give in on superior arguments and
evidence.
In recent weeks in Parliament, on prime - time television and in forums, Roberts has been flaunting his rejection
of scientific
evidence like a dodgy second - hand car salesman with a sideline
hawking homeopathy remedies to astrologists.
«In the face
of such overwhelming
evidence that their «build more market housing» (in Hollywood and elsewhere) version
of densification would worsen climate change, the density
hawks nimbly turned to other ruses.
Since there is zero
evidence of expensive housing trickling down to become affordable housing in Los Angeles, the density
hawks then invoke another out -
of - context economic theory: supply - and - demand.