# Kirk Cameron schools Stephen Hawking in science **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 22, 2011, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818 "2011-05-22T21:45:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/341 "2011-05-31T19:32:46Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > What wizard theory? Your magical “creator.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/342 "2011-05-31T19:35:40Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > My understanding of the argument from authority fallacy is that it occurs when you give credence to an argument based on who is making it rather than by it’s own merits. Now this I got to see, how do you know it has no merit? Do you know already that other experts have seen the physics involved and do not agree with him? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/343 "2011-05-31T19:39:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, it’s just Occam’s Razor. What’s more likely, that **Scylla** doesn’t understand what Hawking is saying, or that **Scyllas** has such a phenomenal mind that he was able to spot a mistake in Hawking’s hypothesis despite a total lack of training in physics? > > If you disputed a medical doctor’s diagnosis based on nothing but you’re own poor understanding of medical science, it would not be an apeal to authority to assume that you were the one was making a mistake. > > Note that I did not say I agreed or disagreed with Hawking’s hypotheis. Unlike you, I can admit that I don’t understand it well enough to render an informed opinion about it. I do know that it’s highly unlkely that you’ve spotted any kind of basic scientific weakness in it, though. > > And not for nothing, but don’t you think the Bible is authoritative? I Don’t think that Hawking’s explanation for the origin of the universe is actually physics. He is just guessing. I’m not being an asshole. That’s just what it is. Hawking’s do doesn’t believe in the Higgs Bosun btw, and that’s also just a guess. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/344 "2011-05-31T19:42:18Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I Don’t think that Hawking’s explanation for the origin of the universe is actually physics. He is just guessing. Do you know what the word “physics” means? He’s rendering a hypothesis that would comport with what is known of physics. Your objection is based on something you think you know about physics. Who’s more likely to be making a mistake (and by “making a mistake,” I just mean in misunderstanding the physical principles involved, not necessarily in the hypothesis being right or wrong). ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/345 "2011-05-31T19:44:07Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Your magical “creator.” Why do you say magic and wizard. I already just gave an example of a theory of a created reality complete with creator that requires neither wizards nor magic. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/346 "2011-05-31T19:54:23Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Do you know what the word “physics” means? > > He’s rendering a hypothesis that would comport with what is known of physics. Your objection is based on something you think you know about physics. Who’s more likely to be making a mistake (and by “making a mistake,” I just mean in misunderstanding the physical principles involved, not necessarily in the hypothesis being right or wrong). Hmmmm. You haven’t read the book and you don’t know what he says in it. Apparently though that doesn’t stop you from arguing about it. This makes it hard for me to talk to you about it, as you obviously don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. For example, I don’t think that Hawking would have a problem with my characterizations of guesswork, as he points out that these things are a black box the contents of which it is impossible for us ever to perceive. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/347 "2011-05-31T21:35:35Z")
You are sailing right by the point. The hypothesis itself is irerelvant to my point since I’ve made no comment on it. Basically all I’m saying is that you aren’t qualified to evaluate it. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/348 "2011-05-31T22:47:41Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You are sailing right by the point. The hypothesis itself is irerelvant to my point since I’ve made no comment on it. Basically all I’m saying is that you aren’t qualified to evaluate it. Not at all. Since you don’t have any clue of what it is that I am actually commenting, you have no idea whether or not I have any business commenting on it. Or so your logic extends. In reality, your argument is complete stupidity, unusual even for you. The worthiness of an argument has nothing to do with who is making it. Hawking saying that Unicorns are extinct because Noah threw them off the ark, doesn’t make it so. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/349 "2011-06-01T00:24:14Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Hawking saying that Unicorns are extinct because Noah threw them off the ark, doesn’t make it so. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/350 "2011-06-01T01:24:33Z")
Ever see a unicorn fossil? ---
**Author:** ![fubbleskag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fubbleskag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fubbleskag)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/351 "2011-06-01T01:34:58Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Cite? His post is his cite. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/352 "2011-06-01T02:05:34Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Not at all. Since you don’t have any clue of what it is that I am actually commenting, you have no idea whether or not I have any business commenting on it. Actually, I do know. It just isn’t particularly relevant to the fact that you look like a buffoon when you announce that you’ve spotted an error in Stephen Hawking’s knowledge of physics. You don’t understand his hypothesis. You further exacerbate this image of yourself as a clown by declaring that a “creator” is more likely. Both of those statements make you look like a fucking idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/353 "2011-06-01T02:14:25Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Actually, I do know. It just isn’t particularly relevant to the fact that you look like a buffoon when you announce that you’ve spotted an error in Stephen Hawking’s knowledge of physics. You don’t understand his hypothesis. You further exacerbate this image of yourself as a clown by declaring that a “creator” is more likely. Both of those statements make you look like a fucking idiot. Ok great. You do know! So then, what is wrong with my assessment? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/354 "2011-06-01T02:18:59Z")
I’m watching the NBA finals. I’ll explain after the game. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/355 "2011-06-01T06:43:11Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Hawking saying that Unicorns are extinct because Noah threw them off the ark, doesn’t make it so. That was _Hawking_ who said that? I thought it was Silverstein… ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/356 "2011-06-01T12:21:32Z")
For the record, what Hawking said was that God isn’t necessary to explain the origin of the universe, not that God is impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/357 "2011-06-01T13:12:52Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I think he said it’s _unnecessary_. > > That said, there is no evidence for heaven, so believing in it without evidence isn’t what could be called a rational act. Exactly, belief is not rational. I doubt anyone ever said said otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/358 "2011-06-01T15:46:20Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Second part first, that is almost verbatim what Hawkings Is saying. > For the first part, I cringe to write this, but I actually think that Hawking’s explanation for a creator-less creation of the universe through m theory is a bit weak and a little contradictory (or at least as I understand it.) > > Basically, was created the same virtual particles come into being (according to Hawking in the Grand design as I understand him.). However time and space are required for virtual particles to occur neither of which was in existence at the big bang. This is your basic misunderstanding. All of those virtual particles create their own very limited spacetime. In fact, they _are_ spacetime. Most of these particles (which can be analogized as “bubbles” in a “quantum foam” come and go in an instant (figuratively speaking) with (really _as_) tiny little spacetimes. Some of the bubbles blow up and expand into universes, with their own expanding spacetimes. Were you under the impression that you would stump Stephen Hawking with that objection? Did you think you had spotted a hole that he had overlooked (and not just Hawking, by the way. He’s explaining M theory in _The Grand Illusion_, but he didn’t formulate it. You would have to imagine that you were tripping up all the best minds in theoretical physics by pointing out a simple flaw). Seriously, did it not occur to you at all that maybe you were just missing something yourself? Is your ego that huge? M Theory is unproven and (thus far) untestable. It mostly exists as math. Any kind of multiverse scenario, though, makes God unnecessary. Your computer program scenario, by the way, only regresses the question (as does goddidit). It’s not impossible, but it only means you no have to explain where the computer came from. It also (like goddidit) multiplies entia without necessity. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/359 "2011-06-01T22:57:09Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Except that it is total fucking bullshit. Science never says “I don’t know.” > > (Well maybe some scientist sometime said that, but it’s damn rare.) > > Scientific history is the march of really bad ideas being stated as a certainty eventually getting replace with other (usually pretty bad,) ideas. > > Bodily Humors, the Aether, the flat world, Newtonian physics, Dark matter, etc. etc. Every fucking idea we ever had in our entire history up till now basically turned out to be wrong and got replaced by an idea that was only slightly less bad. > > You think science says “I Don’t know?” Are you insane? > > How much do you think we actually know? > > Do you think is true now is going to hold up? Do you think it’s that much better than “God?” > > I don’t think that we are much better than the surgeon applying leeches while sneering at a witch doctor mumbling an incantation. > > If history is any indicator, pretty much everything that we think is a fact is going to get replaced by another idea which is going to be a better fact. > > Our ideas of what is true are likely very poor. We don’t know shit. We never admit it. Never have, never will. Find me one scientific journal with an article all about stuff that the writer doesn’t know. > > What is it you think we actually know for sure? > Absolutely ridiculous. Why would you applaud such a stupidly false statement? > > Science never says it doesn’t know. It cuts birds hearts out and spreads them on goiters as a cure. It poisons my father and kills him before the cancer can and calls it a cure. > > I don’t know almost never happens and it never has any value. Taking your best fucking swing at it and offering the best explanation you can is all that you can do. > > “I don’t Know.” is for douchebags and extinct hominids. > > Hawking agrees with me: > > “But science tells us that we can’t solve the equations, directly in the abstract. We need to use the effective theory of Darwinian natural selection of those societies most likely to survive. We assign them higher value.” You observe all of this, but then fail to place “God/Budda/The Fates/religion” into this equation? Religion consists of fables we made up because we can’t stand not knowing. And I’m pretty sure you understand the difference between a scientist’s hypothesis vs claiming ‘fact’. Scientists say “I don’t know” all the damn time, then dream up the experiment to try to figure it out. But since it is a process, we can always look back in time from a place of greater enlightenment at the mistaken beliefs of the past. Except with religion, not so much… “Blimps” was one of the 5 funniest things on this Board, ever. I miss classylady’s contributions, it amused me the only adjective she had at her command was a variant of the word ‘fuck’. Classy indeed… And a scientist would throw a squirrrel into the electrified fence, (and the PETA demonstration would follow)… ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/360 "2011-06-03T04:22:21Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > For the record, what Hawking said was that God isn’t necessary to explain the origin of the universe, not that God is impossible. To the degree that I understood it, I think Hawking was saying that the net balance of energy/matter in the universe is zero, and that we observe matter spontaneously appearing in a vacuum. so that quite literally it is possible that “we came from nothing” without the need for a creator. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818.md?page=19)