0799: "Stephen Hawking"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
LucasBrown
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 2:57 am UTC
Location: Poway, CA

0799: "Stephen Hawking"

Postby LucasBrown » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:01 am UTC

Image
Alt text: "'Guys? The Town is supposed to be good, and I thou--' 'PHYSICIST STEPHEN HAWKING DECLARES NEW FILM BEST IN ALL SPACE AND TIME' 'No, I just heard that--' 'SHOULD SCIENCE PLAY A ROLE IN JUDGING BEN AFFLECK?' 'I don't think--' 'WHAT ABOUT MATT DAMON?'"

All hail the mighty wheelchair-bound god. Whatever he says must be an extremely profound truth.
Last edited by LucasBrown on Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:03 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

ARandomDude
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:10 pm UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby ARandomDude » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:02 am UTC


RogueCynic
Posts: 382
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:23 pm UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby RogueCynic » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:05 am UTC

I'm sure it happens a lot. A noted scientist tries to socialize and is misinterpreted. I liked the comic.
I am Lord Titanius Englesmith, Fancyman of Cornwood.
See 1 Kings 7:23 for pi.
If you put a prune in a juicer, what would you get?

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5544
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Eternal Density » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:08 am UTC

This makes me want to hug Hawking. *shrug*
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby uncivlengr » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:09 am UTC

So, anyone else initially think the name of the newspaper was, "THE TITTIES"?
I don't know what to do for you

tuckels
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:43 am UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby tuckels » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:11 am UTC

I'm all depressed now.

User avatar
glasnt
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:18 am UTC
Location: SQUEE!

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby glasnt » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:18 am UTC

Now I know how Jesus feels.

"Hey guys, I'm sorry, I ate a whole leg of goat yesterday, I don't feel like red meat today. I mean, tomorrow is Saturday, and we can have a bbq, but tonight, how about fish?"

IT IS UNHOLY TO EAT RED MEAT ON A FRIDAY, IF YOU DO YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!

"No, really, I did--"

*sigh*


HI JOEE

EduardoLeon
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:26 am UTC
Location: Lima, Perú
Contact:

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby EduardoLeon » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:19 am UTC


Hilarious. But, after I stopped laughing, it made me think: How do those we regard in high esteem actually feel about it? Does it feel good? Or does the awkwardness overweigh the benefits (both social and psychological/emotional) of such a position in the eyes of others?
Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein!

User avatar
Stanistani
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:13 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Stanistani » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:20 am UTC

glasnt wrote:Now I know how Jesus feels.

The holes in your wrists will heal in time.

Jatopian
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:35 am UTC
Location: Jatopia
Contact:

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Jatopian » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:21 am UTC

uncivlengr wrote:So, anyone else initially think the name of the newspaper was, "THE TITTIES"?
No, but now I can't unsee it. :(

rpgamer
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:54 am UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby rpgamer » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:25 am UTC

uncivlengr wrote:So, anyone else initially think the name of the newspaper was, "THE TITTIES"?

Man, I thought I'd be the only one.
All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That's how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.

squareroot
Posts: 547
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby squareroot » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:40 am UTC

uncivlengr wrote:So, anyone else initially think the name of the newspaper was, "THE TITTIES"?

Even if I try to read it like that, I can't. It looks more like "THE TirriES"
<signature content="" style="tag:html;" overused meta />
Good fucking job Will Yu, you found me - __ -

User avatar
joee
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:53 am UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby joee » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:58 am UTC

glasnt wrote:HI JOEE


HAPPY BIRTHDAY CRACK BOOM GLASNT

Poor Stephen Hawking. This comic makes me sad. No one will go see a movie with him
Hi glasnt.

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Kyrn » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:58 am UTC

glasnt wrote:Now I know how Jesus feels.

"Hey guys, I'm sorry, I ate a whole leg of goat yesterday, I don't feel like red meat today. I mean, tomorrow is Saturday, and we can have a bbq, but tonight, how about fish?"

IT IS UNHOLY TO EAT RED MEAT ON A FRIDAY, IF YOU DO YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!

"No, really, I did--"

*sigh*


HI JOEE

Or:

"Hey, you know that meat that seems to infect diseases when eaten? Maybe we shouldn't eating it until we find some way to clean it thoroughly."

PORK IS UNCLEAN AND SHALL NOT BE CONSUMED.
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

User avatar
cjmcjmcjmcjm
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:15 am UTC
Location: Anywhere the internet is strong

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby cjmcjmcjmcjm » Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:01 am UTC

Kyrn wrote:
glasnt wrote:Now I know how Jesus feels.

"Hey guys, I'm sorry, I ate a whole leg of goat yesterday, I don't feel like red meat today. I mean, tomorrow is Saturday, and we can have a bbq, but tonight, how about fish?"

IT IS UNHOLY TO EAT RED MEAT ON A FRIDAY, IF YOU DO YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!

"No, really, I did--"

*sigh*


HI JOEE

Or:

"Hey, you know that meat that seems to infect diseases when eaten? Maybe we shouldn't eating it until we find some way to clean it thoroughly."

PORK IS UNCLEAN AND SHALL NOT BE CONSUMED.

Yes.
uncivlengr wrote:So, anyone else initially think the name of the newspaper was, "THE TITTIES"?

and yes.
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark

DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.

tigger89
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:08 am UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby tigger89 » Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:11 am UTC

uncivlengr wrote:So, anyone else initially think the name of the newspaper was, "THE TITTIES"?


Count me in the mind-in-the-gutter club. The m kind of looked like tti, with the dot of the i smushed into the e.

I could have sworn I'd registered here a few years ago to make a stupid comment about the comic(much like this one, which I'd originally wandered over to post about), but no username was registered at my e-mail. Odd. Maybe my account was purged.

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 685
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Steve the Pocket » Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:06 am UTC

Stanistani wrote:
glasnt wrote:Now I know how Jesus feels.

The holes in your wrists will heal in time.

And also the whole being-dead thing apparently.
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

NotAllThere
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:54 pm UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby NotAllThere » Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:39 am UTC

When I read in the Times that Hawkings says God doesn't exist, I was expecting to see on the inside pages an article by the Pope on M-Theory and Quantum Gravity.
yangosplat wrote:So many amazing quotes, so little room in 300 characters!

JohnofArc
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:15 am UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby JohnofArc » Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:58 am UTC

NotAllThere wrote:When I read in the Times that Hawkings says God doesn't exist, I was expecting to see on the inside pages an article by the Pope on M-Theory and Quantum Gravity.

Smartest thing said thus far in the thread

facefive
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:43 am UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby facefive » Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:08 am UTC

haha this one made me laught out loud for real hahahahaha

yedidyak
Posts: 954
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:24 pm UTC
Location: Israel

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby yedidyak » Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:17 am UTC

NotAllThere wrote:When I read in the Times that Hawkings says God doesn't exist, I was expecting to see on the inside pages an article by the Pope on M-Theory and Quantum Gravity.


Or an in depth study of theology by Hawking? I've never understood why theological comments by physicists are given more credence than scientific comments by theologians.

Vroomfundel
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:36 am UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Vroomfundel » Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:40 am UTC

yedidyak wrote:
I've never understood why theological comments by physicists are given more credence than scientific comments by theologians.


Might have something to do with the fact that you can credibly prove theologians wrong with science and not the other way round - unless, of course, "because god made it so" counts as a credible argument. Kind of like http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2005

MJZimmer88
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:39 pm UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby MJZimmer88 » Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:42 am UTC

MAAAAATT DAMONNNN

darthdavid
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:33 am UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby darthdavid » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:00 am UTC

yedidyak wrote:
NotAllThere wrote:When I read in the Times that Hawkings says God doesn't exist, I was expecting to see on the inside pages an article by the Pope on M-Theory and Quantum Gravity.


Or an in depth study of theology by Hawking? I've never understood why theological comments by physicists are given more credence than scientific comments by theologians.

Because most religions attempt to explain reality, do a much worse job at it than scientists then attempt to convince the public that they're right and that people should listen to them instead of the scientists. Why shouldn't scientists attempt to steer people away from one of the biggest blocks on scientific progress in the modern world?

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Kyrn » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:06 am UTC

yedidyak wrote:
NotAllThere wrote:When I read in the Times that Hawkings says God doesn't exist, I was expecting to see on the inside pages an article by the Pope on M-Theory and Quantum Gravity.


Or an in depth study of theology by Hawking? I've never understood why theological comments by physicists are given more credence than scientific comments by theologians.

Unless they provide something new other than "God made it so", there's nothing else to hear. Granted if they DO have something new other than "God made it so" (like WHY or HOW God made it so, other than deception alone), then I would be more interested. For instance, using relative timeframes to frame the creation of the universe in a bibical sense? That's interesting.
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

yedidyak
Posts: 954
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:24 pm UTC
Location: Israel

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby yedidyak » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:15 am UTC

When theologians make pseudo-scientific statements then sure, use science to prove them wrong. But just because you have a degree, or even a Nobel Prize in physics does not make anyone an expert on religion or theology. What Hawking essentially did in his latest statement was disprove his earlier statement about god, therefore eliminating the need for a god in his theory of the big bang. Yet I have seen no religion that bases itself on Hawking saying once that there was a need for god to start the big bang. Seriously, there is a lot more to (some) religions than what most people (even on the xkcd fora) believe.

I saw a study recently (sorry cant find a link) that showed that in 1900 40% of scientists were religious. in 2000, 40% of scientists were religious. Science in no way disproves religion as a whole. Maybe specific religions, but the whole 'if science is right then obviously there is no god' line is crap.

User avatar
littlelj
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:40 am UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby littlelj » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:19 am UTC

MJZimmer88 wrote:MAAAAATT DAMONNNN

^ This.

I used to live round the corner from Stephen Hawking. That man really wants to get run over. He just zooms into traffic, which screeches to a halt. I mean, I guess he's had (having?) kind of a crappy life, but is near-death experiences the only excitement he gets?

Comic made me :(
Dudes, I'm a woman.

User avatar
cypherspace
Posts: 2733
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:48 pm UTC
Location: Londonia

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby cypherspace » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:22 am UTC

yedidyak wrote:Or an in depth study of theology by Hawking? I've never understood why theological comments by physicists are given more credence than scientific comments by theologians.
Because journalists are morons and don't understand science.

Stereotypes a-go-go!
"It was like five in the morning and he said he'd show me his hamster"

yedidyak
Posts: 954
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:24 pm UTC
Location: Israel

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby yedidyak » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:26 am UTC

Kyrn wrote:Unless they provide something new other than "God made it so", there's nothing else to hear. Granted if they DO have something new other than "God made it so" (like WHY or HOW God made it so, other than deception alone), then I would be more interested. For instance, using relative timeframes to frame the creation of the universe in a bibical sense? That's interesting.


Read an interesting study on this exact point recently. The point he made was that '6 days' can obviously not mean 6 days as we know them now, because before the Earth existed it is meaningless to talk about Earth time due to relativity. The only place it makes sense to measure those 6 days was relative to the point of the big bang, and speed of time at the moment time started - when matter formed. Interestingly he showed that 6 days at that speed would translate into about 14 billion years of current Earth time. Also, the end of each 'day' matches up pretty well with major events, e.g. Cambrian explosion, formation of seas etc.

User avatar
mister k
Posts: 643
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:28 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby mister k » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:44 am UTC

All I know about Stephen Hawking is that he went to see "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" at the picturehouse in Cambridge. While leaving the cinema I suddenly realised "hey, thats Stephen Hawking!".
Elvish Pillager wrote:you're basically a daytime-miller: you always come up as guilty to scumdar.

keithc
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:12 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby keithc » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:48 am UTC

yedidyak wrote:
Kyrn wrote:Unless they provide something new other than "God made it so", there's nothing else to hear. Granted if they DO have something new other than "God made it so" (like WHY or HOW God made it so, other than deception alone), then I would be more interested. For instance, using relative timeframes to frame the creation of the universe in a bibical sense? That's interesting.


Read an interesting study on this exact point recently. The point he made was that '6 days' can obviously not mean 6 days as we know them now, because before the Earth existed it is meaningless to talk about Earth time due to relativity. The only place it makes sense to measure those 6 days was relative to the point of the big bang, and speed of time at the moment time started - when matter formed. Interestingly he showed that 6 days at that speed would translate into about 14 billion years of current Earth time. Also, the end of each 'day' matches up pretty well with major events, e.g. Cambrian explosion, formation of seas etc.
{citation needed}

yedidyak
Posts: 954
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:24 pm UTC
Location: Israel

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby yedidyak » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:52 am UTC

keithc wrote:
yedidyak wrote:
Kyrn wrote:Unless they provide something new other than "God made it so", there's nothing else to hear. Granted if they DO have something new other than "God made it so" (like WHY or HOW God made it so, other than deception alone), then I would be more interested. For instance, using relative timeframes to frame the creation of the universe in a bibical sense? That's interesting.


Read an interesting study on this exact point recently. The point he made was that '6 days' can obviously not mean 6 days as we know them now, because before the Earth existed it is meaningless to talk about Earth time due to relativity. The only place it makes sense to measure those 6 days was relative to the point of the big bang, and speed of time at the moment time started - when matter formed. Interestingly he showed that 6 days at that speed would translate into about 14 billion years of current Earth time. Also, the end of each 'day' matches up pretty well with major events, e.g. Cambrian explosion, formation of seas etc.
{citation needed}


Author - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder
Book on his website - http://www.geraldschroeder.com/ScienceGod.aspx

User avatar
markfiend
Posts: 497
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:59 am UTC
Location: UK (Leeds)

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby markfiend » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:57 am UTC

yedidyak wrote:I've never understood why theological comments by physicists are given more credence than scientific comments by theologians.

I've never understood why Emperor's-new-clothes-alogical comments by physicists are given more credence than scientific comments by experts in Imaginary Fabrics.

(ref The Courtier's Reply)

*Edit to add: the Genesis creation account (which one? there are two conflicting versions in chapters 1 and 2) only match up with known history if you squint really hard, cross your fingers, and really, truly, believe in fairies. :roll:
Last edited by markfiend on Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:01 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
advanced, forthright, signifficant
pronouns: he/him

keithc
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:12 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby keithc » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:00 am UTC

yedidyak wrote:What Hawking essentially did in his latest statement was disprove his earlier statement about god, therefore eliminating the need for a god in his theory of the big bang. Yet I have seen no religion that bases itself on Hawking saying once that there was a need for god to start the big bang.

He never actually said that there was a need for (a) god to start the big bang, what he said was "If we find the answer to (the question of why it is that we and the universe exist), it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." He was almost certainly using the term "God" in the metaphorical sense that many physicists do, and not as a literal being, so the whole paragraph is really a great rhetorical flourish on which to end the book. I am pretty sure that even at that time he was "out" as an atheist or at least agnostic.
Interestingly, "god" does not appear in the index to "Brief History".

keithc
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:12 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby keithc » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:01 am UTC


yedidyak
Posts: 954
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:24 pm UTC
Location: Israel

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby yedidyak » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:02 am UTC

markfiend wrote:
yedidyak wrote:I've never understood why theological comments by physicists are given more credence than scientific comments by theologians.

I've never understood why Emperor's-new-clothes-alogical comments by physicists are given more credence than scientific comments by experts in Imaginary Fabrics.
(ref The Courtier's Reply)


"A witty saying proves nothing." (Voltaire)

What your incredibly witty saying essentially says is 'I believe that religion is a load of crap, therefore anyone talking about it is talking a load of crap. Proved. Also, since I know a lot about crap, I am an expert on religion.'

EDIT -
markfiend wrote:Edit to add: the Genesis creation account (which one? there are two conflicting versions in chapters 1 and 2) only match up with known history if you squint really hard, cross your fingers, and really, truly, believe in fairies.


Oh wow! You have all by yourself come up with something that no one else reading the Bible has though of in the last 3500 years! How clever you are! Suddenly I realise that it all makes no sense!

Seriously? But of course, if I mention any of the books on this subject you will call them 'Emperor's fashion catalogues' and so I won't bother.

User avatar
Monika
Welcoming Aarvark
Posts: 3660
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:03 am UTC
Location: Germany, near Heidelberg
Contact:

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Monika » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:17 am UTC

Eternal Density wrote:This makes me want to hug Hawking.

Yeah, the comic is kind of sad.

But it also reminds me of Hawking's appearance in Star Trek The Next Generation, where he acted as himself (or rather his holography), playing cards with the smartest people of history, and wins :D . This was awesome.

yedidyak wrote:"A witty saying proves nothing." (Voltaire)

I am so going to use that.

Also, there are no gods.
#xkcd-q on irc.foonetic.net - the LGBTIQQA support channel
Please donate to help these people

User avatar
markfiend
Posts: 497
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:59 am UTC
Location: UK (Leeds)

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby markfiend » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:22 am UTC

OK fine. I'll quit with the Emperor's new clothes thing.

But why bother trying to match the state of current knowledge with the Bible? Why not try to match it up with the Eddas? Or the Greek creation myths? Or the Aztec creation myths? Or... (Well you get the point.)

The reason that I can dismiss Gerald Schroeder as a crank is as follows:

Genesis Chapter 1, summary: (quickly typed up with reference to Genesis chapter 1 here)
Day 1: Creation of light and darkness
Day 2: Creation of the firmament, separation of waters above the firmament from those below it.
Day 3: Creation of dry land, and of land plants
Day 4: Creation of great lights (Sun and Moon)
Day 5: Creation of water animals and of birds
Day 6: Creation of land animals and mankind.

So, plants (never mind the Earth itself) come before the Sun? Birds come before land animals?

Listen, I don't have a problem with Genesis as mythology. I don't have a problem with religious believers. But trying to claim that the Genesis story matches up in any meaningful way with reality... I have a problem with.
advanced, forthright, signifficant
pronouns: he/him

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Kyrn » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:30 am UTC

markfiend wrote:OK fine. I'll quit with the Emperor's new clothes thing.

But why bother trying to match the state of current knowledge with the Bible? Why not try to match it up with the Eddas? Or the Greek creation myths? Or the Aztec creation myths? Or... (Well you get the point.)

The reason that I can dismiss Gerald Schroeder as a crank is as follows:

Genesis Chapter 1, summary: (quickly typed up with reference to Genesis chapter 1 here)
Day 1: Creation of light and darkness
Day 2: Creation of the firmament, separation of waters above the firmament from those below it.
Day 3: Creation of dry land, and of land plants
Day 4: Creation of great lights (Sun and Moon)
Day 5: Creation of water animals and of birds
Day 6: Creation of land animals and mankind.

So, plants (never mind the Earth itself) come before the Sun? Birds come before land animals?

Listen, I don't have a problem with Genesis as mythology. I don't have a problem with religious believers. But trying to claim that the Genesis story matches up in any meaningful way with reality... I have a problem with.

My explanation:
Day 1: Refers to matter and antimatter states.
Day 2: Refers to matter states itself (solids, liquids, gas, plasma).
Day 3: Refers to consolidation of solids (molecules, inc biological molecules)
Day 4: Creation of star systems.
Day 5: Creation of life as we know it. Birds refers to insects. (alternatively, reptiles and avians together)
Day 6: Reptiles, Avians, Mammals. (alternatively, mammals alone)

You're still taking things too literally.
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

User avatar
markfiend
Posts: 497
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:59 am UTC
Location: UK (Leeds)

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby markfiend » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:38 am UTC

Kyrn wrote:You're still taking things too literally.

o.O
If you're going to distort -- oh, sorry, interpret -- the text so much that it no longer says anything remotely related to what it says, then why bother keeping it at all?

Your "explanation" is nothing of the kind.
advanced, forthright, signifficant
pronouns: he/him


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests