Search results

The quote you gave from Hawkings book 'A Brief History Of Time' WAS EDITED to mislead..sheesh what would it take for you to see the light of day? Jumping into another quotes fest to make more of your wild assertions will not change that fact. As long as you can't understand you have been...

You creationist types are just plain weird. You see a question where there isn't one, you want a number for no valid reason, and you want science to say what you think it should. So yeah, you'd believe anything, really. Except reasonable.

Don't get your hopes up , it wasn't a question. See if your wife will maybe oblige. You never know until you ask him.

Hawking writes a paragraph in his book. You copy part of it from a religious website and that is Hawking telling everyone how it is. The science from the scientist as you so ludicrously put it. But the part of the paragraph which inconveniently messes up the misdirection of the edit all of a...

....because obviously you've nothing else.

Head.

Let's try again... the quote you've posted attributed to Stephen Hawking from his Book 'A Brief History Of Time' WAS EDITED. The quote had excluded from it, this crucial part in explanation about fundamental physical constants " it is also possible that some or all of them vary from...

Hawking happened to mention back in 1988 in his book A Brief History of Time how it is possible for all or some of the fundamental physical constants to vary "within a single universe". If that is supposed to be Hawking's quote referring to fundamental values , how come these words were left...

When will you ever understand mentioning scientists names and using partial quotes attributed to them and misrepresenting what they say in the way you do is not science. It is dishonesty. And relying on wiki quotes which warn "the neutrality of this section is disputed. to support...

Idiot.. How many times have you trolled that rubbish out now. Rambling pseudoscience made up by religious nut heads misconstruing what particular scientists are supposed to have said, is not science. It is though what you have done with Dawkins's comments in the video. Dealing in...

Engage in argument, with you!? I doubt you could hold an honest conversation if your life depended on it. Even in the full face of evidence supplied by yourself, you can't be honest. You might ask yourself why you need to be so untruthful to say "Dawkins states in the videos physicists...

Not explained my science!!! You must be joking. How can anyone explain to someone who can't even comprehend straightforward sentences in English given by people like Dawkins and Susskind for example. Or who demands a specific answer to a completely pointless question. Until you can grasp...

"we" who is "we".:D You’ve demonstrated how you can't even watch and listen to a short vid without mashing up the words, content and meaning in it. How are you ever going to understand the issues properly from trying to read a book which I very much doubt you ever have. Dawkins...

Yes you are. You can watch a vid and deny what's said in it and then distort it's meaning on top of that. You are indeed incredibly full of it.

Lol. Can't make me give a wholly inappropriate answer to your ill-advised question so you kick the toys out of your pram. Conversation. Don't make me laugh. I suggest you think of a number you would like me to think of and then go argue with yourself.

Now you're babbling. Dawkins states there are physicists that do a trick also with certain other constants and the ones he points out. It's as clear as day that Dawkins does not in any way recommend Rees's book. Dawkins refers to Rees being one example of those physicists who do a trick...

Yes you have shown yourself to be exactly that, not either, but both a moron and a fraud. The fact is, Dawkins does not support what Rees says nor does he recommend his book, both of which you dishonestly claimed he did. Jumping to 3mins 30 secs in the video to avoid that fact doesn't...

Of course it is debunked. In science, it doesn't mean what, in your religious ignorance, you obviously think it does. There is no scientific evidence for it. So numbers are what they are because they would naturally be what they are, when there is a universe like this one. Physicists...

"Dawkins recommended Rees book in the video." Bollocks. He did no such thing whatsoever. Dawkins is disagreeing with Rees. How the hell do you get to that? He mentions Rees and his book as an example of doing a trick, using models which are based upon problematical values. Seriously, as...