12 replies to this topic

[Vortigern]

This is one of my pet hates. Stephen Hawking has just released a new book concerning the creation of the universe, and the news headline was "Hawking: God does not exist." Another was "Hawking: God did not create universe." This is not what he said. In fact, what Hawking said was "there is no need to invoke God to set the Universe going." That does not mean he is categorically insisting God is not real; he is simply suggesting that the laws of physics as they are would logically have led to the creation of a universe. At no point does Hawking deny the potential for a divine hand at some stage in the proceedings. The quote on which they are leaning so heavily for this reads "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." 'Not necessary' is not the same as 'definitely wrong'. And these guys are supposed to be professional wordsmiths.

Journalists misrepresent scientists. It makes me so mad.

Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe. (Even the BBC's guilty of this.)

By the way, I put this in Deep Thought because I hope people will think deeply about this, and about whether or not they agree with Hawking, the media interpretation of Hawking or something else entirely. Theoretically, by what method could the universe have been created?

[Allathar]

Been wanting to create a topic out of this too, but'll first have to read into the matter a bit more before I express my opinion.

[Beowulf]

Vort, it's attention grabbing and nothing else. People will be more apt to stop and read the article when they make it seem like Hawking said there is no god or with the article headline. I read about this and Hawking presented new theoretical evidence. Not a big deal there really.

In short, it's just sensationalism and attention whoring. No big shock there either.

[Puppeteer]

I posted the Guardian's article on Facebook because the headline made me lol.

[duke_Qa]

journalists write so that people want to check out their articles. Scientific journals is more relevant but more exclusive and diffuse and boring

[Ash]

And these guys are supposed to be professional wordsmiths.

Have you never heard of the Daily Mail?

[Imagine]

Have you never heard of the Daily Mail?

Ahh! Yes, the pinnacle of all worldwide news.... HAHAHAHAHA!

[Beowulf]

Have you never heard of the Daily Mail?

I'd call them a farce, but they're too ridiculous to be amusing in the slightest.

[Allathar]

Anyway, if it's true what he says, what/who created the laws of physics?

[Vortigern]

That was kind of my point, Allathar, in a roundabout way. He doesn't say that God or some deity of some kind didn't set in place the rules or events that could lead to the creation of a universe, he just said that the way the laws of physics work logically imply a Big Bang, which he says would not in itself require a divine hand.

@ Puppeteer: Having completely missed that the several times I've been on Facebook in the last 23 hours, I went to check and found your post at the very top of my news feed. Good ol' coincidence.

[Romanul]

In short, it's just sensationalism and attention whoring. No big shock there either.

This. Just that I hate journalists more than those in music. At least some women do have what to show off.

[Caspa]

What the fuck are you dribbling on about secret?

[Romanul]

Both industries are full of attention whoring.

This thread is mostly about "journalistic" attention whoring. I just can't give a damn on journalists anymore.

Music is full of attention whores as well. Difference is, that I'd rather see a naked girl than to see journalists spewing bullshit.