Hawking spent time at the pedo's estate along with Bill Clinton and many of the left's top dogs. Just the kind of guy the left looks to when they need answers to life's greatest questions. Why pussyfoot around on this. I'm just gonna tell it like it is. The secular view is no more accurate than global warming or 'you like your insurance you can keep it'. The secular method is any means necessary and that almost always includes lying. Science has fundamental laws that cannot be contradicted at the drop of a hat or for a secularist to make a point. The law of first cause, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of probability are just a few of them. The left's view is to pretend they don't exist and go right on with their cockamamie theories, which inevitably end with allowing them to stick their little wee wee up their boyfriends rear or some other such thing. You can either have science or you can have your 'everything came from nothing and then it evolved' nonsense. But you can't have both. Because they are not compatible no matter how many times Goebbels laws of propaganda and other attempts to influence the masses are abused. You can shut down debate among the weak minded, but there will always be a few pesky people around that don't go along with the nonsense and aren't willing to shut up when you spout scientific nonsense or present rank forgeries for birth certificates or stolen social security numbers. And that really galls the secular left. That anyone tells the truth. Well, there are a few of us out here that couldn't care less what kind of infantile tactics are used to attempt to shut up the opposition and close debate and we're going to go right on letting people who really want to know the truth just which side is loaded with prevarications. If you can't tell people are lying after they have lied to you on global warming, health insurance, and every other political question, then there may be a need to rethink how you come to conclusions.
You're doing no better than Jem. He can't tell what is science from the lies and untruths he peddles about it and you can't tell what is science from a bunch of random conspiracy theories.
The entire agenda of the Godless left is predicated on changing names, redefining words, pretending things don't exist, and most importantly, attempting to ridicule into silence anyone who dissents. Take the word science, for instance. Sci-ence means 'to know'. Well, that doesn't work out to well for the left, because it allows religion to speak. So lets just redefine the word. By magic, it now means that which is known by physical evidence. Viola! Cut out the religionists! How easy. Similar to the way homosexuality is no longer homosexuality. It's now gay. Helps the cause to rename or redefine. Now do you see why religion is not science? It should be obvious. Because they redefined the word science. How convenient. But then how to deal with the physical evidence and physical laws? How do they put one over on the people after they've redefined the word? Answer: same way they do in other political narratives. Pretend that anything that refutes their theories just doesn't exist. Hide the decline, anyone? Or take race as an example. There are literally scores of examples in the last year alone of mobs of blacks targeting and beating the hell out of whites, and for no other reason than the victim was white. But it's hidden from all but alternative media and the only thing we see are cases where a cop shoots a black person while the black person was committing a crime, and we told to believe that the cop is a racist. They'll go so far as to continue with the 'hands up, don't shoot' narrative even when anyone who follows the issue knows that's nothing but a lie. As so it is with the physical evidence and laws that refute the entire creation/evolution agenda of the left. It's not one bit different. Just pretend the inviolate laws of physics don't exist when they get in the way of the narrative. First cause, thermodynamics, probabilities-----never you mind. Just listen to what 'all scientists agree on', even if it's contradictory to their new and improved definition of the word science itself. The left's m.o. is just one giant game of the emperor has no clothes. It's all predicated on people being browbeaten into submission to accept the narrative or made to feel like a kook. Too bad it works on so many, but to the left's everlasting chagrin, there is always someone who will step up and say that the emperor has no clothes.
Etymological root of the word science: is to separate one thing from another. From the Greek "to split" , Old English: "to divide".
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator “I don’t think that the multiverse idea destroys the possibility of an intelligent, benevolent creator,” Weinberg says. “What it does is remove one of the arguments for it, just as Darwin’s theory of evolution made it unnecessary to appeal to a benevolent designer to understand how life developed with such remarkable abilities to survive and breed.” On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”
Andre Linde http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator A sublime cosmic mystery unfolds on a mild summer afternoon in Palo Alto, California, where I’ve come to talk with the visionary physicist Andrei Linde. The day seems ordinary enough. Cyclists maneuver through traffic, and orange poppies bloom on dry brown hills near Linde’s office on the Stanford University campus. But everything here, right down to the photons lighting the scene after an eight-minute jaunt from the sun, bears witness to an extraordinary fact about the universe: Its basic properties are uncannily suited for life. Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and—in this universe, anyway—life as we know it would not exist. Consider just two possible changes. Atoms consist of protons, neutrons, and electrons. If those protons were just 0.2 percent more massive than they actually are, they would be unstable and would decay into simpler particles. Atoms wouldn’t exist; neither would we. If gravity were slightly more powerful, the consequences would be nearly as grave. A beefed-up gravitational force would compress stars more tightly, making them smaller, hotter, and denser. Rather than surviving for billions of years, stars would burn through their fuel in a few million years, sputtering out long before life had a chance to evolve. There are many such examples of the universe’s life-friendly properties—so many, in fact, that physicists can’t dismiss them all as mere accidents. “We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible,” Linde says. Physicists don’t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea. Life, it seems, is not an incidental component of the universe, burped up out of a random chemical brew on a lonely planet to endure for a few fleeting ticks of the cosmic clock. In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us. Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life. The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable nonreligious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life. “For me the reality of many universes is a logical possibility,” Linde says. “You might say, ‘Maybe this is some mysterious coincidence. Maybe God created the universe for our benefit.’ Well, I don’t know about God, but the universe itself might reproduce itself eternally in all its possible manifestations.”
And the difference is? LOL Do those meanings you conjured up not mean the same as what i said in context? And changing my quote. Nice touch. Breaking the rule of et to attempt to make a point. No regard for rules here, there, or anywhere, right? Hide the decline truth by any means necessary? Typical of your ilk.