Somebody said this to me

[KichigaiNeko]

I did not say that the Milkwya galaxy "came into being" FROM a black hole. I understood that Mr Cox was explaining that there WAS a black hole in the centre of our galaxy.

For now I am to bed and sleep. See you tomorrow Phil. Stay well

[Phil]

I did not say that the Milkwya galaxy "came into being" FROM a black hole. I understood that Mr Cox was explaining that there WAS a black hole in the centre of our galaxy.

That is why I asked. Since you posted

But Brian Cox is what has lead me to think that the galactic Black hole is a potentiality for the Milky Way galaxy.. you are saying I am wrong?

and since potentiality is defined as

potentiality [pəˌtɛnʃɪˈælɪtɪ]
n pl -ties
1. latent or inherent capacity or ability for growth, fulfilment, etc.
2. a person or thing that possesses such a capacity

I figured I better ask. But yes, there is a black hole{Sagittarius A} at the center of the Milky Way a mere 26000 light years (1.528 x 1017 or 2.459 x 1017 km for you metric people).

[Zen Badger]

In case anyone is really interested, the maths that Zen linked to is from a guy named Mike Adams and he claims to be a cell biologist. It doesn't really matter what one is since the math is clear but the problem comes when he doesn't take anything other than his limited knowledge influence him. By limited i am not "dissing" cell biology. I just mean he is ignoring entropy. For two widely separated particles (a high entropy state) he is claiming that they will be attracted into a low entropy state due to gravity. That isn't entirely true though. First off let me say that the reason a high entropy state (particles separated from one another) is much more probable than a low entropy state (particles touching) is simply that there are just many more ways for the particles to be apart than together. Next mistake is his failure to take quantum effects into consideration. Let us for arguments sake claim that the two particles are locked in a course that will cause them to meet when suddenly (as is wont to happen due to quantum fluctuations), a pair of virtual particles forms very close to one of the particles. One or possibly both of the virtual particles "bumps" into the particle and knocks it off of it's collision course. Not too probable but much more probable than what our cell biologist claims. Then there is the natural repulsion of electrons that occurs when electrons get close to one another. Pretty much in an expanding universe none of this will matter anyway since it is mostly a fantasy that two particles would ever meet.

Just to re-iterate what I said earlier, I was speaking of a hy___po__thet___tic___al (now I'm being a smartarse) universe.

If it is empty apart from the two particles in question it won't be expanding will it.

But getting back to my original question which you seem to have forgotten in your quest to be absolutely RIGHT.

When there is nothing in the universe apart from supermassive blackholes and gravity, what then?

[Phil]

In case anyone is really interested, the maths that Zen linked to is from a guy named Mike Adams and he claims to be a cell biologist. It doesn't really matter what one is since the math is clear but the problem comes when he doesn't take anything other than his limited knowledge influence him. By limited i am not "dissing" cell biology. I just mean he is ignoring entropy. For two widely separated particles (a high entropy state) he is claiming that they will be attracted into a low entropy state due to gravity. That isn't entirely true though. First off let me say that the reason a high entropy state (particles separated from one another) is much more probable than a low entropy state (particles touching) is simply that there are just many more ways for the particles to be apart than together. Next mistake is his failure to take quantum effects into consideration. Let us for arguments sake claim that the two particles are locked in a course that will cause them to meet when suddenly (as is wont to happen due to quantum fluctuations), a pair of virtual particles forms very close to one of the particles. One or possibly both of the virtual particles "bumps" into the particle and knocks it off of it's collision course. Not too probable but much more probable than what our cell biologist claims. Then there is the natural repulsion of electrons that occurs when electrons get close to one another. Pretty much in an expanding universe none of this will matter anyway since it is mostly a fantasy that two particles would ever meet.

Just to re-iterate what I said earlier, I was speaking of a hy___po__thet___tic___al (now I'm being a smartarse) universe.

If it is empty apart from the two particles in question it won't be expanding will it.

But getting back to my original question which you seem to have forgotten in your quest to be absolutely RIGHT.

When there is nothing in the universe apart from supermassive blackholes and gravity, what then?

And you have ignored mine. I asked you to show how all the matter in the universe (not your hypothetical bullshit one that isn't expanding) will aggregate in one black hole. Until you do that, don't expect a response from me to any of your stupidity here.

[Zen Badger]

And you have ignored mine. I asked you to show how all the matter in the universe (not your hypothetical bullshit one that isn't expanding) will aggregate in one black hole. Until you do that, don't expect a response from me to any of your stupidity here.

No, I don't think I'll be doing any such thing.

In response to me posting a reasonable question you have called me stupid and a smartass.

I have also noticed the same behaviour when you talk to others on this forum. Even to the extent of abusing people in their introduction threads.

It appears to me that you are not so much interested in reasonable(if not always intelligent) debate as verbal abuse and oneupmanship.

As a consequence I'm going to do something I've never done to anyone else on this board(even the most idiotic theists) I'm putting you on ignore.

Good bye Phil.

[Phil]

And you have ignored mine. I asked you to show how all the matter in the universe (not your hypothetical bullshit one that isn't expanding) will aggregate in one black hole. Until you do that, don't expect a response from me to any of your stupidity here.

No, I don't think I'll be doing any such thing.

In response to me posting a reasonable question you have called me stupid and a smartass.

I have also noticed the same behaviour when you talk to others on this forum. Even to the extent of abusing people in their introduction threads.

It appears to me that you are not so much interested in reasonable(if not always intelligent) debate as verbal abuse and oneupmanship.

As a consequence I'm going to do something I've never done to anyone else on this board(even the most idiotic theists) I'm putting you on ignore.

Good bye Phil.

I called you stupid? Learn to read cause I said I wasn't going to respond to your stupidity. Since when is saying your argument is stupid calling you stupid?

[Zen Badger]

Now, getting back to my original question.

When all the stars have finally gone out and all the matter in the universe has been consumed by the supermassive galactic blackholes.

When at the end of all things there is nothing but blackholes and gravity.

What then?

[cdabamsworth]

Here we go...they've come back with a whopper.

Amino acid racemization: Basically it looks like carbon dating, if I’m not mistaken. In short, it seems that there is a point that the page capitulates under: That amino acids undergo different rates of change. I don’t know this science enough to go in-depth, but I want to point out the page’s main argument. They say it would need great humidity, temperature change, and acidity. How about the dreaded Great Flood? Great humidity, and the Earth would probably be thrown off its normal climate routine, and some other wonderful weather phenomena. I want to keep my original answer short, though, so I’ll stop here.
Baptistina asteroid family: Okay, I don’t know enough of the family, but I am questioning the collision. We must make the assumption that some collision made this thing around 80 million years ago. How did they prove that? Just a question for right now…
Continental drift: No, it’s fast. Didn’t you see that new Ice Age 4 trailer? Just kidding… That was a joke… If I remember correctly, according to evolutionists, supervolcanic activity caused the drift to start VERY quickly. It was not slow at first at all to them either. But again, we look to the Flood. Erosion is a wonderful, and quick, thing my friend.
Coral: I don’t know whether the Flood could have done something or not, but I know in many instances that coral reef building can be very quick. It is not always so slow.
Cosmic nuclide dating: Nothing against a young earth theory. It CAN be estimated up to millions of years, but that doesn’t prove that the universe is millions and billions of years.
Dendrochronology: This research varies in climate? Again, we look to the Flood’s effects. Something like that would shake up the climate by A LOT. Am I getting this right?
Distant starlight: Ahh, the ol’ light speed issue. Yes, according to Albert Einstein, light goes at about some 3,000,000 miles per hour, but there is a different point we must think about. Light has no mass. According to Einstein, less mass = less effect on time, thereby spacetime. Since light has no mass, time would therefore have little or no effect on it. Einstein also was confused on whether light immediately goes somewhere or travels for a while. AIG had an article on it, but the article escapes my memory. Basically, this issue is left up to personal belief in either light going from one place to another or traveling a while.
Erosion: I don’t agree with Mr. VenomFang’s idea that the Grand Canyon would have been made in 5 minutes. That’s ludicrous not only scientifically but also that, since the Flood lasted much longer after that, the canyon would today be much grander, know what I mean? The Flood lasted a whole year, not 40 days and 40 nights. Erosion actually works against millions of years. Here’s something from a debate website called Question Evolution. “At the current rate, the continents should have eroded much more than they have. The White Cliffs of Dover, for instance, are falling into the ocean at the alarming rate of 1 meter every six years and should have disappeared long ago.” Let’s not forget, we’re talking more than 65 million years. I guess I can’t even understand cause the human brain turns off the largeness of something at more than 900,000, or something like that.
Fission track dating: Nothing was on here to say that uranium was old in the way of millions of years. But in order to do that, if I’m not mistaken, uranium and other radioactive materials would have been in humongous deposits.
Geomagnetic reversals: Actually, there’s a problem with the current view of Earth’s magnetism. In some instances, the current research on some magnetic views is off in reality by factors of 100,000.
Helioseismology: The article doesn’t give enough details to provide an accurate response. What, you think I should know this already? I don’t know everything. I need more. If I can say one thing, it is that the age of the sun can be INFERRED, not determined.
Y-Chromosome: This argument wouldn’t matter in the least if the Y-Chromosome was already created at around 6000-10000 years ago. Wouldn’t matter how much research and time you put into it, it wouldn’t be right.
I’m tired of going through all of these. That’s a long list, I tell ya! I’ll go into some selected points.
Lack of DNA in fossils: It’s a wonder that there are any fossils at all. Most in them, either in the case of the asteroid or Flood, would be gone from the Earth. While the soft tissue thing was shown to be mistaken, it does give some insight that there is probably something that could show the DNA there.
Length of Prehistoric Day: Wouldn’t matter a bit if the Earth were moving at 24 hour, 365 days speed at the creation. Wouldn’t matter in the least.
Permafrost: “To be consistent with the young earth creationist model, which states that all sediment was deposited by the global flood, there would have to be absolutely no permafrost present at the end of the flood, because any permafrost that was present at the moment of creation would have been melted during the flood.” O_o Did I miss something or did that make no sense? It basically said that, in order for current permafrost to be around, there couldn’t be any existing permafrost at the end of the Flood. Then it said that the Flood would have melted any preexisting permafrost. Am I missing something here?
I know that’s not all of them, but some I can’t answer and would rather you ask someone who knows this more than I do. I’m simply am answering the ones I know are flawed or are compatible with Genesis.
There is at least one thing I know is incompatible with billions of years, which as you said, in other terms, was necessary for evolution to come up into OUR stage. (I actually had more but now I can’t remember them. :p)
What about entropy? According to thermodynamics, the equation for the 2nd Law is: ∆S(universe) > or = 0
Scientists have now jumped into saying that the universe is at least 13.2 billion years old. Has anyone yet produced a mathematical equation saying about how much destruction the universe is going through? What is the ∆S? By now, it should far exceed anything we’ve come up to. I know that 4.6 billion years (the last popular number for the age of the universe) was walking on the border of defying entropy in the means that the universe still has materials. Everything’s working back to being energy. My question should be can the universe hold itself together from collapsing for 13.2 billion years? Without a mechanism to answer the question positively, I highly doubt that the age can be that long.
Now you may say that I’m ignoring the fact of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, but I’m not. According to most views, the universe will eventually become so disorganized that it collapses and becomes energy. This can be shown by our sun’s fusion reactions, in which the newly made helium atoms are smaller than they should be because the some mass turned into energy. Everything is doing this thanks not so much by fusion but by entropy. So my question still stands: Can the universe hold out 13.2 billion years?
There is doubt in billions of years but yet inerrancy in the Bible. In fact, there are many scientific facts in the Bible that can be spotted if you pay attention. If we cannot see billions of years, we cannot have evolution to our point.

Looks to me as though their logic does not include the possibility that Genesis isn't literal. Everything has to be filtered through Genesis or discarded. Nothing new there.

[KichigaiNeko]

Can't you/they Google??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid_dating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptistina_family

Have they NO scientific understanding?? Even at the High school level??

---

After some thought cadam I am thinking that these people are still only 2 years old, so people get to the age of two and then reasoning shuts down and they have great difficulty in thinking outside the anthropomorphising a two year old does. Many regrettably stay this way their entire lives. As you say.....

...their logic does not include the possibility that Genesis isn't literal. Everything has to be filtered through Genesis or discarded

[cdabamsworth]

Can't you/they Google??

I did. I'm not very knowledgeable about such matters but it didn't take me long to find a few rebuttals. Here's my response:

Thanks for your points and for accepting a discussion of these matters. I will go through them in the order in which you raised them.

Your main logical argument appears to be that if evolution can be disproven, then the world is 6000 years old, created by God and all Biblical events are true. Of course, this is a big logical fallacy. Even if we had absolutely no idea how we could get here, how long we've been here or what the universe consists of, the next best logical thing would be to do evidence-based research, not consult a library of books written in a highly superstitious era thousands of years before most modern common knowledge. Let's continue with the points.

Amino acids (which are the building blocks of polypeptides, proteins etc) are very different biologically to carbons. The Great Flood story was about water, not hydrochloric acid, and there's no point bringing up that story anyway as it is not substantiated with evidence.

I'll quote a site for the meteors:

"For over a year, WISE took an infra-red survey of the entire sky and asteroid-hunting portion of the mission, called NEOWISE, cataloged 157,000 members – discovering an additional 33,000 new ones. By utilizing the more accurate infra-red data, the team examined 1,056 members of the Baptistina family and discovered its break-up was closer to 80 million years ago – less than half the time previously suggested. By better knowing their size and reflectivity, researchers are able to calculate how long it would take for Baptistina members to reach their current position."
As for continental drift, you don't mean evolutionists, you mean geologists. Funnily enough, they're separate fields of science. Anyway, if you wish to disprove that and its rate as well, I suggest you start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

You may also enjoy reading this site about coral reefs: http://www.coral.org/resources/about_cor...l_overview

As there's so much to say about the forms of dating and so on, I'll have to direct you to another link, for that: https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/Newsletter/n...insitu.pdf

There's no evidence for a Great Flood, but if you want to go with that story, when we're talking about climate in relation to dendrochronology we're really talking about seasonal variation. I'd have a good look at dendrochrnology; a young earth creationist I conversed with discarded the young earth concept when they did a bit of research on dendrochronology.

Light has relativistic mass, aka energy which can be transformed into mass. It can be affected by gravity because gravity curves space-time. Since light always goes in a straight line relative to space-time, if it encounters a curvature in space-time it will continue going straight but since space-time is curved, "straight" will be curved as well.

Talkorigins refutes your claim about erosion: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD501.html
The Bible's flood story also indicates that it lasted a hundred and fifty days (according to Young's literal translation, NIV and the Kings James version, the three that I checked).

You appear unsure of how fission track dating works. I suggest you research it to some degree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_track_dating

You're going to have to be more specific on geomagnetic reversals. Specifically some empirical evidence which shows that element to be wrong would be helpful.

Geneticists show that the Y-chromosome didn't start coming about 6000-10000 years ago, which is the point of the research. It's all very well saying "that wouldn't be true if it weren't true", but until you can disprove the evidence, I'd find that hard to rationalize.

Anyway, that doesn't cover the evidence for evolution - here we've only covered come of the evidence against a recent creation.

Your comment about lack of DNA in fossils is way too vague; you'll need to be more specific for me to understand the point you're making. Backing it up with some kind of evidence or logic would also be useful to me.
Your point about the length of the prehistoric day is completely irrelevant, because the Earth doesn't appear to have always moved at 24 hour, 365 days (and it doesn't do that perfectly now - that's why we have leap years and all sorts of other additions of time added to keep us vaguely on track). The evidence shows it was likely 400 days of 22 hours each, so you're simply saying "It wouldn't be true if it weren't true" again.

It's saying that if you believe young earth creationism, there would have to be no permafrost at the END of the flood, because all the permafrost present BEFORE the flood would have to have been melted DURING the flood. Of course this is in reality not the case.

Your point about the 2nd law of thermodynamics has also been refuted: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

Nate at FindingTruth has provided a series of articles highlighting Biblical contradictions, which would suggest the Bible is not inerrant as you have suggested:

Part 1: http://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2011/0...roduction/
Part 2: http://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2011/0...-examples/
Part 3: http://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2011/0...-examples/
Part 4: http://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2011/0...g-the-cud/
Part 5: http://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2011/0...-of-egypt/
Part 6: http://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2011/0...genealogy/
Part 7: http://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2011/0...t-7-judas/
Part 8: http://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2011/0...ucifixion/
Part 9: http://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2011/0...urrection/
Part 10: http://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2011/0...onclusion/

My final comment is that if you would like ways to incorporate theistic belief with acceptance of current knowledge, you could try this site, which was helpful for somebody I know who went from being a young earth creationist to an old earth creationist after a conversation I held with them: http://www.reasons.org/

Thank you again for your willingness to converse about such matters. Too often, people are scared of discussion and as such do not grow in knowledge. I hope through this discussion both of us can further our understanding.