6000 years?

Originally posted by sonhouse
From Darwin’s experiments, it is clear that prior to the Fall of Man neither air nor water alone were the subject of the digestion process. However, Darwin showed that nitrogen is a necessary symbiotic component of the digestive process. Today, that component is derived from living insects but prior to the Fall there was seemingly only one other source of n ...[text shortened]... all doses.

Nitrogen derived from living insects. That has to be a new low in the BS category.

Well, as you well know, I am unable to think for myself so I post the BS from other sources. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
After all this time of your ignorant questions and comments, I have determined that you are not capable of understanding what I believe. 😏

I'm certainly not capable of believing some of the things you believe, that's for sure.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Because curtains do not normally have black holes in them.

RJ, are you seriously claiming to believe that the heavens are in fact a curtain with holes in which we can see the stars through?

Originally posted by DeepThought
RJ, are you seriously claiming to believe that the heavens are in fact a curtain with holes in which we can see the stars through?

Of course NOT. I am claiming there are no black holes in outer space.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Of course NOT. I am claiming there are no black holes in outer space.

There are objects with a density so large that there is nothing else they could be. There was a theory we looked at over in Science a little while ago that may be the one you were referring to in your earlier post. The theory stated that a black hole would undergo quantum evaporation before it could form, but only at the very final moment before all it's mass fell inside the Schwartzschild radius. However, due to the huge time dilation effects the object seen from a distance of more than, say, 100 Schwartzschild radii would appear to an outside observer as a black hole that persists for a few hundred trillion years.

Highly compact objects certainly exist, I do not think that you can retain any real credibility if you are going to deny the existence of neutron stars. For various technical reasons there is an upper bound on the possible mass of a neutron star [1], beyond that there is nothing we know of that an object can become other than a black hole. We know that there are stars with masses up to about 150 solar masses. Unless you can find a viable theory that they shed their mass so that the remnant is under 3 solar masses then I suggest you don't make such claims.

[1] Those interested should look up "degenerate matter" on Wikipedia.

Originally posted by DeepThought
There are objects with a density so large that there is nothing else they could be. There was a theory we looked at over in Science a little while ago that may be the one you were referring to in your earlier post. The theory stated that a black hole would undergo quantum evaporation before it could form, but only at the very final moment before all it ...[text shortened]... don't make such claims.

[1] Those interested should look up "degenerate matter" on Wikipedia.

Well, I don't believe in them just like you, being an atheist I suppose, don't believe in God. 😏

Originally posted by DeepThought
There are objects with a density so large that there is nothing else they could be. There was a theory we looked at over in Science a little while ago that may be the one you were referring to in your earlier post. The theory stated that a black hole would undergo quantum evaporation before it could form, but only at the very final moment before all it ...[text shortened]... don't make such claims.

[1] Those interested should look up "degenerate matter" on Wikipedia.

Plus there is Sagittarius A*,
A dark 'tiny' object with ~4 million times the mass of the Sun...

Pretty much nothing it could possibly be but a black hole.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, I don't believe in them just like you, being an atheist I suppose, don't believe in God. 😏

The difference being that black holes are logically and mathematically consistent with
the observed laws of the universe as we understand them and we have mountains of
empirical data to support their existence.

Whereas the god of the bible is completely inconsistent with all the observed laws of the
universe and is supported by no evidence whatsoever.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The difference being that black holes are logically and mathematically consistent with
the observed laws of the universe as we understand them and we have mountains of
empirical data to support their existence.

Whereas the god of the bible is completely inconsistent with all the observed laws of the
universe and is supported by no evidence whatsoever.

Not so, there is much more evidence for the existence of God than there is for Black Holes in outer space. 😏

HalleluYahshua !!!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, I don't believe in them just like you, being an atheist I suppose, don't believe in God. 😏

We have direct observational evidence of objects which cannot be anything else. With the caveat about the formation of an event horizon from my earlier post black holes have been proven to exist. So please do not equate your attempt to return Christianity to the middle ages with Scientific evidence.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Not so, there is much more evidence for the existence of God than there is for Black Holes in outer space. 😏

HalleluYahshua !!!

Deep Thought encounters Shallow Thought.

There can only be one outcome...

Originally posted by googlefudge
The difference being that black holes are logically and mathematically consistent with
the observed laws of the universe as we understand them and we have mountains of
empirical data to support their existence.

Whereas the god of the bible is completely inconsistent with all the observed laws of the
universe and is supported by no evidence whatsoever.

Don't forget the metaphorical "curtain" with no holes in it....

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, I don't believe in them just like you, being an atheist I suppose, don't believe in God. 😏

And therefore, you're both ignorant.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The difference being that black holes are logically and mathematically consistent with
the observed laws of the universe as we understand them and we have mountains of
empirical data to support their existence.

Whereas the god of the bible is completely inconsistent with all the observed laws of the
universe and is supported by no evidence whatsoever.

And yet, He IS.

How amazing IS that?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Not so, there is much more evidence for the existence of God than there is for Black Holes in outer space. 😏

HalleluYahshua !!!

Now, Ron, THIS is why people think you must be a troll. Or ignorant.

There is zero scientific evidence for God, and there have been volumes written about black holes and the evidence for them.





(That said, I do like the "HalleluYahshua!" at the end... 🙂 )