- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
24 May 12
Originally posted by sonhouseTheists who ask for evidence are playing in their opponent's sandbox. That's a strategic error.
http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html#firstCmt
Creationists always tout the lack of evidence in the BB theory, here is an extension of this theory with evidence from astronomy to back up his claim.
24 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseInteresting. Not only does this theory avoid many of the problems dogged by other theories but it makes a prediction that now appears to be true according to new evidence. Specifically:
http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html#firstCmt
Creationists always tout the lack of evidence in the BB theory, here is an extension of this theory with evidence from astronomy to back up his claim.
since all stars and thus black holes rotate, our universe would have inherited the parent black hole’s axis of rotation as a "preferred direction." There is some recently reported evidence from surveys of over 15,000 galaxies that in one hemisphere of the universe more spiral galaxies are "left-handed," or rotating clockwise, while in the other hemisphere more are "right-handed," or rotating counterclockwise.
but I think this might have been better-off put in the science forum for this is of genuine scientific interest and I think it might be just be totally trashed and wasted on many of the religious nuts here who don't understand science and don't want to and who would have no appreciation for elegant rational explanations for things.
24 May 12
Originally posted by humyDone.
Interesting. Not only does this theory avoid many of the problems dogged by other theories but it makes a prediction that now appears to be true according to new evidence. Specifically:
[quote] since all stars and thus black holes rotate, our universe would have inherited the parent black hole’s axis of rotation as a "preferred direction." There is some recent ...[text shortened]... want to and who would have no appreciation for elegant rational explanations for things.
25 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhousewhere does the universe in the top bottle keep coming from
http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html#firstCmt
Creationists always tout the lack of evidence in the BB theory, here is an extension of this theory with evidence from astronomy to back up his claim.
25 May 12
Originally posted by humy"I think it might be just be totally trashed and wasted on many of the religious nuts here who don't understand science and don't want to and who would have no appreciation for elegant rational explanations for things."
Interesting. Not only does this theory avoid many of the problems dogged by other theories but it makes a prediction that now appears to be true according to new evidence. Specifically:
[quote] since all stars and thus black holes rotate, our universe would have inherited the parent black hole’s axis of rotation as a "preferred direction." There is some recent ...[text shortened]... want to and who would have no appreciation for elegant rational explanations for things.
By religious " nuts " do you mean a category of insane persons who are religious and being religious is insanity ?
Is this the way atheists scientists brand their fellow humans ?
Why do you suppose that religious people do not understand science and don't want to understand science ? Or that they have no appreciation of elegant rational explanations ?
Is this talk inspired by hate ? If so, it is a condemnable example of arrogance of a person claiming to be a rationalist.
25 May 12
3 edits
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
"I think it might be just be totally trashed and wasted on many of the religious nuts here who don't understand science and don't want to and who would have no appreciation for elegant rational explanations for things."
By religious " nuts " do you mean a category of insane persons who are religious and being religious is insanity ?
Is this the way ath If so, it is a condemnable example of arrogance of a person claiming to be a rationalist.
By religious " nuts " do you mean a category of insane persons who are religious
yes; if we are talking about the insane ones that are religious.
Insane religious people would be insane by tautology. Not all religious people are insane and, obviously, I don't even think most of them are.
and being religious is insanity ?
no
Is this the way atheists scientists brand their fellow humans ?
no
Why do you suppose that religious people do not understand science and don't want to understand science ?
I didn't.
I said “religious nuts” by which I mean the small subgroup of theists that are real extremists and anti-science.
You make some strange assumptions.