Rare black hole 1 billion times the mass of the sun could upend our understanding of galaxy formation

Page 2 - For the science geek in everyone, Live Science breaks down the stories behind the most interesting news and photos on the Internet.
Feb 13, 2023
38
4
55
@Stephan Gunther, earlier you complained about me "proselytizing" but now you asked me for my evidence, so here it is.

Let's start with one of the most elementary points.

WHERE DID THE UNIVERSE COME FROM?

First, an important statement to answer your inevitable question, " Where did God come from?" I believe that God always existed from eternity past and will exist through eternity future. If He is not eternal, than He couldn't possibly be God, because if He isn't from eternity past, then He was either created or evolved. If He was created or evolved, than whatever created Him or caused Him to evolve is greater. I am also quite comfortable saying I don't understand eternity past. If I could understand absolutely everything about God, He couldn't be my God, because I would know as much as Him.
The first verse in my Bible says "In the beginning"(that's when time began) "God created the heaven" (space) "and the earth"(matter). Every scientist understands that time, space, and matter are inseparable fundamentals of the universe. You cannot have time without space, and you cannot have space without time, and matter cannot exist outside of space and time. So there you have the basic elements of reality simultaneously created. The rest of the chapter explains how God organized the universe and created a beautiful, complex, functional, living Earth.
I know of only three proposed basic theories of the origin of the universe. Creation, evolution, or a big bang.
1. We all know that no explosion ever created order, much less life, let alone something sustainable. In addition, where did the substance for the explosion come from? And what triggered it?
2. Evolution proposes that life evolved from dead matter, and that a form of unintelligent life became more capable, organized, and intelligent with time. This is entirely opposite of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Even if we could reconcile this stark contradiction, it still doesn't provide an answer for where the original matter came from.
3. Creation explains where matter came from, how it became organized, and how life began.

That alone is compelling evidence for me. If you can disprove any part of my post, please do, and if you don't understand something, feel free to ask.
"I believe that God always existed from eternity past and will exist through eternity future. " That isn't evidence, it is your belief. The bible isn't evidence. It's a book written thousands of yrs ago by anonymous authors. You have to do better than that. What will you say if microbes are discovered in Europa or Enceladus ? There is no mention of that in your mythology.
 
Feb 13, 2023
38
4
55
The two paragraphs in this message are very separate points, so I will address them separately.

If I understand the first paragraph correctly, your saying it's "exciting" that we've discovered something that proves your current belief WRONG. You say "that is the beauty of science". Before the recent discoveries, you would have agreed that "Scientifically, a black hole larger than xxxxx cannot exist."(we'll call this theory M) But now, we have PROOF that theory M was wrong. Go back in time a little, and we find that theory M was actually formulated because evidence proved theory L wrong, and theory L was proposed because theory K was proven wrong. We can go back, lets just say 100 years (that doesn't even get us back to Darwin) and these theories have changed many times. If evolution is true, then evolution will continue to evolve. So theory N will be invented to explain this big black hole, and you doubtlessly will continue to be excited as theories O, P, Q, etc. follow. As each theory is proven wrong, a new one temporarily takes it's place until it too, is superseded.
There's one small caveat though. You are actually NEVER totally right, because as you continue to "expound" on Science, you prove that some part of your previous theory was wrong.

The Creation story that I believe hasn't changed once since Moses wrote it as God inspired him 3,500-4,000 years ago. Yes, I know it's been translated several times, and yes, I know that some people believe half of it or none of it. Even if we only give it credit since the KJV translation, it still has over 400 years of undisproven history. Evolution hasn't even stopped changing today, and what you believe now contradicts some of what you believed a few years ago.
You don't seem to understand that science doesn't claim absolutes and that it's constantly revised. Some theories are thrown out and replaced. The black holes don't rule out the big they, just just indicate that it needs revision. Newton's gravity was revised by Einstein's. Einstein's may be revised at large scales yet. I can't believe I have to explain such basic concepts to you.

Creationism doesn't need to be disproven. It's essentially a non-falsifiable proposition. You have the burden to prove it - apparently another concept you don't grasp. The FSM created the universe. Prove me wrong. Your argument remains that your beliefs are in a book. That isn't proof.

Burden of proof fallacy (or shifting the burden of proof) is a logical fallacy that occurs when one abuses their burden of proof by attempting to shift it to someone else.
 
Last edited:
Feb 13, 2023
38
4
55
I hoped to keep this thread as uncluttered as possible, but @Stephan Gunther is apparently unable to scroll back and read a specific post, that is why I am quoting them.
Here is your preaching:
There is a solution that answers every one of these questions.
Genesis 1. If we believe that an all-powerful, eternal Being created the universe, that answers all the questions! It tells us where matter came from, it tells us what happened to form the bodies in the universe, and it tells us how the universe became orderly, functional, and beautiful, and how they maintain that order. Now if God can create such a vast universe out of nothing, wouldn't it have been a little thing for Him to create black holes too? He could have made as many as He wanted, and made them as big as He wanted. No need to sweat over millions of years and how fast black holes grow. It's not that complicated!

That isn't science. You are boring me. Provide some actual evidence of your beliefs. I don't accept the bible as evidence. If I were to choose a religion, there is no reason for me to accept yours over the 1000s of others.
 
Last edited:
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
It seems that you are either a very poor reader or else being dumb on purpose, or else feel cornered because I have raised questions about your belief that you cannot explain. The other possibility is that I am a poor writer. We'll assume the later for now, and I'll try to be more concise.

"I believe that God always existed from eternity past and will exist through eternity future. " That isn't evidence, it is your belief.
Quite true. Notice the first two words of that sentance are "I believe". I never said that thought was evidence. My point in sharing the thought about God's eternal existence was because I knew if I DIDN'T, you would ask where God came from. I thought I made that clear, but apparently not.

The bible isn't evidence. It's a book written thousands of yrs ago by anonymous authors. You have to do better than that.
I never said that the Bible was evidence in itself either.

What will you say if microbes are discovered in Europa or Enceladus ? There is no mention of that in your mythology.
Microbes in Europa or Enceladous are entirely beside the point. I never said anything about microbes, but your idea makes me wonder, did Charles Darwin say something about microbes on Europa? But while we're on the subject of extra-terrestrial life, you'd better find some soon, because if evolution is true, there should be some form of life on many celestial bodies.


If you had thoroughly read my message, you would have noticed that my evidence came from analyzing these three statements.

"1. We all know that no explosion ever created order, much less life, let alone something sustainable. In addition, where did the substance for the explosion come from? And what triggered it?
2. Evolution proposes that life evolved from dead matter, and that a form of unintelligent life became more capable, organized, and intelligent with time. This is entirely opposite of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Even if we could reconcile this stark contradiction, it still doesn't provide an answer for where the original matter came from.
3. Creation explains where matter came from, how it became organized, and how life began."

Points 1 and 2 create ridiculous contradictions in their simplicity, and only become even more ridiculous when analyzed scientifically. If you would like to argue this statement, explain where matter came from.
Point 3, Creation, explains every fundamental about the origin of the universe. You may call it mythology if you like, but at least it doesn't contradict fundamental science! And it explains where the original matter came from, which is a point I asked you to explain twice before, and you have not yet been able to answer.

To sum it up, all I claim as "evidence" from this particular line of thought, is that the big bang theory contradicts science, and the Creation theory does not. Additionally, the Creation theory explains the origin of matter, and the Big Bang does not.
 
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
You don't seem to understand that science doesn't claim absolutes and that it's constantly revised. Some theories are thrown out and replaced. The black holes don't rule out the big they, just just indicate that it needs revision. Newton's gravity was revised by Einstein's. Einstein's may be revised at large scales yet. I can't believe I have to explain such basic concepts to you.

It's not that I don't understand that, I was only pointing out how ridiculous it is to credit something that is frequently proved wrong over something that has never been proven wrong. It is anti-science to believe a hypothesis that has been proven wrong many times, and it is even more absurd when there is a parallel hypothesis that has never been proven wrong. @Stephan Gunther , you yourself said,
Creationism doesn't need to be disproven. It's essentially a non-falsifiable proposition.
 
Feb 13, 2023
38
4
55
It seems that you are either a very poor reader or else being dumb on purpose, or else feel cornered because I have raised questions about your belief that you cannot explain. The other possibility is that I am a poor writer. We'll assume the later for now, and I'll try to be more concise.


Quite true. Notice the first two words of that sentance are "I believe". I never said that thought was evidence. My point in sharing the thought about God's eternal existence was because I knew if I DIDN'T, you would ask where God came from. I thought I made that clear, but apparently not.


I never said that the Bible was evidence in itself either.


Microbes in Europa or Enceladous are entirely beside the point. I never said anything about microbes, but your idea makes me wonder, did Charles Darwin say something about microbes on Europa? But while we're on the subject of extra-terrestrial life, you'd better find some soon, because if evolution is true, there should be some form of life on many celestial bodies.


If you had thoroughly read my message, you would have noticed that my evidence came from analyzing these three statements.

"1. We all know that no explosion ever created order, much less life, let alone something sustainable. In addition, where did the substance for the explosion come from? And what triggered it?
2. Evolution proposes that life evolved from dead matter, and that a form of unintelligent life became more capable, organized, and intelligent with time. This is entirely opposite of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Even if we could reconcile this stark contradiction, it still doesn't provide an answer for where the original matter came from.
3. Creation explains where matter came from, how it became organized, and how life began."

Points 1 and 2 create ridiculous contradictions in their simplicity, and only become even more ridiculous when analyzed scientifically. If you would like to argue this statement, explain where matter came from.
Point 3, Creation, explains every fundamental about the origin of the universe. You may call it mythology if you like, but at least it doesn't contradict fundamental science! And it explains where the original matter came from, which is a point I asked you to explain twice before, and you have not yet been able to answer.

To sum it up, all I claim as "evidence" from this particular line of thought, is that the big bang theory contradicts science, and the Creation theory does not. Additionally, the Creation theory explains the origin of matter, and the Big Bang does not.
"if evolution is true, there should be some form of life on many celestial bodies. " Either you are dumb or you are pretending to be so. Evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth. It makes no predictions about the prevalence, or lack thereof, in the cosmos. You are the false premise machine.

I only got as far as your first premise because I reject it. Most scientists think that an explosion ( which is not a literal term ) resulted in the first 3 elements, that would later form heavier elements, that would eventually result in life. You are either not very bright or disingenuous. I think perhaps a bit of both since you don't understand the burden of proof fallacy and your arguments rely entirely on unsound premises. They often aren't even valid arguments like your first 1 that essentially says large black holes in early universe, therefore, biblical god. What a joke.
 
Last edited:
Feb 13, 2023
38
4
55
It's not that I don't understand that, I was only pointing out how ridiculous it is to credit something that is frequently proved wrong over something that has never been proven wrong. It is anti-science to believe a hypothesis that has been proven wrong many times, and it is even more absurd when there is a parallel hypothesis that has never been proven wrong. @Stephan Gunther , you yourself said,
The big bang hasn't been proven wrong, only that it needs updating, which is the normal process of science. You are still droning on about the bible not being proven false without acknowledging the fallacy of demanding proof of a negative. My example of asking you to disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster went right over your head. I am now convinced you are stupid. You can't disprove the invisible dragon sitting on my roof.
 
Feb 13, 2023
38
4
55
It's not that I don't understand that, I was only pointing out how ridiculous it is to credit something that is frequently proved wrong over something that has never been proven wrong. It is anti-science to believe a hypothesis that has been proven wrong many times, and it is even more absurd when there is a parallel hypothesis that has never been proven wrong. @Stephan Gunther , you yourself said,
There is actually much evidence against creationism. There is abundant evidence that the Earth and it's inhabitants were not formed in 7 days - lol. You are super high on the opiate of the masses.

 
Last edited:
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
The big bang hasn't been proven wrong, only that it needs updating, which is the normal process of science. You are still droning on about the bible not being proven false without acknowledging the fallacy of demanding proof of a negative. My example of asking you to disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster went right over your head. I am now convinced you are stupid. You can't disprove the invisible dragon sitting on my roof.

I didn't mention FSM because it is so far from being a comparable analogy. There is no evidence that FSM ever existed, and the theory was literally invented by a college kid as a satirical joke less than 20 years ago, and I don't even care if it is invisibly sitting on your roof! I'd caution you about making jokes about him though, because if he is on your roof, he might get ticked off an do somthin.

The only thing that you have come up with against the Bible is that I'm using the fallacy of "demanding proof of a negative". If that is the only reason you can come up with to disprove the Bible, that is pretty weak.

By the same theory, you cannot say that Tyrannosaurus Rex is actually extinct, because we can't PROVE that there isn't a pair of T-rex in some wilderness or jungle. We cannot possibly have a proof of negative unless you had perfect observers on every acre of the world looking for T-rex. But that still wouldn't be proof, because according to evolution, T-rex could have adapted to marine life, and they might be hiding in the water at the time of the observation.
 
Last edited:
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
There is actually much evidence against creationism. There is abundant evidence that the Earth and it's inhabitants were not formed in 7 days - lol. You are super high on the opiate of the masses.


I think you shared the wrong article. That article is only defending evolution, and doesn't actually list a single piece of evidence against Creation.
 
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
"if evolution is true, there should be some form of life on many celestial bodies. " Either you are dumb or you are pretending to be so. Evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth. It makes no predictions about the prevalence, or lack thereof, in the cosmos. You are the false premise machine.
Here is how I got to that premise. If evolution of complex life out of matter happened on Earth, there should at least be a reasonably high chance that there is at least simple life, or microbes, (or maybe some form of life that we have not observed) on at least one other planet. Especially considering the theory that the universe all came from the same place at some point in time. Hopefully you can understand how I arrived at my premise, even if it is false.
 
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
I only got as far as your first premise because I reject it. Most scientists think that an explosion ( which is not a literal term ) resulted in the first 3 elements, that would later form heavier elements, that would eventually result in life. You are either not very bright or disingenuous.
Could we perhaps streamline this conversation? Let's answer this question.
Where did the stuff that exploded come from?
 
Feb 13, 2023
38
4
55
Here is how I got to that premise. If evolution of complex life out of matter happened on Earth, there should at least be a reasonably high chance that there is at least simple life, or microbes, (or maybe some form of life that we have not observed) on at least one other planet. Especially considering the theory that the universe all came from the same place at some point in time. Hopefully you can understand how I arrived at my premise, even if it is false.
I agree with that. You, however, fallaciously claimed that since we haven't discovered life outside of Earth that evolution doesn't exist. You are a fallacy machine. I think it's quite possible that we will discover microbial life on other worlds. Space exploration has barely begun.
 
Last edited:
Feb 13, 2023
38
4
55
Could we perhaps streamline this conversation? Let's answer this question.
Where did the stuff that exploded come from?
I have a great answer for you. I don't know. Perhaps it came from nowhere. There are a lot of things we don't know. It is foolish to insert a god into the gaps of our knowledge. That has been done throughout history. Then it gets explained naturally by science and god is pushed farther out to other knowledge gaps.

Don't bother trying to argue further without learning the basics of deductive logic ( soundness and validity ), burden of proof, non-falsifiable claims, and how you have no more evidence of your god claims than a Hindu does of theirs.
 
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
I agree with that. You, however, fallaciously claimed that since we haven't discovered life outside of Earth that evolution doesn't exist. You are a fallacy machine. I think it's quite possible that we will discover microbial life on other worlds. Space exploration has barely begun.

I DID NOT say what you just claimed I said.
I actually said,

"IF evolution of complex life out of matter happened on Earth, there SHOULD at least be a REASONABLY HIGH CHANCE that there is at least simple life, or microbes, (or maybe some form of life that we have not observed) on AT LEAST ONE other planet. Especially considering the theory that the universe all came from the same place at some point in time."

Those are my exact words. I only capitalized some of them so that you could hopefully understand it.

I'd like to know what fallacy it is to twist someone's suggested, indefinite, conditional theory, into a blanket statement.
 
Last edited:
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
I have a great answer for you. I don't know. Perhaps it came from nowhere. There are a lot of things we don't know. It is foolish to insert a god into the gaps of our knowledge. That has been done throughout history. Then it gets explained naturally by science and god is pushed farther out to other knowledge gaps.

Thank you for answering the question of "Where did the stuff that exploded come from?"
But to say it came from "nowhere" is scientifically impossible. "Nowhere", in its truest meaning, has an absolute value of zero space. Matter cannot possibly exist outside of space.
So perhaps you have another "perhaps"?

Maybe somebody else has an answer?

Or are you content to say that Creation explains the origin of the universe better than the Big Bang?
 
Feb 13, 2023
38
4
55
Thank you for answering the question of "Where did the stuff that exploded come from?"
But to say it came from "nowhere" is scientifically impossible. "Nowhere", in its truest meaning, has an absolute value of zero space. Matter cannot possibly exist outside of space.
So perhaps you have another "perhaps"?

Maybe somebody else has an answer?

Or are you content to say that Creation explains the origin of the universe better than the Big Bang?
I said I don't know how it manifested, no one does. I was speaking rhetorically when I said maybe nowhere. But that's not scientifically impossible. Virtual particles pop in and out of existence form nowhere.

No, creationism is just a myth and much of it demonstrably false. We know the Earth was created over a period longer than 7 days. It also makes no sense that a god would wait billions of yrs to put animals on the Earth. It makes no sense that your god exists outside of space and time.

You still haven't provided a shred of evidence for Creationism, and you don't seem to realize that. It's an irrational claim because it is untestable, unverifiable and unfalsifiable, just like the invisible dragon on my roof. You also don't seem to realize that there is no more evidence for biblical creation than there is for Hindu, Mayan, Greek, Norse or any other.

I think you are an imbecile. You think that you have debunked the big bang theory, which you haven't. What makes you dumb, however, is that you think debunking it would somehow prove the bible myth. It wouldn't. You think that a lack of knowledge proves your god. It doesn't. The more you say, the more illogical you sound. I might as well be arguing with a toddler. Later Dufey.
 
Last edited:
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
I said I don't know how it manifested, no one does. I was speaking rhetorically when I said maybe nowhere. But that's not scientifically impossible. Virtual particles pop in and out of existence form nowhere.
This makes no more sense than "nowhere". Virtual particles have never been documented without a relation to real particles.

No, creationism is just a myth and much of it demonstrably false. We know the Earth was created over a period longer than 7 days. It also makes no sense that a god would wait billions of yrs to put animals on the Earth. It makes no sense that your god exists outside of space and time.
You have claimed many times that Creation is a myth, but you have not yet offered even one reason why. The closest you have gotten is "we know...." well, HOW do you 'know'?
If God didn't exist outside of space and time, He couldn't be God. That makes sense to me.
But don't forget, that the idea that nothing triggered nothing, for no reason at all, and nothing suddenly began to become everything, doesn't make sense to me. And that doesn't even make sense to you either, and you're the one who believes it! You may deny this if you wish, but I won't forget that your answer to "where did the stuff that exploded come from" was "I don't know."

You still haven't provided a shred of evidence for Creationism, and you don't seem to realize that. It's an irrational claim because it is untestable, unverifiable and unfalsifiable, just like the invisible dragon on my roof. You also don't seem to realize that there is no more evidence for biblical creation than there is for Hindu, Mayan, Greek, Norse or any other.
So far in this discussion, one theory has explained the origin of matter, order, and life. The other theory dead-ends with an explosion that exploded from nothing, that was triggered by nothing, for no reason whatsoever.
If we only consider this point, it is quite obvious that there is evidence that the more complete theory is the correct one.
As you have not yet shared any evidence in favor of evolution or refuting Creation, the point I made above is really all we have to go off of in this discussion.

I think you are an imbecile. You think that you have debunked the big bang theory, which you haven't. What makes you dumb, however, is that you think debunking it would somehow prove the bible myth. It wouldn't. You think that a lack of knowledge proves your god. It doesn't. The more you say, the more illogical you sound. I might as well be arguing with a toddler. Later Dufey.
You can leave off the name calling. It doesn't make me mad anyhow because I am a Christian. It's a waste of time and digital space, and the more ad hominem your posts are, the harder it is for anybody to find any logical point you might possibly share.
There's probably several fallacies illustrated there in your suppositions of what I "think". But to identify them is beside the point.
The point is that you are obviously slightly upset that the Creation theory answers an important question about the origin of the universe that your Big Bang theory cannot explain.
 
Last edited:
Feb 13, 2023
38
4
55
This makes no more sense than "nowhere". Virtual particles have never been documented without a relation to real particles.


You have claimed many times that Creation is a myth, but you have not yet offered even one reason why. The closest you have gotten is "we know...." well, HOW do you 'know'?
If God didn't exist outside of space and time, He couldn't be God. That makes sense to me.
But don't forget, that the idea that nothing triggered nothing, for no reason at all, and nothing suddenly began to become everything, doesn't make sense to me. And that doesn't even make sense to you either, and you're the one who believes it! You may deny this if you wish, but I won't forget that your answer to "where did the stuff that exploded come from" was "I don't know."


So far in this discussion, one theory has explained the origin of matter, order, and life. The other theory dead-ends with an explosion that exploded from nothing, that was triggered by nothing, for no reason whatsoever.
If we only consider this point, it is quite obvious that there is evidence that the more complete theory is the correct one.
As you have not yet shared any evidence in favor of evolution or refuting Creation, the point I made above is really all we have to go off of in this discussion.


You can leave off the name calling. It doesn't make me mad anyhow because I am a Christian. It's a waste of time and digital space, and the more ad hominem your posts are, the harder it is for anybody to find any logical point you might possibly share.
There's probably several fallacies illustrated there in your suppositions of what I "think". But to identify them is beside the point.
The point is that you are obviously slightly upset that the Creation theory answers an important question about the origin of the universe that your Big Bang theory cannot explain.
I explained that you are using the god of the gaps argument. Then when I say no one knows or can prove the origin of the universe, you say I must , therefore, accept creationism. That is the god of the gaps, again, hence you are a moron. You repeatedly use logical fallacies and don't understand what a valid or sound argument is. The argument from ignorance is your entire argument and you seem incapable of understanding the flaw in reasoning. https://knowyourlogicalfallacies.com/argument-from-ignorance/

It's pointless to talk with someone that can't grasp anything I've said or form a coherent argument. I've argued with many theists, but you are probably the densest one I've encountered.

I'm now blocking you and won't receive anymore of your posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustJustin
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
@Stephan Gunther , your counter argument has been nearly exclusively based on the proposition that my reasoning is a fallacy of some sort or another.
https://knowyourlogicalfallacies.com/the-fallacy-fallacy/

It would be unfortunate if you never did come back to this thread to read this, as I would like to thank you for your posts that provided these rich illustrations of some of the logical fallacies. Thank you too, for the link to that fallacy website. It was quite handy. I already paired your posts with a link to the most applicable fallacy, respectively, for ease of reading.

I agree with that. You, however, fallaciously claimed that since we haven't discovered life outside of Earth that evolution doesn't exist. You are a fallacy machine.
I explained that you are using the god of the gaps argument. Then when I say no one knows or can prove the origin of the universe, you say I must , therefore, accept creationism.
https://knowyourlogicalfallacies.com/strawman-fallacy/

Most scientists think that an explosion ( which is not a literal term ) resulted in the first 3 elements, that would later form heavier elements, that would eventually result in life.
https://knowyourlogicalfallacies.com/appeal-to-common-belief/


No, creationism is just a myth and much of it demonstrably false. We know the Earth was created over a period longer than 7 days. It also makes no sense that a god would wait billions of yrs to put animals on the Earth. It makes no sense that your god exists outside of space and time.
https://knowyourlogicalfallacies.com/personal-incredulity/

" Either you are dumb or you are pretending to be so..... You are the false premise machine...
You are either not very bright or disingenuous.
I am now convinced you are stupid.
You are super high on the opiate of the masses.
I think you are an imbecile....
What makes you dumb, however..... The more you say, the more illogical you sound. I might as well be arguing with a toddler. Later Dufey.
......That is the god of the gaps, again, hence you are a moron.
It's pointless to talk with someone that can't grasp anything I've said or form a coherent argument. I've argued with many theists, but you are probably the densest one I've encountered.
Wow, what a fine collection of ad hominems!
https://knowyourlogicalfallacies.com/ad-hominem/

I find this one particularly amusing, especially considering that this post came just a few post after you called me out on this fallacy! Even more interesting, your primary attack on my reference to the Bible, is that I don't have the "burden of proof", so therefore the Bible is invalid.
.....My example of asking you to disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster went right over your head. I am now convinced you are stupid. You can't disprove the invisible dragon sitting on my roof.
https://knowyourlogicalfallacies.com/burden-of-proof/

I know of some YT call in shows. You can call in and present your evidence that your god is real and responsible for the diversity of life rather than evolution.
https://knowyourlogicalfallacies.com/avoiding-the-issue/


I apologize for the fallacies I missed, but I don't have an unlimited amount of time. Some of your posts would qualify for multiple fallacies, but I don't have time for that, and there's no need to go beyond the obvious cases.

Ultimately, this entire post would likely be called "the fallacy fallacy" by Mr. Stephan Gunther. I just wanted to convey the idea that I might not be the only one using fallacious logic.

Hopefully someone else can take up the position of Mr. Stephan Gunther? He unfortunately forgot to share even one proof of evolution before he gave up.
 
Last edited:
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
@Stephan Gunther , didn't really leave a positive impression of evolutionists on me, but if someone else wants to chime in, I will most certainly give you a clean slate, and you have the privilege of using the previous discussion or starting from scratch.

The point of this thread is to discuss the supermassive black holes and the "six gargantuan galaxies" that the article mentioned.
The article explained that this discovery is in conflict with the current evolutionary cosmological models and the Big Bang.
I have explained that these discoveries do not present the slightest difficulty to the Creation theory. Even if my "god of the gaps" is a "god of the gaps", at least my theory holds water. The Big Bang theory has just been proven incorrect, and it also has... GAPS with nothing to fill them with.

Mr. Stephan Gunther did not provide any evidence that the Big Bang happened, so it would be great if one of you evolutionists could fill in some information on that point.
 
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
I thought that surely another person would chime in with at least somewhat intelligent conversation, but nobody has. Do you actually not care that the new discoveries defy current theories? Are y'all suddenly ashamed of the Big Bang theory, or have you lost confidence in it? Or are you just lothe to pick up where @Stephan Gunther left off?
Or is my side of the previous conversation so errant that you think you'd rather type to a brick wall? If this is the case, then please kindly point out just one error. If several considerate folks did this, I'd at least be that much closer to the truth.