Believing without seeing

Ron · Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:23 pm Post subject:

The theory behind a black hole is the idea that if enough mass is in one location, the gravity would be so great that the escape velocity would be 186,000 miles per second so that even light could not escape. This, of course, is assuming that light can be effected by gravity. No one has ever seen a black hole since no light could escape one if it existed.

The problem black holes are supposed to fix is this: if the big bang theory were true, the matter should be evenly distributed in space. Since matter is not evenly distributed in space (we have clumps of matter called galaxies then zillions of miles of nothing between) the believers in the big bang theory are trying to explain why. They are trying to say: "There is matter in between the clumps but we can't see it because it is in black holes." Actually, they are arguing from a lack of evidence not from evidence. This is a poor position to be in when trying to prove your case in a court of law.

I don’t know if black holes exist or not, but their existence is not proven.

Eddy Tiner · Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2004 6:23 am Post subject:

Eddy Tiner · Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2004 6:41 am Post subject:

Ron · Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2004 7:50 am Post subject:

Ron · Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2004 8:06 am Post subject:

You did not comment on the major point of your thread to which I replied. What do you think about the "evidence" for black holes? It is interesting, is it not, that "science" uses lack of evidence to support their theory? Now how would this "scientific" community treat my witness when I base my belief on something I cannot see, but yet is clearly evident through His creation? We all know how far this flies for them! About this _ far.

Eddy Tiner · Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2004 10:38 am Post subject:

Eddy Tiner · Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2004 10:46 am Post subject:

Eddy Tiner · Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 7:34 am Post subject:

Ron · Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 6:46 pm Post subject:

Eddy Tiner · Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:39 am Post subject:

Eddy Tiner · Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:28 am Post subject:

Van · Posted: Sat May 15, 2004 9:58 am Post subject: Evolution

It has been asserted that evolution is plausible. Now that would depend upon the meaning of evolution and plausible as used in the statement.

If we say that life forms changing over time is evolution, then that is certainly plausible. But if we say the change is gradual rather than abrupt the premise becomes less plausible, and if we say the change is the result of mutation and environmental pressure, even less plausible. Have we observed micro-evolution, the adaption of life forms to changes in the environment? Yes. But the extrapolation of this observation to account for the difference in the life forms found in fossels and the life forms now is questionable at best.

Now the theory of Evolution today is not the same as the theory of Evolution 100 years ago. We have Neo-Darwinsim rather than the throughly discredited Darwinsim. Human babies as they develop in the womb do not go through evolutionary phases that mark the past.

Modern biology has pretty much discredited the proofs or evidence for the theory that were offered in the past. What we know is that many of the life forms of the past have died out, and most of the large mammals of today are not represented in the fossel record of the past.

My position is simple, the answer to the origin of the species is God did it. Just how He did it I do not know, but the assertion that others do know seems unlikely, even implausible.

Mender · Little Guppy Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 30

RevJP · Moderator Joined: 18 Apr 2003 Posts: 6845 Location: USA