"Needle point" or "pin point" was mentioned earlier in this thread when discussing singularities with LadyOtterWynd. I'm just waiting for someone to provide evidence of such of singularity to include the collapse of a star into one of these proposed dots of compressed matter.

Of course the analogy works. It's the same concept. The lawyer wasn't trying to prove that people can't bite off ears, he was trying to prove that his client didn't bite off an ear when he had no evidence to suggest otherwise. No one has measured how big a black hole is, WWF, but they occur when stars many times larger than our sun implode when they die. They collapse to be many times smaller than our own sun, and the gravity this creates causes a massive distortion in the very plane of existence (for lack of a batter term), which captures EVERYTHING that comes near it; light, anti (dark)matter, mass, stars, anything. Now, the black holes only consume 1% of the things they engulf, but black holes have existed for millions, and billions of years. Therefore, they would have consumed absolutely immense amounts of matter in their lifetime. Where do you think all this mass goes? It gets smashed into a small point (singularity) whose density, and thusly gravity, is the greatest known force in our Universe. And maybe you should go read some astronomical magazines or something, because scientists agree with us on this point. All of this mass has to go somewhere, and since black holes are a one-way street (as far as we know) all of that mass is going to be condensed into a massively dense, relatively small point.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/star...yed_040218.html

This is only true if you disregard quantum mechanics.

Its funny that you say you stick to logic that is academic because numerous posts of yours claim otherwise, you believe in "God" yet you've never been able to give academic proof of his exsistance, you say you want proof of a black holes exsistance, you've been sent pictures, and the only thing you'll except is video proof, if thats the case I hope you have a few thousand years on your hand, to watch it form, and I doubt anyone would want to set a video that long just to prove to a hand full of people that black holes exist....and think of it logically...black holes have gravity so strong that it sucks things in, if you were to put a video camera in space to watch it, whats the logical thing thats going to happen...its going to get sucked in at some point...and as far as I know they haven't invented telescopes yet that take video yet...I just find it mind boggling that you can believe in God, in which there has been no academic proof of his exsistance, and yet you won't believe a black hole exist even though you've been sent pictures, you might as well say I don't exist because you can't see me, you can see a picture of me but, no, thats not academic proof enough that I exist, no, no. Who knows I may just be apart of you imagination.

Sorry, this just doesn't work. You're using other people's guesses off what happens in black holes. Some things are known about them, but other things are just guesses. To say matter is just simply condensed into a singularity the size of a needle point is a guess.

Also, please give your evidence/dating method for ages of black holes? Your evidence for only 1% consumption?

1. Science does not seek to prove or disprove the supernatural. This includes God.

2. I never once asked for proof of the existence of black holes. I asked for proof of stars 50 times the size of the sun being condensed into singularities the size of a needle point.

3. No evidence of these singularities being formed have been shown in this thread. Pictures of black holes are not evidence that singularities have been formed the size of needle points.

Uh, yes, it does work, whether you like it or not. Truth doesn't depend on whether people want to accept it. It just is. A theory is a lot different than a guess, btw. Theories are backed by credible scientific evidence. Theory does not equal guess. You just proved how much you know about science by saying that. If you actually GO BACK AND READ MY POSTS ABOUT BLACK HOLES you'd see the methods scientists use to determine the age of black holes, how they form, what they consume, where this matter goes, what happens to the matter, and how much of the matter they consume. It's all in the posts. Black holes shoot out most matter that they stretch apart and destroy.

"Bad manners

Black holes are known to be sloppy eaters. They digest only a small amount of what's on their dinner plates, spitting the rest back into space. In this case, only about 1 percent of the star was ultimately swallowed, the research team concluded. The rest of the star's gas was flung into the galaxy by the momentum and energy of the whole interaction, including by the radiation kicked up by the portion of gas that did disappear.

The latest observations were made with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and the European Space Agency's XMM-Newton when the flare had settled down considerably. The research team had first examined earlier images made by the German Roentgen satellite (ROSAT) from 1990 and 1992, which showed the flare at its brightest.

The flare's intensity decreased by about 200 since then. That is consistent with a star being torn apart to feed the black hole, Komossa explained, as opposed to a smoother flow that would have occurred if the black hole were consuming a giant gas blob of similar mass.

This decline of activity over time also suggests the flare was not part of normal, prolonged feeding activity that occurs around other supermassive black holes called quasars.

At the height of the flare, the black hole swallowed the equivalent of one Earth every 10 minutes.

Similar flares have been observed in other galaxies. But none had been recorded in such detail, the researchers said.

Black holes can't be seen, because once matter or light is trapped in one, it cannot escape. Astronomers infer the existence of black holes by noting flare activity around them and also by measuring the speed with which nearby stars and gas orbit. Just before disappearing into a black hole, material is accelerated to nearly light-speed.

Chandra showed that the outburst came from the center of the galaxy, where the suspected black hole sits. The XMM-Newton observations revealed other fingerprints of a black hole, ruling out other physical explanations for the flare-up, the scientists said.

"I think this is very strong evidence that stars are being ripped apart occasionally by supermassive black holes," said Alex Filippenko, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley who was not involved in the work.

Similar observations in other galaxies would help theorists gain a better understanding of how black holes work and the important role they play in galaxy formation. Filippenko said scientists could now begin to set constraints on how frequently these stellar destructions actually occur and study how black holes grow and evolve with time."
( http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/star...yed_040218.html )

Please read your articles better in the future. It's talking about one instance, not every time. I'll quote for you:

"In this case, only about 1 percent of the star was ultimately swallowed..."

This is one case where they believed one percent was spit out. This does not say every time only one percent. You need a lot more cases to arrive at a number. Things such as size could possibly affect this number.

Also, what you're claiming is not a theory. There is no evidence for what you're claiming so how could it be a theory? I've asked you for evidence many times for the formation of this singularity the size of a needle point. If it was evidenced you would have been able to give something by now.

Oh. My. Goddess. I might just have to punch my wall here. WWF, I cannot help it if you want to disregard ALL evidence shown to you. I cannot change that. If you want to disregard all of the evidence then fine, because you're just making yourself look undereducated. It's not hurting me one bit. I ALREADY GAVE YOU EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE THEORY. Get over it, really. Denying evidence doesn't make it go away. I'm not going to have a debate with you if you're going to throw all evidence that disproves your side of the argument out the window. There's no evidence for God either, so you really shouldn't be talking.

Undereducated? You simply do not show evidence for almost anything you claim. I've asked about seven times for evidence of a singularity forming from star 50 times the size of the sun and you've failed to show this just as many. What you're claiming is not a theory because it's not supported.

Also, science does not base theory on one occurence of a phenomenon, but you take one occurrence of an event and run with it, which makes no sense. That one occurrence can be way outside the norm. It's what's known as an "Outlier".

You're not only doing this in this thread, but I've seen you do this in threads with other people. You simply run with unsupported arguments and propogranda.

So far you have shown zero evidence for singularities the size of needle points.

There is plenty of evidence for God. However, science does not seek to prove or disprove things that are supernatural. Many people have a relationship with God and experience Him firsthand. However, your argument here is moot because it does not match the category being discussed.

Personal testimony for the existence of God, take you for example, is not a reliable source of evidence. If personal testimony were, then me saying that the Big Bang Theory is correct would automatically make it right. However, I'm not saying its right because I think it is right, I am saying its probably the most correct theory to date because of the evidence we have for it.
Here are some links, before I continue
Observational Evidence of the Big Bang
Metric Expansion of Space
Video Explaining the Expansion of the Universe
More Evidence of the Big Bang

These are just a few links, and I hope you actually take the time to read them.
What irritates me, WWF, is not that you don't support the Big Bang Theory. Whether you support it or not is up to you. The root of my irritation with you is that you constantly make unsubstantiated claims concerning 1. Science in general, 2. Evolution, 3. Abiogenesis, 4. Cosmology as a whole, and 5. God.
You automatically cast the evidence we have for scientific theorys and laws aside, claiming that the evidence is "tainted" or "biased" or "just incorrect". We don't need to directly observe a singularity in order to know that it exists. The laws of physics and mathematics show us that they can exist, and indirect observation of phenomina such as black holes has shown us that singularities likely exist. We have a lot more evidence for gravitational singularities than we do God.

If God were as easy to come by as you claim he is, WWF, then I would not have needed to come up with my own cosmological argument explaining God. I would have never left the Catholic Church. You tell us that our claims about science are unsubstantiated and unobserved, and then prattle on and on about how "God" "talks" to you. Of course, upon questioning you provide us only with vague and unsubstantiated responses, or, as you did the time you claimed to have seen a "prophecy" about me, you simple ignore the question. Now, forgive me for this, but your constantly vague or absent responses leads me to doubt in nothing but the highest extreme that you actually have a relationship with God in the way that you claim to. I'm not personally attacking you, I'm just calling you out on this. I think you can believe what you want to believe, and that I can't change that, but I find it most unfair that you call our claims unsubstantiated when I have my own severe doubts about you. Of course, I know you're just going to glance over this, or if you do respond you wont respond to it all, so I don't know why I just bothered to type all of this.

WWF didn't claim there is plenty of scientific evidence for God though

Edit: Posted removed.
Please refrain from personal attacks on a persons beliefs.
BurnSide.

Yeah, that's why I site my sources in almost every post where I propose theories, right? Real nice. I most certainly do NOT use propoganda. I'd rather say that's what YOU do WWF. Preaching is quite the same as propoganda, and I don't preach, but you do. Not trying to be rude or disrespectful, but that's the blunt truth. I'm merely stating facts and theories THAT ARE SUPPORTED BY SCIENCE. I can't help it if you don't want to accept the truth as the truth. That's your decision. But don't go around saying I'm making things up when I'm not. I have shown you plenty of evidence to support my side of the argument. Why don't you try actually reading the sources I give you next time? I don't see you giving any evidence to suggest otherwise.

I've NEVER met another Christian in person who's talked to God. NEVER. Not even in church. Hearing voices is called schitzophrenia, and a lot of people who "talk to God" could very well be schitzophrenics. Other than personal experiences, which isn't considered valid evidence by the scientific community, there is NO PROOF of God existing. If you can prove me otherwise then please do so using physical evidence. Science most certainly does disprove the supernatural.

Just because something can exist doesn't mean it does. Pink elephants can potentially exist, but have you ever seen one?

I don't make unsubstantiated claims. I accept scientific theories that are supported and laws. However, I don't accept things like macroevolution, abiogenesis, and big bang as theories because they're merely hypotheses with many holes in them.

I'm not too concerned about whether or not a singularity can or cannot exist, but rather the size of the singularity. Bold claims of a star 50 times the size of the sun being condensed into a singularity the size of a needle point. There is no evidence of this.

Yes, WWF, you do make unsubstantiated claims. THEORIES ARE SUPPORTED BY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. That is a FACT whether you want to acknowledge it or not. You can claim that they don't have evidence, but they obviously do. The only reason they have holes is because people take them out of context and bend what the original theory is. There's ZERO evidence for everything you've claimed as well, and I don't see you providing any evidence to prove me otherwise.

ok i'll try to put this in simple terms for you so you may actually understand...Science does seek to prove or disprove the supernatural, they do it for such things as ghosts, even psi, ok since you seem to be the scientific genius here, what are black holes then, if they aren't singularities what are they...like people have said numerous times, technology isn't there yet to where we could record singularities being formed and if we could it takes more then a life time...

wow you mean like God for example! Because thats a perfect example of the statement "Just because something can exist doesn't mean it does"

But we have the evidence that shows it does. We have the theory, and we have black holes which fit the properties of Einsteins general theory of relativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackholes
Not only that, but Einsteins theory of relativity shows us that black holes contain gravitational singularities, a region of mass that has zero volume. Because it has mass in a zero volume area, its density and gravitational pull are both infinite, causing an equally powerful curve in space time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackholes#Si..._a_single_point
I hope this clears up that matter for you.

This view ultimately demonstrates that somewhere along the line you have fallen for creationist propaganda. I'm going to explain this to you one more time, because it is obvious that you have completely forsaken the language of science for the vernacular.
Evolution and the big bang are not hypotheses. They are theories. Evolution did happen, and here is our theory on exactly how it works. In science, a theory does not mean that it is just an educated guess. A theory is "a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science

See my above links on black holes and the singularities they contain for further information.

Maybe this has been discussed already, but they will creating mini black holes soon;

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:13eP7W...;cd=2&gl=us

I have not made any positive claims in this thread. However, you have made a positive claim of singularities being formed from stars 50 times the size of the sun by black holes, so the burden of proof for this rests on you. So far you haven't demonstrated this.

Well if that is the case, then science and evolution relates to education...do you follow their logic?

The bible doesnt hold any evidence to back itself up, yet you do not have a problem with it, so in all fairness if you are willing to believe in somehting a man has written, then how come you don't believe in other stories skeptics have written?? do you see what I am trying to say here?

You're trying to group science and evolution together as if they're the same thing. Most of science has nothing to do with ideas about evolution.

The Bible wasn't written as a science book; so your argument doesn't work. You're simply trying to switch categories.

Also, you can't say the Bible doesn't hold any evidence, because lots of the events in the Bible has been historically verified.

But science is linked to evolution..so again I ask you, why dont you follow that logic..as it is ref to education


WWF, why do you twist my words so? I never said they wehre the same or written the same...so why must you pretend I did?

And fuurther more..I stated - if you are willing to follow a book that has NO evidence to back it up (like the bible)...then why nlot follow other IDEAS from skeotics?? <--WWF that is a fair question

I believe from your answers given, you are trying to switch my words around to get away from what I am really saying


By who?? or what?? for I havent heard of this...please present real evidence that backs up events in the bible?? thanks

How do you figure "science" is "linked" to evolution? Again, most science has absolutely nothing to do with beliefs about evolution. It also requires beliefs/interpretation about natural conditions that are not observable. That's not science. Science should be observable, testable, and repeatable.

As far as the Bible goes, many of the historical records are verfied, and again it wasn't written and compiled as a science book.

How do you suppose they were able to date IE fossils?

Can you please explain what all science involves..because from your posts, it looks as though you think even research and experiments are not part of science...

Is it possible to slash my wrist with Occam's razor?

Science in very much linked to evolution..

Look at his .. http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=3ba8...3876356bea3bb58

Now can you answer my questions?

I'd suppose so, but then you'd miss this WONDERFUL debate

Did you read my friggen links? I'm not going to post them again. I showed you the physical equations and the evidence, and yet youre still blithering on about the burden of proof lying on us. We've given you the damn proof WWF, for the love of interesting debates DROP IT. Please, for God's sake, actually read my links and if there is something wrong with the information there, then show us.

Show us that Einstein's theory of general relativity is wrong then.

What you need to do is show that matter can be condensed as tightly as LadyOtterwynd claimed. Videotape yourself condensing the matter of a boulder into a singularity the size of a needlepoint and I'll believe it's possible.

I'm sorry, but most scientists aren't involving themselves in such matters as whether or not dinosaurs evolved into chickens or whether a landwhale one day thought it would be a good idea to evolve flippers and climb into the sea.

Most matters surrounding evolution are unrepeatable, untestable, and unobservable, which means they're not true science.

No I don't. You're making unsubstantiated claims... AGAIN. Read my links. Show me that the theory of general relativity is wrong.

God, I'm done with this thread. Until you actually read the links and actually show me that the theory of general relativity is wrong, then this thread is pointless. Its just you blithering on... again. Forget it WWF, you win by default because I refuse to have a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent.

Explain what is science...I posted a link to you that shows how science is linked greatly to evolution...

so can you explain what is science??

The bible

You're right, I should just believe you without you providing any evidence.

Like I said, videotape yourself condensing matter that tightly and I'll believe you.

Videotape you actually talking to God so I know its not just the voices in your head, and I'll believe you. Besides, that should be easier for you to do then for me to compress matter that tightly, so if you're actually talking to God you should win this debate.

Oh yeah, thats right, you don't.

I gave you the evidence. I've given you comprehensive knowledge on the Big Bang Theory, the theory of general relativity, Black Holes and gravitational singularities, and yet you just brush it aside. This thread has gotten ridiculous. You won't even examine the evidence, and I see no further point in discussing this with you. God, you're as thick as a wall sometimes WWF, you really are.

No seriously evolution is a scientific theory. Just because you are deliberately ignorant to that does not change it. Evolution is a hugely important part of biology. Biology is a science. There is a lot of empirical evidence for evolution which you dismissed because you didn't like it.

You are merely ignorant.

WWF push aside your bickering with church...can you go back to answering my previous question?

That is - What is science?? meaning what all is involved in science?

thank you

You're right... just these...

-Biology
-Microbiology
-Immunology
-Archeology
-Anatomy
-Agronomy
-Anthropology
-Bacteriology
-Biochemistry
-Botany
-Cardiology
-Chemistry
-Ecology
-Embryology
-Endocrinology
-Entomology
-Enzymology
-Zoology
-Virology
-Systematics
-Psychology
-Physiology
-Pathology
-Paleontology
-Mycology

Just to name a few... not like that's all of em...

spoil sport lol I wanted WWF to give me his ideas LOL now all he has to do is copy you

He said science and evolution aren't related... all those fields are directly intertwined with evolution.

BM...I KNOW LMAO...thats WHY I asked him to explain just what science is...due to his claims that it is not linked to evolution LOL <---I read this and thought...is he trying to dodge this or is he for real??

WWF? He wouldn't know what science was if it jumped up and down naked in front of him. I don't know why I bother.

And in these fields what percentage of effort do you think is directed towards matters such as trying to prove chickens are related to T-Rex's?

True science is testable, repeatable, and observable. Many of the evolutionary claims are none of these things, so they are not true science.

says you...ohh ok

If evolution is not a science......then what is it?

Science's best guess...

I guess I would agree with you if I didnt understand evolution LOL