But I guess Nature just publishes science fiction stories:

” “The black hole’s inactivity [today] suggests that the central few light years doesn’t contain enough raw material to make stars. And the enormous gravitational tidal forces around the black hole would seem to prohibit stars from forming even if the material were there: it’s hard for a cloud of gas to contract into a star under its own gravity when something that weighs as much as four million stars is sitting next door.” Jeff Kanipe, “A Long Time Ago, in a Galaxy Not So Far Away,” Nature, Vol. 446, 5 April 2007, p. 601.”

One of these days I’ll learn how to highlight in blogs, but they havent shown that on BG yet.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

It is true that about 40 stars sit next to a black hole at the center of our galaxy. Please in all your fundamental wisdom explain how these stars formed OVER black hole gravity over millions of years?

Report comment to moderator

try talk origins. or you know you can just say “Ain’t it grand, QED”

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

“1) all the rocks have been demonstrated to at one time have been molten: thermodynmaic cooling arguments for the earth (which have an error which underestaimates the earths age) lead to a minimum age of about 100 million years

2) plate tectonic arguments for motions of say Indai lead to a minimum estimate of the age of the earth of about 250 million years (and this is an estimate which by its nature underestimates the earths age)

3) radioactive dataing by several methods leads to an age of the earth in billions of years

4) solar system and astrophysical observations and comparison with experiment lead to an age of the sun of perhaps 5 billon years and suggest that for mechanics reasons, planets must form soon after the formation of the sun

If we are to reduce the estimated ages of the earth by say a factor of 10,000X or so (to yield a 10,000 or so year old earth), then energy release rates require dynamic behavors (heating, earthwuakes, heat loss) which would prove temrinal to life as we know it and are not supported by the data.”

Thorn:

Thats nifty. Here are some better questions.

1. If the solar system evolved, why do 3 planets spin backwards and over 30 moons revolve backwards?

2. What is the moon’s origin, much less any other moon for that matter?

3. Please explain how strings of galaxies have formed? Why is it, that as far as we can see out into space, galaxies are developed, but not distorted, contorted, or severly twisted in shape?

4. Please explain how 40 stars sit right next to a black hole at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy and how they evolved?

5. If the universe is billions of years old, please explain why colliding galaxies have yet to homogenize?

I can keep going

If rocks were once molten please explain why so much gold is at the surface of the earth? Plate tectonics is highly flawed, radioactive dating assumes a constant rate of decay which is a flawed assumption, and if the sun is 5 billion years old, where is the segregation of space dust, must less how is there any left at the rate it which it is being absorbed or blown out of the solar system?

Please explain how planets forming so quick after the birth of our sun is even possible? Considering there is not even enough hydrogen and helium orbiting the sun to produce 1 jupiter much less saturn. We could also get into how venus happens to have mountains, but is there even a point at this rate? Binary stars, much less a planet next to THREE stars kicks cosmolgical evolution in the butt.

The cosmos actually screams at a young universe, and thus a young earth.

Report comment to moderator

I will work purely from my perspective. I suggest that it will, however, generalize nicely.

One quick observation: the argument is totally flawed when applied to an organism which does not have a sense of its own existence.

NOw when I look at my thoughts there are a multitude of thoughts of various forms.

I note, however, that some of these thoughts have the following charactieristics:

1) they are repeatable: what i think is happening is happening over and over

2) they are correlatable: we can sequence on thought with the commencing of another

There is an even more interesting characteristic: there are thoughts which claim to be coming form other entities (examples might be magwah asserting that existentialism is not an interesting topic).

And on certain items these are repeatable, correlatable, and there is modest agreement on these points from entities claiming to be others.

As a purely taxonomic argument, I will call these observations.

And while you apparently are denying your existence, do you disagree that I am perceiving these thoughts which I will call observations?

Report comment to moderator

but of course I am not interested in wheterh you are a figment for me.

You told me that ou considered questons of the form “who is god, who is man”.

I suggest that since ou considered these questions you proved my point with repsect to proving it to yourself.

Can we continue or do we have to belabor the point.

After all it was you who said I’m the “who is God, who am man” questioner

And all I am noting is that there was a you to ask the question.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

this is not even brining the numerical errors contained in chronicles and kings. in short there is no possible way to believe the bible is inerrant without also believing that nothing can be known. i suggest that you flipping the light switch disproves this hypothesis every single day.

from upthread, again, to verify the claim that these textbooks do include that information

From the biology textbook “Biology for Christian Schools” published by Bob Jones University (rofl), the source for many of the textbooks used by the school:

The same encyclopedia article may state that the grasshopper evolved 300 million years ago. You may find a description of some insect that the grasshopper supposedly evolved from and a description of the insects that scientists say evolved from the grasshopper. You may even find a “scientific” explanation of the biblical locust (grasshopper) plague in Egypt. These statements are conclusions based on “supposed science.” If the conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them.

Report comment to moderator