Milky Way's Monster Black Hole Ignores Its 'Snack,' and Debate Swirls

Started by Maximilian, November 21, 2014, 02:29:08 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bernadette

My Lord and my God.

GloriaPatri

Quote from: dueSicilie on November 27, 2014, 03:08:27 PM
The Scriptures are infallible, and I'll for one take sides with the Fathers in their interpretation. "Science" also tells is that queer fom and sodomy is perfectly natural and that Adam and Eve we're not the original ancestors.

The Father's lacked access to scientific data. Do you honestly think any of them would have believed in atoms, germs, or the stars as other suns? None of them would have, but these are all verified facts. Just because the majority of Fathers believed in a literal reading of Genesis doesn't make it the correct one. Since the PBC has long allowed for a non-literal reading of the 7 Days of Creation it is more reasonable to interpret them in accordance with modern scientific evidence. Genesis was not meant to be a technical account of how God created the Universe.

Greg

There is evidence and evidence.

Given the images of the Hubble deep space field it would be madness to deny the existence of those galaxies.  Those galaxies exist or have existed with as much certainty that any object you can see with your eyes exists.

If there was observable evidence for macro evolution of the same objective standard, I would believe it.  What I perceive is scientists selectively picking evidence to support the theory of evolution and building a castle in the sand.  They see similarities between skulls and bones that I simply cannot say are connected.  They find a few bone fragments and build an entire dinosaur skeleton out the them.

They even reckon they can rebuild the facial muscles, sinews and skin of a prehistoric skull and show what they person would have looked like alive.  Yet the same "educated" people who went to the same universities cannot get Microsoft windows to boot up in less than 5 minutes.  I simply don't believe that smart people are THAT smart that they can reconstruct a face from a skull without a huge number of guesses and assumptions.  And the same is true of their "connecting" the links in the fossil record.  They could just be making it up and retrofitting the "evidence", just like they did with the global warming, sorry "climate change" data.

But the deeper point here is that while the Church Father's views on the motion of celestial bodies might not be intrinsic to faith and belief, the credibility of ideas such as original sin IS intrinsic to faith and belief, at least of Christians.

I don't see how one believes in inter-species or "macro" evolution and maintains the doctrine of Original Sin.  If the Church Fathers didn't have some sort of divinely inspired insight into the origins of humanity then their opinion on pretty much everything else is worthless.  If they were wrong about this, what were they right about?

As for God taking an ape like creature and "breathing a human soul into it" or any other "workaround", not only is this unsupported by science, ie zero evidence and pure conjecture, but it is not what the Church Fathers suggested happened.  Replacing one myth with another hardly seems like an honest approach for a religion that suggests it is rational and values the truth.

I am the first to admit that I take a skeptical view on macro-evolution and want very strong evidence that it is true because of the implications of it being true.  If true, the fathers lacked not only astronomical scientific data but an understanding of the fundamental nature and origins of our species on this planet.  That is a pretty critical thing to lack, given what they then went on to teach and bind people to.  Their successors burning people at the stake or otherwise punishing them for questioning these revealed "truths"'
Contentment is knowing that you're right. Happiness is knowing that someone else is wrong.

JubilateDeo

Wasn't there a thread on this site that said black holes aren't real?  I liked that thread better.

pax

First Vatican Council - Whoever says that divine revelation should be reinterpreted according to new scientific evidence - let him be anathema.

Stephen J. Crothers

The reason why the 'gas cloud' was not devoured by the 'black hole' at Sgt A* is simple: there is no black hole at Sgt A*.  Astronomer Stefan Gillessen of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics is not confused; he and his colleagues are telling blatant lies. Gillessen has admitted that he and his colleagues did not find a black hole at Sgt A* and that in fact nobody has ever found a black hole anywhere. Yet Gillessen et al continue to claim a black hole at Sgt A*, and get grants to study that which they admit is not there. Here is Gillessen at work:

(1) www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Gillessen.html

In fact, there is no such thing as a black hole:

(2) Crothers, S. J., General Relativity: In Acknowledgement Of Professor Gerardus 't Hooft, Nobel Laureate,
http://vixra.org/pdf/1409.0072v2.pdf

Similarly, the reason why BICEP2 found no primordial gravitational waves and did not sample the first one trillionith of a trillionith of a trillionith of a second after the 'Big Bang' is because the Big Bang is nonsense:

(3) Crothers, S. J., BICEP2 ?Fallacies