Distant black hole holds surprises about the early universe

[Kevinb]

On 22/12/2017 at 4:16 AM, MorningGlory said:

Astronomers have discovered a giant 'black hole' millions of light years away that offers a glimpse into the universe as it was over thirteen billion years ago.  This is how God laid things out and I believe we are getting closer to being able to see that moment when, from a singularity, He spoke everything into being.  If He permits.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/colossal-distant-black-hole-holds-surprises-early-universe-235944871.html

Thanks for the link... the universe is truly amazing. Stars can also form black holes over certain masses based upon laws of physics. .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit

How are we justified throwing God in?  How can I corroberate adding that claim? 

 

Edited December 23, 2017 by Kevinb

[MorningGlory]

55 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Thanks for the link... the universe is truly amazing. Stars can also form black holes over certain masses based upon laws of physics. .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit

How are we justified throwing God in?  How can I corroberate adding that claim? 

 

God is the Creator; all that we are amazed by was created by Him.  You don't seriously believe everything in the universe just happened by chance do you?

[Kevinb]

1 minute ago, MorningGlory said:

God is the Creator; all that we are amazed by was created by Him.  You don't seriously believe everything in the universe just happened by chance do you?

 Well I'll always consider any evidence you have God did it? Everything we've discovered thus far operates under laws of physics in the case I cited for supernova... this isn't random. I'm amazed by supernova and black holes... how do you get to add God did it. Let's not forget Einstein via physics and mathematics showed black holes must exist 70 years before observation. This doesn't disprove God or gods as it's unfalsifiable but it takes away the need to believe in God causality. I don't see how to add God did it... unless you've evidence I've not heard? 

[Enoch2021]

23 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

Wow, then one would think you would be all in the news, huh? 

Well I'm admonished not to seek such things...

(James 4:4) "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."

Is that  ??

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

2 hours ago, Kevinb said:

 Well I'll always consider any evidence you have God did it?

For the ~85th TIME, to you personally...

1.  Scientific Law: Information/"CODE"/Software is ONLY ever ever ever CAUSED by Intelligent Agency, Without Exception!

That is...whenever we find INFORMATION existing and trace it back to it's source...it invariably leads to an Intelligent Agent EVERY SINGLE TIME !!

SUPPORT:

1. Library of Congress.
2. ALL Books.
3. ALL Newspapers.
4. ALL Languages.
5. ALL Computer Software.
6. THE INFORMATION AGE !!!

Null Hypothesis in Support: Nature/Natural Phenomena Causation CAN NOT create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes --- (INFORMATION).

If you 'cry foul' and claim there is No "Information" or "CODE" in the " Genetic CODE ", you're screwed...

"DNA has two types of DIGITAL INFORMATION — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."
Hood, L., Galas, D.,: The Digital Code of DNA: Nature 421, 444-448 (23 January 2003) |  doi :10.1038/nature01410

"The genetic code performs a mapping between the sequences of the four nucleotides in mRNA to the sequences of the 20 amino acids in protein. It is highly relevant to the origin of life that the genetic code is constructed to confront and solve the problems of communication and recording by THE SAME PRINCIPLES found both in the GENETIC INFORMATION SYSTEM and in MODERN COMPUTER and COMMUNICATION CODES."
Yockey, HP; Origin of life on earth and Shannon's theory of communication. In open problems of computational molecular biology. Computers and Chemistry; 24(1):105-123, Jan 2000

I have roughly 1.8 Million more in SUPPORT, if needed.

Sooo...

Theist Position-- The Null Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Phenomena causation CAN NOT create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes. (DNA -- Transcription & Translation)

Your Position --Alternative Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Phenomena causation *CAN* create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes.  

So essentially, you MUST SHOW:  Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules Authoring Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...?

We'll wait.

If not: Therefore: 'A CREATOR'.

2.  Quantum Mechanics:

a. Observe a Phenomenon: Photons/elementary particles/atoms/molecules exhibit both "Wave-Like" and a Particle behavior.

b. Alternative Hypothesis: If the "which-path Information" is KNOWN or can be KNOWN then we will observe "No Interference" (Wave-Function Collapse: Matter Existing); 
Conversely, If the "which-path Information" is NOT Known and never can be KNOWN then we will observe "Interference" (Wave Function Intact: No Matter).

Null Hypothesis: If the Environment is the mechanism for Wave-Function Collapse (i.e., "Decoherence" --- interaction of quanta with a physical measuring device "Slit Detectors") then we WILL NOT observe any change in pattern (All Detectors will denote ' No Interference ').

c. Experiment: Which one of the Thousands (Without Exception !!) would you like??

1.  Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013): Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226. 

"The presence of PATH INFORMATION anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557028/

[THEREFORE, The LACK of 'which-path' Information anywhere in the Universe is sufficient enough to prohibit any possibility of Wave Function Collapse. i.e. Formation of Matter!!]

2.  Kim, Y-H. et al. (2000). A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser; Physical Review Letters 84, pp. 1–5. 

The authors show not only that "Knowledge" of 'which-path' Information SOLELY collapses "The Wave Function" but can accurately predict future actions of "wave-like" and particle behavior after the Signal Photon has registered and before it's twin Idler has arrived; i.e., QM phenomena transcend Time and Space. SEE also: Walborn SP et al 2002, Scarcelli G et al 2005.
http://cds.cern.ch/record/381875/files/9903047.pdf

In conclusion, this Experiment Unequivocally Validates:

a.  Knowledge (Knowing) the 'WHICH-PATH' Information ALONE causes Wave Function Collapse.
b.  Decoherence (physical interaction with the measuring devices) DOES NOT cause Wave Function Collapse.
c.  QM Phenomena transcend Time and Space. i.e., Space-Time has NO MEANING in Quantum Mechanics.

Ergo: "Matter" (Our Reality) doesn't exist without, FIRST:

A "Knower"/Existence of the "Which-Path" Information.

That is MATTER is Derivative (The Consequent). 
Consciousness is Primary (Necessary Antecedent).

To overturn the Scientific Falsification of "Locality" and by direct proxy ---- Philosophical Naturalism/Realism (atheism); whereby invalidating Idealism "Christianity" (which is not a "religion", btw) and as an ancillary benefit collect yourself a 'Feather in your Cap' Nobel Prize...

Please take up the Quantum Randi Challenge (arXiv:1207.5294, 23 July 2012)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5294
http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/official_quantum_randi_challenge-80168  .... ( "The Quantum Randi Challenge, hence forth QRC, challenges any pseudo-scientist [ YOU, as it were ] who claims that quantum physics is not true and that quantum entanglement experiments can be explained by a classically realistic and locally causal model."
https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.5294v1.pdf

A Nobel Prize AND $1,000,000(USD) is being offered: All you have to do is...
Prove Naive Realism or Local Realism is True and not Observation Dependent.
4 Years + and still no takers, I wonder why?  

Alice in Wonderland has more veracity and is more tenable than your position.

Therefore: 'A CREATOR'.

 

3. Laws of Thermodynamics:

1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT): The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. (Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy Matter/Energy).

2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT): The amount of energy available for work is running out, the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death.

If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the Universe will End — the 'Heat Death’(The Big Chill) of the Universe; ERGO...it had a BEGINNING (CREATION)-- and not the 'big bang' Pseudo-Science Trainwreck.

Since the First Law (1LOT) states that Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy Matter/Energy.
AND...
Since the Universe had a BEGINNING (2LOT),
AND...
Since there are ONLY Two Choices, (Nature vs Intelligent Design)--- for 'The HOW' of that Beginning... 
AND...
Since "Matter" (Nature) CAN'T Pre-Exist before it's Existence then Poof itself into Existence (before that... Poof itself from Nothing into Pre-Existence)...

Therefore: 'A CREATOR'.

 

4. Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity:

Hallmarks reveal: Intent, Purpose, Planning, Choice, often with Contingency, CONTRIVED; without deterministic law like necessity. 
Example: Functional Interlinked Systems.

There are 3 Types of Complexity 1) random sequence complexity (RSC), 2) ordered sequence complexity (OSC), or 3) Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC)."

Random (RSC): fgskztosbclgdsk. e.g., Aftermath of a Tornado. 
Order (OSC): hhhhhhdddddduuuuuu. e.g., Crystals, Snow Flakes, Sand Dunes, Fractals.

Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC): "It Puts The Lotion in the Basket",  Sand Castles, The Genetic CODE, Barbecue Grills, Indy Cars, Hyper-NanoTech Machines and Robots (Kinesin, ATP Synthase, Flagellum, Cilia....ad nauseam) et al.

So RSC and OSC = "Nature" construct.

FSC = Intelligent Design Construct.

"In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity".
Leslie E. Orgel; The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection, pg. 189 (Chapman & Hall: London, 1973)

"The attempts to relate the idea of order...with biological organization or SPECIFICITY must be regarded as a play on words that cannot stand careful scrutiny. Informational macromolecules can code genetic messages and therefore can carry information because the sequence of bases or residues is affected very little, if at all, by [self-organizing] physico-chemical factors".
H.P. Yockey; "A Calculation of Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory"; Journal of Theoretical Biology 67, 1977; p. 390.

No amount of RSC or OSC or the combination thereof, will EVER lead to Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC).

Examples FSC:

Cholecystokinin: is a Peptide Hormone "Functional Protein" produced in the mucosal epithelium of the small intestine and stimulates release of Digestive Enzymes from the Pancreas vital for digestion and absorption... 
Without it, you die.

Albumin: a "Functional Protein" is ONLY produced by the Liver. It's consists of a single polypeptide chain of 580 amino acids.  Of it's many functions, it's Main Function is to maintain intravascular oncotic (colloid osmotic) pressure. It's vital to homeostasis... Without it, you die.

They are Functionally Specific/Sequentially Complex...you cannot interchange them.  They are Specifically Designed for their Specific Roles and Specific Functions.

If anyone is having a case of the 'Willful Stupids', please call/email the SETI Institute (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) and ask them how they tell the difference between RSC/OSC and Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC); they'll Tighten their Shot Group, right quick. 

btw, "INFORMATION" (All of Biology (LIFE): The Genetic Code ---Replication/ Transcription/Translation, Metabolic Pathways ect; All of Physics: Quantum Mechanics, Basically... ALL OF REALITY, is the Quintessential Example of Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC) 

Therefore: 'A CREATOR'.

 

I have roughly 30 more   But they would be Painfully Redundant in lieu of the above.

 

Quote

Let's not forget Einstein via physics and mathematics showed black holes must exist 70 years before observation.

Einstein and his matheMagics have been "DEBUNKED" here on this forum countless times and to you personally at least 25 Times!!!

So Relativity, sr and gr via different mechanisms (Speed vs. Gravity), can: Dilate/Bend/Warp...TIME !!

1. Primary School Falsification:

TIME is a "Conceptual" relationship between 2 motions.  Specifically, it's based on an "Alleged" single rotation of the Earth on it's axis in respect to the Sun (A Day). 
It's a "CONCEPT" (Non-Physical).  It is without Chemical Formula/Structure, no Dimensionality/Orthogonality, and no Direction or Location.  You can't put some in a jar and paint in red.  

I mean c'mon now, let's reason together...can you Dilate/Bend Warp Non-Physical "Concepts"?? 
Is it your contention that if you have Poison Ivy on the brain you could scratch it by thinking of Sand Paper??

 

" FREEDOM " is a Concept also...can you Bend that?

That which you are using to measure...isn't the thing you're measuring.  

** A Football Field is 100 Yards long but a Football Field isn't Yardsticks!! If I bend a Yardstick...does the Football Field bend also? **

(The Yardsticks are analog to the Clock) -- (The Football Field is analog to TIME)

So if something affects say...Cesium Atomic Clocks, or any modern "Clock" for that matter, does that then IPSO FACTO mean the Earth's "Alleged" rotation in relation to the Sun is Affected?
These Two Mytho-matheMagical Fairytales (sr and gr) were falsified 30 seconds after their respective publications by 3rd graders @ recess, for goodness sakes.
IN TOTO, each are Massive Reification Fallacies on Nuclear Steroids!!

 

2.  Grown-Up Falsification: 

"Non-Locality"-- a brief synopsis: http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_nonlocality.html

Nonlocality occurs due to the phenomenon of entanglement, whereby particles that interact with each other become permanently correlated, or dependent on each other’s states and properties, to the extent that they effectively lose their individuality and in many ways behave as a single entity.

Because of this Well Established Phenomena in 1935, which Pummeled his Fairytales gr and sr, Einstein coined the phrase "Spooky Action @ a Distance", then he and his buddies conjured a 'thought experiment', (SEE: 'EPR Paradox' 1935 ) in a feeble clumsy attempt to 'Debunk' Quantum Mechanics. 

Why?  Well... he couldn't have anything traveling faster than the Speed of Light, cause his 'theories' would IMPLODE.  
(Side Note: He never published in Physical Review Letters again because he didn't appreciate the Paper being "Peer-Reviewed" i.e., Pretentious Pompous Pseudo-Scientific Bleep 
http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

Because of the seemingly Impossibility of TESTING his 'thought experiment', it apparently covered the Pretentious Pompous Pseudo-Science Mytho-Mathemagical Philosopher's Butt and the very public argument between he and Niels Bohr (who was of the opposite position) was relegated to the dustbin of history never to be reconciled.  

BUT THEN...
In the 1960's, John Bell explored Einstein's 'alleged' Paradoxical thought experiment and proposed an Inequality (Bell's Inequality).  If it was shown to be false, Einstein and his theories would take a dirt nap.
http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Compact.pdf

Then John Clauser, a frustrated Grad Student...because of his poor grades in QM, was rustling through books and papers in the campus library when he came across John Bell's Paper.  

And that, as they say folks, is HISTORY  !! ...

Bell's Inequality was first Violated Experimentally in 1972 by John Clauser and Stuart Freedman:
http://dieumsnh.qfb.umich.mx/archivoshistoricosMQ/ModernaHist/Freedman.pdf

Then in 1982, Alain Aspect PhD Physics Jacked it "Yard"  FOREVER !! Ergo, Einstein and his "theories" = Dirt Nap !! (He got "De-Bunked") 
http://www.qudev.ethz.ch/phys4/studentspresentations/epr/aspect.pdf

Ever since Aspect's Falsification, "Non-Locality" has been CONFIRMED BY EXPERIMENT roughly 1875 times, Without Exception!!! See...
 

New Scientist "RealityCheck" 23 June 2007: Speaking to the Landmark Experiment: Gröblacher, S. et al; An experimental test of non-local realism Nature 446, 871-875 (19 April 2007) | doi :10.1038/nature05677. 
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/full/nature05677.html  
"There is no objective reality beyond what we observe". Leggett's Inequality along with Bell's (again) have been violated. "Rather than passively observing it, WE IN FACT CREATE REALITY". 
Physicsworld April 20 2007: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/apr/20/quantum-physics-says-goodbye-to-reality , also speaking to this experiment, went as far as to claim that, ‘quantum physics says goodbye to reality.’

Validated/CONFIRMED AGAIN (for the 1874th Time), here:

"Our experiment confirms Bohr’s view that it does not make sense to ascribe the wave or particle behaviour to a massive particle before the measurement takes place".
Manning A.G et al. (2015): Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment with a single atom; Nature Physics 11, 539–542, doi:10.1038/nphys3343.
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n7/abs/nphys3343.html

And another, just a Flurry of Blows...

"Our data hence imply statistically significant rejection of the local-realist null hypothesis." i.e., Goodbye Realism.
Hensen, B et al: Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres; Nature 526, 682–686 (29 October 2015) doi:10.1038/nature15759
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7575/abs/nature15759.html

Who else wants to Chime In on Realism (??) ...

Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013): Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226. 
The authors PUMMEL Naive Realism and take Local-Causality to the Woodshed (again). 

"The presence of PATH INFORMATION anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough."

[Ergo, The LACK of 'which-path Information' anywhere in the Universe is sufficient enough to prohibit any possibility of Wave Function Collapse. i.e. Formation of Matter!!]

"No NAIVE REALISTIC picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557028/

THEREFORE: There are 2 Doors that can be breached per the results of these Experiments:
 
Door #1: Information (however they conjured that ?? ) can travel Faster than the Speed of Light.  'Einstein's 'theories' KABLOOIE !!!
Door #2: Space and Time are Illusions.  'Einstein's 'theories' KABLOOIE !!!
 
Take your pick....?

Einstein himself after 30 years of attempting a Unified Field Theory finally reckoned with it prior to his death and was partial to the Latter Door (as am I)...

"I must confess that I was not able to find a way to explain the atomistic character of nature.  My opinion is if that the objective description through the field as an elementary concept is not possible then one has to find a possibility to AVOID the continuum (together with SPACE and TIME) ALTOGETHER but I have not the slightest idea what kind of elementary concepts could be used in such a theory". 
Letter from Albert Einstein to David Bohm, 28 October 1954.
Colodny, Robert G; From Quarks to Quasars--Philosophical Problems of Modern Physics: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1986, p. 380

To overturn the Scientific Falsification of "Locality" and by direct proxy ---- Philosophical Naturalism/Realism (aka: atheism); whereby invalidating Idealism "Christianity" (which is not a "religion", btw) and as an ancillary benefit collect yourself a 'Feather in your Cap' Nobel Prize...

Please take up the Quantum Randi Challenge (arXiv:1207.5294, 23 July 2012)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5294
http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/official_quantum_randi_challenge-80168  ... 
( The Quantum Randi Challenge, hence forth QRC, challenges any pseudo-scientist [You, as it were] who claims that quantum physics is not true and that quantum entanglement experiments can be explained by a classically realistic and locally causal model.)
https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.5294v1.pdf

A Nobel Prize AND $1,000,000(USD) is being offered: All you have to do is...
Prove Naive Realism or Local Realism is True and not Observation Dependent.
4 Years + and still no takers, I wonder why?  
I'll monitor the Presses!!

A 2FER:  Einstein's Mytho-matheMAGICAL Fairytales and atheism taken to the Woodshed and PUMMELED into the Incoherent Oblivion in One Fell Swoop!!

  

Quote

I don't see how to add God did it... unless you've evidence I've not heard? 

This is tantamount to standing on the North Shore of Hawaii and exclaiming:  "What Ocean !!". 

 

regards

[Tristen]

21 hours ago, one.opinion said:

From what I've witnessed, you do have a problem with it, although you are quite a bit nicer about it than some folks. You have a problem with it despite the fact that our core Christian beliefs are nearly identical.

“The issue of the interpretation of Genesis is theology, and within the scope of critical reasoning.”

I think people sometimes generalise critical reasoning to just mean good reasoning. But that's not what it really means. Critical reasoning is a logical process whereby confidence can only be attributed to a claim to the degree to which it is supported by observation. That is, it adopts an, 'I'll believe it when I see it' approach (that is a little simplistic, but you get the idea). It is this being critical or sceptical of claims which makes it so logically robust, and so well suited to science. But claims of faith, many of which are beyond the scope of observation, require a different (i.e. less robust) approach to critical reasoning - i.e. a readiness to believe rather than not. That doesn't make the reasoning poor or irrational, just different – for a different type of claim.

 

“From what I've witnessed, you do have a problem with it, although you are quite a bit nicer about it than some folks. You have a problem with it despite the fact that our core Christian beliefs are nearly identical.”

Why - because I disagree with you?

This is a discussion forum. We both disagree with each other on certain points, so we discuss them. We both attempt to present a rational defence of our position by providing arguments either supporting our own position, or refuting the opposing position. And so, to quote myself, “I don't have any problem with you rationally presenting an argument different to mine - so long as you are prepared to have it subjected to scrutiny.”. I stand by that statement. My only assumption is that my participation in the discussion is welcome and permitted. Why should you have the right to disagree with me, but I not have the right to disagree with you – without it being labelled “a problem”.

[Tristen]

20 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

Every bolded statement above is personal and designed to provoke an argument.  This is in violation of the TOS..  I am not going to be told what to do or or what I'm  thinking.  However, I do believe I recognize the writing style.  Our?  Now go agree or disagree with the article and, if you want clarification, contact the scientists who came up with the theory.

“Every bolded statement above is personal and designed to provoke an argument.”

The first one is a sarcastic response to condescension. The rest are, at worst, provocations to discussion, but mostly just explaining my position from my perspective. If you are so easily provoked by my gall to express an opinion, then feel free to ignore me (I don't want to mess up your Christmas), or ask me to disengage.

 

“This is in violation of the TOS..”

Alternatively, you could just report me to the relevant authorities. Up to you. I enjoy contributing, and thought my contributions were largely welcome, but I'm sure I can find something else to do with my time.

I am largely aware of my failings – one of which is that I don't have much tolerance for Christians who are easily offended. The choice of offence was an early lesson for me, and so I assume for others. Perhaps that is an unfair assumption.

 

“I am not going to be told what to do or or what I'm thinking.”

Good - I haven't done either.

 

“Now go agree or disagree with the article and, if you want clarification, contact the scientists who came up with the theory.”

Right – but don't presume to “disagree” with anything you post. Got it.

 

It's Christmas Eve where I am. I hope it doesn't come across sarcastic when I say I pray you have a great Christmas.

[MorningGlory]

6 hours ago, Kevinb said:

 Well I'll always consider any evidence you have God did it? Everything we've discovered thus far operates under laws of physics in the case I cited for supernova... this isn't random. I'm amazed by supernova and black holes... how do you get to add God did it. Let's not forget Einstein via physics and mathematics showed black holes must exist 70 years before observation. This doesn't disprove God or gods as it's unfalsifiable but it takes away the need to believe in God causality. I don't see how to add God did it... unless you've evidence I've not heard? 

I'm not going to drown you in a tsunami of explanations or statements, Kevin.  I will just tell you that YOU, ME, and everything else that exists make up the evidence you are looking for.

John 1:3  KJV

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made

[MorningGlory]

51 minutes ago, Tristen said:

“Every bolded statement above is personal and designed to provoke an argument.”

The first one is a sarcastic response to condescension. The rest are, at worst, provocations to discussion, but mostly just explaining my position from my perspective. If you are so easily provoked by my gall to express an opinion, then feel free to ignore me (I don't want to mess up your Christmas), or ask me to disengage.

 

“This is in violation of the TOS..”

Alternatively, you could just report me to the relevant authorities. Up to you. I enjoy contributing, and thought my contributions were largely welcome, but I'm sure I can find something else to do with my time.

I am largely aware of my failings – one of which is that I don't have much tolerance for Christians who are easily offended. The choice of offence was an early lesson for me, and so I assume for others. Perhaps that is an unfair assumption.

 

“I am not going to be told what to do or or what I'm thinking.”

Good - I haven't done either.

 

“Now go agree or disagree with the article and, if you want clarification, contact the scientists who came up with the theory.”

Right – but don't presume to “disagree” with anything you post. Got it.

 

It's Christmas Eve where I am. I hope it doesn't come across sarcastic when I say I pray you have a great Christmas.

I've already told you I've not told anyone they can't disagree with things I post.  Either you don't understand that or don't want to.  Either way, I wish you a great Christmas as well.

[MorningGlory]

4 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Well I'm admonished not to seek such things...

(James 4:4) "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."

Is that  ??

 

regards

Scripture is never a source of amusement.  However, life is much nicer when one has a sense of humor.  Try it, you may like it.