There goes the god theory.

[mark francis]

Creation science article? Lol
Not peer reviewed

Peer review does not prove or disprove scientific reports.

Major Scientific Publisher Retracts More Than 500 Papers (theepochtimes.com) 10-1-22

Major Scientific Publisher Retracts More Than 500 Papers

By Zachary Stieber

October 1, 2022 Updated: October 2, 2022

One of the world’s largest open-access journal publishers is retracting more than 500 papers, based on the discovery of unethical actions.

 

[Tripoli]

Your mockery of scientific reports by organizations you do not approve of would be more persuasive if you only could disprove what is reported.

Nothing is proven, not the Universe or life. Even your own thoughts are lies since they are based upon lies

 

[mark francis]

Nothing is proven, not the Universe or life. Even your own thoughts are lies since they are based upon lies

Nobody has proven the supernatural to be a lie.

 

[Tripoli]

Nobody has proven the supernatural to be a lie.

While I actually see the need for God, I can only respond to you with. So what, nobody has proven the supernatural to be real. Furthermore God is nothing supernatural, he merely has a greater understanding of natural systems than does humanity.

 

[mark francis]

While I actually see the need for God, I can only respond to you with. So what, nobody has proven the supernatural to be real. Furthermore God is nothing supernatural, he merely has a greater understanding of natural systems than does humanity.

Since God can neither be proven or disproven then whatever people believe about God either way is by faith, not by sight.

 

[pjmret]

Due to Hawking radiation, black holes will eventually evaporate, but the event horizon is not as crucial as has been believed. Gravity and the curvature of spacetime cause this radiation too. This means that all large objects in the universe, like the remnants of stars, will eventually evaporate.

Using a clever combination of quantum physics and Einstein’s theory of gravity, Stephen Hawking argued that the spontaneous creation and annihilation of pairs of particles must occur near the event horizon (the point beyond which there is no escape from the gravitational force of a black hole). A particle and its anti-particle are created very briefly from the quantum field, after which they immediately annihilate. But sometimes a particle falls into the black hole, and then the other particle can escape: Hawking radiation. According to Hawking, this would eventually result in the evaporation of black holes.

Spiral​

In this new study the researchers at Radboud University revisited this process and investigated whether or not the presence of an event horizon is indeed crucial. They combined techniques from physics, astronomy and mathematics to examine what happens if such pairs of particles are created in the surroundings of black holes. The study showed that new particles can also be created far beyond this horizon. Michael Wondrak: ‘We demonstrate that, in addition to the well-known Hawking radiation, there is also a new form of radiation.’

Everything evaporates​

Van Suijlekom: ‘We show that far beyond a black hole the curvature of spacetime plays a big role in creating radiation. The particles are already separated there by the tidal forces of the gravitational field.’ Whereas it was previously thought that no radiation was possible without the event horizon, this study shows that this horizon is not necessary.
Falcke: ‘That means that objects without an event horizon, such as the remnants of dead stars and other large objects in the universe, also have this sort of radiation. And, after a very long period, that would lead to everything in the universe eventually evaporating, just like black holes. This changes not only our understanding of Hawking radiation but also our view of the universe and its future.

Where does it say anything escapes? Quote it exactly
Cut and paste blathering proves only you have the computer skills of av5th grader lol

 

[pjmret]

Peer review does not prove or disprove scientific reports.

Major Scientific Publisher Retracts More Than 500 Papers (theepochtimes.com) 10-1-22

Major Scientific Publisher Retracts More Than 500 Papers

By Zachary Stieber

October 1, 2022 Updated: October 2, 2022

One of the world’s largest open-access journal publishers is retracting more than 500 papers, based on the discovery of unethical actions.

No but being afraid to have it peer reviewed means he was not confident he was right
You can believe a coward if you want

 

[Tripoli]

Since God can neither be proven or disproven then whatever people believe about God either way is by faith, not by sight.

Not true as the evidence of God is all around, mainly in DNA which could not write itself

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

Since God can neither be proven or disproved then whatever people believe about God either way is by faith, not by sight.

Some religions and sects that claim that God exists make much more sense than others.

For example, the belief that all humans are sinners and that the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary to save them, makes far less sense.

The belief that Noah had to flood the entire planet to eliminate all but eight people seems rather absurd, since a killer virus could have done the same thing without all the hassle of building an ark and gathering all those animals.

Why was it necessary for Jesus' mother to be a virgin?

 

[pjmret]

Not true as the evidence of God is all around, mainly in DNA which could not write itself

Lol
What a science stupid comment

You won't educate yourself because you like to wallow in ignorance but others might benefit

Polθ: Human Cells can write RNA sequences into DNA - Front Line Genomics

Researchers have discovered that mammalian cells can convert RNA sequences back into DNA using Polθ, which challenges long-believed notions.

frontlinegenomics.com

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.9b11239

https://www.quantamagazine.org/lifes-first-molecule-was-protein-not-rna-new-model-suggests-20171102/

On the origin of life: an RNA-focused synthesis and narrative

Darwin's assertion that “it is mere rubbish thinking, at present, of origin of life” is no longer valid. By synthesizing origin of life (OoL) research from its inception to recent findings, with a focus on (i) proof-of-principle prebiotically ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

New genes can arise from nothing

The complexity of living organisms is encoded within their genes, but where do these genes come from? Researchers resolved outstanding questions regarding the origin of small regulatory genes, and described a mechanism that creates their DNA palindromes. Under suitable circumstances, these...

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[Tripoli]

Where does it say anything escapes? Quote it exactly
Cut and paste blathering proves only you have the computer skills of av5th grader lol

You could Google what is Hawking radiation yourself, but you are clearly wanting to stay in denial of reality because Hawking himself proved that he was a crippled nutcase.

Black holes are not decaying because there’s an infalling virtual particle carrying negative energy; that’s another fantasy devised by Hawking to “save” his insufficient analogy. Instead, black holes are decaying, and losing mass over time, because the energy emitted by this Hawking radiation is slowly reducing the curvature of space in that region. Once enough time passes, and that duration ranges from approximately 1068 to 10103 years for black holes of realistic masses, these black holes will have evaporated entirely.

It’s definitely true that spacetime is curved, quite severely, just outside the event horizon of a black hole. It’s also true that quantum uncertainty is an intrinsic part of our Universe’s existence. But Hawking radiation is not the emission of particles and antiparticles from the event horizon. It does not involve an inward-falling pair member carrying negative energy. And it shouldn’t even be exclusive to black holes. Hawking himself knew all of this, but chose the explanation he did anyway, and now we all have to live with the consequences of that decision. Nevertheless, the physical truth always wins out in the end, and now you know the fuller, truer story of where the radiation that causes black holes to evaporate comes from!

 

[Tripoli]

Lol
What a science stupid comment

Nope it is fact until you can demonstrate an instance of absolutely nothing creating DNA from as said nothing. So in your sad little dead end world air and sterile water molecules produce DNA,

Silly pooo pooo

 

[pjmret]

You could Google what is Hawking radiation yourself, but you are clearly wanting to stay in denial of reality because Hawking himself proved that he was a crippled nutcase.

Black holes are not decaying because there’s an infalling virtual particle carrying negative energy; that’s another fantasy devised by Hawking to “save” his insufficient analogy. Instead, black holes are decaying, and losing mass over time, because the energy emitted by this Hawking radiation is slowly reducing the curvature of space in that region. Once enough time passes, and that duration ranges from approximately 1068 to 10103 years for black holes of realistic masses, these black holes will have evaporated entirely.

It’s definitely true that spacetime is curved, quite severely, just outside the event horizon of a black hole. It’s also true that quantum uncertainty is an intrinsic part of our Universe’s existence. But Hawking radiation is not the emission of particles and antiparticles from the event horizon. It does not involve an inward-falling pair member carrying negative energy. And it shouldn’t even be exclusive to black holes. Hawking himself knew all of this, but chose the explanation he did anyway, and now we all have to live with the consequences of that decision. Nevertheless, the physical truth always wins out in the end, and now you know the fuller, truer story of where the radiation that causes black holes to evaporate comes from!

Where does that say anything escapes? Duh
You are a science incompetent lol

 

[pjmret]

Nope it is fact until you can demonstrate an instance of absolutely nothing creating DNA from as said nothing. So in your sad little dead end world air and sterile water molecules produce DNA,

Silly pooo pooo

It's not a fact until you prove it is
Whining isn't proving lol

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

What is more credible: a spontaneous creation of single celled creatures, or the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent eternal being that is also invisible, intangible, inaudible and mute?

Those are the choices.