Thief
Rogue Theologian
and I believe in God because of science
I have no problem with evolution
and the garden event was only a tweak played on the species
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Verifiable evidence for creationism?
- Thread starter leibowde84
- Start date
I have no problem with evolution
and the garden event was only a tweak played on the species
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
This is the result of allowing creationism in schools. Otherwise intelligent people set back 1000 years.
Sad.
james bond
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying black holes do not leave evidence, but saying no one has actually found one. We have a creation scientist who uses white holes in his explanation of Genesis cosmology.
The people should decide. Not the atheist scientists, politicos or religious. When people believe in wrong science, such as evolutionary thinking and evolution, then it's time to set the record straight.
Wrong again. Creationism isn't just religion, but science. Can I help it if when you see the Pillars of Creation, all you see are stars being created instead of destroyed? We can't determine what happened based on the photos. We need more.
Again, we are referring to evolutionary thinking, beliefs and origins. They encompass more than just the biology of evolution.
Wrong again. How can you say that when we created modern science? Just look at Newton's life and accomplishments, for example. I went to a liberal university. It helped create the evo website I use. My profs were famous names associated with evolution such as with dinosaurs. Maybe you're the one who needs to learn actual science. With Hawking's video, I practically had to explain your side. Had to give you his Brief History of Time which I'm sure you're familiar with. It's a great read. Yet, no one has brought him up in what they believe. Is it so hard to say, "I BELIEVE THAT TIME, SPACE AND MATTER ALL STARTED FROM AN EXPLOSION CAUSED BY A BLACK HOLE!!!" That sounds like wack and needs explanation, so people leave it to the Big Bang Theory.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Ack.
james bond
Well-Known Member
"I BELIEVE THAT TIME, SPACE AND MATTER ALL STARTED FROM AN EXPLOSION CAUSED BY A BLACK HOLE!!!"
You really have to ask yourself, why invisible particles or why a single point?
Couldn't the black hole have been the most ginormous black hole ever seen in the universe? Then maybe it could contain all the stuff in ours. In other words, it was a ginormous regurgitation. Or maybe it came out the other end through a ginormous fart. I like that better. That would explain the gas and explosion much better
Where is the evidence? This is the chance for all the atheist science types to all chime in with their evidence.
You really have to ask yourself, why invisible particles or why a single point?
Couldn't the black hole have been the most ginormous black hole ever seen in the universe? Then maybe it could contain all the stuff in ours. In other words, it was a ginormous regurgitation. Or maybe it came out the other end through a ginormous fart. I like that better. That would explain the gas and explosion much better
Where is the evidence? This is the chance for all the atheist science types to all chime in with their evidence.
Yes, we have. There is one at the center of our galaxy. In fact, most galaxies have them.
The record *is* straight. The politicians want to play to the ignorant masses and keep them from learning anything.
There is more than just the pictures. There is also a whole science of how stars form, how the work internally, and how they die. These pictures show instances of how stars form, not how they die.
No, evolution is *biology*. What you are calling evolutionary thinking is actually *scientific* thinking. That it reaches conclusions you don't like isn't the problem of science.
But that *isn't* what the BB says! It is *your* misunderstanding that is the problem here, not the science. The BB was NOT, repeat, NOT caused by a Black Hole! The same overall theory (general relativity) describes both Black Holes and Cosmology, but the specifics are very, very different.
Again, that is NOT even close to what the BB theory says. I'm sorry that you got that impression, but in order to really understand this stuff, you have to go beyond what you get from popular videos and start reading some actual physics. That will take learning some math. it will take thinking much harder than you have so far. And yes, it will take looking at the evidence.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
What's written in Genesis does not match up with reality though. And, we don't know that there was a beginning point (i.e. the big bang), as there are multiple plausible hypotheses that contend the universe is infinite and eternal, constantly in a cycle of expansion and contraction. And, before you say that defies the laws of physics (and others), 1. your claim is that God is eternal, which also defies the laws of physics, and 2. our scientific understanding is still extremely young, so it would be ludicrous to claim that we have enough understanding to know that an eternal universe is impossible.
Here is a great dissection of Genesis and why, scientifically, the account is impossible. Let me know what you think. But, if you you refuse to read it because of fear that it might go against your beliefs, please just admit that.
Is Genesis Scientifically Accurate? (from http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/genesis.html)
Many creationists make the claim that the order and timing of the events described in Genesis are scientifically accurate, and thus could only be the result of divine knowledge. The most vociferous proponents of this argument are the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their booklet "Life: How Did It Get Here?". Are the creationists right? Is Genesis accurate in the order and timing of the events it describes? Is Genesis a historical narrative that accurately describes the appearence of life? A cursory examination shows that it is not. To see why, let's go through the creation accounts verse by verse.
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".
There are some questions about this translation. The original Hebrew word usually translated as "God" here is elohim, which is actually the plural form. Literally, this verse reads, "in the beginning, the GODS created the heavens and the earth." This is one of several places in the Bible where God is referred to in the plural. Biblical scholars conclude that these fragments are left over from an early part of Hebrew history when the Jewish religion was, like every other religion on earth at the time, polytheistic, with more than one god. During this time, the god Yahweh was a storm god, one of many others.
There is also some dispute about the words. An alternate translation has this verse as "When god began to create the heavens and the earth".
This verse implies that the "heavens and the earth" were created more or less at the same time. Scientifically, we know that the "heavens", that is, space, appeared billions of years before the earth ever appeared. The sun is at least a "third generation" star, which formed from condensed gas clouds made up of remnants of at least two supernovae from previous stars.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The early universe was not "dark". We know from quantum mechanics that the earliest universe was a sea of quarks, followed shortly after by a sea of free nucleons and photons. Until the era of "decoupling", about 300,000 years after the formation of the universe, the entire universe was as bright throughout as the surface of the sun is today.
The verse refers to "the face of the waters". If this verse refers to the waters on earth, such as the ocean, it is completely wrong. The early earth had no ocean. It was not until millions of years of accretion had built up the planet that liquid water began to form, both from volcanic outgassing and from the impacts of comets attracted by the gravity of the earth.
However, most Biblical scholars believe that the "waters" referred to here are those in heaven, from which rain comes. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Genesis account later describes how these "waters" were divided from those of earth by a wall, with one portion of these divided waters forming the oceans.
But we know from science that the early universe did not have any liquid water. None at all. Not even any water molecules. In fact, for a period of several hundred thousand years, it did not have any molecules of any sort. The Genesis description of water above the "firmament" is simply wrong.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
This verse has the formation of light occuring only AFTER the "waters" and the earth already existed. As noted above, this is simply wrong. The entire universe was brightly lit for its first 300,000 years of existence, billions of years before the earth came into being.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
This verse betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of "light", one that was common to the pre-industrial peoples who wrote the Bible. During these times, it was believed that "darkness" was an element separate and distinct from "light" (see, for example, Amos 5:8, which declares that God "maketh the day dark with night"). This of course is simply not true. Darkness is nothing more than the absence of light. One can no more "separate" light from darkness than one can separate "left" from "right" or "up" from "down".
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Notice here that there is no Sun yet, it not having yet been created. This account is thus contradicted by science on several grounds. Since a "day" is itself based on the earth's rotation near the Sun, there could have been no "day" until AFTER the sun appeared. Nor is there any cosmic source of "day light" other than the sun. Scientifically, we know that the sun actually condensed first, and was already burning nuclear fuel when the earth first began to appreciably accrete. The Genesis account, which has the earth and the "waters" formed before the Sun, is simply wrong.
6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
The word "firmament" refers to a hard, clear wall or divider. It refers to the ancient belief that the stars and planets were held in the sky by a huge transparent wall or roof. The "waters above" the firmament were presumed to be huge reservoirs of water in the sky, from which, it was presumed in ancient times, rain came through holes in the firmament. This is referred to during the Flood story by Genesis 7:11, which says "the windows of heaven were opened", and also in Genesis 8:2, which says "the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained". It is also referred to by other verses in the Bible like Acts 14:17, where God "gave us rain from heaven", Deuteronomy 11:11, which says "But the land, whither ye go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the rain of heaven", Deuteronomy 11:17, which says "And then the LORD's wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain", Deuteronomy 28:12, which says "The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season", Isaiah 55:10, which says "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud", and Revelations 11:6, which says "These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy".
Needless to say, there is no "firmament" that holds rainwater or stars up in the sky. The ancient writers of the Bible, having no knowledge or understanding of "gravity", simply postulated that this hard clear sphere MUST be there, or else the stars and planets would all fall down, and that the "firmament" must have "windows" to let the rain through. They were wrong.
9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
According to the Genesis account, the oceans come from water that was already existing when the earth was formed-----the "waters above" and "the waters below". From the description given, it appears that the Genesis writers assumed that the entire earth was covered with water ("the waters below"), and that the dry land was formed by moving all that water to specific locations to form the oceans. Scientifically, we know this to be untrue. There has never been a time in earth's history when its surface was covered with water. In fact, the early earth had no liquid water at all on its surface. It wasn't until millions of years after it accreted that the earth began accumulating water, in the form of volcanic outgassing and impacts of ice comets.
11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.
According to the Genesis account, the first living things to be created were grasses and plants, and they lived on land. Scientifically, this is untrue. For the first three billion years of its existence, all life, both animal and plant, was entirely aquatic and lived in the sea. The land area was sterile and had no life. During this period, all life consisted of single-celled prokaryotes that were not grasses, not herbs, and not even plants. The Biblical account that has grasses appearing at the same time, or shortly before, fruit trees is also incorrect. Flowering plants, or angiosperms, appeared during the Cretaceous period, just before the extinction of the dinosaurs, and before any grasses appeared. As far as grasses, they weren't even remotely the first forms of life---grasses didn't appear until the early Tertiary period, well after the extinction of the dinosaurs. They are actually one of the LAST major groups of plants to have formed. The Genesis writer's idea that plants appeared before animals is also simply wrong----we know from the fossil record that multicellular animals appeared first. The Genesis account gets all of this wrong.
Note here too that the Sun hadn't been created yet. . . . Plants, of course, cannot live without photosynthesis using sunlight. The Biblical idea that plants could have appeared before the Sun appeared simply reflects their lack of knowledge about the most basic biology of plants.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
The word "firmament" refers to a hard, clear wall or divider. It refers to the ancient belief that the stars and planets were held in the sky by a huge transparent wall or roof. The "waters above" the firmament were presumed to be huge reservoirs of water in the sky, from which, it was presumed in ancient times, rain came through holes in the firmament. This is referred to during the Flood story by Genesis 7:11, which says "the windows of heaven were opened", and also in Genesis 8:2, which says "the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained". It is also referred to by other verses in the Bible like Acts 14:17, where God "gave us rain from heaven", Deuteronomy 11:11, which says "But the land, whither ye go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the rain of heaven", Deuteronomy 11:17, which says "And then the LORD's wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain", Deuteronomy 28:12, which says "The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season", Isaiah 55:10, which says "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud", and Revelations 11:6, which says "These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy".
Needless to say, there is no "firmament" that holds rainwater or stars up in the sky. The ancient writers of the Bible, having no knowledge or understanding of "gravity", simply postulated that this hard clear sphere MUST be there, or else the stars and planets would all fall down, and that the "firmament" must have "windows" to let the rain through. They were wrong.
9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
According to the Genesis account, the oceans come from water that was already existing when the earth was formed-----the "waters above" and "the waters below". From the description given, it appears that the Genesis writers assumed that the entire earth was covered with water ("the waters below"), and that the dry land was formed by moving all that water to specific locations to form the oceans. Scientifically, we know this to be untrue. There has never been a time in earth's history when its surface was covered with water. In fact, the early earth had no liquid water at all on its surface. It wasn't until millions of years after it accreted that the earth began accumulating water, in the form of volcanic outgassing and impacts of ice comets.
11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.
According to the Genesis account, the first living things to be created were grasses and plants, and they lived on land. Scientifically, this is untrue. For the first three billion years of its existence, all life, both animal and plant, was entirely aquatic and lived in the sea. The land area was sterile and had no life. During this period, all life consisted of single-celled prokaryotes that were not grasses, not herbs, and not even plants. The Biblical account that has grasses appearing at the same time, or shortly before, fruit trees is also incorrect. Flowering plants, or angiosperms, appeared during the Cretaceous period, just before the extinction of the dinosaurs, and before any grasses appeared. As far as grasses, they weren't even remotely the first forms of life---grasses didn't appear until the early Tertiary period, well after the extinction of the dinosaurs. They are actually one of the LAST major groups of plants to have formed. The Genesis writer's idea that plants appeared before animals is also simply wrong----we know from the fossil record that multicellular animals appeared first. The Genesis account gets all of this wrong.
Note here too that the Sun hadn't been created yet. . . . Plants, of course, cannot live without photosynthesis using sunlight. The Biblical idea that plants could have appeared before the Sun appeared simply reflects their lack of knowledge about the most basic biology of plants.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
1. Any being that is not limited by natural laws is "supernatural" by definition. So, is God limited by natural laws or not?
2. The mind could very well be limited to brain and nerve activity. So, it could very well be material.
3. Because of us having two eyes, we have depth perception. Thus, we experience the world in 3-D, so this claim of yours is flat out wrong.
james bond
Well-Known Member
I'll have to review the previous stuff you posted on Genesis. However, it appears that you are mistaken again. What I am referring to is the concepts of material and immaterial not so much 3D vs 2D vision.
Our mind is immaterial. There is a brain, but there needs to be more to create a mind. Just as we have a body, we need a spirit to have life. Genesis 2:7 says, "The Lord God formed man from the dirt of the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living creature."
Everything that you have learned about in this world is in the mind. If we look to the past, there may be some things that we stored in the brain, but we need to get our mind to function well in order to retrieve it. While others are instantaneous. While others could just pop up by seeing something (association) or for no reason. When we study the mind, it is more difficult to describe and explain than the brain.
We do not actually see a 3D object, but see a 2D representation and our two eyes and mind adds the depth perception. If we look at a building from the front, our minds think there is a back. If there isn't one, then we are surprised.
It isn't just this though as the mind keeps some kind of memory of 3D objects. For example, if you close one eye, you still see things, but do not see depth quite as well. The mind and memory still makes the adjustments but not as well. To get the depth perception, one needs to see with two eyes. Have someone toss you a ball and it will not be as easy to catch with one eye as with 2 eyes. To truly see a 3D object, we need to view it from the 4th dimension and include spacetime just like we can see Flatland from the 3rd.
Thus, we truly live in a Matrix world. What we know of it and decide what is material and immaterial is from that which is immaterial. We had Descartes trying to reason his way of the world by thinking. My point is how do you really know what is real? Are we just being fed images of our world like in the Matrix or what we experience of this world through our mind all there is?
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Crackpot (or pipe) stuff. Clear evidence that there's no such thing as "creation science." The premise of white hole cosmology is fatally flawed. The mathematics used by Humphreys is riddled with problems,(see Conner and Page) and special relativity is repeatedly misinterpreted.
Humphreys' arguments sound ingenious, but they are so seriously flawed in ways that totally invalidate them. Humphreys misunderstands General Relativity concepts and when you correct these misunderstandings you are left with naught but the same time-scale conclusions as standard Big Bang cosmology. Thus, Humphreys' model of Starlight and Time is, in point of fact, just a trivial variant of the standard Big Bang model.
See also: Herrmann, for a discussion of Humphrey's misunderstanding of cosmological constant, Lambda.
But ... it is your cosmology that is "wrong science" not Darwinian evolution. Try again, this time check your hero's sums.
Last edited:
leibowde84
Veteran Member
This is a claim that isn't known yet. I agree that current scientific understanding cannot say for certain that the mind is a physical manifestation of neural and nervous activity. But, we certainly do not know that the mind is immaterial. That in no way has been proven. And, to argue that our current lack of understanding of the mind or our current lack of ability to duplicate consciousness physically somehow proves that the mind is immaterial is nothing more than an argument from ignorance ... (argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)).
The same is true for your claim that we cannot live without a spirit. You quote Genesis as evidence for your claim, but what is written in Genesis is not evidence of anything ... it is merely another claim written by an unknown author thousands of years ago. It isn't reasonable for you to use biblical claims as evidence in an argument centered on whether Genesis is true or not.
james bond
Well-Known Member
This just shows your ignorance and lack of understanding what is being discussed, Sapiens. Humphreys refuted Conner and Page and put them in their place. Instead, let's go back to discussing why Hawking and his people went to a single point black hole cosmology which is what we were discussing and questioning.
james bond
Well-Known Member
This is interesting. I've always been taught that the mind was separate from the brain and spirit from the body, and not because of Christianity. I only used Genesis to make the point that God is involved with the spirit and providing life. This is why our brain and body cannot live by itself. So what do you think the mind and spirit is? A religious construct?
james bond
Well-Known Member
I went back to Psych 101 and there they talked more about the brain than the mind. I had a subscription to Psychology Today for years during that time, so that could have been part of it. I'm positive many articles led to more discussions of the mind and duality. Otherwise, the teachings of Rene Descartes shows he believed in dualism. I'm not as familiar with Baruch Spinoza's teachings. Here's one tidbit I got from wikipedia for those who love wiki,
"Several philosophical perspectives have been developed which reject the mind–body dichotomy. The historical materialism of Karl Marx and subsequent writers, itself a form of physicalism, held that consciousness was engendered by the material contingencies of one's environment.[5] An explicit rejection of the dichotomy is found in French structuralism, and is a position that generally characterized post-war French philosophy.[6]"
Maybe this explains why atheists and I diverge.
Mind–body problem - Wikipedia
Other articles
Dualism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind–body_problem#cite_note-Turner-6
"Several philosophical perspectives have been developed which reject the mind–body dichotomy. The historical materialism of Karl Marx and subsequent writers, itself a form of physicalism, held that consciousness was engendered by the material contingencies of one's environment.[5] An explicit rejection of the dichotomy is found in French structuralism, and is a position that generally characterized post-war French philosophy.[6]"
Maybe this explains why atheists and I diverge.
Mind–body problem - Wikipedia
Other articles
Dualism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind–body_problem#cite_note-Turner-6
Sapiens
Polymathematician
I am sure you'd prefer to do that since there is no significant support in science for Humpreys.
james bond
Well-Known Member
The other weird part about you besides putting the material over the immaterial is that you keep stating that I am making "claims" while we're just having a discussion in order how we see our 3D world and compare it to the 4D world. All this while you conveniently ignore and do attempt to answer the questions and points I make. I'll assume you do not have the answers like most of the internet atheists. At least, Polymath257 and jonathan180iq had their own theories.
Regardless, the truth is the brain does not see objects as 3D. To truly see 3D objects, one has to has to have the 4th dimensional view. The mind/brain automatically tries to do this by adding depth, but this is not a true 3D representation. It's one so we can understand it and help guide ourselves in our world.
The meeting of the 4th dimension with the 3rd happens when we theoretically fold the dimension, so one can traverse across spacetime. This can be shown using virtual reality software such as that of a the way a hypercube would act in the 4th dimension while it is a cube in the 3rd dimension. Normally, we calling this a mapping of the 4D object into our 3D world and can be seen as a topographical map. When we mapped the 3D world into 2D, we can see it as a regular map. With the 4D topographical map, it shows objects where the objects that are in the distant future such as the Pillars of Creation.
As with a 2D map of our world, if we did not have boats, then we would not be able to lands beyond the ocean. This is what we are facing now with the Pillars of Creation. It is impossible to get there from where we stand. The best we can do is have the view of a person watching a train pass by from the distance. Once we get into a ship that can travel fast near the speed of light, then we can view the Pillars of Creation as an object that we can get to. Careful calculations would need to be made of it's location or else we could overshoot it and be lost in space. I don't think it's the 4D vs 3D views that stands in the way between the calculations of creation scientists and those of the atheist scientists. I think how we can view the Pillars of Creation on our map at a location in future spacetime that can be decided upon. What will be different is our calculation on how to reach it since we view the universe differently. One is unbounded while the other is bounded. This was the other point I was trying to make.
james bond
Well-Known Member
I'll stick with what Hawking is saying and has done. It appears that he is sincere in his search. AFAIK there hasn't been a peer-reviewed confirmation of a black hole at the center of Milky Way nor anywhere although there has been evidence. For example, this might be the latest on the Nature article with Stephen Hawking says there are no black holes. He's trying to find if QM or GR is right.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-th...-the-theory-of-stephen-hawking-on-black-holes
What I am saying is no atheist here has explained anything like Hawking's video. They claim creationists do not understand science, but we do. I can't help it if I can find articles to explain in general as well as Hawking's papers. Also, I can find which Hawking's books to read. I'm the one who brought Hawking into this because I felt he was the one that has gotten the closest and I have made progress in understanding what the issues are. Not in regard to BBT so much, but black holes. Let's try to understand that better first. I've gotten a better picture. They have to overcome the gravitational problem in GR vs QM.
Follow up on the Nature article; If you want other general articles, then see the menu on right side. There may be links to investigate in the answers.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-th...-the-theory-of-stephen-hawking-on-black-holes
Detailed scientific papers
arXiv.org Search
Black holes have been verified to exist. Here's a NASA video about the one at the center of the Milky Way:
Milky Way's Supermassive Black Hole Caught Eating..Something | Video
You realize that your articles are attepts to *simulate* black holes in the lab, right? And that they are attempting to detect what is known as Hawking radiation from these simulations? They are NOT about *actual* black holes.