(For additional information, see *#3/10 What about Black Holes?*) (See p. 8 for explanation of this paragraph.)
Black holes are a theoretical extreme. If an object could become large enough, it could, in theory, collapse into a cavernous something that could absorb nearby matter. Do such horrible things actually exist? The whole thing is a theory, for which there is no substantial evidence.
Evolutionary theorists point to locations in the universe, where large amounts of radiational activity (X-rays) are occurring, and declare that they are black holes. The cause of that stronger radiation is not known; it is only speculative to say it comes from a black hole.
Yet, if black holes absorb everything, there should be no X-rays in their area. Even the theorists admit they could not see a black hole if they were close to one.
Since the entire universe is so orderly and all the stars never exceed a certain size, why should we expect that star-eating black holes would exist, destroying great quantities of stars?
It is of interest that some of these suspected black holes are located rather close to stars,—yet they have not gobbled them up.
Like the Big Bang, the theorized early non-oxygen environment; the origin of life from non-living materials; the chance production of protein molecules; and evolution of life-forms from one phylum, class, order, or family into other ones,—black holes look good on paper but do not exist in reality.
This is the evolutionists' reasoning: "We know that black holes ('singularities') exist, because some sources emit a lot of X-rays. If a lot of X-rays are coming from a single source, it must be a black hole." Based on this, they have invented accretion disks, capturing and evaporating black holes and mini-black holes. The only evidence for black holes is X-rays from outer space. Remember that.
Was this article helpful?