• 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!

Different Opinions....Who is right?

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
There is no evidence for the existence of an intelligence behind the diversity of living things or snowflakes. You have never presented any evidence to demonstrate that one is there or even required.

Oh, grief!
The mere fact that an organism’s diverse cellular structures are full of information arranged to function — to excel in function — and cooperate with other structures existing within it, not to mention the intangible nature of the symbiosis between organisms, the evidence is all around you! Amazing you don’t see it! (Are you just toeing the company line? Do you make money in the biology field?)
Science DOES NOT support the existence of a designer. There is no empirical evidence for one.

So the Pyramids built themselves?

The Moabite stone etched itself?

No... the empirical sciences always recognize when a mind was involved.

Even in these far-less-elegant structures, a mind is claimed as their source. Unknown maybe, but still an intelligence is recognized.

Why not with the more complicated DNA? Why not with systems like the symbiosis between unrelated lifeforms? Why not with another intangible: sentience?

Take care, cousin
 
Last edited:

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
No one is saying anything about hours or 24 hours.

And you still don’t understand the concept of Hebrew language to critically analyze and comment about the Hebrew word “yom”, Hockeycowboy.

You don’t cherrypick a single word, then you think you know what it mean, and then put any number of period you like, into yom.

Yom may well mean unspecified period of time, but it certainly not a thousand-year, million-year, or billion-year, or whatever silly number some silly creationists - old or young - want to plug into yom.

That’s just typically sloppy biased biblical scholars I’d expect coming from any creationist - twisting a single word from a quoted passage.





The only way to grasp the meaning of yom, is to read the entire sentence.

Note the quoted in colored highlights:

“And there was evening and there was morning...”​

That part of the sentence is repeated 6 times, provide what the context to yom mean, Hockeycowboy.

The word morning (or dawn) is boqer or voqer (in Hebrew transliteration of בֹּקֶר). And the word for evening (dusk, night) is `ereb or erev (transliteration of עֶרֶב).

An evening and a morning is cycle of 1 day.

It is not a cycle of one week, not one year, not one century, not one million years, not one billion years, etc. No, Hockeycowboy, it is just “one day”.

The passages may not explicitly say “24-hour”, but it does say “there was evening and there was morning”, and that cycle or period does explicitly equate to “one day”.

I know that some creationists would like to quote some other passages (eg 2 Peter 3:8), to twist Genesis 1:5, but that silly shoddy scholarship that I would only expect from some dishonest creationists.

Read more than one word, Hockeycowboy. You want to know what yom mean, read the whole damn sentence, or even read the whole paragraph.

Jubilees 4: 30; And he (ADAM) lacked seventy years of one thousand years; for one thousand years are as one day in the testimony of the heavens and therefore was it written concerning the tree of knowledge: ’On the day that ye eat thereof ye shall die.’ For this reason he did not complete the years of this day; for he died during it.

The weekly Sabbath (The Lord’s Day) was but a shadow of the future reality, which is the thousand year ‘DAY OF THE LORD,’ the seventh day from the day in which Adam ate of the forbidden fruit and died in that day at the age of 930.

Did you hear about the young girl in the North Pole, who spent the night with her boyfriend, and next morning discovered that she was 6 months pregnant?

According to the ancient cultures, we live in an eternal oscillating universe that expands outward and contracts back to its beginning in space time, a living universal being who is all that exists, and in who, all that is, exists. A universe that exists in the two states of seemingly visible matter and invisible energy=anti-matter.

“Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non-being, and again from non-being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all, the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence.” ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

The days and nights of Brahma are called Manvantara, or the cycle of manifestation, ‘The Great Day,’ which is a period of universal activity, that is preceded, and also followed by ‘Pralaya,’ a dark period, which to our finite minds would seem as an eternity, or but a moment in time.

‘Manvantara,’ is a creative day as seen in the six days of creation in Genesis, ‘Pralaya,’ is the evening that proceeds the next creative day. The six periods of Creation and the seventh day of rest in which we now exist are referred to in the book of Genesis as the “GENERATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE.”

The English word “Generation,” is translated from the Hebrew “toledoth” which is used in the Old Testament in every instance as ‘births,’ or ‘descendants,’ such as “These are the generations of Adam,” or “these are the generations of Abraham, and Genesis 2: 4; These are the generations of the Universe or the heavens and earth, etc. And the ‘Great Day’ in which the seven generations of the universe are eternally repeated, is the eternal cosmic period, or the eighth eternal day in which those who attain to perfection are allowed to enter, where they shall be surrounded by great light and they shall experience eternal peace, while those who do not attain to perfection are cast back into the refining fires of the seven physical cycles of endless rebirths that perpetually revolve within the eighth eternal cosmic cycle.

Enoch the righteous, wrote that God created an eighth day also, so that it should be the first after his works, and it is a day eternal with neither hours, days, weeks, months or years, for all time is stuck together in one eon, etc, etc, and all who enter into the generation of the Light beings, are able to visit all those worlds that still exist in Space-Time, but not in our time.

A series of worlds following one upon the other-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it. This is the true resurrection in which all from the previous cycle of universal activity, who still have the judgmental war raging within them, are born again into the endless cycles of physical manifestation, or rebirths.

A DAY is a period of Darkness followed by an equal period of light.
 
Last edited:

Dan From Smithville

What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Staff member
Premium Member
Oh, grief!
The mere fact that an organism’s diverse cellular structures are full of information arranged to function — to excel in function — and cooperate with other structures existing within it, not to mention the intangible nature of the symbiosis between organisms, the evidence is all around you! Amazing you don’t see it! (Are you just toeing the company line? Do you make money in the biology field?)
Really complicated, therefore a designer is a claim. Not evidence or an explanation for a designer. This is all non sequitur and incredulity. You finding it incredible does not mean a designer.

Explain the cryptic "intangible nature of symbiosis". Tangible evidence for numerous symbiotic relationships exists. Do you understand what symbiosis means or is it more stuff you find incredible, but do not really understand?

I have never withheld the fact that I have degrees in science, am a professional entomologist and make my living as such. I have been using that education and experience to help you understand that your denial of science is an artificial construct of your sectarian doctrine and not based on evidence. Do you feel so cornered that you have to abandon even the appearance of an argument and run to false accusations and conspiracy theories?
So the Pyramids built themselves?
Humans built them. That humans built things is evidence of human design and human creation. Nothing else.
The Moabite stone etched itself?
See previous response.
No... the empirical sciences always recognize when a mind was involved.
They recognized human minds were involved. There is no evidence other than human minds and human creations no matter how hard you wish. You know this, but refuse to acknowledge it.
Even in these far-less-elegant structures, a mind is claimed as their source. Unknown maybe, but still an intelligence is recognized.
Not sure why you underlined that. Presumably you are referring to other human artifacts. Created by human intelligence. Tada, we are real good at recognizing our own brand. Whodda thunk it? Have you got the evidence for a Creator you have previously claimed to have? Of course not. Any answers to my previous questions? Doesn't appear you do, since they remain unanswered.
Why not with the more complicated DNA? Why not with systems like the symbiosis between unrelated lifeforms? Why not with another intangible: sentience?

Take care, cousin
You provide the evidence and you will have something to argue. Until then, your claims are no more than what I previously recognized. Repeated assertions with no substance, well-refuted and recycled.

You take care as well.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I know!
They have no "verifiable evidence", as they put it, to explain the development of the information-rich systems that govern these diverse forms of life that we see

Off course there is such verifiable evidence. And lots of it.
Not only is there verifiable evidence, there is also practical application. Like genetic algorithms. Such algorithms do exactly the kind of stuff you just mentioned: development of information-rich systems. And they do it according to the principles of biological evolution.


They know so little, yet they assume so much. When many begin resorting to overhaul evolution by calling for extended syntheses, you know they are grasping!

Reasonable people call that "learning" instead "grasping".

Just like when Einstein came up with relativity, to correct the shortcomings of newtonian physics.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The evidence is, Dan, whenever other fields of science find discoveries that reveal either functional or interactive patterns of information, Intelligence is always attributed to be the cause.

Intelligence is NEVER "just" attributed to be a cause of anything. Instead, it is at best hypothesized based on actual reasons and then subsequently investigated in an attempt to demonstrate / support it.


Except in biology, where the most functional & complex data of any systems, are found.

Because in biology there is no evidence to suggest any third party interference, or any type of artificial manipulation. But there ARE natural and demonstrable mechanisms at work which themselves are sufficient to explain the data we observe.


You ask, “What is there about ID that would require much in the way of expertise to explain it?”
You kidding me? Simple...the same as now: How it was made!
It even would provide a reason to search for an explanation as to ‘why’ it was made, the purpose behind it.

Yes, that's the whole point of ID. To load the investigation up with a god.

Here's the thing though, you would first actually have to demonstrate the 'I' and the 'D'.
Just claiming it, without evidence and without sufficient basis, is not goint to do much good.

Especially not considering that it's obsolete, since the natural mechanisms we know about are sufficient to explain the data.

So really you end up with something like "E = mc² + D", where "D" is god - ow, oeps, sorry, the "designer" :rolleyes:.

When you work out the equation, you get D = 0. God is not a factor.

The same thing happens when trying to inject a god / designer into evolution.
It's obsolete AND there is no evidence to support it.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
but they always stay within their *families / orders*.

The barriers exist within those animal groups, which the Bible refers to, somewhat indistinctly, as “according to their kinds.”

Do you remember how many times I've explained the law of monophy to you?
Do you still remember what the law of monophy is about?

Could you repeat it here, in your own words and then cross reference that with the PRATT I just quoted from you here?

This is a learning opportunity. Let's see if you are upto it.

Somehow, I doubt it. I would LOVE to proven wrong about that.

So please... consider it a challenge.
Explain the law of monophy.

Then apply it to your statements above and tell us if they are in accordance with that law or not.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
"All the time"?
No, we don't. We rarely observe novel information forming. Eating citrate? Ingesting nylon?
These abilities came from already-existing genes....

1. those abilities didn't exist before, so they are NEW and NOVEL abilities.

2. evolution works through the cumulative progression of mutated DNA being past on. Every newborn is only a modified version of its ancesters. So new traits arising through modification of previously existing things is by definition how evolution works. Yet, you say it as if it is an argument against it. You people do such things a lot...... It's no more or less then arguing strawmen.

even if new gene development was observed, it wouldn't alter nor debunk my claims.

Indeed, nothing would debunk your claims, because your claims don't flow from the data nor address the data. Instead, they concern strawmen and are religiously motivated.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
“More than likely” and “probably” are not scientific terms....they simply reveal assumptions.

False. They are words used commonly in scientific circles. They do not "reveal assumptions". Rather, they reveal intellectual honesty as they reflect that things aren't 100% absolutely certain.

Evidence SUGGESTS things. Evidence doesn't PROVE things.
So evidence in favor of X makes X likely and probable. It doesn't make it fact or absolutely true.

For you to use that as some kind of argument against science, or as an excuse for why it's okay to not take it terribly seriously, or even downright accuse science of "faith" and "religious style belief", tells us a couple of things.

First, it tells us that you have little to no knowledge about how science is done.
Secondly, it tells us that you are pretty desperate if you feel like you have to go the semantic route.

Yeah, we’ll see.

We have already seen.
The same PRATTs and strawmen repeated ad nauseum.
PRATT's and strawmen that even have been exposed in court room context decades ago.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Oh, grief!
The mere fact that an organism’s diverse cellular structures are full of information arranged to function — to excel in function — and cooperate with other structures existing within it, not to mention the intangible nature of the symbiosis between organisms, the evidence is all around you! Amazing you don’t see it! (Are you just toeing the company line? Do you make money in the biology field?)

Your argument from awe, does nothing to establish support for your fantastical claims concerning the origins of these systems.

So the Pyramids built themselves?

The Moabite stone etched itself?

This is pure intellectual dishonesty, as @Dan From Smithville was clearly talking concerning the origins of living things and origins of diversity of living things.

No... the empirical sciences always recognize when a mind was involved.

And there is no such recognition, nore need, in the biological sciences.

Even in these far-less-elegant structures, a mind is claimed as their source. Unknown maybe, but still an intelligence is recognized.

When there is evidence for such.

Why not with the more complicated DNA?

Because there is no evidence to justify such a conclusion.
And "complexity" is not such evidence.

Why not with systems like the symbiosis between unrelated lifeforms?

Because there is no evidence to justify such a conclusion.

Why not with another intangible: sentience?

Because there is no evidence to justify such a conclusion.



Again, arguments from awe are not valid evidence that justify such a conclusion.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
“More than likely” and “probably” are not scientific terms....they simply reveal assumptions.

As compared to the writings of a bunch of people trying to start a new religion 6000 years ago.

With today's knowledge, their words are not even likely or probable. All they show is a dismal ignorance of nature compounded by fanciful make-believe thinking.

As just one example:

37Now Jacob took for himself rods of green poplar and of the almond and chestnut trees, peeled white strips in them, and exposed the white which was in the rods. 38And the rods which he had peeled, he set before the flocks in the gutters, in the watering troughs where the flocks came to drink, so that they should conceive when they came to drink. 39So the flocks conceived before the rods, and the flocks brought forth streaked, speckled, and spotted.​
 

ecco

Veteran Member
What we say — what empirical science supports — is that specified information never arranges itself into functionally complex systems, without a mind behind it.


Please show precisely where "empirical science" supports the contention that "information never arranges itself into functionally complex systems, without a mind behind it".

What scientists made that assertion? In what peer-reviewed publication did they write that assertion?


You will need to have better examples than Behe claiming the eye is a complex system that required a mind.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Please show precisely where "empirical science" supports the contention that "information never arranges itself into functionally complex systems, without a mind behind it".

What scientists made that assertion? In what peer-reviewed publication did they write that assertion?


You will need to have better examples than Behe claiming the eye is a complex system that required a mind.
Why?
I think he's shown many examples.
He's qualified.



Behe is a one-trick pony who had his nonsensical ideas refuted decades ago.

It's telling that you, or any creationist, still has to turn to Behe to prove your point.

I suppose in a discussion of the relationship between the sun and the earth you would give Ptolemy as your expert.



Nevertheless, since you can not show precisely where "empirical science" supports the contention that "information never arranges itself into functionally complex systems, without a mind behind it", your argument can be dismissed.

Since you cannot show what scientists made that assertion and in what peer-reviewed publication they wrote that assertion, your argument must be dismissed.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Behe is a one-trick pony who had his nonsensical ideas refuted decades ago.

It's telling that you, or any creationist, still has to turn to Behe to prove your point.

I suppose in a discussion of the relationship between the sun and the earth you would give Ptolemy as your expert.



Nevertheless, since you can not show precisely where "empirical science" supports the contention that "information never arranges itself into functionally complex systems, without a mind behind it", your argument can be dismissed.

Since you cannot show what scientists made that assertion and in what peer-reviewed publication they wrote that assertion, your argument must be dismissed.

Cosmological theories are formulated by scientists, and theories by definition, are the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists, who are prone to change their minds, leaving those who believed by faith alone, the original theory of those particular scientists, standing out on a shaky limb.

There are as many, if not more scientific theories as to the origin of our universe, as there are differing religious bodies, such as Christianity, Hindu, Abrahamic, Muslim, etc.

Here is but one of many theories as to the creation of our three-dimensional universe. This one is by Niayesh Afshordi, an astrophysicist with Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada, who proposes that our three-dimensional universe floats as a membrane in a “bulk universe” that has four dimensions and that the “Bulk Universe” has four dimensional stars, which go through the same life cycles as our three-dimensional stars.

The most massive ones explode as supernovae, and their central core collapses into a black hole, like in our universe---only in four-dimension. The four-dimensional black hole has its own four dimensional “Event Horizon,” the boundary between the inside and the outside of a black hole.

In a three-dimensional universe, the event horizon appears to be two dimensional. In a four-dimensional universe, it appears to be three dimensional. The four-dimensional black hole, then blows apart, with the leftover material forming a three-dimensional membrane surrounding a three dimensional event horizon, which expands---and is essentially our universe.

So, according to the theory proposed by Niayesh Afshordi, our universe is the vomited-up guts of a fourth dimensional black hole. The expansion of the event horizon explains our universe's expansion; the fact that its creation stems from another 4D universe explains the weird temperature uniformity.

Which of the many scientific theories as to the creation of our universe do you accept by faith and faith alone?
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Cosmological theories are formulated by scientists, and theories by definition, are the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists, who are prone to change their minds, leaving those who believed by faith alone, the original theory of those particular scientists, standing out on a shaky limb.

There are as many, if not more scientific theories as to the origin of our universe, as there are differing religious bodies, such as Christianity, Hindu, Abrahamic, Muslim, etc.

Here is but one of many theories as to the creation of our three-dimensional universe. This one is by Niayesh Afshordi, an astrophysicist with Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada, who proposes that our three-dimensional universe floats as a membrane in a “bulk universe” that has four dimensions and that the “Bulk Universe” has four dimensional stars, which go through the same life cycles as our three-dimensional stars.

The most massive ones explode as supernovae, and their central core collapses into a black hole, like in our universe---only in four-dimension. The four-dimensional black hole has its own four dimensional “Event Horizon,” the boundary between the inside and the outside of a black hole.

In a three-dimensional universe, the event horizon appears to be two dimensional. In a four-dimensional universe, it appears to be three dimensional. The four-dimensional black hole, then blows apart, with the leftover material forming a three-dimensional membrane surrounding a three dimensional event horizon, which expands---and is essentially our universe.

So, according to the theory proposed by Niayesh Afshordi, our universe is the vomited-up guts of a fourth dimensional black hole. The expansion of the event horizon explains our universe's expansion; the fact that its creation stems from another 4D universe explains the weird temperature uniformity.

Which of the many scientific theories as to the creation of our universe do you accept by faith and faith alone?
Science kept safe on Earth not in that form of spatial existence is virtually watching a t.v. program talking and discussing conditions that they believe...."believe" by watching, conditions in spatial conditions.

We do not own any space law....we live on a planet O Earth and stone, that owns its owned heavens that moves on a cyclic path, circular one placement, one pattern, a circle around and around another body that is also not ours...a Sun.

Real thinking in a real life thinking for the ability to own thinking.

And when a human irradiated by mass radiating gases burning falling out like I did for a long time in attack, vomiting up my guts....for a human to placate that event to self a spatial reaction to what humans own doing as a human....about says it all, doesn't it science.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Cosmological theories are formulated by scientists, and theories by definition, are the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists, who are prone to change their minds, leaving those who believed by faith alone, the original theory of those particular scientists, standing out on a shaky limb.

You are entitled to have and share your opinion.


There are as many, if not more scientific theories as to the origin of our universe, as there are differing religious bodies, such as Christianity, Hindu, Abrahamic, Muslim, etc.

Nonsense. There are thousands of creation stories. There are a handful of "scientific theories".

Here is but one of many theories as to the creation of our three-dimensional universe. This one is by Niayesh Afshordi, an astrophysicist with Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada, who proposes that our three-dimensional universe floats as a membrane in a “bulk universe” that has four dimensions and that the “Bulk Universe” has four dimensional stars, which go through the same life cycles as our three-dimensional stars.

What's your point? Are you trying to equate the scientific conjecture of a 21st-century astrophysicist to the imaginings of ignorant humans 6000 years ago? Why?


Which of the many scientific theories as to the creation of our universe do you accept by faith and faith alone?

It does not require faith to be honest and say: Currently none of the few scientific theories regarding the origin of our universe has amassed an overwhelming amount of supportive evidence.





You list yourself as a "biblical believer". Is your belief based on a literal reading of Genesis? The literal account of creation as recorded in Genesis has overwhelming scientific evidence refuting it.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Humans built them. That humans built things is evidence of human design and human creation.

Maybe, maybe not.

The humans who were around at the time said the gods built them.

No... the empirical sciences always recognize when a mind was involved.

Even in these far-less-elegant structures, a mind is claimed as their source. Unknown maybe, but still an intelligence is recognized.

Good point!

Even the logic of nature, while probably simple, is sufficiently complex to imagine there was necessarily a creator.
 

Dan From Smithville

What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Staff member
Premium Member
Cosmological theories are formulated by scientists, and theories by definition, are the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists, who are prone to change their minds, leaving those who believed by faith alone, the original theory of those particular scientists, standing out on a shaky limb.

There are as many, if not more scientific theories as to the origin of our universe, as there are differing religious bodies, such as Christianity, Hindu, Abrahamic, Muslim, etc.

Here is but one of many theories as to the creation of our three-dimensional universe. This one is by Niayesh Afshordi, an astrophysicist with Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada, who proposes that our three-dimensional universe floats as a membrane in a “bulk universe” that has four dimensions and that the “Bulk Universe” has four dimensional stars, which go through the same life cycles as our three-dimensional stars.

The most massive ones explode as supernovae, and their central core collapses into a black hole, like in our universe---only in four-dimension. The four-dimensional black hole has its own four dimensional “Event Horizon,” the boundary between the inside and the outside of a black hole.

In a three-dimensional universe, the event horizon appears to be two dimensional. In a four-dimensional universe, it appears to be three dimensional. The four-dimensional black hole, then blows apart, with the leftover material forming a three-dimensional membrane surrounding a three dimensional event horizon, which expands---and is essentially our universe.

So, according to the theory proposed by Niayesh Afshordi, our universe is the vomited-up guts of a fourth dimensional black hole. The expansion of the event horizon explains our universe's expansion; the fact that its creation stems from another 4D universe explains the weird temperature uniformity.

Which of the many scientific theories as to the creation of our universe do you accept by faith and faith alone?
I am not sure why cosmology popped up, but it is not uncommon for creationists to try and confuse discussions of evolution by throwing in irrelevant references to cosmology.

What is your source for your definition of theory? Either you know nothing about the meaning of a scientific theory or you are creating a straw man argument with this incorrect and inaccurate definition. Your definition of a theory is possible applicable to the colloquial meaning of theory, but it is not the definition of a scientific theory.

Scientific theories are based on evidence and accepted or rejected on that basis and they are not a belief that is followed as religious declarations are followed. There are not as many of them as there are religious beliefs and not everything a scientist says is a theory. Scientists have personal opinions too. They can exercise forays into conjecture.

What I read was your conjecture, largely based on erroneous ideas and misinformation regarding science.
 

Dan From Smithville

What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Staff member
Premium Member
Oh, grief!
The mere fact that an organism’s diverse cellular structures are full of information arranged to function — to excel in function — and cooperate with other structures existing within it, not to mention the intangible nature of the symbiosis between organisms, the evidence is all around you! Amazing you don’t see it! (Are you just toeing the company line? Do you make money in the biology field?)


So the Pyramids built themselves?

The Moabite stone etched itself?

No... the empirical sciences always recognize when a mind was involved.

Even in these far-less-elegant structures, a mind is claimed as their source. Unknown maybe, but still an intelligence is recognized.

Why not with the more complicated DNA? Why not with systems like the symbiosis between unrelated lifeforms? Why not with another intangible: sentience?

Take care, cousin
Do you know of any examples of something that was designed and the evidence indicates that it was not of human design? Remember, you have no evidence for design in the biological world, all you have is your unsupported claims, so do not persist in falling back on those claims in your answer.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Excuse me, The Anointed.

I have never heard of Niayesh Afshordi, so I am not familiar with his work.

Is this here (see the quote below), Afshordi‘s premise about the supernova and blackhole, or is yours?

The most massive ones explode as supernovae, and their central core collapses into a black hole, like in our universe---only in four-dimension.

Just by reading this part, either you or Afshordi is misunderstanding what a supernova is and what a blackhole is.

A supernova don’t turn into a blackhole.

A supernova is a very highly energetic explosion of massive star, when the core collapse. Usually in this case, the outer layers of star, will send debris of heavier elements than helium and hydrogen and stellar dust into space.

Sometimes, the core itself are also debris during massive explosion, but sometimes the supernova leave star’s core behind as degenerated star, known as a white dwarf.

In either case, the aftermath of supernova, the star don’t become a blackhole. There wouldn’t be enough materials to exploded star into a blackhole.

During exploding stage of supernova, the energy and heat output are hot enough to convert helium atoms into heavier elements (eg carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, nickel, iron, etc), and such change reactions is called a Supernova Nucleosynthesis. And for brief period of time, the supernova make it brighter than a galaxy.

The blackhole is more like implosion than explosion (eg nova, supernova), although that’s not the complete picture.

You are sort of correct, that there is a collapse of star’s core, but a blackhole will only occur in a very massive star, many more times more massive than what would cause a star to become supernova.

When a massive core of collapse, the gravitational field is hundred times higher, causing the outer layers of star into the core, making the core even hotter and denser than before, and will keep pulling other objects (eg planets, moons, asteroids, gases, etc) into the blackhole, when it pass through the Event Horizon. The new objects that get pulled into blackhole, will make the blackhole more massive, thereby gravitational forces become even more powerful, powerful enough to even pull light in.

Despite the high energy of the blackhole, the Event Horizon prevent the blackhole from being directly observed.

I will repeat, when a star goes supernova, it doesn’t turn into blackhole, because there wouldn’t be enough mass to cause a blackhole.

Either Afshordi doesn’t understand the differences between supernovas and (stellar) blackholes, or you don’t.
 
Top