There Any Side Effect Suger Free Gold

how fast time flies.

look at, behold. on my last post, I was still 18 and now? now I'm old. general since my last post as a lot has happened. Julia has her 18th celebrated, we had at school our ability to prove as a choir, I got my term paper finally behind me, another MBWTEYP concert to stand, I was a couple of times in the theater, was working, was with ner friend in Mainz, was allowed to just Bülent Ceylan View & talk to him: D, was met in Berlin and have great people, have kept their World Cup in soccer, was in Scotland on a study tour was with his girlfriend every now and then go and have letztenends on Wednesday celebrated the birthday of Joan. [ here again all the best later. :) Had ]
to ego just written, I noticed not that much good stuff was going on. I will not report in detail about everything, but some pictures I can show them. time to time. but the weather is just at the moment far too great for it. I will disappear on the balcony and read. tonight I'll go then volunteer to Johanna to Ludwigshafen [! ] because there is currently street theater festival. I look forward to. :)

Big Thick Adult Nappies

..

it was complained that I no longer write. is because I just do not want and above all had no time! will change but from now on! I have to say since last week Vacation can finally back blogging as often as I like. somehow got ego already missed ...

Do Fujifilm Polaroid Work On One Step 600

is well founded criticism of the Intelligent Design?

I have just stumbled on another blog on an interesting post. Unfortunately, the author expresses himself but not only linked to another page that does not prevent me to relate to specific issues. So first of all the links:

http://wissenschaftkanal.blogspot.com/2010/07/ist-die-kritik-intelligent-design.html

http://www.intelligentdesigner.de/kritik. html

What we see are some, probably many times in the space of evolutionary theorists Asked statements or criticisms of Intelligent Design, the core of the post. Intelligent Design is a reflection of the universe under the Assuming that there has been an intelligence or is that influence its development or has had. Let's look at the points so once ...

" criticism 1: The intelligent design theory is not applicable to the original question "
Caveat: I can not imagine that a critic of Intelligent Design such a statement true. They criticized the Intelligent Design, so you are doing this not only in terms of life but in general. Why life should be completely natural, but other things have come about control? For me, this is little sense.
" as if no question that information exclusively outside of living organisms can be created by intelligence "Then I have to say a few words, because this statement is for everything else of importance. First of all, bordering the one who makes this statement, clearly living off of dead matter and committed itself to the intelligent design. Besides, he believes that a reduced entropy compared to the surroundings, so order, no information. For this I must someday write in more detail, very interesting topic. In short, the author denied this statement, but even the people the status of an information-containing structure. Last but not least is the actual statement that information is only through intelligence is absurd. At first glance, one might think of a laptop containing definitely more information in the form of order than the non-assembled, individual parts lying around. And of course, is only man able to assemble it into a functioning unit with low entropy, ie, an intelligence. But if you look natural phenomena such as a star that is formed by gravitational in its origin "by itself" from gases low density of information to a defined plasma ball higher information content, we come to ponder. As I said on this subject, there is still much more to write, I'll catch up one day ... When
I see the rest of the text related to the actual topic and not spare him to me, therefore.

" criticism 2: The intelligent design theory is nothing more than creationism in a new guise "
The course is not so - says the author. Finally, the theory of evolution and creationism have more in common than the latter with the intelligent design, said intelligent design is superior argument. For now do not reflect the entire text with discreetly hidden, ironic tone, must I take it together now:
1) The theory of evolution makes claims or assumptions about the evidence
2) The theory of evolution is a belief (Presumably, that materialism is meant)
3) argues against experimental evidence and observable facts
4) ID theory describes processes and analyzes them for signs of intelligent origin
5) The ID theory has both macroevolution and abiogenesis refuted
6 ) are the false statements made by the ET of scientists against the reality of defending
7) scientist who trust in the ET, shall religious / missionary zeal the day trying to establish dogma and defend and take the reality fit handle on the theory
I think I reject me not too far out the window when I go for all of the above two explanatory models Offering:
- The author of the text supported his thesis specifically and deliberately false information
- The author of the text is defective and / or misinformed and know there is simply no better
Although I tend not to believe in the second statement. In contrast to all the YouTube videos here on the correct spelling, sentence structure reasonable and something like a line of reasoning is evident.

Well, let's look so once the reality of which I read since I at around intelligentdesigner.de miss. But first I call on the author to substantiate his claims with anything rather than simply put in the room.
1) A scientific theory can not be proven, it is the principle of falsifiability. This means that a theory requires a single, valid counter-evidence to prove to be too wrong. This was achieved in the ET yet. On the other hand, there are a wealth of observations in favor of the theory.
2) The ET is not a belief but a scientific theory. Such formulations serve only the polarization.
3) This is a simple lie , the opposite is the case. I ask for a receipt.
4) That's right. Why pure observation should give people a plus interpretation of evidence for ID is a mystery to me though.
5) Neither macro-evolution abiogenesis are not refuted. If I am mistaken I also ask for documents.
6) The theory of evolution can not be defended in order to be recognized. It is enough to refute it to them out of the world. What is lacking right now.
7) Here the author talks likely with the scientist, whom he all see tomorrow in the mirror

In summary, the answer to the second point of criticism is nothing more than a collection of unsubstantiated statements which will attract the reader to the "right" side. If here are documents, which I do not go out, I can answer with more than a correction of the facts.

" criticism 3: Information in living things can change very gradually "
should be here now shown in a graphic way that intermediate forms have a level of development of a characteristic to a higher can never prevail. This is illustrated by means of a sentence ("Anyone who criticizes others is not exempt from its own power .") Can be applied to the wonderfully to the author of the text.
However, the language does not behave like DNA, the comparison is quite inappropriate. Unfortunately, the author does not have enough web space available to compare DNA code, so we must content ourselves with the example sentences. Too bad, it remains a rational consideration of the issue impossible.
Of course we want to let the alleged refutation of the point are not as criticism and take our hand, the example that the author obviously has been lacking. The eye . Very often it is argued that an eye can only function as a full member and intermediate forms are condemned not to work or worse. That through genetic modification handicap will be selected, I do not dispute at all. However, it is here, as with other popular examples of a misconception. On this subject, as Dan-Eric Nilsson research from Lund University in Lund, Sweden. In 2009 he published an analysis the evolution of vision, which is freely available on the web. In short, the article on the one hand the reason for a change in the visual system are discussed. On the other shares Nilsson us the development of the eye in four main steps, understand the basis of which is a transformation in small steps very well be:
1) light-sensitive cells on the skin, which can form only light and dark,
2) invagination of the light-sensitive cells in the skin, where the direction of light incidence is determined,
3) a narrowing of the surface of the indentation (similar to an iris), which allows a sharper image,
4) the formation of a lens of water that provides a sharp image with high light sensitivity

The development of the eye can be a smooth transition consider

Who wants to see the total study , the click here :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781862/?tool=pubmed Now we come to the other criticisms that have been submitted by readers of the site and therefore much less useful without effect such as the first point.

Critique Point 4: It would be interesting, ID theorists would say clearly what When and where the structural designer has just made. Then they had something of a testable statement. "
Columbo , watches a murder that initially looks like an accident. It quickly becomes clear that the dead man was the victim of a crime. And it follows that there must have been a culprit. At first glance an interesting parallel to the nature or intelligent design. Unfortunately, here the complexity of nature is not understood. But what awaits us instead? No surprise, but the same old pseudo-argument.
"If the ID theory finally applied to the original question and the question is how the diversity of life and what is the cause of their development, to apply, the procedure is always the same. Complex information [...] and complex, finely tuned and interacting mechanisms, functions and structures in nature, especially in living organisms, suggest involuntarily to an intelligent cause. "
This may be the case. However, the first impression is not always the right one. Now it is somewhat ludicrous, but first a few facts. The author assumes that the ID theory the best explanation for our observations offers. Which implies that it suspects a Creator who is behind the complex systems that we see today. Such Creator of the laws of nature would have to stand and not be tied to causal relationships. It would be virtually omnipotent. Finally, the author claims (in the last quote) that there should be at first sight of a creative intelligence, you look at nature.
is now back Columbo. Of course, a creator, just like the murderer in the crime, his work would be developed as natural or want to represent accident. Why would he want to make sense to me although a little out, but we let it stand and take the once so far together said in a Conclusion: The author of
intelligentdesign.de claims to that of his creator naturally arose as to expose the universe disguised by simple observation. Such an intelligent designer, which, as already noted, must be omnipotent, it gets so obviously not out to disguise his universe enough. So sloppy so far was not a single offender Columbo. So let's from a designer equipped with unimaginable power, we must assume that his work is as natural camouflaged hidden so well that probably no one can ever figure it out.

What we have now, the bottom line? Either the universe is designed to reach full - what we would be necessary because of the omnipotence of the designer but never know. Or the universe is actually incurred in a natural way. In both cases we have to understand the universe as a natural origin, as a result of the above, we never had a chance to be a created by an omnipotent being recognize it and, of course, disguised as a universe, each as such. Thus, the theory of evolution supplies in both cases, the more realistic description.

Conveniently, the author provides us with the reduction of ID theory to a statement on. In order to prove that intelligent design should not find out what it was for a Creator, when and where he has established or what toothpaste he used. But only That there was an intelligent designer. Unfortunately, that is, as we have already noted above, an impossibility.

all we have to say that not from the intelligent design theory, the explanations of the car much more is left as the image of a thrown in the room, not provable speculation. Off mainly because the ID supporters claim so much on science. must be taken in the falsifiable statements.

" criticism 5: ID theorists always bring examples of the art. As more and Paley shimmers with his 'proof' in that objects created have a creator. Differ Creatures that are able to change and increase, not fundamentally different from objects? "
The comments on software, which account for about two-thirds of the text and, unfortunately, only seems to be different from the subject of criticism examples, I leave off times. Irrelevant, because the criticism is not contradictory.
And the rest is, unfortunately, only polemics along the lines of "what is most likely?" Or "Look at the complexity that must be created", is on the other hand, evidence dispensed generously. In this respect, I can save some time and move on to the next point.

" Criticism 6: Intelligent Design representatives argue the following rule: can not work evolution, so it was intelligent design "
to be continued ...

How Long Doesdoxycycline Urethritis

we descended from monkeys or we are creatures of God?

Uploaded in the YouTube category" education ", played by . Albrecht Graf von Brandenstein-Zeppelin promises the video is an objective discussion of the topics in general.

"Is the theory of evolution wrong idea?
Scientific evidence is lacking.
Is evolution theory is a deliberate attack on the Creator God? "

... says the description of the video. Formulated a little one-sided and a look at the life of Count casts further doubt. Wikipedia indicates that he owner, publisher and editor of the Catholic newspaper "Today church" is. He is also Chairman of Medjugorje Germany (Medjugorje is a village in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where since 1981 to Mary, the mother of Jesus appear,), a member of some katholoischen groups and mission projects involved. However, we remain unbiased and

us look at the video again.

Creation or Evolution - Part 1

01:10
The soul of man God is present, the first based on the official church opinion finding. Due to the above listed activities of Brandenstein-Zeppelin, we are not surprised and look forward to the central question: where does the body? Since the church here has not yet formulated an opinion, is the topic for discussion released and is now illuminated. be

Even here it should be noted that there is likely to return to a "vs. creationism. Evolution is tantamount. The question of whether man created by God or (!) Has been shaped by evolution, is a clear indication. Actually I am interested to exchange ideas with moderate believers, the date the earth not just a few thousand years, and scientific methods to attach a certain relevance, much more. Unfortunately, you'll find from many of the variety in the network. Well, because given the lurid, polarizing videos, blog posts etc. more clicks and does not have the creationist thinking believers no exaggerated need to talk. Further in the text ...

03:40
"This big bang theory convinced me at all personally. Since my holy book already seems plausible. "
have thus, my hopes for an interesting video evaporated as far as possible, and all fears confirmed. If so is a respectable gentleman in suit and with a title in front of the camera and an open question, no statement argues, as demanded by the audience something other than an answer to the question of just under four minutes in the first of four videos. Also says that so early Outen, that a physically absurd tradition of the Earth, which puts the incorrect scientifically recognized methods such as the C14 dating, understood as literal truth and, at least in principle, logical Big Bang, which as a theory on a comfortable cushion of confirming observations rests prefer, something about the person of Brandenstein-Zeppelin. We still have the remains analysis sarcastic nature, the rest of the video can appear hopefully more entertaining than it is ...

Where the rest of the first part of disks is not much. The serious man in the suit still only starts the attempt, his feeling of the rightness of the doctrine of creation with eyewitness accounts of Jesus to support action. So continue with second part

Creation or Evolution - Part 2

And already we are presented with some wisdom: the literal interpretation of the Bible is almost impossible and not sensible. Thank you. Second. We must be grateful to the Church that us the choice of Bible content and its interpretation decreases. A certain church affiliation I was so struck at the start already.

04:05
"... no one has until now been scientifically proven that there was the big bang and that evolution has actually taken place. It's just an idea. And personally for me a not very plausible idea. It can slam the only [...] if anything there that can explode. [...] And why should such a thing complicated by an explosion may have been due to down like the rest of creation. By a bang creation is destroyed. "

finally presents us Albrecht Graf von Brandenstein-Zeppelin the full extent of his ignorance . While it is not just great to have no knowledge of physics and biology, compared to all the people on Youtube, are not even whole sentences or control their limbs smoothly such a knowledge gap appears almost irrelevant. However, be equipped, as extensive with misinformation, but do not connect to the public and form.

That the Evolution is said to have taken place - past tense - is the first point, and shows us that the speaker has a lack of knowledge in the field, about which he gives a lecture, no clear distinction between evolution and Genesis into existence gets. From the mouth of the Earl of evolution also appears as an act of creation, which has just initiated only not of God but an ominous explosion. And complete.
We, as readers continue building blog, know that evolution is an ongoing process that takes place still.

Then the explosion . An explosion is a reaction, a rapid and sharp rise of temperature and pressure with the result. The pressure wave created by a strong volume expansion of gases, much energy is released in a short time in a small space. Hence the well-known destructive effect. So we have
bottom line certain elements or molecules together produce and respond by extending the three-dimensional space, a pressure wave. Where is the problem with the Big Bang of the count? It's simple: the space in which to spread the pressure wave could, was missing. The chemical constituents of such an explosion as well. And time, could play in the response, also the last time.
Granted, the initial conditions are neither observed nor calculated, although the latter could change with a comprehensive theory of physics. An explosion was the big bang is not. In contrast to an explosion that spreads in space, namely the Big Bang began to expand the space itself. And with him the time. This is the point of the theory, the Most problems arise. How has the expansion of space to present itself? Imagine a classroom where one is sitting at his table, and around, like in a classroom, it is usual, many other tables are added. Would expand to monitor not the classroom but the space, so the three-dimensional grid, in which we are all of us, one would find that all the tables away from each other. No matter what place you sit. In parallel, one in the 20th Century observed that all galaxies are moving away from us. This was the discovery of the expansion of the universe. And from here to the Big Bang, there is only a small step. By determining the speed with which the Space expands, we can calculate back to the past. How big was the universe 1000 years ago, before 1 million years ago, 1 billion years ago, when we come to a starting point, have begun on the extension do? Some 14 billion years ago. And since the speed of light is finite and the "speed" in the universe is because a light year is the distance that can cover the light in one year, we see 14 billion light-years in each direction, if we turn our gaze to the night sky. All that is further away remains hidden from us, because we still could not reach that light.

Creation or Evolution - Part 3

03:10
"... this death of the weakest zebra does not mean that the other zebras zebras suddenly give birth to live or an antelope or mutate to the giraffe. [...] An evolution always takes place within a species but never across species. "
Gradually, I feel strong about my oral German-Abi recalls. No book even begin to read, including the blurbs but rich. No idea of the different eras, the biographies, or anything else. And in the test itself then anything zusammengestammelt, hoping to get any serious question that could reveal the gap in scientific knowledge - get hold of a few points and quickly disappeared from the scene!
The difference to our counts is that he had to face in the video revealing any questions. And that he has given his half-knowledge of the voluntary and public.

Well, I for my part, I'll still watch the rest, keep a comfortable smoking and the fingers still. Seriously respond to comments like the latter is simply not possible. Have fun ...

Creation or Evolution - Part 4

Casio Frogman Toronto Sell

The Collapse of Darwinism and the Fact of Creation Part 3 of 6

third act of the tragedy of the decline of the natural sciences. Be curious to see what will be played in a few minutes Darwin to Lamarck and why the continuing research refuted more and more parts of the theory ...

THE DECLINE OF THE EVOLUTION THEORY and THE TRUTH OF CREATION [Part 3 / 6]

As we have noted that previous attempts as evidence that life can arise from inanimate matter, failed because the test set was defective, we deal first not continue with the comments at the beginning of the video. Still lack sufficient knowledge of the precise initial conditions, ie above all the chemical components that were involved. Despite all the synthetic biology one of the emerging research fields in biology in general.

01:45
From here it is all conjecture, despite initially a good description of the evolutionary selection . Added that the selection does not generally affect short-term but changes on long time scales the gene pool. In striking was that not "sorted out" just old and weak animals but also those which have for the current environment less suitable gene variants.
What organisms are ultimately preferable, then? Those that are less susceptible to disease, particularly strong animals, may the opposite sex more attractive-looking and some that show the specific adaptations to the environment. Why just them? Animals that become sick easily, have a clear survival disadvantage compared with resistant animals. You can bring in dangerous situations less often contribute the full power, less attractive to the opposite sex to die, often from diseases. Therefore, the probability of fathering offspring, less than in animals whose genome has greater resistance to disease. Physically strong animals in turn have greater opportunities the battle for sexual partners, even alone, this point increases the chance of offspring or the transfer of own genes. The higher survival in a dangerous environment to come. Often increase the attractiveness to potential partners of the opposite sex a significant role. Thus, there are birds, because of their huge tail feathers can fly any more. This same springs but they make very attractive to the females. Why? A bird that is huge, flying disabling and can make energy more expensive end of tail feathers, and still well over the coming rounds, must have a strong genome and therefore an ideal partner for the procreation of descendants. Finally, the specific environmental adaptations . Let us take an ecological niche in a forest in which the food a specific species, because of me any larvae, usually in thin cavities is in trees. And now two birds of the species that are anatomically completely identical - with one exception. The beak of a bird is a little thinner and a little bit longer. Nothing unusual, a small variation in the genes responsible for the beak. We humans have finally all have different noses, hair colors, and so on. But the second bird will prevail. It comes easily to his food, it has therefore easier to survive and shows more offspring. In the long term, the genes for short beaks are gradually being sorted out, the population will have on average longer and thinner beaks. How selection.

02:50
Again we come to on Youtube probably most quoted part of Darwin's "Origin of Species", the difficulties of the theory . Here Darwin is quoted as saying: "As long as the emergence of any useful changes, natural selection has no effect". That's right. Changes but do not change the fact that this case has yet occurred, nor any sound proof against the theory.

Next, there's a little School Biology . A brief description of Lamarck's thinking is emphasized in the theory of transmission of acquired adaptations in life from one generation to the next special.
Darwin [...] has not yet thought up a fantastic dramatic example. "
direct switching to Darwin, Lamarck's theory nor in mind now is the impression that could emerge spontaneously from bears whales. According to Lamarck's theory absurd and the followers Darwin, Lamarck had thought a little further developed towards madness, the viewers for the long-awaited clarification be willing to no longer of scientific charlatans a false truth need to be sold.

So now the Enlightenment: Darwin was the only reason why, on his own in the eyes of the speaker from today's perspective, absurd theory, because there was no time to their respective research fields of biology including genetics, microbiology or biochemistry.

funnily enough seem to be following a host of observations and experiments that support the theory of evolution (no, I'm starting here in no listings, the skeptics might go to http://pubmed.gov and see for yourself) now claims to Lamarck's true. At least it has been found in the recent past is that certain environmental factors such as famines over Impact across generations. Unlike some versions on YouTube, considering that this finding refutes the theory of evolution as the mechanism he seems to be epigenetic in nature. This relatively new area of research examined the activation and deactivation of gene segments by the so-called methylation. It is possible that may change the properties of the genome by these same control mechanism.

Do not worry, the rest is yet to ...

Root Beer Concentrate Extract

time dilation - Why is there no truth

advance a little video that will explain about what this is all about. Unfortunately, not the clearest explanation for this short and sweet. Once again, we need not ...

time dilation

happy the believer speaks of the one truth that stands above everything. God's truth. In this article I will once again open question entirely, as it is with God or his truth: this question is irrelevant to our view of the truth. The fact is the fact that every man truth, and they had to exercise the pure truth of God only on his human, subjected to the laws of nature, subjective way. This applies to everyone.

Why?

Einstein showed with his theory of relativity that everything is relative. A saying that everybody knows, under which only a very few can imagine anything.
Before Einstein, it was considered that there was a time that would elapse universally the same speed. The room was (figuratively, of course, thought there were three dimensions), flat and unchanging and the heavenly bodies, of moons to galaxies moving static in this space.
Then came the break. The relativity theory of Einstein claimed that mass curves space. This is the central point which is of importance to us. A favorite illustration is the cloth that the space the universe. Stretched it to its four corners, and got into a marble, then a dent is in the cloth around the marble. Of course, one can imagine the effect in three dimensions instead of two, in principle, the example shows, however, what masses do with the space.
Ultimately, what happens to the cloth, nothing but gravity . Every mass, be it a particle of dust or a star like our Sun, makes for a "dip" in the three-dimensional space, which is all the greater, the heavier the object. If one now before our sun with its ~ 1,989,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes in the center of the solar system, one can imagine that their impact according to the space is large, its gravity very strongly. In fact, the sun dominates, with its strong curvature of the space the entire solar system and holds all in his body located in their orbits. As the Earth gravitationally dominates its immediate surroundings and keeps the moon in its orbit. If you imagine the following picture from the moon, he would move on the edge of the funnel, which generates the mass of the earth in a circle. driven away by its own velocity from the Earth, attracted by the curvature of space by it, there is a balance that leads to a stable orbit.

Earth also curves space

We hold: any mass curves space and influenced by objects in their vicinity. What does this have to do with time?

we take again the picture and imagine just two light beams. One moves on the blue line that runs forward in the image from lower right to upper left. The other moves on the thick line on the back, passing through the curvature of space. Known: the speed of light is a fixed upper limit. So what happens with the light rays? Both need for the same distance on their different paths the same time.
But how can that be? The light beam by the curvature had a longer way, could finally not move faster than light. The solution: time passes slower near masses! The light beam with the "detour" was therefore at the right time, because time is slower near the earth passes. The jet had to say, they take a longer distance to travel, but had, from the safety of the other light beam seen more time.

has also, as mentioned in the video at the top, shown that the time is perceived differently by different observers. A logical consequence of the foregoing. Depending on where I am, I experience my environment differently than others. In fact, time passes for a man who lives at sea level, is already slower than a mountain people. These are only minimal differences, but they are available and of great importance.

All these experiments often proven discoveries leading to a conclusion that is: 's all relative! No matter where I am, no matter how fast I move, I find myself always in a different frame of reference than any other person in the world. There is no time but many times, depending on weight and exercise. With the result that the observations of each person can only ever be subjective.

And so far we have only considered the area outside of our brain. Every human being develops in the course of his life, a unique filter system that filters out from the masses of the environmental stimuli necessary for us. This can be illustrated simply. A man walks on the way to work site by a pedestrian zone. Afterwards, ask him what color the shoes have a street artist, he has happened. It is clear that the visual stimuli of the artist's eye of the respondents have achieved. But he will not remember the shoes, and has probably not even noticed, because for his current situation, the way to work, had no relevance.
simplify our lives, we are unconsciously. The brain filters in every situation only the image areas, noise, out stimuli that are currently relevant. On the other hand, there are autistic people who do not have this filter function. Although they are sometimes seemingly superhuman, like the extremely precise, correct perspective and to draw accurate to the last window of a city from the head after a short helicopter flight capable. But they have significant problems in everyday life, because little or nothing is filtered and constantly has an uncontrollable flood of stimuli to them.

summary, the structure of space-time does not allow the objective to make at each point in space valid observations. And makes the filter function of our brain finally only a very small fraction of the actual environmental impressions in the conscious perception by.

What makes any claim to the truth or the recognition of an absolute truth appear absurd .

The Best Of Marilyn Chambers Book One

The Collapse of Darwinism and the Fact of Creation Part 2 of 6

And on we go with the classic pseudo-scientific analysis of the evolution theory. After you wanted us to make clear in the first video that the universe is tuned so finely that it would create mandatory, and may Darwin are as amateur naturalist and advocate of materialism and the spontaneous emergence only wrong, it is the second video with the Stanley Miller's famous experiment on.

THE DECLINE OF THE EVOLUTION THEORY and THE TRUTH OF CREATION [Part 2 / 6]

Today is one, I think, generally believe that the Ursuppenexperiment not the actual conditions during the transition was reflected dead into living matter. As mentioned earlier, recent research suggests rather hydrothermal vents out on the ocean floor, which still lives a variety of organisms. According to this hypothesis was the sun, the first energy source, but chemical energy that exit to the sources from the Earth's interior. So formed in such outlets still without biological intervention purely geological methane from CO2, the conditions seem ideal for a conversion of inorganic into organic molecules.

1:30 "The biggest, insurmountable obstacle to the evolution theory is the incredible complexity a living cell, which can not be explained by coincidences"
Here it becomes clear what approach to such a video and corresponding faithful advocates of the doctrine of creation in the head needs. Not only this video but also in many other discussions as well as YouTube and over again, a point is clear. As soon as something is still not fully understood and has a high complexity, it may not have come naturally. In earlier times, this belief extended example, the weather that the believer direct sign from God brought. Until it was researched sufficiently.
Another problem with the ubiquitous " random is. Here you have to look at the evolution of a bit more accurate. Random mutations, so unplanned changes in the genome. The copy of such quantities of information must inevitably lead to errors. There are indeed repair enzymes, the DNA will remain in original condition as possible, but are also not perfect. Finally ensure environmental influences such as radiation for mutations. When finally comes to reproductive mutations the union of two genomes, which provide for further changes in the offspring. All this means that each of the next generation has an altered genome.
This was the chance. Now to what is no accident - and apparently no one knows what the makers of the video: selection . This one describes a process which runs as follows: a group of animals entering a new ecological niche that it has to be room. They consume food to survive attempts, and offers among its members a range of genetic variation. Now is our niche as of course no paradise and offers some members of the group benefits, other disadvantages. Thus, for example, giraffes with long necks in an area with tall growing food better chance of survival than short-necked giraffes . As a result, the animals are better adapted to the group more likely to survive until she can testify young when the disadvantaged group. In other words: the favored group has a higher chance of their genes to the offspring to pass. In our example, giraffes, this means that the genes of the extinct short necks in the group by and by, as their carrier, the giraffes with short necks, often die before reproductive than their colleagues with the long necks.
shall fix by a gene variant and makes for a very long time for the gradual change of the entire population. Of a new type is when the changes are so far advanced that a reproduction with former fellow is no longer possible. However, still lacks a clear definition of the species concept. Clearly, however, that the selection is not accidental. Rather, it is a word that represents the environmental conditions that lead to the disappearance of maladjusted and transfer of highly suitable genetic variations.
brainwashing but I will not run, of course, who wants to can continue the pattern too complex - Hold the "God". I am just trying to clear up misunderstandings.

3:35 "Even in the most advanced laboratories in the world it is not possible to generate from inanimate matter is a living cell."
This is natural and, unfortunately, correct. But in contrast to what the "documentary" is said (that the research field at the end, would not plunk down more white and preferably all), is here researching a lot lately and initial breakthroughs have been achieved. It has been possible this year, a completely liberated from DNA, a modified bacterium genome of another implant, which after the transfer fully functional was - and contained an e-mail address in the genetic code. The synthetic biology is still relatively young, keep the research already failed for now would be inappropriate. The gained insight that the task is impossible should, in any case not a scientist from the field, and that the experiments were set is simply a false information.

07:20 "Of course, not such an unusual structure formed by itself and by pure coincidence"
Da based the whole video on the misconception , evolution would be randomly completely, there is not much to say on this record. Of course is the DNA did not occur by chance. The ensuing argument, which leads to the conclusion that only God (or Allah because of me) the only possible origin may be, is therefore invalid. And as in the rest of the video but nothing else happens, we consider the second part checked off as.

Images Of Jock Itch On Scrotum

The evangelical mission abroad

While I was deciding whether the average Christian a brainwashing is subjected up to the viewer wanted (I am of the opinion that this is not the lion's share in the form of the case), that the assessment of the following videos the most easily and hopefully should lead to a clear conclusion ...

Brake Bible School - Christian evangelical fundamentalist missionaries

In this interesting post by Frontal21 a new page I mentioned earlier identified evangelicals. I think here you can without outing yourself as a biased, definitely talking about brainwashed. Children (who I feel really sorry) to be educated and trained fundamentalist missionaries who are reluctant to permit their mission without paying big bucks and, ultimately, are willing to leave their lives to mission work. The former can perhaps explain it so that the hazardous and both under international and often by national law illegal missionary work outwardly as adventurous training (the mission is officially actually " Internship "), and the exploration of foreign countries, an interesting trip is sold and so probably also Christian parents who are not willing to send their child full of joy for God in the death, moves to the figures of the 1050 Eur. That the children themselves are ready, however, for an organization to which they have previously thrown a lot of money in the throat, to risk their lives, which leaves doubt.

" In view of the Great Commission of Jesus Christ [...] to every active and be involved primarily in the Mission . "
The fact that both the laws and the laws of other cultures are obviously violates their religion is not part of the text. And the training seems to be to be aware of the fact, otherwise we would probably regular missionaries and no underground train "fighter".
is in stark contrast, in the Brake'schen texts "because it can be worked out in another culture very clear (and must), [...] what means respect for other cultures etc.".

" We bring the Gospel to Muslims. We serve them in practical ways. We guide them to follow Jesus . "
are probably convinced the missionaries actually like this, the Muslims to help with their work. With the view they should be in the respective countries, however only game in town. At least for me to make most Muslims do not feel as they should be helped in terms of strength of faith or God. After all, the local fundamentalists pretext comes to regard the Western invaders as the enemy.

Finally, a little "surprise": "We work and on the basis of the German Evangelical Alliance (DEA) and are members . Which means: the largest German evangelical association with its 1.3 million members, supports the deployment of young people in crisis regions and for whose death approvingly accepted.

Plus Size Hippie Wear

education for escapist agnostics and atheists part 2 of 2

And on we go with the headache-causing speculation about cause and effect, agnostics and atheists, reality and illusion ...

unrealistic agnostics and atheists disprove God with your mind? Part 2 of 2

After we have learned in the first part eleven o'clock agonizing minutes that agnostics spend their lives trying to nachzulagen a question mark, that there are causal connections and chance is intelligent, we want to improve their skills can now continue to maybe someday perform with a clear view of reality!

And after I now have eight minutes of the second part saw I advise everyone NOT to watch the video . The risk of suffering a random (haha), brain tumor, is significantly increased. Also, I think I can compress written in five minutes, including comment.

After the agnostic right at the start a little pity, and were then pulled completely from the market to be given two examples:

1) A person found in his kitchen cupboard a long missing object he had thought lost, again by chance
2) Someone found at a rest stop, where he accidentally turns fatigue catch a long miss believed person again

The following is a minute-long argument, the one leads to another and after eight minutes is we conclude that the random causal relationships at all possible, and that makes no accident nothing happened. Since we got so already declared that chance is targeted, has a will and intelligent (I dare the evil assumption and say the ominous coincidence just " God ") proved we get here is that God constantly in our Life intervenes.
Unfortunately, the derivation of the result about as credible as the dissolution of an equation in one of my math work at the school came out ... 13 ... 0 =
order not to blaspheme constantly on the chance I am working on more objective approach to the matter. There's cause - and effect. Where the cause leading to effect. The author manages, with some skillful, sometimes confused formulated conclusions, the chance to position them between cause and effect to him then - award intelligence and will - a little less clever. If this preparatory reasoning arrived in the listener is the step, the ubiquitous coincidence can not function without the call to "God", not great.

To anticipate the end of ... "Without Cause no effect" will "Without God no existence."

" This statement from the revelation I could hereby rationally explain "

In the sense - good night

Build A Tech Dech Online

education for escapist agnostics and atheists part 1 of 2

So, one last video, I'm still for you ...

unrealistic agnostics and atheists disprove God with the mind? Part 1 of 2

Today we learn why we are being unrealistic in need of enlightenment. Here the author makes use of the video the weapons of the enemy and will clarify with logic and reason, as it is with God. A major role takes on the sacred question mark - why we are in the course of the video seen.

In the first three to four minutes once the first agnostic it. We learn that their world view, logic and perception is very limited and at a point accessible to an end: the sacred question mark. What this means is not difficult to guess. The agnostic does not deny God, yes it might not. The underlying probably lies the principle of falsifiability of science sprung. This means that something is refuted only if its falsity has been proved. So the agnostic says "I see no evidence for God - but also no evidence to the contrary. Since its existence is not refutable, there is the possibility that it exists. ".
In a blunt question mark, like in the video, you should not reduce this group of people, however. Of course, the agnostic until his death do not know whether God exists or not. The collected but in rare cases, his thinking and life. At least not as much as God collected the lives of his followers.

After so with the poor, the holy question mark after rushing agnostics was completed, one turns to the atheists. This should answer a simple question: can there be an effect without a cause? The document versed audience will think is immediately to the quantum theory, but it will probably not be out here. Especially since I am not sufficiently versed in the field to eliminate a cause of quantum effects. What is meant here in any case the cause of life. But apparently they do not want the audience to demand more from obsolete and ...

After a further one, lasting several minutes and repeat the same question, the knowledge that the unknown causes using can determine their effect (as I have another opinion on this later) (wow believe both that there are causal links!) and an ostentatious alliance between theists and atheists is finally coming to the conclusion: THERE IS A REASON! But which is it ...?

first Coincidence
Here, interestingly, the identification of causes of action based on a further taken up again and illustrated with an example that I am not better could have come up. "When the phone rang, the caller happens to be the picture fell off the wall" For many believers certainly a sign of the video ... but the author knows better.: there is no causal link . What we learn from this? Seemingly related events do not necessarily have a cause-effect relationship! Then another interesting point is taken: the learned, helping us to distinguish apparent from real relationships. We know that it is very unlikely that the ringing of a telephone tears a picture off the wall. Presumably, it is dropped, because the nail has separated from the wall. Without our experience we have had no indication, however, not to believe in a connection between the call and dropped.
Now is the interesting line of thought, unfortunately, something absurd. From what happened derives from the author, that chance must have a cause. "The chance is itself an effect of a cause." It would be beneficial to the understanding, to delete the word "accident" from the line of argument and stated: "Every effect has a cause." But apparently, the web of Learned, chance and life still needed for future versions ...

Our experience tells us that a ringing phone does not fall off the wall pictures

And since we already have the basic and find the kink in the argument , which combines the atheist (which your actually all not to move out to God believing people to a like-minded group?) the ground under their feet. The atheist says clearly that we are "created by chance". However, since "random" is always an effect, but can never be a cause (and here we see why the hitherto undefined word "coincidence" of confusion), is the origin of the accident does not make sense, as a final cause is lacking. What remains for us atheists left so as to link the origin of the accident with a cause? And as we do, as logical as we are, we must also believe that the image has fallen by the call of the wall. Who but me is already having a headache? Do we cut out the clutter so ...

discoverable is surely that - who says that - to write out of everything learned to chance an intelligence must be "
That may be. Only I do not think has ever been any atheist anything of what is similar to that described above, even in the slightest. So it is not bad, that chance is intelligent, we do not believe in him at last.

Apparently the author is not able to break out of his thinking shaped by the faith while he attributed the accident to an intelligence and a will and intentional action. What is not should be taken as personal attack, after all, everyone thinks of us in his own subjective way of thinking and a long pursued, coupled with positive experiences, can be as good as not erase everything.

Thankfully we are after eight agonizing minutes but then offered a summary:
"Rational question ... Is there an effect without a cause? - Answer: NO. The next response from atheists: everything is somehow out of themselves. if we set this rationale is based, we would have to be able to demonstrate. If it is not just speculation, so we look at the possibilities of whether this speculation realistic ... we are on our own, everything is created out of itself. That is, the same effect for the same cause of collapse ... the action itself is its own cause ... we want to check this .. cause and effect can collapse like so ... ... just described? In our existence? Explainable by the mind? I have a headache ... [...] "

... of which I was hoping for much more. At least the author shares with us his headache. The rest of the summary, I hoped to bore you and suggest the end of the video to skip. What happened to the just quoted may be read: the author could the big bang have meant. There is a problem. causal relationships require a linear time . If there were no time, it would cause and effect is not distinguishable from each other. And now for the Big Bang. The processes in the universe can be made from today's date to the past and reconstruct simulate very well - to about 10 ^ -43 seconds after the Big Bang. This limit is called the Planck time and is regarded as a cognitive limit, because the time was not linear in front of her, yet had no continuity. Therefore, information on the time of the Big Bang to 10 ^ -43 seconds meaningless, just like this sentence, then there was before this Planck limit no Time in the true sense. Unfortunately, it is precisely this area that we could shed light on the very first processes in general and the initial conditions of the universe. In order to understand something is a comprehensive physical theory of physics necessary to an association of the four fundamental forces of nature (strong interaction, weak interaction, electromagnetic interaction and gravitational) in a formula, known as the "world formula". In the right direction seems to be formed from various string theories M-theory to go, which requires, however, for eleven dimensions. Interesting field of research, the achievement of real world formula will probably still take a while ...

Continuing with part 2 in next post, let's see if we are enlightened ...

Teacher Shower Favors

Checkmate, Atheists! 10 evidence God ...

who feels out of me at the legendary Brigitte titles slogans such as "10 pounds in just 2 weeks" remember? Click on video and enjoy, so simple, it has still made no Youtube preacher so far ... (!

Checkmate, Atheists

proof # 1
atheists do not hold the Bible for real -? but what is the evidence from the artist conjures up 1-0 off a Bible for Christianity, plain sailing. Perhaps the atheist but said only the truth of the biblical texts? Who knows ...

evidence
# 2 The Bible is definitely true and God's word - because that is what the Bible? This occurs to me only as follows:

prime example of a clean, self-contained proof!

evidence # 3
The Big Bang ... just like that happen? The Big Bang is the only known process without cause. Causality in the relationship is no value. As well, time and space itself arose only with this event. But to put God as the Big Bang in motion would have an effective relationship between cause and effect used, otherwise any action would have an unpredictable or no effect have resulted.
But well, as long as you can set up no extra hypotheses on universal processes, and will continue for the foreseeable future so here is the best refuge for a god. Even I am clear that if people believe the Big Bang itself would have been pushed by God. Called the unknown processes "before" the Big Bang and "outside" of the universe God, we commit no error.
However, one could ask the guy in the video, why not just God and the Big Bang, the only thing without a cause ... should be

proof # 4
Oha, the guy seems to think pretty crass. The scientific community in terms of the age of the Earth, now quite agree. To offer no target for bean counters, we let it be a few billion years old. Each time with the right equipment to verify. However, since two thirds of the Christian home pages that are probably not supported by particle physicists and the like claim that the methodology for determining the classifier Erdal would be erroneous, the matter is eaten ...

evidence
# 5 ... and the first big laugh of my hand! Counterexample: the mouth of a lion also appears exactly on "human pleasure designed to be "...:)

Proof # 6
Slowly, I think, the guy has a very subtle, but extremely entertaining irony. I have prayed for my part, in any case already dozens of times that the cleaning-Sunday even done ... without success!

evidence
# 7 ... I will sometimes completely without comment, that everyone must decide

Proof # 8
atheists claim that homosexuality is against God in order? Wrong. An atheist has just as little justified before God as a Christian before Zeus.

Proof # 9
atheists believe intelligence would be created out of nothing? Wrong. Intelligence has established itself over the course of evolution, because for our species that is neither very tough, strong or fast, has proven advantageous.

proof # 10
I think Christians are not arrogant, because they claim to speak with the Creator of the universe. Rather, because they (I mean of course not all) like to make a claim on the truth and do not feel sorry for believers.

conclusion: the guy is beyond help ...

Is There Software Similar To Jibjab

Evangelicals and evolution

Finally a post to the actual main topic of this blog. But first a few numbers. That the creationism, So the belief in the Genesis of the Bible and God is widely used as the sole creator of all living things exist in the U.S., most people know. That there is more than two thirds of the population of the U.S. concerns rather unwell. But in Germany there is a moderate for the most part but still impressive in number of supporters.

About 20% of all Germans are the evolutionary theory, at least skeptical of
According to a survey of 1200 student teachers accept 15%, the theory does not
of prospective biology teachers doubt impressive 7% in the evolution

About sponsorship and information channel attributes this movement also strong in Germany encouraged. This gives teachers such as free information to Genesis and from different schools has become known that the doctrine of creation has sometimes kept even in the biology class collection.

Behind the movement to a large extent the evangelicals who form a belief in Protestantism. This group is based on the historical accuracy of the Bible and takes it as the basis for all knowledge. Findings, which conflict with the error-free knowledge, are not allowed because the Bible as God's words is based on human science.
In Germany make evangelicals 1-3% of the total population, the German Evangelical Alliance, with (by his own admission) 1.3 million members the largest representation.

proportion of religious people in the total population of American counties

Based on the assumption that the Bible is without error and definitely God's word is, in consequence, that the evangelicals in general, the apparent randomness of the scientific explanation of the world attack, in particular it seems that the theory of evolution to have identified as a central enemy. In that spirit, I've once the Department for doubters "in an evangelical home ( http://www.evangelikal.de ) viewed. This educational work is done and the misguided atheist be performed on the right path. " Open Letter to an atheist "

on the actual letter I'm happy again if required detail, but it can also be summarized briefly. Here again, the atheist a believer attached and the people in general, denied a claim for the assessment of other people or activities because such assessments only under a higher authority, God, be possible. It is emphasized that the atheist man is a product of chance and, I interpret the text properly, may have ultimately no soul. This could be discussed since long, what a soul is finally actually, I'm with my soulless, atheistic chemical reactions in the brain but actually quite happy ... and now we go:

" Did you know that a principle of computer science, that information not by itself - so coincidentally - is made? Without software (= Information) is not a computer. And is a well known software could not by itself since it quietly wait for a million years, whether created on the computer software - it will not happen.
.... but it is felt that the most complex and perfect information at all - The DNA -. Against all of our software is a Fliegenschiß is incurred by itself "
I get more and more the impression that the development of DNA likes to call" is Paff, suddenly there she was seen. " Thus, for easier argue against it. But that the DNA is subjected to an evolutionary process, which pulls out the "argument" does not read. Especially since it has been possible in recent times even the produce is fundamental to the structure of DNA bases and ribose of inorganic material.

" Did you know that there is an iron law of physics by which energy is ever completely out of nowhere? The Energy only changes its state: By the combustion chemical energy to power and heat. Conversely, in the light of the sun through photosynthesis, chemical energy in the form of sugar. Even the tiny form of energy on our planet comes ultimately from the sun. And the sun's energy comes from the hydrogen-based energy, from which feeds the nuclear fusion.
.... but it is felt that the whole universe - the sum of all energy, so to speak - in a "big bang" out of nothing has emerged "
The idea of the Big Bang is based on the observation that the universe is expanding.. Now there are two possibilities to explain the phenomenon. Either the universe was always there and eventually just started to expand Sun Or one expects the extension and expansion speed back in time and ends at some point in a point of unimaginable density, temperature and energy.
was to dissolve the dummy argument said that has raised the energy conservation law of thermodynamics only by the existence of the prevailing laws of nature apply. Now there were in the first moments (stupid expression, but the time was finally only after the Big Bang) or the laws of nature as we know it today, nor was there any space or time and for what the universe is ultimately developed, is likely to be very long time or even for always remain a mystery.
Who here the alternative explanation, "God's war" appeals more, please. Science has finally no better explanation at hand;)

" Did you know that the central claim of evolutionary theory is that to prevail in the natural selection always only those properties that are useful to survive? But all the organs of our body are only useful if they work, and complete. Who benefits from an incomplete eye? Which animal uses the precursor of a wing, with which it can fly or glide? What good is an animal heart, not sufficiently developed, is to pump blood? Nature is full of things that are useful only in the final state. According to evolutionary theory, but all precursors should have them die, because only that - at least to some extent - developed organ is useful for something.
.... but it is felt that the properties of all living things have evolved due to evolutionary processes by selection . "
As already mentioned in another post: the" now "is not the end, the goal or the objective of developing end-point . Rather, every creature that ever existed or will exist, only a intermediate form to the next. There is no development steps as such, evolution is an ongoing process. Only the human description of what is going on in evolution, such as the definition of "art" and the establishment of other species, making them look like a process that runs away gradually from stage to stage appear. Here I have to read again but even in terms of examples. I can `t make me not as easy as the author of Evangelicals and must bring evidence instead of rhetorical questions.

The next point I am not saying it to be great to lose words. So more ...

" you realize that atheism is a belief ? Even if You believe that there is no God, you think. A Christian based its faith with the experiences he has made with God. Or with the conviction of God's word. Or with the change, God has given. But how you explain your atheist beliefs? With the behavior of some people ("religious wars", etc.)? Because their behavior speaks against the existence of God, objectively? Then spoke the behavior of many atheists for the existence of God, right?
you create or your atheistic beliefs to specific events, which do you think that it could not happen if God is there? Could these events not just as well mean that God is just different than you think?
I think that you are not even an atheist can seriously deny that God is possible . "
Here is exactly the point I'm in a different post intentionally emphasizes strong. No, my belief is that God does not exist. I do not believe that God exists. Nor, as I believe that tomorrow the sun falls on the earth. For both, I have no evidence - so why break your head about it? Again
in all clarity: there is no atheist beliefs . Theism is the belief, atheism (note the word origin) to the contrary. What's as to not understand? equate

Many believers commit the mistake of not believing the atheist with a belief in God's nonexistence.

" If you are you aware that God is possible in spite of your atheistic faith is - then you ever thought about that as an atheist, you really can lose only?
If you had with your atheism right, you had no advantage. Because for you if, with death as "all over" for me. Added to this is that atheists are in this life at a disadvantage: in the statistical section have Atheists against Christian believers a significantly lower life expectancy refer to themselves in the polls almost twice as likely as dissatisfied, have a much higher divorce and suicide rates are more often sick and have significantly more likely to struggle with drug and alcohol problems. This one may want to explain psychological - but there are facts "
Of which I previously knew nothing.. The statistics for that I would like to see again, I only know that theists have on average a lower IQ ...

" If I have as a Christian right, it looks for you or a lot worse. Then you can expect after death Hell. Forever.
to want to hold on atheism, therefore - a purely external view - a most illogical projects.
I mean any event that it is not very reasonable, something to note which one can lose in any conceivable alternative only -., Unseen, the discarded, what could be the only hope "
So at best as our environment Chancellor, holding flags in the wind and hope that in the end everything will be fine?

" I can totally understand that you are skeptical. I can understand that you are not from one day to change your mind. But you would have as an atheist, actually have nothing to do more urgent to consider than whether or not something else, less hopeless, the truth might be. But strangely enough, most atheists, that I had to do, were lethargic and uninterested in creedal terms. They followed just their preconceived opinions, without questioning them or even seriously want to create.
It is convenient not to think . "
I see myself any more than called to verify the existence of God, as to see whether occurring before my house is a tear in the space-time. Especially since, by definition, God is not verifiable. I also wonder why the faithful world view represent the atheist so much as a hopeless and depressing. I feel not so. The rest I'll give you back the same author ...

Maybelline Peach Satin Swatches

The history of the Universe Part 5 of 5

5) The Dark Era (the dark era)
From a Quindezillion (10 ^ 90) years after the Big Bang ...
we look so far into the future, then, the accuracy of our predictions from more and more. What is certain is that all the processes that have been reported, leaving background radiation. In our era have mainly red dwarfs radiation released into the environment incident to the era of the white dwarf star in the first place by the extinction dark matter in its interior, it was followed by the decay of protons liberated radiation as the main source of radiation in the universe and finally came to the dating of black holes, Hawking radiation. This brings us to the beginning of the dark era in which there are no stellar body more - only remnant of positrons, electrons, neutrinos and photons from the previous ages.
surprisingly dark in this era is that the universe is not dead yet. For example, protons, positrons, often leave when they decay. It is for each positron in this dark future as an electron counterpart. Electrons and positrons together to a so-called form positronium atom, which is basically a hydrogen atom with a positron instead of the proton. These atoms are now artificially produced, but exist only for the tiny fraction of a second and are microscopic.
In the dark ages but, in far distant future, such a positronium atom is larger than our Milky Way today, even as large as the whole of today's existing universe because the universe is allowed by its almost total emptiness of the existence of such a giant atoms . Also such atom decays by the mutual annihilation of positron and electron can not immediately but over a period of 10 ^ 145 years [Note: for I think there's no word] as they move from higher to lower energy levels and ultimately disappear, and they left very long wavelength photons.
And unto this last remnant of radiation from the nothing is left, what was once the universe ...

[Note: The last part of the text is highly speculative and not at all likely, since the cosmological constant
in our universe appears to be nil, and this in the further text the course included speculation
impossible]

How Much Kdm Require For Making 22ct Gold

The history of the Universe Part 4 of 5

Small Inset: We all know
comparing the recent history of the universe one year in a calendar .
01.01. - The universe begins to exist
31.01. - Our Milky Way formed
01.08. - Our solar system formed
16.08. - First life occurs on Earth
31.12. - From 20 clock takes the history of mankind instead
31.12. - From 23:59:24 Clock begins what we call "culture"
By comparison, at the end of the degenerate era, we have thought in this calendar that corresponds to the first year of
entire history from the dawn of the universe today, approximately 714,285,714,285,714 trillion
years behind us ...

4) The Black Hole Era (the era of black holes)
100 Sextilliarden (10 ^ 41) years and 100 Tredezilliarden (10 ^ 83) years after the Big Bang
The only objects that the proton decay of the 3rd Age will survive are black holes. These could be composed of protons or not, they are visible to us, anyway. Now we break the fourth era, the black holes. Are objects whose escape velocity is so high that they can not even escape more light. [Note: in order to overcome the force of gravity, one must reach a speed of about 11.2 km / s (equivalent to 40,320 km / h), to leave the sun would be 617.3 km / s is necessary. A black hole leave a speed of 300,000 km / s required and as the speed of light around that value and can not be exceeded, nothing escapes these structures]
The original definition included a black hole that he can not escape. But have gone since and quantum theoretical considerations, it seems possible, as could escape in spite of all radiation from a black hole. This process is so slow that it is now not thought necessary to make it. But in the distant future, when all the stellar objects are gone, black holes radiate due to the escape of so-called Hawking radiation the brightest objects in the universe and thus take on the role played by the star today.
There are different types of black holes. On the one hand, that result from supernovae and occur when a neutron star accumulates enough additional mass to the black hole itself. This class is called stellar black holes as they emerged from the stellar objects and have similar masses. The number of stellar black holes in the future Milky Way is estimated to be about a million. On the other hand, there are supermassive black holes as they are in the center to find the galaxies. These black holes do not have the Mass of several suns but are millions or even billions of times more massive. If you look at the motions of stars in the center of any galaxy look, we notice that they move very quickly to a relatively small, central, invisible object. The mass, which is necessary to accelerate the surrounding stars so moved, as mentioned above, in the range of millions or billions of solar masses, but is concentrated on a relatively small area. These conditions meet only black holes. That in our own Milky Way is about 3 million solar masses while still relatively small.

The escape velocity of a black hole exceeds the speed of light

We will have a physical inventory of the universe in the Black Hole Era, we find that there are a few black holes each of which is brightly lit by the Hawking radiation. But black holes do not live forever. Depending annihilated by their mass black holes themselves after a certain time. A black hole with the mass of our sun [Note: would be great for about 3 km, the sun as it is today has a diameter of nearly 1.4 million kilometers] would exist in this way about 10 ^ 65. A typical stellar black hole [Note: with more mass, the sun is in fact too easy at the black hole to be] would be 1,000 times longer, pass after 10 ^ 68. A supermassive black hole as the center of our Milky Way would have disappeared after 10 ^ 83. And at some point there would be no more and the Black Hole Era was over, the most powerful black holes with over 2 billion solar masses.

How To Shred Leaves Without Shredder

The history of the Universe Part 3 of 5

3) The Degenerate Era (The Degenerate Era)
1 quadrillion (10 ^ 15) years to 10 Sextilliarden (10 ^ 40) years after the Big Bang
If the evolution of the stars end begins Degenerate Era. Most stars will end their nuclear fusion and as a stellar body exist to himself. Now we have about equal parts brown and white dwarfs, 3 of 1000 stellar objects are neutron stars and black holes. Since white dwarfs are dwarfs serious about a factor of 10 as Brown, the vast majority of mass in the Universe now in white dwarfs. Although there are still large amounts of free gas, yet it is diffusely distributed and concentrated low. The bottom line is there in the degenerate era mainly stellar remnants such as brown and white dwarfs, which constitute between 10 and 10 ^ 15 ^ 37 years the most important stellar objects in the universe.
In this era are the brown dwarfs, failed stars, never had enough mass to nuclear fusion, back into play - because they can collide. Today, no one thought about making colliding stars, there's such a lot of space between the stars that a collision is practically impossible. Clearly, this is by comparing them with tiny sand grains, which are distributed at intervals of many miles in the universe. But if you wait long enough, even seemingly impossible things happen - and two brown dwarfs in the degenerate era come together in a certain angle. In this case it may happen that the product possesses this collision enough mass to be a real star and begin the fusion of hydrogen into helium. This Stars will be nothing in common with the sun and the typical red dwarfs are among the merge slowly over billions of years its hydrogen fuel, they lack of funds could not burn before to helium - at some point to be classified in the group of white dwarfs.
Knowing the number of brown dwarfs, the galaxy in which they are located, the collision rate of these stars and the life of the collisions produced by red dwarfs, we can calculate how many stars in this galaxy in the degenerate era will seem. For the Milky Way is expected to approximately three (!) Of such stars. Today there are countless galaxies in each of the billions of stars that glow brightly. In the degenerate era are shining in the Milky Way two or three stars , products of the unlikely collision of brown dwarfs. And with about 1/10.000 of the luminosity of our Sun.

artists impression of the white dwarf

collide Even white dwarfs, even if this is even more unlikely than the collision of two brown dwarfs [Note: in memory, 20km in diameter!]. Most will come out of nothing that would be characterized by any activity. But sometimes the products of such collisions could have enough mass to explode in a special kind of super nova. Thus, our future, dark galaxy from time to time be met by a huge explosion.
Also it seems that would attract white dwarfs, the so-called dark matter. These stellar remnants would then accumulate dark matter annihilate again, releasing radiation. This radiation of a white dwarf would be about one quadrillion watts. Little compared to the sun - but at least a good part of what arrives on Earth from the sun radiation.
is seen in the long time scales, the picture of the Milky Way change drastically and hurled star addition to the gargantuan Voids , literally empty regions between the galaxies. This could be arbitrarily extrapolate into the future were it not for a possibly occurring problem: the protons themselves, essential components of matter familiar to us, could fall apart. For these protons is an approximate life of 10 ^ 37 years and assumed most of them are in this era in white dwarfs. This means that if a proton to this incredibly long time in a so-called positron [Note: essentially a positively charged electron] decays, it is rapidly destroyed, along with a matching, negatively charged electron. Of two particles will not remain in the bottom line as the radiation left over, leaving ultimately the star and thus its mass piece by piece reduced.
This knowledge can now consider the complete evolution of our sun. After swelling to a red giant, the loss of half of their mass and the subsequent existence as a white dwarf is determined by the decay of protons even smaller and colder. In the long term, the proton decay of the main driving force for the development of stellar bodies. Due to the reduced gravitational pressure [it's all constantly mass loss and mass is equivalent to the attraction of a body] our sun is a white dwarf with time slightly larger and emit some point for about 400 watts - an amount of energy that can with some effort can be created on the rowing machine at the gym.
This decay will continue until the sun from its initial mass to that of Jupiter, or about a factor of 1000, has shrunk. At this time the sun is most likely a block Wasserstoffeis correspond to the smallest amounts of radiation gradually loses his last mass. Eventually, the ice block will no longer exist and the evolution of stars to an end.
the beginning of the degenerate era, we had a lot of brown and white dwarfs, a few neutron stars and black holes. Last stars formed in rare collisions of brown dwarfs. Dark matter accumulates in white dwarfs and gave them as an energy and Radiation source, which they otherwise would not have had. Over a period of 10 ^ 20 years, the galaxies lose their stars better [: dead stars] to grow gradually to the surrounding near-nothing, black holes by swallowing remaining stellar body gradually. The Degenerate Era ends when all protons are decayed. That will be about 10 ^ 40 years the case.