Transcendence

>How about YOU tell us of a bad BJJ black belt? I'm not saying I know a bad one, I am saying the statement that they are all good based upon zero evidence is ridiculous and juvenile. >I'm not going to get into an argument about logic over this - it's pointless. So was your contention. >It's common knowledge that BJJ black belts are awesome grapplers - and unless you can point one out who isn't (good luck), then you don't have a leg to stand on. Neither does the first part of this sentence unless you can name every single BJJ black belt and prove to me that they are all 'awesome grapplers'. Generalizations are, to quote you, "pointless".

>Like I've said, I've never heard of a bad one You must have heard of them all of them then to make this assertion: >You're point about stereotyping is ridiculous simply because all BJJ black belts ARE awesome ! Otherwise that contention is baseless. >I've been involved with the art for over twelve years. Regardless, you must prove your contentions just as everyone else does.

I think the point Cybren is trying to put forth is you guys are stereotyping. It's like if the progenitor of this thread stated he fought a black man and the black man was a good fighter, then you guys would say ALL black people are good fighters. Or if he fought a German, and the German was a good fighter, then all Germans are good fighters. Stereotyping = Bad

A black hole is a concentration of matter which contains such a large amount of mass that the gravitational escape velocity is equal to or greater than the speed of light, consequently if light becomes trapped within its gravitational field, it cannot escape, hence the term "black hole". Of course, black hole is an English term, the French term translated means "dark star". There is no correlation between the cosmological body and an actual hole.

People need to stop expecting the scientific method to answer metaphysical questions, and need to stop applying metaphysics to scientific observations. An idea or belief, vis-a-vis God or religion, does not override what we see with our eyes. Electromagnetic residue from the Big Bang has been observed, and Einstein's special relativity establishes that time is relative to an observer. Events that allegedly happened in the past can be observed, when you look into the night sky you are looking into the "past", you are looking at those stars as they appeared anywhere from four years to a hundred thousand years and more in the past. The sun as we see it is the sun eight minutes ago. That brings up another argument against creationists, particularly the young Earth branch. The stars are hundreds of thousands of years old when we see them, so that invalidates the belief the Earth is 4-6 thousand years old. Although I've seen people argue that God created the light "in transit" from a star to Earth, but that idea is just silly. If you're going to challenge the contentions of science, you must provide evidence that supports your contentions rather than just questioning the evidence that science has so far provided.

I'll handle this statement with the utmost simplicity, here's the https://www.dictionary.com definition: "An area of space-time with a gravitational field so intense that its escape velocity is equal to or exceeds the speed of light." Here's another definition: "Loosely speaking, a black hole is a region of space that has so much mass concentrated in it that there is no way for a nearby object to escape its gravitational pull." Now, if for SOME reason this still means that a black hole is an actual physical hole, what is it a hole in? (Note: This statement was merely placed here to humor you.)