Yeah. The thing above.

I simply cannot fathom what kind of logical connection one can even begin to make here.

Well? Give us a good laugh, then. Spell out what they are trying to say, in syllogistic form.

Chalk it up to our ability to pattern match.  Pick at random any two concepts (for example -- a scientific discovery and a piece of fiction), and the average person can can get them to match up without too much work.   It's this ability -- and desire -- to pattern match that allows such nonsense as:

1.  Dinesh D'Souza claiming the 7-day creation story in genesis fits with the big bang.

2.  Nostradamus devotees (not naming any names...) using the exact same quatrain as evidence for the prediction of Khomeini, Saddam and George Bush.

3.  Correlating the doctrine of the holy trinity with wave functions (as suggested by a questioner at one of Dawkins' book readings)

4.  Cold-reading psychics to throw out all sorts of vague statements ("His name starts with a J...&quot, and then tasking the subject with making sense out of them.

Quasars in the book of revelation is is not at all a theory, and it is not at all fascinating.

If I understand correctly, the "syllogistic argument" is one that commands a logical scheme or analysis that results in a formal agreement, or at least some type of deductive reasoning.

One man's treasure is another man's trash.

I cannot even begin to explain the logical functions, mathematical measurements, or chemical analysis of a quasar.  The dimensions of such a phenomenon are too extreme for my limited mental capabilities to encompass.  Even still, I am less able to fathom the creation of these enormous bodies in our known universe.

On the same level, I cannot comprehend how millions and millions of microscopic nerves and cells within my body allow me to see, hear, think, feel, and reason.  Science and logic do not offer a credible explanation for the capabilities of the human mind and conscience.

I stood outside the box and my argument fell apart; if logic cannot exist outside the boundaries of this dimension, how are we to understand that which is without explanation?  "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now."

Enjoy MLK day!

ROFL!

Isn't it amazing how many people self-pwn and don't even know it?

Epistemological rights, kids.  They're not just good for breakfast.

...WHAT?

My good sir, although a few of your basic statements are correct, you really need to go back to your literature (read information from roughly the 80s onward). We know what Quasars are: active galactic nuclei.

Galaxies like our own all likely began as these active nuclei; supermassive black holes surrounded by an accretion disk that fed into it. The act of 'consuming' the surrounding disk invokes a violent cyclonic motion of the nuclei and a tremendous release of energy & radation. Once the accretion disk has been 'used-up', the Quasar would wind down into a much less violent state and mature into a full-blown galaxy.

Quasars are fantasically awesome & rare astrophysical objects (there are likely none left in the universe; the ones we see today would have long since quieted down by the time their light reached us), but they have nothing to do with your theology's place of torment. Even if Quasars were still active, they would not be an effective place to torture people as said people would be immediately annihilated upon their introduction.

I believe, have faith, that the incomming matter falling into a black hole may exceed 1500 miles per hour.

No. I think was Bose (actually it may have been Einstein, but I think it was Bose) who pointed out that a black hole isn't made of anything. A black hole is a phenomenon purely related to the curvature of space-time. It is strictly inaccurate to talk of the "gravitational pull" unless we are talking about Newtonian physics (in which the concept of a black hole wouldn't make sense anyway). The gravitational field created by massive objects is directly proportional to their mass. But the curvature of space-time in a region is a phenomenon which is caused by a very high density, although to fully follow this argument one must understand Ricci tensors. Really a black hole should be called a black well, since that's really what it is, the ultimate potential well that results from the curvature of space time.

A black hole which has another side is called a white hole. To be sucked into a black hole (not a white hole) is a process which is very difficult to understand since no information can be gleaned from objects past the event horizon. It's all theoretical, but strictly speaking the whole concept of "matter" ceases to be meaningful insofar as it is stripped apart at the subatomic level in a black hole and according to some physicists, may rend particles into their constituents strings (if you like string theory, that is).