Porky: << yes, I'm sure black holes exist >>

Like Pericles, I'm rather surprised that Porky's so sure that black holes exist, given that they are constructs of scientific theory - in much the same way that evolution by natural selection is. That is, they are the most plausible explanations for natural phenomena that scientific method and reasoning have yet produced.

Why black holes but not natural selection? Or is Porky just cherry-picking scientific theories to fit his idosyncratic worldview in much the same way that he does with religious ideologies?

Dear Gibo,

If you re-read my first post in this thread
you will see that I have answered the question
that you ask in this thread.

I said:

"Scientists in a number of fields have found
much evidence to support the theory of
evolution. This evidence comes from FIVE
principal sources:

1) Fossils. 2) Adaptations in organisms.
3) Geographic distribution of species.
4) Comparative studies of species.
5) Embryology."

You said that the "search for magic and
mystery in a modern world can lead people over to
the dark side...especially children..."

I agree that if children don't have
clear values or a real code to live by - they may be
be influenced by inappropriate (or just plain stupefying)
influences. Television, for example - should not be a
moral authority for children.

But stories found in books, by contrast seep into our very
being. We all have books that lifted the fog for us, caused the
Great Aha!, and literally changed our lives.

In my own case I learned from biographies that even
great individuals start out as everyday children, letting
all children know that life's possibilities are without
limit.

There are the role models in fairy tales and legends
and historical stories. Cinderella enchanted not because she
got the prince but because she was cheerful and dignified even
in unbearable circumstances. King Arthur showed what a
noble deed looked like, and that there is such a thing as
duty and sacrifice.

But, it does make sense to be aware of what your children
are reading, and to make sure that the best books -
including classics old and new, are available to them.

I personally find that the Harry Potter series by J.K.
Rowling are spellbinding, her richly woven narrative,
plunges, twists and turns at a breathtaking pace. It
confirms the author as a mistress of storytelling, whose
books will be read, re-read and read again.

As I said in another thread, our role as parents is not to
protect our children from the truth, but to protect them
from something less than the truth.

Gibo, I know some Christians take Genesis literally, but not very many, and they are not representative.

I have problems with taking not only Genesis literally, but with a number of other things in the bible, such as the virgin birth. I've done my own straw polls on things like the virgin birth and find that is fairly widely accepted. I've been surprised to find that believers I have polled include academic lawyers, a biologist (PhD), patent attorney, and obstetrician. So, clearly what I regard as impossible many intelligent people have a different view on.

I was also a little shocked last Christmas when having dinner with my then partner and some of her extended family to find that her brother and sister-in-law, all of them academic over-achievers, were creationists. That cooled the conversation for a while and arose in the context of my comment that you had to worry when a creationist (Mitt Romney) could be in the running for President of the United States. Just goes to show that minorities are everywhere!

"Just goes to show that minorities are everywhere!" (GrahamY)

Also goes to show that intelligence (high levels of schooling) and commonsense are not necessarily close allies.

Dear CJ... this is how these wearisome myths arise..and they are so doggone frequent, I hope you understand why I don't bother going back to 'EXPOSE' them in my own defense.

1/ I have NOT denied natural selection.(in fact I've specifically said I know it to be a fact)

2/ You CLAIM that I do.

3/ Then you go off on one of your frequent (ad nauseum) "black holes but not natural selection" mini diatribes.

Now..I COULD make a huge song and dance and fuss about you 'telling porkies' and 'lies' and blah blah and try to decimate your credibility as you are want to do to me. But (this is something I hope you will have a Damascus road experience about by the way)
the reality is.. we do make little muff ups at times..and it does not mean we are abject liars. Unless you wish to admit that your last post was one:)

I apply the same standards you apply to mine.. but hey.. isn't it just easier to get on with the conversation and just work with others to simply clarify stuff?

Yesssssss.. SUREEEE it is :) (looks around for a bright light over CJ's place ?_?)

Now come on.. *coax coax*... be a nice person from now on ok?

TOPIC..as most of you probably already see, this kind of topic reaches a point where start on the 'my evidence is better than yours' road, but there is sooooooooooooo MUCH "evidence" out there covering sooooooo MANY areas of life.. how in this wide world can we expect to resolve such an issue here?

By the way..whoever said "God created light on the 4th day" needs to go back and READ the jolly text.. (Gen_Ch1)

-Verse1 "God...created"

-Verse2 "Earth..formless and void DARKNESS"

-Verse3 "Let their be LIGHT" DAY ONE.

The scientific issue to be resolved with the Theological text here is just how the Sun (created on the 4th day) relate to 'LIGHT' being created on the first :) Have fun.

Pure chutzpah, Boaz.

>>Now..I COULD make a huge song and dance and fuss about you 'telling porkies' and 'lies' and blah blah and try to decimate your credibility as you are want to do to me. But... the reality is.. we do make little muff ups at times..and it does not mean we are abject liars.<<

And as with all chutzpah, one does have a sneaking inclination to stand back and admire the sheer bald-faced effrontery with which it is delivered.

"Little muff-ups" Boaz?

"At times"?

"it does not mean we are abject liars."?

If at any stage you had shown the slightest inclination to 'fess up to your gross distortions of reality, Boaz, there might be a part of me somewhere that could possibly be persuaded that they are, after all, merely "muff-ups".

But no, you breeze right along, continuing the pretence that nothing requires correction or elucidation.

And without a skerrick of shame, you deliver the next classic Boaz-ism, like an incontinent puppy on a doormat.

Then there are the constant misstatements, pretending you hear one thing when the meaning is totally different... "scientific fraud...", and "No book of truth ? :) errrr *cough*"

So, enough of the injured innocence already.

Back to the topic.

Did you write this with a straight face?

>>The scientific issue to be resolved with the Theological text here is just how the Sun (created on the 4th day) relate to 'LIGHT' being created on the first :) Have fun.<<

Thought not.

But just for the record, there is no "scientific issue" here.

Just mythology, primitive metaphor and populist imagery.