Do Black Holes Exist? Are Black Holes Scientific?

[chrispalasz]

I wasn't sure where to ask this question, but it is related to the "Do you believe in Santa" thread, which is under the Christian topic, so I posted this one here too.

For Clarification: Black Holes are often discussed in science. There are many new and interesting theories being developed on them every day. Black Holes are not observable.

If God is going to be dismissed from possibility because such observable evidence cannot be produced - then Black Holes must also be dismissed from possibility.

So, for the same reasons - only with an opposite objective, let's ask these questions:

Do Black Holes exist?

Are Black Holes Scientific?

Cheers. 8)

[RevJP]

ENIGMA,

Your very illustration is an illustration of net gain - a ratio of x and y. Do you not see that?

My assertion was a statement regarding the nature of x, not a comparison of x and y.

You said:
you have no basis to say that there is an increasing amount of water in the bucket.

You refer to the amount of water in the bucket, which is a net derived from x - y, I made no claim regarding the total amount of scientists in the scientific community. What I stated would be the same as me saying "I have poured increasing volumes of water into the bucket" That statement would remain true regardless of how much water was leaking out, regardless of if the amount of water in the bucket was rising or falling, regardless if the bucket had no bottom at all or was continually overflowing. It does not change the fact that I have been pouring increasing amounts of water into the bucket.


Likewise, without knowing how many people are joining and leaving, or at least the relative proportion of people joining and leaving, you cannot justify your claim.

If my claim had anything to do with the total amount of scientists who now accept ID, you would have a point. But that was not my claim, and has never been my claim. Again, you seem to want to argue something I have never claimed, which adds to the silliness of this discussion as was just recently alluded to.

[bernee51]

Hi Rev - good to see you back and still trying to sort out what you said...

which was...

It is worth noting that scientists have been coming to the acceptance of an ID in increasing numbers.

I think all I, and others, wanted to know was...

Is this your (unsubstantiated) opinion? Yes/No

Or

Do you base the claim on some empirical data? Yes/No

The issue could have been dealt with immediately if you had merely clarified the basis for the claim in the first instance rather than going off into defensive mode.

[RevJP]

and those questions have been answered, ad nauseum, however, since I did not personally hand you a list of scientists you choose to ask over and over again the same questions.

Additionally, I think ENIGMA was working in a different vein, so in respect for that spoke to that, rather than rehash was has already been established to the sentient mind.

[bernee51]

and those questions have been answered, ad nauseum, however,

I disagree - skirted around, changed to suit what you wanted to post.

But never simply answered with a yes or no?

[ENIGMA]

ENIGMA,

Your very illustration is an illustration of net gain - a ratio of x and y. Do you not see that?

My assertion was a statement regarding the nature of x, not a comparison of x and y.

You said:
you have no basis to say that there is an increasing amount of water in the bucket.

You refer to the amount of water in the bucket, which is a net derived from x - y, I made no claim regarding the total amount of scientists in the scientific community. What I stated would be the same as me saying "I have poured increasing volumes of water into the bucket" That statement would remain true regardless of how much water was leaking out, regardless of if the amount of water in the bucket was rising or falling, regardless if the bucket had no bottom at all or was continually overflowing. It does not change the fact that I have been pouring increasing amounts of water into the bucket.


Likewise, without knowing how many people are joining and leaving, or at least the relative proportion of people joining and leaving, you cannot justify your claim.

If my claim had anything to do with the total amount of scientists who now accept ID, you would have a point. But that was not my claim, and has never been my claim. Again, you seem to want to argue something I have never claimed, which adds to the silliness of this discussion as was just recently alluded to.

Forgive me, but I find it signficantly difficult to give credence to a statement that is functionally equivalent to "On the day of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, there were an increasing number of people living in the city" on the basis that statistically a number of people were born that day in Hiroshima before the blast.

Could just be me, but whatever...

[Corvus]

Though I find this all very interesting, perhaps we should get back to the original topic about black holes. Hopefully all parties can avoid any last moment jabs against the other side. It is very difficult not to have the final say.