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)

[bernee51]

Actually, one scientist and then two scientist is considered 'increasing numbers', but I was thinking more along the lines of multiple numbers of scientists.

It was a joke Rev - did the Holy Spirit steal your SOH?

Did not your "steve" list provide links to the lists of scientist's names to which it was making fun?

It sure did - it posted sites that listed scientists who may have supported the ID or Creationist fantasy. But it was you who (and I say it again) used the term "increasing numbers". On what did you base this? Valid data? Wishful thinking? An outright lie?

What is the entire point here?

You tell me - you are the one making the claims.

I noted that scientists have been coming to the acceptance of the ID belief in increasing numbers.

Opinion or fact?

Bernee, as is his usual MO, tried to misrepresent what I have actually posted in order to set up a fallacious argument.

No I asked you a straight up question. And in a fashion that I have come to realise is typical of apologists you ignore it and try your hardest to obfuscate.

The fact remains, there are scientists, who previously accepted the evolutionary origin of life theory who now have accepted the idea of an Intelligent Designer,

No one is denying this - all I was asking is where you came ip with the "increasing numbers' scenario.

...based on their knowlege of the improbability of a natural origin of life.

Or the quick buck to be earned from gullible christians who buy the pap they publish. (Call me a cynic )

One cannot deny that this is truth, unless one can show that no scientist, has done so.

"increasing numbers" - Rev - "increasing numbers."

[RevJP]

Once again Bernee it appears that you reject anything that does not support or refutes what you want to believe.

But it was you who (and I say it again) used the term "increasing numbers". On what did you base this? Valid data? Wishful thinking? An outright lie?

We have already established the fact that one person added to another person equals an increase in numbers. Three people added to two people absolutely establishes 'increasing numbers'. So what is the dispute?

If Dr. Fred tells us that he has accepted the idea of ID, and Dr. John comes along and tells us that he too has accepted the ID concept, and then Dr. Jane comes along and says that she has accepted the ID concept, then that categorically affirms that increasing numbers of scientists have accepted the idea of Intelligent Design - does it not?

RevJP wrote:

I noted that scientists have been coming to the acceptance of the ID belief in increasing numbers.


Opinion or fact?

Obviously my statement is a fact. What are you then questioning as opinion?

No I asked you a straight up question. And in a fashion that I have come to realize is typical of apologists you ignore it and try your hardest to obfuscate.

I did not refer to your question. It is obvious to any who can read simple English that I referred to your 'paraphrase' of what I stated. An obvious misrepresentation of what I had actually stated - and you accuse me and others of obfuscation

So, let us review: Scientists in increasing numbers have accepted the idea of Intelligent Design in place of the evolutionary origin of life scenario. This fact is indisputable unless one would try to prove that the scientists that have stated they have altered their thinking to accept ID are lying. Is there such evidence?

[seventil]

So, let us review: Scientists in increasing numbers have accepted the idea of Intelligent Design in place of the evolutionary origin of life scenario. This fact is indisputable unless one would try to prove that the scientists that have stated they have altered their thinking to accept ID are lying. Is there such evidence?

Perhaps bernee was asking for some statistical information to back up your claim. While I agree with you RevJP, my agreement comes on the basis of reading a select few papers from noted scientists. My view lacks proper analysis of the scientist community of a whole, however; the community is simply too big and too vast to properly analyze on this subject, in my opinion. Perhaps if they had to check a box or send in a yearly report saying what they supported or believed in, then we would be getting somewhere.

I think a better way to word your assertion is thus: Some scientists have begun accepting ID in place of evolutionary origin. And here they are: (sources with scientists, or papers they have done, confirming what you've said).

About your second assertion:

"This fact is indisputable unless one would try to prove that the scientists that have stated they have altered their thinking to accept ID are lying. Is there such evidence?"

I agree with bernee that you have failed to show a legit statistical analysis of the current mindset of the scientific community. While I want to believe you, it sounds more like you are making a broad assumption for the community on the actions of a few. Also, did you take into consideration the rate of scientists converting from pro-ID to pro-evolution in the same amount of time? (if there are any)

My overall point is I don't know of any resource available that can properly track the personal views of the majority of the scientific community. Perhaps here on the "internets" it could be possible. I think it's a great idea. Let me know when it's done.

[seventil]

Interesting point. It is worth noting that scientists have been coming to the acceptance of an ID in increasing numbers. It seems that the more they learn and discover, the more they realize that thier previous notions of chance and only natural causes are more and more unlikely, and implausible.

Perhaps their assumption that only the measurable is true is in error...

Here is the original quote by RevJP.

Rev: Do you have an article or anything regarding the recent ID discoveries or "converts" that you mentioned here? I ask out of curiousity, because I had not heard of anything exactly breakthrough lately. However, maybe I missed something. I am getting old...

As a supporter of ID, I look forward to what you have. Thanks.

[ENIGMA]

If Dr. Fred tells us that he has accepted the idea of ID, and Dr. John comes along and tells us that he too has accepted the ID concept, and then Dr. Jane comes along and says that she has accepted the ID concept, then that categorically affirms that increasing numbers of scientists have accepted the idea of Intelligent Design - does it not?

Assuming, of course, that Dr. Bob who had previously accepted the ID movement does not leave during the same time.

So, let us review: Scientists in increasing numbers have accepted the idea of Intelligent Design in place of the evolutionary origin of life scenario. This fact is indisputable unless one would try to prove that the scientists that have stated they have altered their thinking to accept ID are lying. Is there such evidence?

Would you say that the following statement is correct?

Scientists in increasing numbers have accepted the validity of evolutionary theory over Intelligent Design.

How about:

The rate of increase of number of scientists who have accepted the validity of evolutionary theory over Intelligent Design is larger than the rate of increase for those who accept Intelligent Design.

[RevJP]

Would you say that the following statement is correct?

Scientists in increasing numbers have accepted the validity of evolutionary theory over Intelligent Design.

absolutely!

The rate of increase of number of scientists who have accepted the validity of evolutionary theory over Intelligent Design is larger than the rate of increase for those who accept Intelligent Design

Absolutely. But let us remember though, that I have not tried to show anything different. I simply pointed out that fact that there are increasing numbers of scientists who have accepted ID.

I did not state anything other than that. I understand that some would want to dispute something beyond what I have asserted, but what I have asserted is not disputable without evidence that scientists who claim to have accepted an ID concept/mindset are lying.

Rev: Do you have an article or anything regarding the recent ID discoveries or "converts" that you mentioned here? I ask out of curiousity, because I had not heard of anything exactly breakthrough lately. However, maybe I missed something. I am getting old...

My view lacks proper analysis of the scientist community of a whole, however; the community is simply too big and too vast to properly analyze on this subject, in my opinion.

I agree with bernee that you have failed to show a legit statistical analysis of the current mindset of the scientific community.

My overall point is I don't know of any resource available that can properly track the personal views of the majority of the scientific community

Again, I made a simple, incontrovertable assertion. I've made no claims regarding the whole of the scientific community, nor the majority, nor anything like that. My statement is very clear on what it says and means, I did not imply nor insinuate anything, I simply stated that increasing numbers of scientist have accepted ID.

I understand Bernee wanting to dispute the point, what I do not understand is why some want me to support that which I did not assert, or provide evidence of that which I've never alluded to.

[Nyril]

Absolutely. But let us remember though, that I have not tried to show anything different. I simply pointed out that fact that there are increasing numbers of scientists who have accepted ID.

You did indeed point this out, but what people were looking for was a reference for this assertion. I could easily claim that most of the scientists that believed ID was a good idea are coming to embrace evolution in "increasing numbers". I imagine that before you believed this, you would like -something- other then my voice telling you so.

[seventil]

Again, I made a simple, incontrovertable assertion. I've made no claims regarding the whole of the scientific community, nor the majority, nor anything like that. My statement is very clear on what it says and means, I did not imply nor insinuate anything, I simply stated that increasing numbers of scientist have accepted ID.

I understand Bernee wanting to dispute the point, what I do not understand is why some want me to support that which I did not assert, or provide evidence of that which I've never alluded to.

Rev, I think you're missing the point.

You can't just say something and have it be undisputable! You need actual evidence!

When you say "Scientists" - you are speaking on behalf of all scientists. Just like if I said: Christians are slowly beginning to worship the Dark Lord Slappynuts, while pushing away their belief in Jesus. That doesn't mean it's true, or incontrovertible. I've yet to prove that Christians are worshipping the new dark overlord, and until I do so, with valid statistical evidence or something other than my own personal view, it will remain a simple opinion of the Christian community.

So, can you reword your assertion and have it reflect your own personal view? Because you are stating it like you know, somehow, it's a proven fact.

The bottom line is I want to know how you came to this conclusion, because I'd like to come to the same conclusion, more forcefully. So far, however, it just seems like you stated a personal opinion of scientists.

I hope that cleared things up? Or confused them more?

[RevJP]

You can't just say something and have it be undisputable! You need actual evidence!

The evidence was provided by, and admitted to by Bernee. The 'steve list' which is a parody of the lists of scientists who have claimed acceptance of the ID concept contains the links to said parodied lists.

When you say "Scientists" - you are speaking on behalf of all scientists.

Actually, I said 'increasing numbers of scientists" which is a quantification.

Thus I am speaking on behalf of only those scientists who have accepted or claimed to have accepted ID.

Just like if I said: Christians are slowly beginning to worship the Dark Lord Slappynuts, while pushing away their belief in Jesus. That doesn't mean it's true, or incontrovertible. I've yet to prove that Christians are worshipping the new dark overlord, and until I do so, with valid statistical evidence or something other than my own personal view, it will remain a simple opinion of the Christian community.

Poor example.

If you said: increasing numbers of Christians are slowly beginning to worship the Dark Lord Slappynuts, and demonstrated evidence such as a list of names of christians who have admitted to begining worship of lord nuts, then you would be making the same type of assertion I had made.

So, can you reword your assertion and have it reflect your own personal view? Because you are stating it like you know, somehow, it's a proven fact

Once more: If one, and then another, and then another scientist states that s/he has accpeted ID over evolutionary origins of life, it is then an incontrovertable fact that they have done so. Is it not?

The bottom line is I want to know how you came to this conclusion,

I'm sorry, I don't know how to make it more clear.

You want to garner evidence that the scientific community is abandoning evolutionary theory in favor of creationism or Intelligent Design - I cannot provide evidence for that, nor have I ever insinuated that I could, or that it is so. There are scientists who have accepted ID, the numbers of said scientists have increased and are increasing. Be it one a year, or one a day I cannot say, nor would I speculate. I simply stated the truth in that there are increasing numbers of scientists who fall into said category.

[bernee51]

I simply stated the truth in that there are increasing numbers of scientists who fall into said category.

On what information do you base this 'truth' Rev? You have made the claim that 'increasing numbers' of scientists blah blah blah. You either have data or you are making it up.

BTW The site I referred to did not mention numbers increasing, it merely quoted ID & Creationist sites that 'claimed' certain scientists backed their position.

Why do you find it so hard to say oops I stuffed up - when you so obviously have. Is it pride Rev? One of the seven deadlies?

C'mon, spit it out.