I accept that my Dyson vacuum cleaner works by cyclone technology, but I haven't observed it. I accept that beer gets its bitter taste from hops, but be buggered if I know why? I accept that Mrs Musket knows a hell of a lot about certain cancers and asks patients to believe what she tells them, but I don't observe her expertise.

So why should I not accept that the findings of Darwin point to a particular theory? Out of interest, whilst I have never read anything he wrote, I have read and watched many books and documentaries explaining his theory and how it still holds in the light of better general understanding and access to tests he couldn't have dreamt of.

Ok. You may say the same for the bible. The difference being, we know the bible is translations of translations of stories, some written as fact, some written as moral stories, in the same way as American situation comedies. We know that many of the stories are lifted from much earlier stories. We know for a solid fact that the universe is older than the bible reckons, and popping out and looking at the sky is all you need to do. As you speak of scientists, my own published thesis may not have been in the realm of astrophysics, but wavelength differential was a key element of it, so red shift is something I can fully and knowledgeably accept, as whilst the fundamentals have been refined, and still are, the principle is about as certain as night following day.

Anyway pete, I hope your earlier support of bigotry, albeit from a position of ignorance, has now had a chance to disassociate itself? I don't like being told I am wrong unless I actually am. (and yes, it happens now and then.)