[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

That the same kind of cataclysm is described in farflung cultures, does not merely suggest, but leads a reasonable mind to ask what can be understood from the strange points of agreement from culture to culture.

Indeed - and I would say that what can be understood from this are certain facts about the human mind and human society. This explanation is quite viable and does not contradict the preponderance of scientific evidence; whereas an explanation such as "the myths are actually true" does.

a sun god who is the benevolent universal ruler par excellence, who resided at the north pole, and is associated with the planet Saturn
an anatomically impossible dragon, sometimes bearded, or hairy, flying across the sky, wreaking destruction upon earth
a comet which is the heart of the dying sun god, which bursts forth into the heavens, and is associated with the planet Venus

Are you really claiming that these are three points of similarity across all (or most) natural mythologies? I'd have to disagree. Number 1 is true of Egyptian mythology, for example, but certainly not of Greek nor Aztec nor Indian nor even really of Germanic (Odin/Woden is a sky god but not specifically a sun god). I will concede that number 2 is fairly universal - most myths have at least some kind of monster, though not necessarily a flying one. As for number 3 - though I don't doubt that you know of some mythos with this element, I confess I can think of none in which a comet is the heart of the dying sun god.

You mis-apprehend what I'm saying. The reason I have a problem with much of modern science is that when confronted with yet more evidence that the paradigm is wrong, our scientists do not question the paradigm; instead they create yet another ad hoc theory that cannot be tested in any lab.

Though I am admittedly biased, being a scientist myself, I cannot help but think that you have mis-apprehended the nature of the scientific method. When new evidence is presented that contradicts current theories, those theories are rejected in favour of new theories with which the evidence does agree. Sometimes multiple such theories are proposed and must compete with each other. The only criterion for success is that the theory agrees with the evidence. Usually, the new theories that are proposed are modelled very closely on the old, rejected theory - which makes sense if the rejected theory was reasonably succesful. Sometimes, though, when necessary, the whole conceptual framework is rejected and replaced with a new one. General relativity is a perfect example. When the evidence finally built up that Newtonian mechanics was not correct, and that no easy modifications could bring it into line with the data, its whole paradigm of absolute space and forces was rejected.

Regarding black holes, according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a thing cannot exist with an infinite degree of any one aspect of reality, such as gravity. Black holes have, according to theory, infinite gravitational force. So either one or the other is incorrect; yet, modern science is not denying Einstein's theory, nor is it admitting that black holes cannot exist. With good science, either one or the other must be put to rest.

This is actually a fairly common misconception. As a matter of fact, general relativity has been put to rest in a manner of speaking. We know now that it is not a valid theory for describing phenomena like black holes, where the strength of gravity becomes as powerful as the other forces. The only trouble is we don't yet have a new theory that adequately describes both gravity (which GR does all right at in most cases) and the other forces (which are, on their own, fairly well described by quantum field theories).