Reply to Re: Temporal Nullification, should it be my new tag?
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Why are people unable to accept science and proven facts?
Hmm.. where shall I start, ok: Proven facts seem to continually change - Take an egg - they say don't eat more than X amount a day because they have proven that eggs cause cholesterol, Now they realise you can actually eat as many as you like as the egg is an awesome creation and the white and the yolk work together (fancy that) to balance each other out.
More? Ok... what about Carbon Dating. How do we know that these scientists actually have dated things correctly. Yet they proudly state when an item was alive, what era it came from and so on as a "proven fact"! To do that, they are guessing what the atmosphere was like between now and then, they are assuming the ratios that they measure are static, but, in actuality, these could have fluctuated significantly over relatively short periods of time (that they are totally unaware of) and that could throw their calculations off by years yet they state it as fact with no first hand knowledge or (for me) a viable method of proving its accuracy beyond any doubt.
So yeah I have some issues with what is "proven fact". Realistically, how will we ever really know if they are accurate or not, yes they have all these theory's, backed up by equations and surmising what was happening thousands of years ago, but unless we can go back and see with our own eyes (and I don't believe we can do that yet because as Toast said - he hasn't invented his time machine yet... ). So, we are expected to believe them Just because they say so?
err... Thats my 2 no- 4c worth now hehe
Edit: Shoot - EvilEarl you said intelligent debate *Gulp* ^ = Tongue in cheek
Hmm.. where shall I start, ok: Proven facts seem to continually change - Take an egg - they say don't eat more than X amount a day because they have proven that eggs cause cholesterol, Now they realise you can actually eat as many as you like as the egg is an awesome creation and the white and the yolk work together (fancy that) to balance each other out.
More? Ok... what about Carbon Dating. How do we know that these scientists actually have dated things correctly. Yet they proudly state when an item was alive, what era it came from and so on as a "proven fact"! To do that, they are guessing what the atmosphere was like between now and then, they are assuming the ratios that they measure are static, but, in actuality, these could have fluctuated significantly over relatively short periods of time (that they are totally unaware of) and that could throw their calculations off by years yet they state it as fact with no first hand knowledge or (for me) a viable method of proving its accuracy beyond any doubt.
So yeah I have some issues with what is "proven fact". Realistically, how will we ever really know if they are accurate or not, yes they have all these theory's, backed up by equations and surmising what was happening thousands of years ago, but unless we can go back and see with our own eyes (and I don't believe we can do that yet because as Toast said - he hasn't invented his time machine yet... ). So, we are expected to believe them Just because they say so?
err... Thats my 2 no- 4c worth now hehe
Edit: Shoot - EvilEarl you said intelligent debate *Gulp* ^ = Tongue in cheek
