Leaderboard

While I get where you're coming from, isn't this what science does when it doesn't have all of the pieces to the puzzle, such as with "The Big Bang" and Evolution? No video evidence of macro-Evolution or the "bang," just a consensus viewpoint based on an interpretation of evidence presented. In fact, most who take this point of view haven't even interpreted said evidence for themselves, they've merely believed what others have interpreted before them. They gathered, made up stuff - forming a consensus based on interpretations of others - and propagate their stories? I suppose that there are other elements that don't exist based on this opinion, such as nothing that explodes to create all things by random chance. Evolution in and of itself, being unobservable during our very short lifespans - even over numerous generations, is pretty far-fetched based on the ability to observe it. Funny, those holding a skeptical viewpoint in the name of science are free to postulate, speculate and any other "late" they care too so long as it's a consensus viewpoint, but not those who are proponents of anything this consensus disagrees with. It's not my intention to spur a debate on the topics used as examples. Just stating my observations on the matter. All of those who have sighted the creature are either lying, mistaken, hallucinating or under the influence because scientific consensus says it isn't possible. However, it's perfectly acceptable to promote scientific consensus without providing the very same that's expected of those making claims to the contrary of the majority. Why is that?