You'd think they'd be able to accurately place an age on the rocks, but many of the methods they use are not the best. Some paleontologists (in Australia, I believe) found some wood fossilized inside some basalt. They sent the basalt to a lab and got it tested. The folks at the lab said it was 45 million years old. Then they sent the wood, which was found inside the rock very far under the surface (sorry I don't remember how far down they had dug, but it was deep enough to find supposedly 45-mil-year-old rock, so that should say something), to the same lab and got it tested. The lab folks said it was 45,000 years old. That's a true story that clearly shows the dating systems are often quite inaccurate.
I believe in climate change, but I don't believe it's as serious as it's made out to be. The earth's climate has always changed, it's part of nature. Much of Antarctica is actually getting colder. Humans don't make nearly as much of a difference as we think we do.
Well of course some rocks and other objects will seem older or younger than they actually are occasionally, and this can be seen in things like humans as well. But for the most part, it's very consistent, as fossils belinging to the same species are typically found at similar depths and in similarly ages rocks. I'm not a geologist, so I can't explain exactly how the aging process works, but unlike some people, I trust scientists.
I think it's pretty serious... the past 6 years have had 5 of the hottest years on record I believe (something like that, I heard that a while back, the numbers could be wrong).
But then Mars' icecaps are also melting. I just think there is so much we do not know. We can really only speculate. Though of course, I do not condone the mistreatment of our planet.
Some atheist tend to do the same too. Science is always evolving, meaning it can often be wrong before it is right. Science created DDT. It isn't a naturally occurring compound. Scientists and doctors told us it wasn't safe after the damage was already done. Parts of the Global South is still using it. Same with asbestos really.
Well there have been multiple debates about sanitizer being better than soap as sanitizer kills bacteria while soaps just removes it. Though recently, doctors have discovered that an ingredient (tricolsan) in some sanitizers causes superbugs. They also discovered that soap is all 'round a better option anyway.
Your points about DDT and hand sanitizer weren't science being wrong, it was just science not discovering something yet. So we can thank science for discovering it instead of bashing science for not noticing it sooner.
And yes, blindly trusting anything is bad, even if it's science, but I personally think science is advanced enough by now to mostly trust it (as long as it comes from a reliable source). That doesn't mean I blindly trust it, just that I listen to the people who know what they're doing.
These things were tested, but not well enough to get the right answer right away. To be honest, we don't really understand the effects of DDT. It's still a hotly debated subject. Though let me correct myself by saying that science at the time had the wrong answer (as their assessment was still developing), however it seems like we (science) will eventually advance to discover the right (factual) answer. As I said before, science is always evolving. I certainly do not wish to bash it, though I also do not want to take the first answer they give as factual, because like you said "blindly trusting anything is bad" and our (science's) first answer is not always the truest one. <- I think we both agree on that, I just worded it confusingly/differently.
Well of course some rocks and other objects will seem older or younger than they actually are occasionally, and this can be seen in things like humans as well. But for the most part, it's very consistent, as fossils belinging to the same species are typically found at similar depths and in similarly ages rocks. I'm not a geologist, so I can't explain exactly how the aging process works, but unlike some people, I trust scientists.
I think it's pretty serious... the past 6 years have had 5 of the hottest years on record I believe (something like that, I heard that a while back, the numbers could be wrong).
But then Mars' icecaps are also melting. I just think there is so much we do not know. We can really only speculate. Though of course, I do not condone the mistreatment of our planet.
I am perfectly fine with your mindset on this subject. It is often good to be skeptical.
However, what I was mainly referring to was when some people take it to the extreme, and completely deny that things such as global warming and evolution are happening at all. It's fine to not know how it's happening, or to what lengths it occurs, but to completely deny apparent facts that theses things are happening is just insane. Trust in science!
Ignore everything I say, to the best of your ability.
Your points about DDT and hand sanitizer weren't science being wrong, it was just science not discovering something yet. So we can thank science for discovering it instead of bashing science for not noticing it sooner.
And yes, blindly trusting anything is bad, even if it's science, but I personally think science is advanced enough by now to mostly trust it (as long as it comes from a reliable source). That doesn't mean I blindly trust it, just that I listen to the people who know what they're doing.
These things were tested, but not well enough to get the right answer right away. To be honest, we don't really understand the effects of DDT. It's still a hotly debated subject. Though let me correct myself by saying that science at the time had the wrong answer (as their assessment was still developing), however it seems like we (science) will eventually advance to discover the right (factual) answer. As I said before, science is always evolving. I certainly do not wish to bash it, though I also do not want to take the first answer they give as factual, because like you said "blindly trusting anything is bad" and our (science's) first answer is not always the truest one. <- I think we both agree on that, I just worded it confusingly/differently.
Oh okay, that makes more since. However, I don't think it's necessarily science's fault in most cases. The media tends to exaggerate or dexaggerate(? ) things that science has stated, leading to misconceptions of facts among people. I'm trying to think of a good example of this happening, I know that I know a couple, but I can't remember them right now.
Ignore everything I say, to the best of your ability.
These things were tested, but not well enough to get the right answer right away. To be honest, we don't really understand the effects of DDT. It's still a hotly debated subject. Though let me correct myself by saying that science at the time had the wrong answer (as their assessment was still developing), however it seems like we (science) will eventually advance to discover the right (factual) answer. As I said before, science is always evolving. I certainly do not wish to bash it, though I also do not want to take the first answer they give as factual, because like you said "blindly trusting anything is bad" and our (science's) first answer is not always the truest one. <- I think we both agree on that, I just worded it confusingly/differently.
Oh okay, that makes more since. However, I don't think it's necessarily science's fault in most cases. The media tends to exaggerate or dexaggerate(? ) things that science has stated, leading to misconceptions of facts among people. I'm trying to think of a good example of this happening, I know that I know a couple, but I can't remember them right now.
But then what about the Science that makes Combustible Lemons that burn your house down? It's not about "Why?" It's about "Why Not?"