posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 04:31 PM
So much can be said about this topic:
We are here on the planet experiencing what humans have created... It was created using reason and experience in an environment where relative
reasoning is all that is possible - since we don't know absolutely everything about everything.
The reasons for a cataclysmic collapse can be many and various. I will give an example here, and expound on it:
For instance, a comet *could* crash on the earth and change life on the planet in a very drastic fashion. Does it mean that this is *the way* that
drastic change will occur on the planet? Not necessarily. Does it mean that we can't observe before hand and predict such a thing happening.... We
have tools that help us to see such things (though perhaps not necessarily everything) and it is reasonable to believe that if such a thing were to
occur, we might actually be able to predict it and it's effects using the technological tools we have currently. Does this mean that people won't
predict that the occurrence of a comet crashing will happen, in spite of not having evidence of such, or going on evidence that is very flimsy? No.
What would be acceptable evidence from one person to the next of a comet crash changing the world drastically? Well, you have the person who will say:
it is not going to happen, regardless of what evidence is presented. You will have the person who will say that the destiny of the earth is to be hit
by a comet regardless of of what evidence is presented. You could probably also see how every degree in between could be argued by people of the
world. A scientist might argue that this is about to happen, based on empirical evidence, and tool based observation. He might in fact be an expert. I
personally am not an expert in the matter: Regardless of what the scientist observes, I am free to believe/disbelieve what is said, and then it would
be a matter of the tasting of the pie for proof of what was said by the scientist. Suppose, on the other hand, in spite of all the scientist's
observations, he missed some really key points (which he nor anyone else was aware of) in his arguments and the comet doesn't hit the world... Does
this entirely discredit the scientist's ability to observe the universe?
At one point in time, the modern world believed that the world was flat and at the center of the universe. The greeks apparently knew before that the
world was round. Kepler, Galileo and Newton proved this to be wrong.
Essentially, truth and observation is not a monopoly belonging to anyone or even a group of individuals.
Verification of one's beliefs sometimes relies on reality more than it relies on hearsay.
As far as doomsday is concerned. I believe that it is a possibility. For instance: Just because I've safely driven for five years doesn't mean that
I can't have a serious accident tomorrow. I don't believe that anyone holds a monopoly on doomsday predictions, and even if someone were to predict
it tomorrow and it did occur, I would personally (as I suspect everyone would) require *MY* satisfying level of proof that it wasn't a coincidental
prediction. There are so many variations to the theme of predictions that are made - each one has his/her own reasons/observations - in addition to
the fact that *I* would have to understand the proof... If I don't see something that I feel reasonably trustworthy as a basis for the proof, I
won't accept it as anything more than coincidental.
Why do I say trustworthy? I say trustworthy, because I have a level of proof I personally impose (due to my personal
shortcomings/abilities/experiences/understanding). This is somewhat unique from person but from what I've seen a certain amount can be transferred
from person to person through communication - hence the website.