2012?

[Gene Vincent]

Gun said:

Gene Vincent said:

When's the next apocalypse, I've enjoyed this one so far... apart from the toast.

Can we have one every year?

Here you go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predict...

It's just 'party party party' for these Doomsday predictors isn't it!

[Simpo Two]

bay1234 said:

Will the end of the world happen on the 21st of December 2012???

No.

[Dolittle]

Eric Mc said:

I'd prefer to be a knowledgeable speck of dust rather than a imbecilic speck of dust.

But how do you know your knowledge is actual knowledge. How do you know that a greater being hasn't made you believe what you believe is true.

You are very opinionated about Science, but this science is only what man has discovered, what if this 'science' has been planted. Just playing devils advocate here. But I believe anything is possible until somebody can prove their point with absolute evidence. This evidence is severely lacking at this point in time.

[Eric Mc]

Dolittle said:

But I believe anything is possible until somebody can prove their point with absolute evidence. This evidence is severely lacking at this point in time.

The overuse of the word "believe" undermines all your points.

I don't "belive" in science. I accept what science says until the point when more science improves the knowledge. The evidence in science will never be absolute - but it is based on evidence. The fact that the evidence is not absolute does not mean the evidence is wrong. It just means it isn't perhaps the whole story.

Science is not a belief system - it is fact based/evidence based knowledge system which revises itself as the knowledge of the facts and the evidence becomes more complete.

If a person is so open minded so to "believe" that anything and everything is true and valid, then that person are just as stupid as someone who knows nothing.

[hornet]

Dolittle said:

But how do you know your knowledge is actual knowledge. How do you know that a greater being hasn't made you believe what you believe is true.

How do you know knowledge of said greater being isn't subject to exactly the same qualifier? You can believe it all you want, but unless you can demonstrate your opposing view with evidence, what does the argument add to the debate? Nobody can ever say their knowledge is absolute, but if someone theorises something happens when they do X, then designs an experiment to do X and can show repeatable results that X does indeed happen, I'd say that's a pretty decent starting point for building knowledge of the universe we find ourselves in. Such results are certainly subject to revision and refinement over the years as technology advances, but that advance is itself the result of the scientific method you're questioning. I'm sat here on the internet, in a flat surrounded by (and depending on) electronic devices as diverse as fridges to mobile phones. That all stems from the discovery of the electron and developing an understanding of the laws governing its behaviour through the application of the scientific method. Is that absolute knowledge? Clearly not, but neither is it wrong. If you want to question that, you need a testable hypothesis. What's wrong with our current picture, why is it wrong and how do you intend proving it? Your argument would appear to be philosophical rather than scientific. That's all well and good, and indeed can be interesting, but philosophy isn't purifying my water, freezing my food or heating my house.

[Eighteeteewhy]

Well they were wrong, we're still here.




Oh yeah, it's 2013 now.

http://www.december212012.com/articles/news/End_of...

[funkyrobot]

Eighteeteewhy said:

Well they were wrong, we're still here.




Oh yeah, it's 2013 now.

http://www.december212012.com/articles/news/End_of...

It's always going to be a day after today, isn't it.

[hornet]

Who actually buys that bks? Bay1234 presumably, when he isn't flapping about how much petrol to put in his car.

I love how the author just throws in the Second Coming and assumes we're all happy it's a valid idea...

"There is reason to believe he was correct in his assumption that there would be 1,260 years until the return of Christ at the rebirth of the Roman Empire, but that the year he chose was incorrect. There is actually a better date based on the founding of Rome and the methodology of Daniel's prophecy."

So what he's saying is the prophecies are correct, even though they're not? Oh, and of course "buy my book!".

[jmorgan]

God or gods or superior beings forbid that anyone is making money out of this. What would they need it for.......