416
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: + + + + +
credibility
::The beauty of science that it's always open to review and reassessment as new discoveries come to light. In time man's understanding of Black Holes may be different from this article, but we owe the readers the best current explanations available. I'm not suggesting censorship - all credible alternate theories should be listed, but stating that there have been no observations of one is false - by definition they are not directly observable, so proving they exist relies on indirect observation and physics. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:38, 9 January 2009 (EST)
::The beauty of science that it's always open to review and reassessment as new discoveries come to light. In time man's understanding of Black Holes may be different from this article, but we owe the readers the best current explanations available. I'm not suggesting censorship - all credible alternate theories should be listed, but stating that there have been no observations of one is false - by definition they are not directly observable, so proving they exist relies on indirect observation and physics. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:38, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:::There is no place called "UCLA Berkely".
:::ID is bolstered by the direct observation available from Genesis.
:::The best explanation is not always the explanation espoused by Californians.
:::We know how our universe began. If NASA & discovery.com deny it, they lose credibility, and their other statements come under greater scrutiny. If you met someone today who insisted that the sky is red and that Sears closes at 10, you would be wise to check the store hours yourself. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 13:58, 9 January 2009 (EST)