Originally Posted by rogo
Evolution is shockingly well backed up the fossil record. The elimination of burn in is shockingly well backed up by the lack of burned-in displays. It's like the idiots who look at the photos of Greenland and claim it's not getting warmer because there isn't some upper atmosphere air pocket that some bogus model suggests should be 0.5 degrees warmer than it is. Guess what? Greenland ice is still melting. (Note: The last comments have nothing to do with the cause of said melting, but the argument that the melting is not happening is idiotic. Kind of like the argument that evolution is not real.)
You mean like the pre-1990s T Rex walking upright and the famous Brontosaurus?
Frankly high physics nowadays are more theory than facts. You will be amazed how many theoretical physics are based just on mathematical models without appreciable observation evidence. And how many biases are hidden under the guise of "science" when it's a theory. But at least the community has a robust peer review structure. To extrapolate evolution is akin to extrapolating to Big Bang just because the universe is expanding (which the strongest proponent Stephen Hawkings has denounced it decades back with his Brief History of Time). That's why I say I don't accept it in its ENTIRETY
Here's the recent boo-boo on global warming. If you look at the picture it looks credible. But devil is always in the details. I'm not saying global warming does not exist. But environment changes is a complicated global ecosystem phenomenon, and balance can be destroyed by a myriad of not so obvious derivative factors. My point is science is not as obvious or convenient as many of us wants to believe, or choose to take the time AND effort to understand PROPERLY. People nowadays just want fast and quick answers that appeals heuristically, hence why there's a market for 1" thick TVs http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...-greenland-maphttp://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-m...ional-ice-melt
In comparison BI/IR are much easier phenomenon
If you missed my post, here it is again. Keep an open mind and ask "why" instead of following conventions. Like I said, I'm a career pragmatist
Fact that Sarah Palin and Auditor can't explain themselves except make absolute statements shows bias on their part, and unfortunately destroys credibility to the public in the pursuit of facts.http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post21010041
Originally Posted by ebernazz
Hopefully your are not in the scientific field. Maybe you should read about scientific theory vs fact vs law.
FACT: Plasma can have burn-in (and strange thing is that "facts" can be axiomatic "scientifically", like the existence of luminiferous ether or constant speed of light)
LAW: If you abuse plasma by not using mixed content for extended period, it will have burn-in (cause and effect which can be CONSISTENTLY reproduced)
THEORY: Many plasma users complain of burn-in so burn-in must be prevalent (a Hypothesis that many of us is trying to say it is not true ie peer review... and statistically seems to confirm ie observation)