Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Why would anyone assume that the existence of something depends on arbitrary definitions of proof?
Every fact that has been "proven" with "evidence" was true prior to being "proven" with "evidence."
|
The Scientific community's consensus is that proof should be something that is verifiable and repeatable. This standard has stood the test of time. When evidence cannot be verified, its authenticity is suspect. If an observation cannot be made again and an observation to the contrary of what is claimed can be repeated, then the original observation must be discarded as error. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.