> It's boring. I understand your point - but there is a real point to what I'm saying. The fact is that no one is actually checking anything. Its all based o

> It's boring. I understand your point - but there is a real point to what I'm saying. The fact is that no one is actually checking anything. Its all based on trust. I know. Its dull, but you need to verify information before you actively promote or parrot it. Its the scientific method, and it should be applied personally. You cannot "know" unless you verify personally. You can trust, believe, etc but not know. If you say 'I know' without having verified whatever-it-is, you are in fact (unintentionally, perhaps) lying. > It's boring. Another way of responding is that the truth may in fact be boring. It might not be possible to say anything meaningful about stuff, especially when that stuff relates to events that may (or may not) have happened 66 million years ago. Just because its boring, and there is not much to know, should we accept any old story that purports to explain things? Is that reason? Is it religious/magical thinking? Would it better to say 'I don't know'?