What bothers me is people who listen to half of what science is telling us. Random chance and gravity are sufficient to explain everything. Sure, there are some details not worked out, but we have enough in our current theories to generally explain it all.
People take the robustness of science and the wierdness of the world and say, "anything is possible". This can be taken 2 ways. Sure, its optimistic, dreamy, and a motivating viewpoint. I would never want to take that away from someone, unless holding that view took away from the world.
The other way to take that is: since anything is possible, we dont know anything. There is some truth in this, such that we base our ideas about how 'A' works off our ideas of 'B', which we might only vaguely understand. The problem I see here, though, is that the scientific method brought us to this point, here, today, with such a vast understanding of the world. That knowledge can't just be written off because there is some detail that might make our views change 100 years from now. That's insulting to those that contributed to our current understanding, to say the least.
And finally, 'anything is possible' is not what science says about the world. That is just the common man's interpretation of it after being exposed to some of the implications science demonstrates. The way science works is: you start with 'anything is possible' and then eliminate the things that are not possible. Later on, you might find out there was an assumption that shouldn't have been made, which add new possibilities and resurrects old ones. And the real world clearly is not one in which everything is possible. If it were, there couldnt be anything, as it would all mix together.
I've felt for a few years now that time itself just seems the most convoluted and illusory thing about the universe itself.
...*sigh* I've heard this from alot of people. They often change their minds about it every week, which is almost a counter-argument in and of itself. On our scale, time is an illusion. At least the way we percieve it to work is not how it actually works. Its all about statistics and the way atoms and molecules tend to behave after a period of time. Fundamentally, time does exist, though. It is the measure of change. Things could not change if there was no time. For example, Muons (a particle that is like a heavy electron) decay into other particles after a period of time. If there was no time, or if it were an illusion, how could it decay? Furthermore, it is consistent (there really are statistics involved, which I will ignore, due to quantum mechanics): the muon decays after X seconds. This can be changed depending on how fast it is moving due to relativistic effects, which reduce the muon's motion through time as it moves faster through space. This is also very consistent and I invite you to explain it without time. Quantum mechanics is built off of periodic relationships, which adds alot of evidence for time.