Arbustos wrote:So is gravity... doesn't mean it isn't true. Scientifically, "theory" isn't a pejorative as far as fact goes. Besides, what's wrong with evolution? My Bio teacher was Christian and believed in Darwin's findings...
No, gravity IS a law.
WTH, screw Wikipedia. One article they say it's Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation, another it's his Law of Universal Gravitation.
Regardless, Einstein's special relativity is also used, and that's a theory. The point is that, in science, "theory" and fact often go hand in hand.
Why do you think I rarely use wikipedia?
As for theories, they are based off of some fact, with the rest filled in with theories, making theories not 100% fact. While Laws have all the holes filled in with facts (Law of Gravity, etc...).
...What? Theories are filled in with theories??? Anyways, Wikipedia is usually pretty reliable for anyone who wants a general overview of a subject... I've never ran into a topic with incorrect information that wasn't marked for revision.
I had him. He was in my hands. He watched carefully as I looked down the barrel of my gun. Sure he's tough. But things change with a little smacking around.
JoeBeevers. What a pleasant surprise.
I never would have though to find this tortured soul at Peet's Coffee. For a man who likes to beat around women, his balls are smaller than a grain of rice.
I guess I have not been on the site too long, I fail to see why almost all threads get off their topic so quickly (perhaps that is why this is the Clubhouse, for off topic threads)
magneticgoop wrote:these are based on predictions of past and future temperatures and again this is not the point of the thread
So just because it's a prediction means it's suddenly invalid?
no it just can be inaccurate, take the local weather predictions for example, they cant predict accurately only a week in advance half the time how can we predict 100 years in the future and 1000 years in the past
Fool me once, strike one. Fool me twice, strike...three.
Arbustos wrote:So is gravity... doesn't mean it isn't true. Scientifically, "theory" isn't a pejorative as far as fact goes. Besides, what's wrong with evolution? My Bio teacher was Christian and believed in Darwin's findings...
No, gravity IS a law.
WTH, screw Wikipedia. One article they say it's Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation, another it's his Law of Universal Gravitation.
Regardless, Einstein's special relativity is also used, and that's a theory. The point is that, in science, "theory" and fact often go hand in hand.
Why do you think I rarely use wikipedia?
As for theories, they are based off of some fact, with the rest filled in with theories, making theories not 100% fact. While Laws have all the holes filled in with facts (Law of Gravity, etc...).
ehh no. Pretty much everything is a theory. A lot of stuff can't be disproven by they can't be fully proven at the same time.
And now tlaking about paradoxes what happens if you go back in time and hit your grandpa in the balls?
The Weird One wrote:yes. . . but there are theories that are just theories because of certain assholes that have decided to debate them with nonexistant evidence
Or theories are theories because they cannot be proven, like EVOLUTION.
If evolution was fact, that is, it was proven and there was hard evidence to show how and why EVOLUTION worked and happened, the scientific community would not be calling it a theory. But the truth is, it HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN and IT IS NOT FACT.
There are too many assumptions that are made and inconsistencies in evolutionary theory that have changed over time to try and keep explaining how it works. Once on idea no longer makes sense, another is formed to try and fix the problem or issue the first one no longer can account for.
The Weird One wrote:yes. . . but there are theories that are just theories because of certain assholes that have decided to debate them with nonexistant evidence
Or theories are theories because they cannot be proven, like EVOLUTION.
If evolution was fact, that is, it was proven and there was hard evidence to show how and why EVOLUTION worked and happened, the scientific community would not be calling it a theory. But the truth is, it HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN and IT IS NOT FACT.
There are too many assumptions that are made and inconsistencies in evolutionary theory that have changed over time to try and keep explaining how it works. Once on idea no longer makes sense, another is formed to try and fix the problem or issue the first one no longer can account for.
WM
It is a fact. It is a theory just like gravity. I hate it when people throw the "theory" part around. It is fact and it has been proven.
The Weird One wrote:yes. . . but there are theories that are just theories because of certain assholes that have decided to debate them with nonexistant evidence
Or theories are theories because they cannot be proven, like EVOLUTION.
If evolution was fact, that is, it was proven and there was hard evidence to show how and why EVOLUTION worked and happened, the scientific community would not be calling it a theory. But the truth is, it HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN and IT IS NOT FACT.
There are too many assumptions that are made and inconsistencies in evolutionary theory that have changed over time to try and keep explaining how it works. Once on idea no longer makes sense, another is formed to try and fix the problem or issue the first one no longer can account for.
WM
It is a fact. It is a theory just like gravity. I hate it when people throw the "theory" part around. It is fact and it has been proven.
Not really. Science is not like a legal system - a theory will never become a fact. It just sort of becomes more provable and more obvious, but never becomes a fact.
The Weird One wrote:yes. . . but there are theories that are just theories because of certain assholes that have decided to debate them with nonexistant evidence
Or theories are theories because they cannot be proven, like EVOLUTION.
If evolution was fact, that is, it was proven and there was hard evidence to show how and why EVOLUTION worked and happened, the scientific community would not be calling it a theory. But the truth is, it HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN and IT IS NOT FACT.
There are too many assumptions that are made and inconsistencies in evolutionary theory that have changed over time to try and keep explaining how it works. Once on idea no longer makes sense, another is formed to try and fix the problem or issue the first one no longer can account for.
WM
It is a fact. It is a theory just like gravity. I hate it when people throw the "theory" part around. It is fact and it has been proven.
Then you show me how it has been proven. I want a web page or paper or something showing me that it has been proven. I will show you what assumptions were made and how those assumptions are biased towards evolution.
The Weird One wrote:yes. . . but there are theories that are just theories because of certain assholes that have decided to debate them with nonexistant evidence
Or theories are theories because they cannot be proven, like EVOLUTION.
If evolution was fact, that is, it was proven and there was hard evidence to show how and why EVOLUTION worked and happened, the scientific community would not be calling it a theory. But the truth is, it HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN and IT IS NOT FACT.
What about Pythagoras' theorem? That's a theory ...
Check your dictionary, the word "theory" has a different meaning in a scientific context ...
The Weird One wrote:yes. . . but there are theories that are just theories because of certain assholes that have decided to debate them with nonexistant evidence
Or theories are theories because they cannot be proven, like EVOLUTION.
If evolution was fact, that is, it was proven and there was hard evidence to show how and why EVOLUTION worked and happened, the scientific community would not be calling it a theory. But the truth is, it HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN and IT IS NOT FACT.
There are too many assumptions that are made and inconsistencies in evolutionary theory that have changed over time to try and keep explaining how it works. Once on idea no longer makes sense, another is formed to try and fix the problem or issue the first one no longer can account for.
WM
It is a fact. It is a theory just like gravity. I hate it when people throw the "theory" part around. It is fact and it has been proven.
Then you show me how it has been proven. I want a web page or paper or something showing me that it has been proven. I will show you what assumptions were made and how those assumptions are biased towards evolution.
First of all your point is flawed. Everything in science is called a theory becuase science always tries go forward even if it means disproving old theories.
And for proof how about the fact that there are bacteria which eat nylon when nylon was invented in 1950?
The Weird One wrote:yes. . . but there are theories that are just theories because of certain assholes that have decided to debate them with nonexistant evidence
Or theories are theories because they cannot be proven, like EVOLUTION.
If evolution was fact, that is, it was proven and there was hard evidence to show how and why EVOLUTION worked and happened, the scientific community would not be calling it a theory. But the truth is, it HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN and IT IS NOT FACT.
There are too many assumptions that are made and inconsistencies in evolutionary theory that have changed over time to try and keep explaining how it works. Once on idea no longer makes sense, another is formed to try and fix the problem or issue the first one no longer can account for.
WM
It is a fact. It is a theory just like gravity. I hate it when people throw the "theory" part around. It is fact and it has been proven.
Not really. Science is not like a legal system - a theory will never become a fact. It just sort of becomes more provable and more obvious, but never becomes a fact.
Actually science can have many facts. It is a fact that blood carries oxygen to your cells. It has been proven. It is a fact that cells in living things divide copying themselves (sometimes with error or mutation) to grow.
There are lots of facts in the biological and scientific fields that CAN be proven.
The Weird One wrote:yes. . . but there are theories that are just theories because of certain assholes that have decided to debate them with nonexistant evidence
Or theories are theories because they cannot be proven, like EVOLUTION.
If evolution was fact, that is, it was proven and there was hard evidence to show how and why EVOLUTION worked and happened, the scientific community would not be calling it a theory. But the truth is, it HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN and IT IS NOT FACT.
There are too many assumptions that are made and inconsistencies in evolutionary theory that have changed over time to try and keep explaining how it works. Once on idea no longer makes sense, another is formed to try and fix the problem or issue the first one no longer can account for.
WM
It is a fact. It is a theory just like gravity. I hate it when people throw the "theory" part around. It is fact and it has been proven.
Not really. Science is not like a legal system - a theory will never become a fact. It just sort of becomes more provable and more obvious, but never becomes a fact.
Actually science can have many facts. It is a fact that blood carries oxygen to your cells. It has been proven. It is a fact that cells in living things divide copying themselves (sometimes with error or mutation) to grow.
There are lots of facts in the biological and scientific fields that CAN be proven.
JUST NOT EVOLUTION.
A lot of things have been proven. Stop concentrating on the wording and concentrate on the facts
Iliad wrote:And for proof how about the fact that there are bacteria which eat nylon when nylon was invented in 1950?
What is your point? How does that prove evolution?
What about the fact:
1) An unpetrified Tyrannosaurus Rex bone with blood was found. How can that be millions of years old and still have blood.
http://www.vetscite.org/publish/items/002160/index.html Because if we found a chicken bone in the ground with blood in it we would not say it was 65 million years old. This is an example of how a scientist is trying to explain how blood could exist for million of years to support a theory that is contradicted by the findings of a bone with blood.
Iliad wrote:And for proof how about the fact that there are bacteria which eat nylon when nylon was invented in 1950?
What is your point? How does that prove evolution?
What about the fact: 1) An unpetrified Tyrannosaurus Rex bone with blood was found. How can that be millions of years old and still have blood. http://www.vetscite.org/publish/items/002160/index.html Because if we found a chicken bone in the ground with blood in it we would not say it was 65 million years old. This is an example of how a scientist is trying to explain how blood could exist for million of years to support a theory that is contradicted by the findings of a bone with blood.
If evolution doesn't exist and everythign was created at the same time HOW THE HELL DID THE BACTERIA LIVE!!
WidowMakers wrote:What about the fact: 1) An unpetrified Tyrannosaurus Rex bone with blood was found. How can that be millions of years old and still have blood. http://www.vetscite.org/publish/items/002160/index.html Because if we found a chicken bone in the ground with blood in it we would not say it was 65 million years old. This is an example of how a scientist is trying to explain how blood could exist for million of years to support a theory that is contradicted by the findings of a bone with blood.
Have you read the whole of that 2000+ page paper, then? Or just that summary?
Just a stab in the dark, but perhaps if you were to read the whole thing you'd find out why this was the case. You see, the difference between scientific theory and religious dogma is that religious dogma claims to be 100% correct all of the time, whereas scientific theory works around models trying to explain observable phenomenon. So as a consequence, when something like this comes up people say "oh, well maybe the present thinking needs to be modified". Nobody in the scientific community claims the current models of the universe [inc evolution] to be 100% correct, but they're the most accurate representation of the universe given the knowledge that we currently have.
Which is *highly* different from the intelligent design group.
Sorry, I'll stop now.
