The theories of the Universe

  • Advertisement
  • NiceV

    NiceV

    Well-Known Member
    You are not descended from apes, never said that, you and apes have a common ancestor that hasn't been found yet and that's what is known as the missing link.
    You share 60% of your dna with bananas as well lol

    And yes correct, all life on earth evolved from a single celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago... The only people that put emphasis on apes are those who want to deny the merits of evolution, the argument being how come the missing link hasn't been found yet we are definitely not related to apes... Or how come apes still exist that means we did not evolve from them... Most of which come from a creationist perspective ignoring the fact that evolution is not really at odds with God.
    When you find this common ancestor we talk
    Until know
    We are created on God image
    You want to have something common with apes
    I prefer God
    To be perfect like God
    On God image
     
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    When you find this common ancestor we talk
    Until know
    We are created on God image
    Indie is speaking in my name much better than me
    Its not about who can articulate better dude, i was merely pointing out to you that its not how scientific theories should be treated.
     
    NiceV

    NiceV

    Well-Known Member
    If the system doesn't break down when parts of a theory are actually proven false, why should it break down if someone hypothetically declares parts of a theory false?

    Do @LVV 's hypothetical repudiations have more power than proven scientific repudiations?

    I totally agree with my Lady Princess ? opinion
     
    AtheistForYeezus

    AtheistForYeezus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    When i mean as a whole i mean on every point it tries to tackle.

    For example the theory of gravity that newton established was accepted as whole until new observations came out that the model could not explain and then deemed obsolete and rejected as a whole.
    You guys wasted a good part of the day trying to refute my argument, insisting my understanding of science is flawed, only to finally concede with my initial statement: Scientific theories are not set in stone.

    I have to say I'm starting to get bored of being right all the time.
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    You guys wasted a good part of the day trying to refute my argument, insisting my understanding of science is flawed, only to finally concede with my initial statement: Scientific theories are not set in stone.

    I have to say I'm starting to get bored of being right all the time.
    Except this was not your original argument which was that the big bang theory is just a theory actually what you said is that the big bang "is scientific speculation" and yes your understanding of science really is flawed if that's an argument you would use! While they are not set in stone, scientific theories are true until proven otherwise, once again!

    []
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    AtheistForYeezus

    AtheistForYeezus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Except this was not your original argument which was that the big bang theory is just a theory and yes your understanding of science really is flawed if that's an argument you would use! While they are not set in stone, scientific theories are true until proven otherwise, once again!

    Please stop insisting on acting like an idiot, I'm getting tired of it!
    Doesn't that contradict your earlier claim that a "theory is a settled debate?"
    I'm sorry but the only one who contradicted herself here is you. I never said the Big Bang theory was bullshit. My original argument was that scientific theories are not absolute. They are open to questioning and revision.
    I argued that many once-accepted scientific beliefs have gone on to be proven wrong by future generations.

    You accused me of lacking understanding of the scientific definition of the word "theory", and went on to say that theories are 100% facts.

    When @Iron Maiden gave Newton as an example, you backed down on your previous assertions by conceding that scientific theories are INDEED open to revision.

    You're basically agreeing with me, but you're refusing to acknowledge it.
    Oroomers are not stupid, @Isabella.
    They know what I meant.
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    Doesn't that contradict your earlier claim that a "theory is a settled debate?"

    I'm sorry but the only one who contradicted herself here is you. I never said the Big Bang theory was bullshit. My original argument was that scientific theories are not absolute. They are open to questioning and revision.
    I argued that many once-accepted scientific beliefs have gone on to be proven wrong by future generations.

    You accused me of lacking understanding of the scientific definition of the word "theory", and went on to say that theories are 100% facts.

    When @Iron Maiden gave Newton as an example, you backed down on your previous assertions by conceding that scientific theories are INDEED open to revision.

    You're basically agreeing with me, but you're refusing to acknowledge it.
    Oroomers are not stupid, @Isabella.
    They know what I meant.
    I didn't contradict myself whatsoever! A theory is a settled debate in science until it is proven wrong! I have no idea why you're trying to be such a smartass about this!

    I said theories are facts until proven otherwise, and yes you lacked understanding of the word since you used theory inappropriately to indicate something that is not a settled debate!

    Also no that's not what I conceded with iron maiden! He said Newton's theories were rejected I highlighted that they were not but were limited in scope and he indicated that he meant they stopped working at higher speed and I agreed with him... They are still true on earth on speeds not near the speed of light honestly it seems more and more like you have no real grasp on physics!

    I'm not agreeing with you on anything! Not when you want to give Fred Hoyle and his steady state model as an example on why you think the big bang is not factual, not when you want to ignore the repeated explanations being given to you to keep talking bullshit and definitely not when you want to move the goalpost to pretend like you are right!

    As I have offered if you want an extensive explanation I'm game however i'm not interested in paraphrasing myself while you pretend to be right!

    What you have failed to understand repeatedly is that theories in science have at least some evidence supporting them, they are not pulled out of thin a.ir, and this evidence can either be through observation or logic... Now sometimes observations contradict with that theory and it becomes obsolete like your steady state model example of Fred hoyle... Sometimes they are shown to be incomplete, or rather an approximation of a larger theory, as is the case with newton's laws and most recently Einstein's theory of general relativity... However that does not mean that the current state of the big bang model is false or up to question because at some point in the future evidence may contradict it... Right now the big bang theory is absolutely true because all evidence supports it, hopefully you can get this through your head and end this debate, if not I am actually done either way won't be replying to a future post of yours where you want to pretend to be right despite repeatedly being proven wrong!

    Edit: apparently the word a.ir is censored, so I added a dot in the middle
     
    Last edited:
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    It is not Isabella who is 100% certain it is actually the truth! The big bang theory is supported by a massive amount of evidence and fits with our observations and the laws of physics in general albeit they break down at the point of singularity! A theory in science is held true until proven otherwise, it's not otherwise so it's freaking true!

    This is not the hill for you to die on!

    By the way if you "don't have scientific knowledge to go into such debates" here's a simple solution for you: don't!
    Nope once again! You are focused on the theory part of scientific theory! The gravitational waves observation actually confirmed einstein's theory of general relativity albeit cast doubt with the echos on how efficient it is at describing the event horizon of a blackhole! That doesn't mean his theory is a work in progress or open to change and revision, it just means it is incomplete... Just like Newton's laws broke down and were incomplete but are still true on earth!

    People who cast doubts on scientific theories without understanding the definition of the word theory when it comes to science and argue as you did that the big bang model is somehow false or that global warming is not influenced by humans without having observation or evidence backing up their claims and insisting on being correct despite being proven wrong repeatedly are on the other hand at least slightly dumb! What would you call someone who insists on being right despite all evidence and logic?
    In order to be debunked, a scientific theory has to conflict with empirical evidence, until that point it is held true! The big bang theory is true for now, it's a settled debate! So is evolution actually! If new findings are made to complete both theories then they will be expanded upon however all indications point to the fact that they are both true!

    You think "the missing link" debate proves human beings and apes don't have a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past when every single biologist, more precisely geneticist, thinks so? Because technically speaking lvv said "the link between human and ape is missing so evolution theory mostly rubbish" do you think your linked article proves him right? Ye3ne are you starting to read the articles you link at least Walla still skim through them?
    Tfaddal @manifesto! Can you point to where I contradicted myself? Keep in mind those were actually replies to your posts that you conveniently ignored to keep talking crap like creationism makes more sense than the big bang theory, or here's an example of the steady state model :)
     
    AtheistForYeezus

    AtheistForYeezus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    No, @Isabella, a scientific theory is not merely incomplete. Sometimes it can be proven completely wrong.


    These Scientific Theories Were Accepted Once, But Were Later Proven Wrong.
    By Anna Vishik, P.h.D. Applied Physics & Physics, Stanford University.

    All too often, science is presented as trafficking in absolute truths. On the contrary, science is a framework for interpreting, systematizing, and predicting nature based on empirical observations. That is to say, a well accepted ‘theory’ (framework for understanding/predicting nature) can always be upended with sufficiently compelling contrary evidence.

    Perhaps the best known example of a debunked ‘theory’ among physics students is the aether, once thought to be the medium which light propagated through. This theory seemed logical in the late 1800s with the newly developed understanding that light was an electromagnetic wave and the prior knowledge that all other waves propagate through a medium. The aether was famously disproved by the Michelson–Morley experiment.


    These Scientific Theories Were Accepted Once, But Were Later Proven Wrong
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    No, @Isabella, a scientific theory is not merely incomplete. Sometimes it can be proven completely wrong.


    These Scientific Theories Were Accepted Once, But Were Later Proven Wrong.
    By Anna Vishik, P.h.D. Applied Physics & Physics, Stanford University.

    All too often, science is presented as trafficking in absolute truths. On the contrary, science is a framework for interpreting, systematizing, and predicting nature based on empirical observations. That is to say, a well accepted ‘theory’ (framework for understanding/predicting nature) can always be upended with sufficiently compelling contrary evidence.
    Perhaps the best known example of a debunked ‘theory’ among physics students is the aether, once thought to be the medium which light propagated through. This theory seemed logical in the late 1800s with the newly developed understanding that light was an electromagnetic wave and the prior knowledge that all other waves propagate through a medium. The aether was famously disproved by the Michelson–Morley experiment.


    These Scientific Theories Were Accepted Once, But Were Later Proven Wrong
    Please look up and read my post again where I said that sometimes empirical evidence can prove a theory wrong and it becomes obsolete and rejected!

    We are done here! Stop acting like a blonde seriously!
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    I didn't contradict myself whatsoever! A theory is a settled debate in science until it is proven wrong! I have no idea why you're trying to be such a smartass about this!

    I said theories are facts until proven otherwise, and yes you lacked understanding of the word since you used theory inappropriately to indicate something that is not a settled debate!

    Also no that's not what I conceded with iron maiden! He said Newton's theories were rejected I highlighted that they were not but were limited in scope and he indicated that he meant they stopped working at higher speed and I agreed with him... They are still true on earth on speeds not near the speed of light honestly it seems more and more like you have no real grasp on physics!

    I'm not agreeing with you on anything! Not when you want to give Fred Hoyle and his steady state model as an example on why you think the big bang is not factual, not when you want to ignore the repeated explanations being given to you to keep talking bullshit and definitely not when you want to move the goalpost to pretend like you are right!

    As I have offered if you want an extensive explanation I'm game however i'm not interested in paraphrasing myself while you pretend to be right!

    What you have failed to understand repeatedly is that theories in science have at least some evidence supporting them, they are not pulled out of thin a.ir, and this evidence can either be through observation or logic... Now sometimes observations contradict with that theory and it becomes obsolete like your steady state model example of Fred hoyle... Sometimes they are shown to be incomplete, or rather an approximation of a larger theory, as is the case with newton's laws and most recently Einstein's theory of general relativity... However that does not mean that the current state of the big bang model is false or up to question because at some point in the future evidence may contradict it... Right now the big bang theory is absolutely true because all evidence supports it, hopefully you can get this through your head and end this debate, if not I am actually done either way won't be replying to a future post of yours where you want to pretend to be right despite repeatedly being proven wrong!

    Edit: apparently the word a.ir is censored, so I added a dot in the middle
    Just to help you out @manifesto :)

    Apparently you could not get it through your head and end this debate and instead went on to search for another cheap point, I told you this is not the hill you want to die on!
     
    AtheistForYeezus

    AtheistForYeezus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Isabella at 11:23 am: "That doesn't mean a theory is a work in progress or open to change and revision, it just means it is incomplete."

    Isabella 27 minutes ago: "Sometimes empirical evidence can prove a theory wrong and it becomes obsolete and rejected!"

    Wow, just wow.
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    Isabella at 11:23 am: "That doesn't mean a theory is a work in progress or open to change and revision, it just means it is incomplete."

    Isabella 27 minutes ago: "Sometimes empirical evidence can prove a theory wrong and it becomes obsolete and rejected!"

    Wow, just wow.
    Yes, your [] lack of understanding truly is impressive! Run along now kid!

    I said HIS THEORY in reply to your post about Einstein!

    You cannot be this dense, seriously... This is just ridiculous!
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    You guys wasted a good part of the day trying to refute my argument, insisting my understanding of science is flawed, only to finally concede with my initial statement: Scientific theories are not set in stone.

    I have to say I'm starting to get bored of being right all the time.
    No they are set in binary files on some hard disk in the MIT archive.
    Until then pray that the satellites hoverimg above you dont fall on ur head when they run out of magic flying dust, because damn general relativity is a bunch of caviar if u ask me!
     
    JustLeb

    JustLeb

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Neil degrasse Tyson comic response to a lady :D

     
    Top