Christmas

[dembethewarrior]

The Earth is categorically 4.5 billion years old. They’re couldn’t be much more proof.

I think I scared him off.

I know not everyone lives online, but when you post a reply like he did you generally stick around for the reply..he thought he had me

[truthpaste]

I think I scared him off.

I know not everyone lives online, but when you post a reply like he did you generally stick around for the reply..he thought he had me

I had an online meeting. It happens.

What hasn't happened is ANYONE providing a source for their 'silver bullet' fact.

Take your time. See you tomorrow, God willing.

[dembethewarrior]

I had an online meeting. It happens.

What hasn't happened is ANYONE providing a source for their 'silver bullet' fact.

Take your time. See you tomorrow, God willing.

Trees humans and dinosaurs all older than 6000 years.

That's 3.

Water in the oceans 3.8 billion years old. There's even more 0s.

I don't really see the point in replying to you anymore, you don't reply to anything put to you either.

[Canton Kev]

What hasn't happened is ANYONE providing a source for their 'silver bullet' fact.

Where’s your proof the world is 6000 years old ��

[dembethewarrior]

Where’s your proof the world is 6000 years old ��

Slim pickings

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=proof...6000+years+old

[The Bloop]

Where’s your proof the world is 6000 years old ��

As Manuel said on Fawlty Towers - I read it in a book

[Croesy Blue]

I had an online meeting. It happens.

What hasn't happened is ANYONE providing a source for their 'silver bullet' fact.

Take your time. See you tomorrow, God willing.

You can carbon date it, I’ve done similar when studying, it’s not a difficult thing to do.

The thing is it’s pointless debating because you’ll just say it’s a test from god. Who plants dinosaur fossils and cross shaped proteins but won’t stop babies being born with aids or kids from dying of cancer.

Even if it was real who’d want to worship that.

[bobh]

Therer is an undeniable fat that there are many religions past and present, all maintained they are/were the only truth.
It is impossible for them all to be correct.

It is possible, or should I say probable, that they are/were all WRONG

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

I had an online meeting. It happens.

What hasn't happened is ANYONE providing a source for their 'silver bullet' fact.

Take your time. See you tomorrow, God willing.

I'm getting the impression that if no-one can come up with a definitive explanation for the origin of the universe and life itself (with witnesses) then that would make your theistic beliefs fact? Have I misread this?

[Baloo]

Given that in this short paragraph we have:-

* Here's the theory
* It's thought that..
* but our current theories haven't yet figured out how a single, unified force would work.
* we'd need to know how gravity works on the subatomic scale, but we currently don't".

So your "absolutely ****ing true" is hanging on so much uncertainties that I fail to see how any honest individual - scientist or not - could claim it to be an absolute?

To be clear on one point, I believe the way word theory is used in science is a bit different to our common, everyday parlance.

In science, a theory is used to explain the how or why. Even when this can be clearly observed, measured and tested. So even if we knew how gravity works on a sub atomic scale this would still remain a theory.

So a scientific theory isn’t a prior stage before establishing a fact, it’s something different altogether. Sometimes science can be dismissed as merely a ‘theory’ and so equal in credibility to any other speculation, but this really confuses how the word theory is used in a scientific context.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

To be clear on one point, I believe the way word theory is used in science is a bit different to our common, everyday parlance.

In science, a theory is used to explain the how or why. Even when this can be clearly observed, measured and tested. So even if we knew how gravity works on a sub atomic scale this would still remain a theory.

So a scientific theory isn’t a prior stage before establishing a fact, it’s something different altogether. Sometimes science can be dismissed as merely a ‘theory’ and so equal in credibility to any other speculation, but this really confuses how the word theory is used in a scientific context.

I won't engage with who has become the protagonist on this thread as it would be fruitless. It's just amusing that science (a.k.a. knowledge) has enabled many lives to be saved whereas patients all around the world may have perished if they were left to the vagaries of what knowledge and treatment that existed two thousand years ago when microbes, tectonic plates, particles, viruses and electricity was either absent or minimal. What we have subsequently learned has, in many cases, cured what would otherwise be incurable illnesses (regardless of whether they were supposedly sent by a deity as means of punishment), space travel, electronics, computers and a million other sophisticated things that would have probably been deigned as sophistry by illiterate people thousands of years ago.
I see in this thread that there still seems to be this ridiculous attitude about the fact that scientific theory can be wrong. Any intelligent person knows how science progresses and we know it is progressed as we learn more and that we previously understood may indeed be wrong. We learn something from observations and measurement and scientists make their best stab at what may well describe why and in the full knowledge that there may be more to learn. That educated guess may or may not be correct and may be partly correct based on the results and data hitherto. If more information comes to light or throws a spanner in the works then that becomes the most important fact to concentrate on in the pursuit of greater knowledge and accuracy. This is not a failing nor a ridiculous dogma that seeks to defend ancient theories in any way. It is the polar opposite. If someone doesn't have the nous to understand that (as is obvious in this thread) there is no point in stating what to most people is the bleedin' obvious.

[truthpaste]

I won't engage with who has become the protagonist on this thread as it would be fruitless. It's just amusing that science (a.k.a. knowledge) has enabled many lives to be saved whereas patients all around the world may have perished if they were left to the vagaries of what knowledge and treatment that existed two thousand years ago when microbes, tectonic plates, particles, viruses and electricity was either absent or minimal. What we have subsequently learned has, in many cases, cured what would otherwise be incurable illnesses (regardless of whether they were supposedly sent by a deity as means of punishment), space travel, electronics, computers and a million other sophisticated things that would have probably been deigned as sophistry by illiterate people thousands of years ago.
I see in this thread that there still seems to be this ridiculous attitude about the fact that scientific theory can be wrong. Any intelligent person knows how science progresses and we know it is progressed as we learn more and that we previously understood may indeed be wrong. We learn something from observations and measurement and scientists make their best stab at what may well describe why and in the full knowledge that there may be more to learn. That educated guess may or may not be correct and may be partly correct based on the results and data hitherto. If more information comes to light or throws a spanner in the works then that becomes the most important fact to concentrate on in the pursuit of greater knowledge and accuracy. This is not a failing nor a ridiculous dogma that seeks to defend ancient theories in any way. It is the polar opposite. If someone doesn't have the nous to understand that (as is obvious in this thread) there is no point in stating what to most people is the bleedin' obvious.

Verified science works - no press conference required

[Croesy Blue]

To be clear on one point, I believe the way word theory is used in science is a bit different to our common, everyday parlance.

In science, a theory is used to explain the how or why. Even when this can be clearly observed, measured and tested. So even if we knew how gravity works on a sub atomic scale this would still remain a theory.

So a scientific theory isn’t a prior stage before establishing a fact, it’s something different altogether. Sometimes science can be dismissed as merely a ‘theory’ and so equal in credibility to any other speculation, but this really confuses how the word theory is used in a scientific context.

Yep theory in Science is different to the everyday use.

[truthpaste]

Yes I've long been aware that gravity is a theory, no problem. But that's only a third of the issue - "we don't currently know" and "we haven't yet figured out how..." is a problem if people are going to insist that science has come up with THE definitive answer.

If they actually knew already knew HOW it all began then why build the Hadron Collider for a total cost of about $4.75 billion and an annual ongoing cost of about $1 billion per year?

Sure, actual science is wonderful, at 10p or even billions of dollars, guesswork is just guesswork.

[truthpaste]

I'm getting the impression that if no-one can come up with a definitive explanation for the origin of the universe and life itself (with witnesses) then that would make your theistic beliefs fact? Have I misread this?

Completely, but that happens when you fear the fallout from an actual exchange of views.

[lardy]

Yes I've long been aware that gravity is a theory, no problem. But that's only a third of the issue - "we don't currently know" and "we haven't yet figured out how..." is a problem if people are going to insist that science has come up with THE definitive answer.

If they actually knew already knew HOW it all began then why build the Hadron Collider for a total cost of about $4.75 billion and an annual ongoing cost of about $1 billion per year?

Sure, actual science is wonderful, at 10p or even billions of dollars, guesswork is just guesswork.

Because they are people who would like a bit more evidence than just being earnestly told that something definitely definitely happened it really did I promise.

[truthpaste]

Because they are people who would like a bit more evidence than just being earnestly told that something definitely definitely happened it really did I promise.

You mean someone like me!

Rewind, I was informed that your story was >> "widely accepted in science to be absolutely ****ing true" - so as you've said above, I asked for documentation. If you agree with the need for this then you too need the same, because you just said "would like a bit more evidence than just being earnestly told that something definitely definitely happened it really did.."

So we both await the definitive evidence we require.

[Croesy Blue]

Peer reviewed scientific journals are the most accurate evidence you can get.

Scientific theories aren’t just being told something and believing it. There are open source studies that back everything up.

If someone wanted to prove something they could go and repeat the same studies them self.

If you consider the bible on the same level fair enough. But it isn’t and it means there is no point discussing it because you won’t accept genuine evidence.

[Croesy Blue]

The large hadron collider is used to understand particle physics theories at a deeper level that previously able. It’s not being built to prove the dawn of the universe

[lardy]

You mean someone like me!

Rewind, I was informed that your story was >> "widely accepted in science to be absolutely ****ing true" - so as you've said above, I asked for documentation. If you agree with the need for this then you too need the same, because you just said "would like a bit more evidence than just being earnestly told that something definitely definitely happened it really did.."

So we both await the definitive evidence we require.

One group is actively looking for evidence, the other isnt.

Guess which group you're in...

[Croesy Blue]

One group is actively looking for evidence, the other isnt.

Guess which group you're in...

Maybe you missed the that God made a protein shaped like the thing the bible says his son was killed on, before it even happened.

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

Completely, but that happens when you fear the fallout from an actual exchange of views.

What fallout would that be?

[Croesy Blue]

What fallout would that be?

Roundhouse kick from Jesus I think

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

Roundhouse kick from Jesus I think

I thought TP was going to announce he's become an atheist.

[bobh]

Yes I've long been aware that gravity is a theory, no problem. But that's only a third of the issue - "we don't currently know" and "we haven't yet figured out how..." is a problem if people are going to insist that science has come up with THE definitive answer.

If they actually knew already knew HOW it all began then why build the Hadron Collider for a total cost of about $4.75 billion and an annual ongoing cost of about $1 billion per year?

Sure, actual science is wonderful, at 10p or even billions of dollars, guesswork is just guesswork.

Gravity doesn't exist.
The Earth sucks.