OK, you explained what a theory is very well. but the fact that a "theory" is not "just a theory" 
D) still is no prove for my question...
D) still is no prove for my question...
Buy on AliExpress.com
Mario Balotelli (39 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fake Melo
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
so, unable to comprehend it is
yes he did. What he told you was that in scientific lingo the word "theory" is equivalent to the word "fact". That was the part you needed to extract from Ocelot's post And considering how you stated your earlier and subsequent questions, you were not aware of that, hence his response.
To paraphrase Ocelot's post without actually adding anything to it - A scientific theory is a broadly encompassing (unlike a "law" which is very specific e.g. a single formula) set of explanations of related phenomena that has been subjected to and confirmed by rigorous testing thru observation (facts) and experiment (facts) for many years on end, usually centuries, actually.
The reason why scientists use the word 'theory" instead of "fact" or "law" is because a scientific theory goes beyond the scope of a singular observable event or phenomenon e.g. quantum theory explains the workings of the sun as well as the Auroras and many other things in between; the scope of the theory is not restricted solely to explaining one thing and one thing only.
yes he did. What he told you was that in scientific lingo the word "theory" is equivalent to the word "fact". That was the part you needed to extract from Ocelot's post And considering how you stated your earlier and subsequent questions, you were not aware of that, hence his response.
To paraphrase Ocelot's post without actually adding anything to it - A scientific theory is a broadly encompassing (unlike a "law" which is very specific e.g. a single formula) set of explanations of related phenomena that has been subjected to and confirmed by rigorous testing thru observation (facts) and experiment (facts) for many years on end, usually centuries, actually.
The reason why scientists use the word 'theory" instead of "fact" or "law" is because a scientific theory goes beyond the scope of a singular observable event or phenomenon e.g. quantum theory explains the workings of the sun as well as the Auroras and many other things in between; the scope of the theory is not restricted solely to explaining one thing and one thing only.
so, unable to comprehend it is
yes he did. What he told you was that in scientific lingo the word "theory" is equivalent to the word "fact". That was the part you needed to extract from Ocelot's post And considering how you stated your earlier and subsequent questions, you were not aware of that, hence his response.
To paraphrase Ocelot's post without actually adding anything to it - A scientific theory is a broadly encompassing (unlike a "law" which is very specific e.g. a single formula) set of explanations of a phenomenon that has been subjected to and confirmed by rigorous testing thru observation (facts) and experiment (facts) for many years on end, usually centuries, actually.
The reason why scientists use the word 'theory" instead of "fact" is because a scientific theory, once confirmed, goes beyond the scope of a singular observable event or phenomenon e.g. quantum theory explains the workings of the sun as well as the Auroras and many other things in between; the scope of the theory is not restricted solely to explaining one thing and one thing only.
yes he did. What he told you was that in scientific lingo the word "theory" is equivalent to the word "fact". That was the part you needed to extract from Ocelot's post And considering how you stated your earlier and subsequent questions, you were not aware of that, hence his response.
To paraphrase Ocelot's post without actually adding anything to it - A scientific theory is a broadly encompassing (unlike a "law" which is very specific e.g. a single formula) set of explanations of a phenomenon that has been subjected to and confirmed by rigorous testing thru observation (facts) and experiment (facts) for many years on end, usually centuries, actually.
The reason why scientists use the word 'theory" instead of "fact" is because a scientific theory, once confirmed, goes beyond the scope of a singular observable event or phenomenon e.g. quantum theory explains the workings of the sun as well as the Auroras and many other things in between; the scope of the theory is not restricted solely to explaining one thing and one thing only.
well, if you choose to not trust the scientific method, how do you expect that method to bring you a proof? You can always just decide to refuse a proof for being one and then one has to wonder what constitutes a proof to you? Only what you would like/need to hear? Only what sounds comfortable and easy to reconcile with? For that sort of proof, you should consult a certain book or two, not the scientific method.
you also need to have reasonable expectations. What I mean by that - if the only way for you to believe evolution is fact and not fiction would be for you to observe a monkey giving birth to a human baby, then you are out of luck. Evolution is a long, everlasting process, not an event.
Once you figure that out, if you still chose to trust science and are interested in evolution, you will realize that the proof is already in the making if not done for good - go read up on genetics, for example. Evolution has been for all practical purposes scientifically proven for years now thanks to genetics. Before that it was mostly evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, anatomists you name having to draw conclusions based on observations on fossil records and such (but not only e.g. embryonic commonalities etc) and trace out common traits among species. Those in themselves represented strong support for the theory of evolution but since genetics has come into the picture, it has done nothing but put it all in black and white - genetic commonalities among species to explain the common anatomic features, universal genetic code, the role of genes in a species' ability to adapt to different environment to the point where the adaptation is so strong and deep that it branches into a new species altogether, etc, etc, etc.
Genetics has made it possible to start mapping genomes of different species and observe the process of evolution at the finest grain possible yet. It has shown that the main difference in the genetic code of a human and that of a chimp is the fusion of two chromosomes into one (monkey -> human) resulting in monkeys having 1 more unique chromosome than humans, everything else being 99% identical. There are so many confirmations that genetics has made in support of evolutionary theory that it's virtually impossible to enumerate them all. Not a single discovery has been made that disproves evolution.
At the same time this is so out of the scope of most people's scientific education, for now, that it's difficult not to say impossible to convince them that all this is a scientific fact, that is out there and not just science fiction pulled out of Start Trek movie or whatever. And it's not an easy field to comprehend, in general, especially considering it's still very much developing.
One doesn't have to be a geneticist, however, to appreciate what the field has achieved so far, and confirmations of evolution at the smallest scale is just scratching the surface. That's why it is up to you to go out there and figure things out for yourself instead of waiting on knowledge to fall into your lap. The information, what's been found/confirmed, already is out there literally available at your fingertips courtesy of a google search. Ignorance until mere 50 years ago was an understandable excuse, today it is a choice.
If you still prefer to disregard and brush aside the libraries and exabytes of ever-mounting scientific evidence, well there is always the funny books to fall back on.
you also need to have reasonable expectations. What I mean by that - if the only way for you to believe evolution is fact and not fiction would be for you to observe a monkey giving birth to a human baby, then you are out of luck. Evolution is a long, everlasting process, not an event.
Once you figure that out, if you still chose to trust science and are interested in evolution, you will realize that the proof is already in the making if not done for good - go read up on genetics, for example. Evolution has been for all practical purposes scientifically proven for years now thanks to genetics. Before that it was mostly evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, anatomists you name having to draw conclusions based on observations on fossil records and such (but not only e.g. embryonic commonalities etc) and trace out common traits among species. Those in themselves represented strong support for the theory of evolution but since genetics has come into the picture, it has done nothing but put it all in black and white - genetic commonalities among species to explain the common anatomic features, universal genetic code, the role of genes in a species' ability to adapt to different environment to the point where the adaptation is so strong and deep that it branches into a new species altogether, etc, etc, etc.
Genetics has made it possible to start mapping genomes of different species and observe the process of evolution at the finest grain possible yet. It has shown that the main difference in the genetic code of a human and that of a chimp is the fusion of two chromosomes into one (monkey -> human) resulting in monkeys having 1 more unique chromosome than humans, everything else being 99% identical. There are so many confirmations that genetics has made in support of evolutionary theory that it's virtually impossible to enumerate them all. Not a single discovery has been made that disproves evolution.
At the same time this is so out of the scope of most people's scientific education, for now, that it's difficult not to say impossible to convince them that all this is a scientific fact, that is out there and not just science fiction pulled out of Start Trek movie or whatever. And it's not an easy field to comprehend, in general, especially considering it's still very much developing.
One doesn't have to be a geneticist, however, to appreciate what the field has achieved so far, and confirmations of evolution at the smallest scale is just scratching the surface. That's why it is up to you to go out there and figure things out for yourself instead of waiting on knowledge to fall into your lap. The information, what's been found/confirmed, already is out there literally available at your fingertips courtesy of a google search. Ignorance until mere 50 years ago was an understandable excuse, today it is a choice.
If you still prefer to disregard and brush aside the libraries and exabytes of ever-mounting scientific evidence, well there is always the funny books to fall back on.
Then you'll get Hillary Clinton 
You guys are fucked.
You guys are fucked.
So ungrateful, the man is cooool as ice. Likes a pint of the black stuff too 
The guy is killing everything about this nation. Sigh. Not the biggest fan of bush don't get me wrong, but this guy has to be the absolute worst in our history.
- - - Updated - - -
What we need to do is do a temporary annex of Canada (minus Lion) and address the southern immigration issue we have right now. Fix that, you can go back to having a healthier middle class
- - - Updated - - -
@Osman
- - - Updated - - -
What we need to do is do a temporary annex of Canada (minus Lion) and address the southern immigration issue we have right now. Fix that, you can go back to having a healthier middle class
- - - Updated - - -
@Osman
Yeah, what the fuck is Obama doing with the keystone pipeline, he's pandering to the environmental extremists of the democrats 
He should have accepted the deal years ago.
He should have accepted the deal years ago.
Oh man.
But the liberals say that global warming (now re-branded as climate change for propaganda) will kill us all.
Guess what, the earth hasn't warmed since 1998. Yes, global warming stopped 16 years ago.
- - - Updated - - -
Wut? I stated my position on things. And that's that. I didn't talk about global disruption nor did I use such a term.
Africa Unite
Africa Unite
What?! 
Africa can be self-sufficient, if left alone or treated fairly, and at this point I think no other method but military movement would make a change. And I'm dead serious!
- - - Updated - - -
It's me.
Africa can be self-sufficient, if left alone or treated fairly, and at this point I think no other method but military movement would make a change. And I'm dead serious!
- - - Updated - - -
It's me.
First of all Hillary would be a baller president
Second of all, I'm all about preserving the environment. It's a slippery slope when you start mining for resources everywhere without thinking about the future consequences.
Second of all, I'm all about preserving the environment. It's a slippery slope when you start mining for resources everywhere without thinking about the future consequences.
Belgium and their creatine rage
About private militia's, i found "lord of war" with nicolas cage a pretty good example. Just replace the role of cage by the west in general.
Pretty much sums up the rather cynical viewpoint i have of africa aswel. It allways strikes me people talk about uniting, whilst nearly every country has several rebel groups deviding the place. In the most brutal ways usually.
The way we "aid" africa, is even worse. We send money or food. Thats idiotic. The money goes into the pockets of corrupt officials and the established capitalist class, or to private militia's. Giving them food, means you destroy the market for the local farmers.
Mandela for example, was a great man. Unfortunatly, nearly everyone that rose with him, is corrupt as fuck. South africa (and entire africa basically) deserves better).
Meanwhile, we keep giving money, and make ourselves feel good.No. We should look in how we could actually improve africa. DO NOT send them stuff they can produce themselves. DO not send money that can be used to buy arms.
Send them technology and materials wich can be used to boost the local economy. Build schools, build powerplants, build wastewater threatment, send materials that enhance the agriculture.
Look at their economy. What can they specialise in ? Help them with knowledge and technology so that the can do these things.
But you know what ? We wont. Because its so damn easy, to abuse. Dumb electronic waste at their coasts and have adults and children get the different metals out of them. Why care about heavy metal posioning when you can turn a bigger profit right ?
I really hope you arent serious about this.
- - - Updated - - -
Actually, that idiot came from the UK
Pretty much sums up the rather cynical viewpoint i have of africa aswel. It allways strikes me people talk about uniting, whilst nearly every country has several rebel groups deviding the place. In the most brutal ways usually.
The way we "aid" africa, is even worse. We send money or food. Thats idiotic. The money goes into the pockets of corrupt officials and the established capitalist class, or to private militia's. Giving them food, means you destroy the market for the local farmers.
Mandela for example, was a great man. Unfortunatly, nearly everyone that rose with him, is corrupt as fuck. South africa (and entire africa basically) deserves better).
Meanwhile, we keep giving money, and make ourselves feel good.No. We should look in how we could actually improve africa. DO NOT send them stuff they can produce themselves. DO not send money that can be used to buy arms.
Send them technology and materials wich can be used to boost the local economy. Build schools, build powerplants, build wastewater threatment, send materials that enhance the agriculture.
Look at their economy. What can they specialise in ? Help them with knowledge and technology so that the can do these things.
But you know what ? We wont. Because its so damn easy, to abuse. Dumb electronic waste at their coasts and have adults and children get the different metals out of them. Why care about heavy metal posioning when you can turn a bigger profit right ?
I really hope you arent serious about this.
- - - Updated - - -
Actually, that idiot came from the UK
seriously, i dont care if its true or not.
however, i refuse to believe that my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-greatx1000000000 grandfather/mother looked like this
however, i refuse to believe that my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-greatx1000000000 grandfather/mother looked like this
I'm not blaming you, a university course of Biology could do wonders for you
Many people without the neccecary knowledge, dont understand things, and reject them, untill they obtain that knowledge
Its a dangerous thing you mention there tbh. Because its not that easy.
First of all, CO2 is a pretty strong greenhouse gas. Not as strong as methane, but pretty strong on its own.
Emissions per year are a wrong measurement, you need to look at assimilation.
Each year, a certain amount of CO2 is produced by burning fossil enerergy, on top of other CO2 producing reactions such as daytime respiration for Eukaryotes and prokaryotes.
Each year, a certain amount of CO2 is assimilated by eukaryotes and a variety of bacteria, for growth and energyproduction.
As long as all the produced CO2 is assimilated, there is not a problem. However, since the start of the industrial revolution, there has been excess.
Because of excess, this CO2 is allowed to build up,wich increases the athmosphetic concentration. This can be seen in the followign image:
What we learn from this image, is that the increased emissions per year, are speeding up the concentration increase.
Now, global temperature is not a good measurement in this case. Global warming is something to be extrapolated over centuries. A timeperiod as short as 16 years is far to small, because of the great many buffers the earth has. However, as you mention, solar activity has a direct impact, and this gives the very dangerous wrong implementation of the facts you just made.
The ice caps, buffer water temperature, and they directly influence the jet streams, wich is the true factor for climate. El Nino is a phenomenon caused by jet streams. And in the recent decades its occuring more often.
Thanks to the gigantic capacity of water to retain temperature, a period as short as 2 decades, could show a relative halt in increasing temperature. It will be counteracted by a speedup of the melting of icecaps and slight changes in jet streams. But slight changes, can have greater results.
As can be seen here, a clear speed up of the melting, in the same time period where you said that the temperature stopped rising.
But are the enviromentalists right ? Nope. They mostly try to shock people with extreme scenario's, usually not academically underbuild.
Are the "anti enviromental lobby" right ? Nope. They are the ones who use blatant propaganda, and ignore the issue because of profit maximalisation.
Who is right ? the academics.
Academic studies have a clear list of the consequences for each 0.5 degree celcuis rise of global temperature.
They have made the models that link global warming to greenhouse gas effect, the buffers , and the importance of ice caps.
Before the ice caps melt, we'll see mostly nothing. Perhaps some bad harvests and rainseasons. Most cynical model shows the caps to have melted at 2040.
But why is all this so very important ? Because it only goes one way. And this is very critical.
We can do what we do, and accumulate greenhouse gasses in the athmosphere and have the place warm up. But we cannot reverse this. There is no way we can get rid of these greenhouse gasses. There is no way we can revert global warming.
the most disturbing, is that there is a point of no return. This point means if the temperature rises above that given point, it will keep accelerating and there is nothing we can do anymore.
Sources : University courses of "sustainable technology" and "enviromental remediation", and lectures of various profs at the kekule cyclus of 2012 and 2014 at University of Antwerp.
Many people without the neccecary knowledge, dont understand things, and reject them, untill they obtain that knowledge
Its a dangerous thing you mention there tbh. Because its not that easy.
First of all, CO2 is a pretty strong greenhouse gas. Not as strong as methane, but pretty strong on its own.
Emissions per year are a wrong measurement, you need to look at assimilation.
Each year, a certain amount of CO2 is produced by burning fossil enerergy, on top of other CO2 producing reactions such as daytime respiration for Eukaryotes and prokaryotes.
Each year, a certain amount of CO2 is assimilated by eukaryotes and a variety of bacteria, for growth and energyproduction.
As long as all the produced CO2 is assimilated, there is not a problem. However, since the start of the industrial revolution, there has been excess.
Because of excess, this CO2 is allowed to build up,wich increases the athmosphetic concentration. This can be seen in the followign image:
What we learn from this image, is that the increased emissions per year, are speeding up the concentration increase.
Now, global temperature is not a good measurement in this case. Global warming is something to be extrapolated over centuries. A timeperiod as short as 16 years is far to small, because of the great many buffers the earth has. However, as you mention, solar activity has a direct impact, and this gives the very dangerous wrong implementation of the facts you just made.
The ice caps, buffer water temperature, and they directly influence the jet streams, wich is the true factor for climate. El Nino is a phenomenon caused by jet streams. And in the recent decades its occuring more often.
Thanks to the gigantic capacity of water to retain temperature, a period as short as 2 decades, could show a relative halt in increasing temperature. It will be counteracted by a speedup of the melting of icecaps and slight changes in jet streams. But slight changes, can have greater results.
As can be seen here, a clear speed up of the melting, in the same time period where you said that the temperature stopped rising.
But are the enviromentalists right ? Nope. They mostly try to shock people with extreme scenario's, usually not academically underbuild.
Are the "anti enviromental lobby" right ? Nope. They are the ones who use blatant propaganda, and ignore the issue because of profit maximalisation.
Who is right ? the academics.
Academic studies have a clear list of the consequences for each 0.5 degree celcuis rise of global temperature.
They have made the models that link global warming to greenhouse gas effect, the buffers , and the importance of ice caps.
Before the ice caps melt, we'll see mostly nothing. Perhaps some bad harvests and rainseasons. Most cynical model shows the caps to have melted at 2040.
But why is all this so very important ? Because it only goes one way. And this is very critical.
We can do what we do, and accumulate greenhouse gasses in the athmosphere and have the place warm up. But we cannot reverse this. There is no way we can get rid of these greenhouse gasses. There is no way we can revert global warming.
the most disturbing, is that there is a point of no return. This point means if the temperature rises above that given point, it will keep accelerating and there is nothing we can do anymore.
Sources : University courses of "sustainable technology" and "enviromental remediation", and lectures of various profs at the kekule cyclus of 2012 and 2014 at University of Antwerp.
thanks brother
OK, youre a smart person, you have been on these courses, convince me. with facts. not with theories...
- - - Updated - - -
- - - Updated - - -
Being a theory is as certain as any scientific explanation can ever become, per definition
The trouble and confusion here often stems from the term theory, as a we normally use it in our everyday language, meaning something else entirely, and actually having more in common with a scientific hypothesis, a sort-of "prestage" to a theory.
Even if we were to invent a time machine, travel back in time and observe evolution as it happens, it still would not be "more" than a theory. Plate tectonics, for example, is "just" a theory as well.
OK, you explained what a theory is very well. but the fact that a "theory" is not "just a theory" D) still is no prove for my question...
D) still is no prove for my question...
so, unable to comprehend it is
yes he did. What he told you was that in scientific lingo the word "theory" is equivalent to the word "fact". That was the part you needed to extract from Ocelot's post And considering how you stated your earlier and subsequent questions, you were not aware of that, hence his response.
To paraphrase Ocelot's post without actually adding anything to it - A scientific theory is a broadly encompassing (unlike a "law" which is very specific e.g. a single formula) set of explanations of related phenomena that has been subjected to and confirmed by rigorous testing thru observation (facts) and experiment (facts) for many years on end, usually centuries, actually.
The reason why scientists use the word 'theory" instead of "fact" is because a scientific theory, once confirmed, goes beyond the scope of a singular observable event or phenomenon e.g. quantum theory explains the workings of the sun as well as the Auroras and many other things in between; the scope of the theory is not restricted solely to explaining one thing and one thing only.
yes he did. What he told you was that in scientific lingo the word "theory" is equivalent to the word "fact". That was the part you needed to extract from Ocelot's post And considering how you stated your earlier and subsequent questions, you were not aware of that, hence his response.
To paraphrase Ocelot's post without actually adding anything to it - A scientific theory is a broadly encompassing (unlike a "law" which is very specific e.g. a single formula) set of explanations of related phenomena that has been subjected to and confirmed by rigorous testing thru observation (facts) and experiment (facts) for many years on end, usually centuries, actually.
The reason why scientists use the word 'theory" instead of "fact" is because a scientific theory, once confirmed, goes beyond the scope of a singular observable event or phenomenon e.g. quantum theory explains the workings of the sun as well as the Auroras and many other things in between; the scope of the theory is not restricted solely to explaining one thing and one thing only.
The only one trying to stay on topic was Jamal