Cue the numbnuts .. 1st in .. Bryce Cartwright

Yep, and he is the smartest poster on this site as well, as he frequently reminds us. Reading his posts, I think it has more to do with him boring us all into submission. Was he the poster Mozgrame was talking about above? I will probably have to provide a dozen links to justify this opinion of him!!
Care to enlighten me of when I have done this? If I have given this impression then it is something that you have perceived rather than me openly stating it. It is definately not a belief that a hold, not by a very long way.
I will happily engage in a different method of calling out bull**** if I have in someway offended you. But I'm still going to call it out.
 
Smh... kim jong wood what has happened to you.. that's a terrible response it seems you have truly meet your match, your slipping old sport!

Your whole its not my evidence response i can do the same to the bible.. its not my evidence its the scholars and historians that say Jesus crucifixion is historical fact! Its not me who discovered NOAHS ARK IN TURKEY! look it up i implore you Mr Wood... its not me who discovered the dead sea scrolls and mosaics and historical biblical sites.

So thank you Mr Wood this is how i will respond to the naysayers from now on 😉

Ps i didnt say scientists didnt have evidence and facts of course they do just not solid proof for things like gravity and the BBT. There is scientific fact and scientific theory. Science has proved countless things.. obviously.

Pps i never claimed not to believe in vaccinations etc i merely asked you to provide your 70 year data as proof. To me it just sounds like you heard that somewhere and just coined the phrase. If you going to have a debate you have to back up your claims is all im asking of you. Im still waiting by the way!

Ppss im just having a healthy debate with you and a bit of fun, you insult people all the time if they dont follow your dictatorship way of thinking... whats that saying kettle black tea pot or something a rather.

Hey BBTB, you are regularly lambasting 'theories'. I think your'e conflating the colloquial use of theories with scientific theories.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.

In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain and its simplicity. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required. That does not mean that all theories can be fundamentally changed (for example, well established foundational scientific theories such as evolution, heliocentric theory, cell theory, theory of plate tectonics, germ theory of disease, etc.). In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions. A case in point is Newton's laws of motion, which can serve as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light.

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causes of a particular natural phenomenon and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (for example, electricity, chemistry, and astronomy). Scientists use theories to further scientific knowledge, as well as to facilitate advances in technology or medicine.

As with other forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are both deductive and inductive, aiming for predictive and explanatory power.

The paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.
 
You are the only person i have blocked on this site, ever! Why? Because you along with london eagle are the biggest bigots on this forum! So maybe take your own advice 😉. As for Mr Wood we are just having some fun.. turn on me LOL go for it like MANLY i thrive under adversity.

Now good day sir!
Me Wood doesn’t know the meaning of the word fun... he is the antithesis of merriment.
 
Croker confused by jab debate.
Download the FOX Sports app here: App I Live Scores, Stats, News, Results, Fixtures, Video @FOXSportsAUS
 
Hey BBTB, you are regularly lambasting 'theories'. I think your'e conflating the colloquial use of theories with scientific theories.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.

In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain and its simplicity. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required. That does not mean that all theories can be fundamentally changed (for example, well established foundational scientific theories such as evolution, heliocentric theory, cell theory, theory of plate tectonics, germ theory of disease, etc.). In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions. A case in point is Newton's laws of motion, which can serve as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light.

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causes of a particular natural phenomenon and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (for example, electricity, chemistry, and astronomy). Scientists use theories to further scientific knowledge, as well as to facilitate advances in technology or medicine.

As with other forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are both deductive and inductive, aiming for predictive and explanatory power.

The paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.

This reminds me of the Ian Chappell segment from the 12th Man album when he falls asleep on air and is then woken up suddenly -


'It's F#@&en what?'
 
I love being pedantic ... No, all vaccines have the same efficacy in that they all work perfectly well against the virus or disease that they were designed to fight ... the difference is that the flu virus is constantly mutating ... so the vaccination must also change to be effective ... we are somewhat fortunate in the Southern Hemisphere that the flu we get has generally done the rounds in the Northern Hemisphere so we are able to get the new vaccine in time ...

Isn't science wonderful .... who would have thought those early little primates would become so clever ...
Lol.
 
At some point in the 90s the name “Bryce” replaced “Bruce”.
similarly there are no Ians anymore, only liams.
I think Liam is a form of William not Ian. Ian is a form of John
Not sure about Bruce (et tu Brutus?) but I should look it up, I believe my honorable ancestor was murdered in cowardly fashion by Robert the Bruce)
 
I am attempting to have a rational and informed discussion with you,
Hey BBTB, you are regularly lambasting 'theories'. I think your'e conflating the colloquial use of theories with scientific theories.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.

In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain and its simplicity. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required. That does not mean that all theories can be fundamentally changed (for example, well established foundational scientific theories such as evolution, heliocentric theory, cell theory, theory of plate tectonics, germ theory of disease, etc.). In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions. A case in point is Newton's laws of motion, which can serve as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light.

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causes of a particular natural phenomenon and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (for example, electricity, chemistry, and astronomy). Scientists use theories to further scientific knowledge, as well as to facilitate advances in technology or medicine.

As with other forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are both deductive and inductive, aiming for predictive and explanatory power.

The paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.
Will I think you may be making the same mistake as Muzz!
 
Hi mate just google it, they even made a national park around it.
This is what google gave me?
1588839949259.png
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Back
Top Bottom