[Tom]

... and you're showing your selective reading yet again.

[ange7]

Originally posted by Tom
... and you're showing your selective reading yet again.

rubbish... what's this "selective" b@ll@cks?...either you said it or you didn't. If you trying to imply I've quoted you out of context ( more rubbish) then why don't you put it into context for me. You keep trash talking every "theory" as "just a theory"... it's funny given you haven't bothered trying to get your head around any of them.

[letmein]

Originally posted by Tom

Do you mean scientific "facts" such as how many planets there are in the solar system and that Pluto is a planet? Science can be wrong.

There's not a "theory" about how many planets are in the solar system.

What educational level have you completed yet?

[NettoSuperstar!]

I think we can safely say there are some facts eh! lol...its the whys and wherefores that are debateable! Unless we're living in the Matrix that is heheh..... ooooooooerrr

[Tom]

Originally posted by ange7

rubbish... what's this "selective" b@ll@cks?...either you said it or you didn't. If you trying to imply I've quoted you out of context ( more rubbish) then why don't you put it into context for me. You keep trash talking every "theory" as "just a theory"... it's funny given you haven't bothered trying to get your head around any of them.

Selective reading- reading what you want to see.

Clearly in the post (that you even copied and pasted into yours!!) I said "You do realise that almost everything we take for a fact is just a theory?". The key word is almost which you obviously missed out and exchanged for "every" if you brought up the thing about gravity.

Originally posted by letmein

There's not a "theory" about how many planets are in the solar system.

What educational level have you completed yet?

Yes it is a scientific theory. What subject did you learn about space in, English? Everything about the solar system and the universe (outside of this world) is all just a theory, hence words like "approximately" are always used because they don't actually know. And the fact they're always arguing over certain planets whether they are a planet or a moon says it all really. Shows that science isn't always right.

[letmein]

TOM: YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT A "SCIENTIFIC THEORY" IS!

It is not a hypothesis. A "theory" in English, and a "scientific theory" are two different things. A "hypothesis" in science, a "theory", the type of "theory" you are referring to, is referred to as "theoretical". A "scientific theory" is not "theoretical".

There is no "theory" about planets, (ie, Theory of Gravity). What you are referring to is, "theoretical", something that is deemed a hypothesis, because it has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by science, and can continue to change and evolve as new discoveries are made.

Honestly, how old are you? You seriously are bringing down the British educational system. That is, of course, if you are indeed British.

I can't dumb this down any more in the attempt to help you understand.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Well I think Tom does have a point to a certain extent...we're just getting lost in semantics... A theory is made up of assumptions and arguments. What makes it scientific is that the "theory" has been tried and tested- providing evidence that lends support to certain observable phenomena such as goings on in the solar system, atoms, particles etc! (cant be called guesses)And although there are observable truths...the theories as to whats going on with em cant always be proven as the ultimate truth as such, any theory is falsifiable....I think thats what Tom was trying to say...but thats just my "Theory" lol....I'll just add atoms and particles are not a "Theory" they are observable facts.

P.S. Dya get meh?

[ange7]

Originally posted by NettoSuperstar!
Well I think Tom does have a point to a certain extent...we're just getting lost in semantics... A theory is made up of assumptions and arguments. What makes it scientific is that the "theory" has been tried and tested- providing evidence that lends support to certain observable phenomena such as goings on in the solar system, atoms, particles etc! (cant be called guesses)And although there are observable truths...the theories as to whats going on with em cant always be proven as the ultimate truth as such, any theory is falsifiable....I think thats what Tom was trying to say...but thats just my "Theory" lol....I'll just add atoms and particles are not a "Theory" they are observable facts.

P.S. Dya get meh?

hehe nah
Tom has a distrust of science and logic... maybe he had a teacher that took the p*ss out of him in front of the class or something but the stuff he comes out with are regularly off the hook. If you try to reign him in with logic he was to fall back positions...#1..."no that's just a theory!!" ...and #2 he turn his threads into a a battle of attrition with endless replys and claims of victimisation.

[Tom]

Thats exactly what I'm trying to say and I thought other people might have been intelligent enough to work that out

[Tom]

Originally posted by ange7

hehe nah
Tom has a distrust of science and logic... maybe he had a teacher that took the p*ss out of him in front of the class or something but the stuff he comes out with are regularly off the hook. If you try to reign him in with logic he was to fall back positions...#1..."no that's just a theory!!" ...and #2 he turn his threads into a a battle of attrition with endless replys and claims of victimisation.

Where have I said I have a distrust of science and logic? You just take things and imply them to fit exactly what you want them to mean.

Nice to see you've turned into a shrink now as well.

[Fom]

The term theoretical
The term theoretical is sometimes informally used in lieu of hypothetical to describe a result that is predicted by theory but has not yet been adequately tested by observation or experiment. It is not uncommon for a theory to produce predictions that are later confirmed or proven incorrect by experiment. By inference, a prediction proved incorrect by experiment demonstrates the hypothesis is invalid. This either means the theory is incorrect, or the experimental conjecture was wrong and the theory did not predict the hypothesis.

I think this is where Tom is going... if Theory and Theoretical are 2 different things then I am sure he can be mistaken for that mistake as I didn't know that.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Originally posted by Tom
Thats exactly what I'm trying to say and I thought other people might have been intelligent enough to work that out

yeh but when you say things like its all guesswork lol! Any scientific hypothesis becomes a theory when its been tested and there is overwhelming evidence in support of it

[ange7]

Originally posted by Tom

Where have I said I have a distrust of science and logic? You just take things and imply them to fit exactly what you want them to mean.

Nice to see you've turned into a shrink now as well.

It's clear by the way you trash talk theories you've no clue about. If you disagree with a point bring an argument...all you ever do is say "it's just a theory". The only time YOU can say that is when you do some work and try disproving those theories. Keep going round in circles mate. zzzzz

[Tom]

Yeah you'd know all about trash talking theories that you've no clue about.

[ange7]

Originally posted by Tom
Yeah you'd know all about trash talking theories that you've no clue about.

???!! what? ... do you understand english? your doing the trash talking .....it's not a TYPE of theory. ffs .... I'll get the sock puppets out and explain it shall I? hehe

[Tom]

Originally posted by ange7

???!! what? ... do you understand english? your doing the trash talking .....it's not a TYPE of theory. ffs .... I'll get the sock puppets out and explain it shall I? hehe

Basically, you talk a lot of crap (I know pot, kettle, black springs to mind but the difference is I can admit it) and sometimes you argue and have no idea what you're on about.

[NettoSuperstar!]

When?

[ange7]

Originally posted by NettoSuperstar!
When?

this is what he does netto ...battle of attrition ...he keeps talking till the other person gets sick of him and then he thinks he's the "WINNER". He'll go on for hours... he's in a loop.

[Tom]

And you follow me around in circles

[30stone]

Who cares anymore.



This thread is half on the subject it started half not.

[Benjamin]

anyways after the rant and off the subject comments, what are people's opinions on this? Since we have a lot of new members it would be interesting to hear what they have to say about gay adoption.

[arista]

Originally posted by letmein
Gays don't choose to be gay, but morons choose to be morons.

This is one of the best words on this Manic thread.

[Fangz]

Yes, gay people should be allowed to adopt. My family fosters children who are in care for various reasons, and while I think fostering is a good thing in the short term, I have seen what being moved from foster-home to foster-home over several years does to children's psyche.

Most people who adopt want a child under two, with the same colour skin as them and with no disabilities, the other less "perfect" children are left trapped in the system until they get old enough to be booted out with no parents and no support to fall back on.

Anything that even slightly increases the number of suitable parents willing to take on the more challenging kids and give them a stable environment and better chance at life is wonderful.

People say "what about the kids having to deal with gay parents", well what about the kids who are institutionalized in children's homes, or get shifted to a new foster-family every few months/years?

These kids need stability, love and understanding, and will happily take it from gay people, bi people, transgendered people, because when you've been through what a lot of them have been through, those things are not important.

[Benjamin]

Originally posted by Fangz
Yes, gay people should be allowed to adopt. My family fosters children who are in care for various reasons, and while I think fostering is a good thing in the short term, I have seen what being moved from foster-home to foster-home over several years does to children's psyche.

Most people who adopt want a child under two, with the same colour skin as them and with no disabilities, the other less "perfect" children are left trapped in the system until they get old enough to be booted out with no parents and no support to fall back on.

Anything that even slightly increases the number of suitable parents willing to take on the more challenging kids and give them a stable environment and better chance at life is wonderful.

People say "what about the kids having to deal with gay parents", well what about the kids who are institutionalized in children's homes, or get shifted to a new foster-family every few months/years?

These kids need stability, love and understanding, and will happily take it from gay people, bi people, transgendered people, because when you've been through what a lot of them have been through, those things are not important.

[Patrick]

No it would be so awkward for the poor kid