DeletedUser
sure just don't be surprised if it has feathers
- Status
DeletedUser
You don't need a PhD to understand the trees. They have at least two major advantages: 1) you don't need all the artificial categories and can concentrate simply on the biological ones. 2) they are way clearer than any text (this probably applies to all sort of diagrams)
The letters are species and the numbers represent the greater groups which hint at a common ancestor. If you go from E to 5 you'd end up 5 being the family. if you start from H, then 7 would be the family, 6 the order and 5 the class (or however it's categorized). It just doesn't make sense to me. The tree itself is better and I don't need that kind of categorization at all.
And it's always funny to tell people that reptiles don't exist (fish don't either btw.).
But with the tree it's easily explained. Let's say "4" are reptiles and they consist of D,E,G,F,H and we can give the letters some names as well: D-monitors, E-turtles, F-snakes, G-crocodiles, H-birds.
All of them have a common ancestor somewhere located near "4". D to H evolved from that species. However, when you call this whole group reptiles, birds (H) have to be reptiles as well, but "common knowledge" says it's an own group equal to reptiles. So 4 are all reptiles except of H and that's the point when it doesn't make sense.
If you cut out random groups you can sort them by colour or taste in first place.
The letters are species and the numbers represent the greater groups which hint at a common ancestor. If you go from E to 5 you'd end up 5 being the family. if you start from H, then 7 would be the family, 6 the order and 5 the class (or however it's categorized). It just doesn't make sense to me. The tree itself is better and I don't need that kind of categorization at all.
And it's always funny to tell people that reptiles don't exist (fish don't either btw.).
But with the tree it's easily explained. Let's say "4" are reptiles and they consist of D,E,G,F,H and we can give the letters some names as well: D-monitors, E-turtles, F-snakes, G-crocodiles, H-birds.
All of them have a common ancestor somewhere located near "4". D to H evolved from that species. However, when you call this whole group reptiles, birds (H) have to be reptiles as well, but "common knowledge" says it's an own group equal to reptiles. So 4 are all reptiles except of H and that's the point when it doesn't make sense.
If you cut out random groups you can sort them by colour or taste in first place.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Ah, the tree fallacy. Should I rebute?
DeletedUser
please do I'm over jack right now (I'm also drunk)
DeletedUser
I think the existance ofGod can't be proved because the possibility remains that all the divine stories are invented by someone. But science is only what human think is true. And know little. The Big BanG is only a theory (, which is even accepted by the pope because there is space for God before that bang, some people think God triggered it off and designed the evolution, but I think this is only a desperate attempt to make science support religion,) is only a theory, kind of guess with more though behind it. It can be true or false, no one really knows that.
DeletedUser
I belive science and eveloution happenned, but god made the big bang ( or whatever actually created the universe) and sort of let it take over that way. In other words god sort of planned it and let it carry out, helping along the way.
Thats what I think.
Thats what I think.
DeletedUser
That's the thinking of the Creationist.
I can be sure that Big Bang happened or not, because it's still a theory. And it's impossible to know in this world that God, Paradise, Hell and so on exist or not. You have to die to find out, what happens next.
DeletedUser
A reminder that a scientific theory is not a guess, nor a belief. It is a conclusion based on heavily researched analysis of available data. In many respects, a scientific theory is as close to fact as evidence permits.
DeletedUser
Is, it's a conclusion made of evidence which we have at hand. But how many evidences do we have? We understand only little of science and the rules of nature. What our evidence permit us is thus like a guess. There is no certainty that it is true. At the begin of last century, scientists believed that a material called Ether. But Einstein proved that it was wrong. And right now, there are dozens of theories about light. They can not all be universally true, only correct to some extent. Theory is what we think, doesn't necessarily mean, that it's something almost right.
So I don't think that it is possible for us to know what created the world and what will happen after the death. At least not now... Maybe in the future.
So I don't think that it is possible for us to know what created the world and what will happen after the death. At least not now... Maybe in the future.
DeletedUser
This is simply not true. You, personally, may know very little of science and the rules of nature, but you are doing a great disservice to the scientific community by thinking they are working with very little information.
Ether (ethereal) was first proposed by Aristotle as a philosophical idea, a hypothesis, not a theory. This assumption remained, again as a philosophical explanation, not a scientific theory and propagated by philosophers. Albert Michelson (physicist) and Edward Morley (chemist) performed scientific tests which challenged this assumption. It is these tests that form the basis to Albert Einstein's refutation of ether as proposed by philosophers.
Interestingly enough, the hypothesis of dark matter/dark energy has taken on many of the previous attributes of ether. So, while the previous definition (that of ether), was debunked, the present definition seems to be demonstrating unique and measurable attributes.
Parcific, I see the mistakes you're making here. You are grabbing hypotheses, scientific theories, suppositions, and outright guesses, and thinking they're all scientific theories, that they're all the same. They are not, and thus the foundation to your arguments is in error. In short, you're wrong.
DeletedUser
OK, I confess that I have mixed up philosophic theories and scientific theories.
And the Big Bang theory is currently the best explanation for why the galaxies are moving away from each other. But it still doesn't clearfy the origin of the world, though it can explain the creation of our universe. And I don't believe, that God has triggered off the Big Bang. There is no evidence for that. It's definetly only an idea of some religious people, faithfully sticking to God.
And maybe there are other theories explaining the expansion of the universe. And we just haven't found them out due to lack of evidences and observations.
And the Big Bang theory is currently the best explanation for why the galaxies are moving away from each other. But it still doesn't clearfy the origin of the world, though it can explain the creation of our universe. And I don't believe, that God has triggered off the Big Bang. There is no evidence for that. It's definetly only an idea of some religious people, faithfully sticking to God.
And maybe there are other theories explaining the expansion of the universe. And we just haven't found them out due to lack of evidences and observations.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Your lack of knowledge, contrasted against your presumptive posturing, astounds me. Parcific, the big bang theory is a theory because of the bulk of substantiating evidence. There are many hypotheses on the origins / expansion of the universe but, due to a lack of evidence, they are merely hypotheses and thus not theories.
As to your comment about it not clarifying the origin of the world, please refrain from talking absolute nonsense.
As to your comment about it not clarifying the origin of the world, please refrain from talking absolute nonsense.
DeletedUser
Scientists still don't know what has triggered off the Big Band, if there had been one. And nobody knows what had happened before the big bang. So it doesn't nessiccarily has to be the origin of the world.
DeletedUser
Again with this origin of the world comment. Why don't you clarify what you mean by "world," because most everyone in their right might understands world to refer to Earth. If that is also what you mean, then your statements are completely devoid of a clue.
DeletedUser
I think what triggered off the Big Band was the conductor.
DeletedUser
lol, don't confuse him any further.
DeletedUser
lol
You think, because you don't know.
You think, because you don't know.
DeletedUser
Wow, he still doesn't get it.
When you say 'the world' are you talking about the universe or are you talking about Earth or the Milky Way or what?
When you say 'the world' are you talking about the universe or are you talking about Earth or the Milky Way or what?
DeletedUser
Not Earth or milky way, I mean the universe. Suns, planets, systems and galaxies are only parts of The World.
And you still haven't answered my question. Do you know what triggered off the Big Bang?
And you still haven't answered my question. Do you know what triggered off the Big Bang?
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
No, it doesn't necessarily have to be the origin of the universe, but since there is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang theory that is the accepted explanation. If evidence shows up that points a different way then scientists will pursue that theory. Scientists don't have an agenda other than finding answers, answers that are testable through formulas and repeatable experiments.
- Status