ProHypster

Ceeeeeelebrate good times. Yes, great band I would listen to on new years.

Yes, the final winner is BTG, with a prediction of 63,100 posts while in reality it was 63,400 posts Second place me at a prediction of 64,800 and Flyinggamerboy at third with a prediction of 70,000.

Hi, dropping in to help, Page 4, third to last post, July 4.

Giant Napkin Summarized it. Well if you have any other idea why it's wrong post here otherwise this topic will lie around in the forgotten world of the accursed farms.

You said it's a fact. A fact is absolute. I don't know what black and white universe you seem to think we exist in, but there is a larger spectrum out there and things don't have to be 100% right or wrong and everything we as a society consider a fact is open to disapproval or validation as time goes on. It's socially how we evolve. No, I can't consider it a fact, because it is a scientific theory, in fact, a fact is the only absolute thing in this universe. I don't live in a black and white world but on the colour spectrum of truth a fact would be the white colour and there is no other white colour. A fact can only be disproven when someone finds out it was a false fact like if someone in the jury presents false evidence. That would mean it was never evidence/fact in the first hand though. In the science world of course that means, if someone presents false math, or observes something wrong, or experiments wrong and calls it a fact. And I really hate when that happens because it's the worst thing you can do, to have false evidence for an idea. I also understand the general concept of the Big Bang theory and I believe in most the clear facts that support it obviously, some of the more advanced facts and experiments should be rechecked maybe just in case but I am unsure of the idea that formed by them because it's so complex it tends to evolve a lot so maybe in the future I will believe in it as it is but right now I am skeptical that the Big Bang theory happened exactly as the theory says. And anyone who believes otherwise is arrogant because this isn't a germ topic this is something that happened a long long time ago, we are constantly changing history on what happened 4000 years ago and you expect me to believe 100% what science says happened the earliest we know of?

I watched a documentary recently about how the guys survived inside. Some good qualities show when a tragedy happens. I do have some comments: The people of the last Flight are always forgotten and they are true heroes I would say taking over the plane and assaulting so it didn't crash into the capitol. 10 years later and people still believe in some majro dumbass consipracies... -_____- You are still at war because AL Quaida is still at war and is not trying any peace negotiations and besides they haven't given up after osama, in fact my prediction was that they are going to be forced for a last stand or attack somewhere with all the money and power they have right now.... we'll see. I was sitting in Germany and even I was sad watching what happened, it's disgusting and cowardly. I wonder what would have happened if the fighters did shoot down the airplanes... Would everyone right now hate them? No other comments, just make them surrender and get over this war.

You said it's a fact. A fact is absolute.

Well it looks like BTG won. Congratulations. I anounce 30 minutes as it is now pretty clear that the posts amount won't reach the needed target for other predictions and I have to go afk for some time. If you still care, you can form a new question and make a prediction!

Germs: Well that measn that the theory probably states something which is unprovable like "all diseases are made from germs" is that correct? In that case yes it is a scientific theory because we don't know if every disease out there is caused by germs and that is a viable counter for the fact. But germs themselves are a fact. Anyway we don't see the big bang theory, we SEE the facts that are used to prove the Big Bang theory. But not the theory. The scientific theory isn't just the facts. Do you see here the relationship. Evidence that SUPPORTS the idea, not is the idea.

lol sorry about that. FlyingGamerboy sitting at 70.000. Well we have one more hour to go before I will anounce the winner.

Just remember that the Big Bang theory, or at least the facts that are it's base don't contradict creationalism nor any other of the more popular theories. @Michael Archer This has been stated so many times and it's funny because this is a waste of your letters because it has no function. What is that supposed to mean other than to brag around how some obvious things are a scientific theory? The Big Bang theory isn't an obvious thing, we cannot see it, smell it, feel it, like germs, in fact most of the evidence comes from complex math. A lot of the facts are unstable/changing or marginably reliable. Now they are still considered facts by scientists so I am not trying to diss them or anything but in the future there is a high likelyhood some of them will be adjusted as that is how science works. Besides, I'm pretty sure germs are a fact not a scientific theory.

I sucked and I came late ....But there was some weird lagg going on too at my comp and this was the first time me trying to play tf 2 seriously I have good competitive experience in cs though.

Before Daniel answers and this becomes a rant on what a theory is... Theory - Scientific Hypothesis (Educated Guess) Scientific Theory - Based on facts but not a fact itself

I have not seen a less quality picture of a cat...... ever...... EVER!

And I don't think being the first poster of an old thread counts as necro posting...

To be honest about two years ago I posted a youtube musical theory how everyone reaches the same good music in the end and the only thing that stops people is time, lack of interest in listening to music, lack of interest in trying new genres, not knowing about the existence of good music, denial due to culture and social norm, satisfaction in mediocrity. But in general all healthy, normal people would reach the same stage of what good music and bad music is in the end. In my lifetime I listened to (In the following order) Ukrainian & Russian Pop -> Euro-Pop -> American Pop -> Mainstream Punk, Mainstream russian and american rap, Hip-hop, Alternative Mainstream Rock (Linkin Park, U2, Billy Talent, Coldplay all that stuff...), Electronic -> Russian/Ukrainian Underground Rap & Euro-Dance/House/Trance -> House/Electro House (David Guetta, Ian Carey, DJ Antoine) and American Underground Rap -> Underground House, Deep House & Classical/Post Modern Classical & Underground Progressive Rock To finally: Uber selective Underground House, Trance, Techno, Minimal, Chillout generally with a tendency to listen to any other genre if it's good but not put it on my mp3 player. Oh, and can I have an example of Techno you listened to in the beginning, Zak?

I didn't like the new Batman movies at all, too serious. Okay maybe I liked them but turning a comic into a serious movie is just really pathetic to me, I can't take these movies serious, like everything seems so fake. The last batman I liked was with Arnold Schwarzenegger and generally I liked the George Clooney Batman the most, funny, sort of comical, good atmosphere and action...

Yeah, I think you're right about sex getting to be more casual in our society and if two people agree it is morally acceptable, I wonder if sex has negative impact like a drug though due to STDs. :/. As soon as we do have the technology to stop STDS though I think having sex before marriage won't be an issue any more. This reminds me of Pedobear by the way.

Granted, he completes the FM series in the worst way with horrible humour and then spamms your email. I wish there was less ponies on my mind.

Good, then we have an understanding, alright I'm leaving this huge off-topic rant. It's still supposed to be about evolution vs cretionalism. Ok, you brought up another thing and it's too important not to answer because it plays a huge role in misunderstanding a discussion with you. Maybe instead of teaching people what theories are, you should say to people that you only accept scientific theories which are defined as you want to teach other people. But you just cannot change the definition of the philosophical or casual theory which in science is equal to the word hypothesis. If you want to talk only scientific theories say so, but theory is more often perceived as a philosophical term rather then scientific so if you do not state so, expect a theory to be a hypothesis. My point is don't teach people the word "theory" is the same as the expression "scientific theory", you will confuse everyone and conflicts may arrise.

Yes I understand and while scientists are working on it, some people don't have time and want to understand in a as you say "speculation or educated guess" what the origin of the universe is. But I wouldn't teach this to kids yet, I think their brains would explode. Just say that lots of theories (of the theory prior to big bang or in the early stages depending on how you view it) could be possible at this moment. This is by the way the point I was making bringing up examples of theories, of course they were mostly irrelated because I didn't read the link, you asked for other examles, I gave you them.

Yes I agree about the Big Bang being a theory of evidence I just don't agree that it is necessarily the origin of the universe. It's just something that happened.

I'm not going to reply to the gravity thing as again, you didn't get my point . And yes I do know all of that thank you, I am not in 3rd grade. I do not understand this thing about children being tought evidence. Have I said otherwise? I would also teach them the evidence that we have for the Big Bang theory so they can review it if they want to. We both agree on the same thing and yet you manage to make it look like I have a different position then you. I guess the difference between me and you is that I think the Big Bang theory is no the origin of the universe but the earliest sequence that we have evidence of. Although as I said the theory is still in progress too and will get adjusted.

What does this have to do with teaching in schools, this was a big offtopic discussion with you. And then you didn't really get half of the points I made..... and answer obvious things. I either really suck at english and amking my point and you misunderstand me, or you have a problem in understanding people and arguments... sorry about the rant, but that's just how it is with you all the time. Like just one example: things falling is a fact, facts can be used as evidence for many things, which by the way I haven't mentioned but facts which were used for big bang could also be used for other theories, but anyway things falling is not evidence for what Newton described as gravity in the way he did as the planet circled the sun because of gravity. Of course, planet circling the sun is a fact but it is not evidence for it doing so because of gravity, I could've easily said at the time that it was because of some swinging arm and he wouldn't have any more evidence then me. The reason his story was accepted is because it's more believable and very rational. Only now we can actually measure the force and hence have evidence for gravity. Like every time I try to put a proper point up you answer to me in a way that is factual and obvious but it is not related to my point, it is about my point but it is always like you take my point word for word, you're not supposed to do that, you're supposed to take a deeper meaning from my words. I am not going to write for 10 paragraphs just so you can understand exactly the way I think. Anyway, whatever, this belongs to a different thread anyway. Keep arguing with the creationalists here instead of me.

1. Remember I once quoted Socrates about when one should rather not say the info? If it's a lie, if you are uncertain in any way of the truth, if it is something negative. 2. What evidence did Newton have of gravity? Apples falling? What evidence did Darwin have of evolution? Two different bird species?... I'm not even going to begin on Einstein. 3-4--- Here you are right but that makes the Big Bang theory not a theory of the beginning but a theory of the earliest we know of. Ok than you agree that the big bang theory actually isn't a theory about the beginning of our world it only explains what happens when time began. And I think there will be lots of adjustions to it personally anyway but this does mean that there is space for a million theories on how the big bang started and that was my point. Do you agree that something illogical happened before the Big Bang? *I will now let other people comment and talk about evolution vs creation here*