What's a dipolodocus?

rather like a brontosaurus; *long-neck* veggiesaurus from the Jurassic period.

---

Evolution, is after all, a theroy(sp)

---

Why do you point out that evolution is a theory? So what? How does that negatively impact its credibility?

A theory, is NOT fact, but a guess based on circumstances that may or may not be true. I emfisize(sp) that, because like the media, if folks arn't reminded of it, they take it, like the news as fact.

If evolution is true,ill be peed off if we dont transform into the Combine.It would be cool to atleast be Civil Protection.Dont have to deal with your body being gutted of its organs.

Like this-[IMGhttp://img141.imageshack.us/img141/2525/combine2bb.th.jpg[/IMG

Edited by - Stormtrooper112 on 5/2/2006 6:52:10 PM

Oooh I've been away too long; dinosaurs and evolution are some favourite subjects of mine.
Anyway, Finalday, I think you're mixing up scientific theory with hypotheses. A scientific theory is basically a well substantiated explanation for scientific evidence. Technically the "law of gravity" is actually the theory of gravity. And calculus is based on the theory of limits. We use things like cars and walk around in buildings designed and put together by people relying on such theories.

Anyway, it's late, i'll have a look at the warm-bloodedness stuff tomorrow with a fresh brain.
(Oh and T Rex wins, even if he is feeling pretty sorry for himself! )

Ok, final, just so you know:

Gravity is a theory. It is not a fact.
Heliocentrism is a theory. It is not a fact.
Light is a theory. It is not a fact.
Immunology (i.e. bacteria etc.) is a theory. It is not a fact.
The melting and boiling points of every single known compound and element in the universe are nothing but theoretical. None are techically factual.

String theory is, rather ironically, not a theory. Unsurprisingly, it is certainly not factual.

You can explain away ALL of the above phenomena using God as an excuse and yet you do not (so I presume). Why? What is so important about evolution?

Perhaps before telling yourself (and more importantly, other people) what you think it is, please take the time to familiarise yourself with why it is called a theory.

EDIT: Sorry to disappoint, Stormtrooper, but it's somewhat unlikely that we'll evolve like that. I find it slightly unlikely that the idea of the body creating machinery can be mutated from our genes. Just imagine the cravings for pure iron you would suffer during growth!

Edited by - The Evil Thing on 5/3/2006 10:29:27 AM

Probably would help to distinguish between a hypothesis and a theory. Most folks assume that scientific theories are hypotheses and, as such, exercises in imagination. Calling something like evolution a theory is not the same thing as having a hypothesis about the origins of species and to decide to call it evolution.

Most people assume that by ascribing the term "theory" to a scientific concept automatically discredits it into something more along the lines of hypothetical speculation. And it is incorrect to do so. String "Theory" is a hypothesis, I believe.

Definition of a fact according to a dictionary:

---

1) Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
2) A real occurrence; an event.

---

Definition of a theory according to a dictionary:

---

1) A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2) An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

---

I personally don't see quite why the boiling point of elements are only theoretical and not factual... anyone care to enlighten me?

Edited by - Chips on 5/3/2006 11:39:24 AM

Take water as a good example.

To prove that water boils at atmospheric pressure at 99.9998 (I think) degrees C one would have to demonstrate this at every point in time under those exact conditions at every point in the universe. This is impossible under classical physics (and it is unlikely to be done under quantum physics), ergo we have only a theory, not a fact.

Erm, which factors affect waters "boiling point" please?

Do you consider the speed of light to be a fact or theory then? And if a theory, why?

Edited by - Chips on 5/3/2006 2:54:18 PM

The speed of light is a fact because it is based on the speed light travels. Although most of us don't know the exact speed it is still a fact. Remember a fact is something that can be proven.

The speed of light is a physical constant. It is represented by the letter c.

Seeing as it changes from medium to medium (and sometimes with other conditions, much to the chargrin of classical physicists) it is represented as a letter for the purposes of algebraic manipulation (and because 3.00 * 10^8 is too long for everyday use).

Because of this it is classified as neither theory nor fact.

EDIT: Chips, pressure and purity affect the boiling point of a substance. That's why the grit roads in the winter. It's easier than altering air pressure.

Edited by - The Evil Thing on 5/3/2006 10:11:36 PM

---

Chips, pressure and purity affect the boiling point of a substance. That's why the grit roads in the winter. It's easier than altering air pressure.

---

So you are saying that only pressure and purity can affect the boiling point of water right?

So why is it that you mention time or location as being a factor that ensures the temperature at which water boils is "theory" and not "fact"? If we have constant pressure and "pure" water as our two variables, both of which are constant and the only factors that can affect the outcome, how can it differ at any other location?