Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Your post makes it clear that 1.) You don't appreciate the meaning of a "scientific theory" (it contains facts), 2.) You somehow confused 13.8 billion years with trillions, 3.) You think the genetic memory thing from Assassin's Creed is real, and 4.) You correlate the recording of historical events to the existence of a religious scripture without qualifying your stance on the religious aspect of same.In short... lolwut?
You assume that 1) people know all the facts, they do not, hence the term Scientific Theory.
#2) Can you prove this? As far as I'm aware, nobody can accurately calculate how old the Universe actually is without first proving it's origin, which is still a matter of debate.
#3) I've never played Assassin's creed. Way to make a gigantic assumption.
#4) I don't believe in religion. Matters of faith do not concern me. My point was that more than a few religions draw Upon the same events at around the same time period, but each interpretation of said events is undeniably different. Do you deny this?
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
You assume that 1) people know all the facts, they do not, hence the term Scientific [b]Theory.#2) Can you prove this? As far as I'm aware, nobody can accurately calculate how old the Universe actually is without first proving it's origin, which is still a matter of debate.
#3) I've never played Assassin's creed. Way to make a gigantic assumption.
#4) I don't believe in religion. Matters of faith do not concern me. My point was that more than a few religions draw Upon the same events at around the same time period, but each interpretation of said events is undeniably different. Do you deny this? [/B]
1) People not knowing facts has nothing to do with a Scientific Theory.
Scientific Theory
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.
Google definitions
2) The Cosmic background radiation and the expanding universe tells us that ~13.7 to 13.8 billion years ago the universe was a very hot and compact point.
Cosmic Background Radiation
The cosmic background radiation is radiation left over from early development of the universe, and is a landmark proof of the Big Bang theory. Before the formation of stars and planets, the Universe was smaller, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from its white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma.
Google definitions
3) Neither have I.
4) Only a few religions do that. Some religions like Hinduism, have a much older history then Christianity.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero1.) I know that people know facts and that no one can know them all. Again, you still don't seem to understand what a scientific theory actually is, and how it differs from a hypothesis.
You assume that 1) people know all the facts, they do not, hence the term Scientific [b]Theory.#2) Can you prove this? As far as I'm aware, nobody can accurately calculate how old the Universe actually is without first proving it's origin, which is still a matter of debate.
#3) I've never played Assassin's creed. Way to make a gigantic assumption.
#4) I don't believe in religion. Matters of faith do not concern me. My point was that more than a few religions draw Upon the same events at around the same time period, but each interpretation of said events is undeniably different. Do you deny this? [/B]
2.) What Shaky said. The CMB is leftover from the moment when the expanding universe cooled enough to allow atoms to form, making room for the mass of photons to start flying off in every direction. Distance and space-time expansion stretched their wavelengths out to the microwave spectrum of the present. The CMB is an empirically observed and rigorously tested feature of the universe, and it's near isotropic. The discovery of the CMB is what brought the long-lasting debate over the age to an end. The fine-tuning will always be underway, but it will be on the order of magnitude of millions of years, not billions. And certainly not freaking trillions.
If you're someone who values the universality of mathematics, and who comprehends and appreciates the scientific method, empiricism, experimentation, and falsifiable evidence, then you'll stop spouting a line of nonsense about their "being no proof". It's only a matter of debate to an immensely small minority. Frankly I don't consider your lot to be any more credible than I do the Flat Earth Society.
3.) You should, it seems right up your alley with the memory thing.
4.) No I don't deny it, and thank you for qualifying your stance. But just as several different classical historians have wildly different (or markedly similar) reports on the same event (see the Greco-Persian war), the fact that multiple scriptures and faiths report differently on historical and geological events is a simple sign of the human frailty of memory and our tendency to under or over-report according to our whims and biases. That's not a breakthrough, it's just common knowledge, so what was your point?
Originally posted by Lord LucienThe poor 'W' has always needed a one-syllable name. I propose: 'wu'.
That's like rejecting the entire alphabet because you can't think of why W is called the double-V.
...Q, R, S, T, U, V, (Wu), X, Y, Z.
It flows. Now, eg, insead of double-u, double-u, double-u, World Wide Web becomes wuwuwu.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison'Wu' (woo) is the sound. Eg, instead of spelling water, 'double-u, a, t, e, r, you'd say, 'wu, a, t, e, r'.
But how do you pronounce the w in wu?
Not only is it faster and easier to say, it's also more accurate: it brings the sound of the letter into the name (as it is with most letters). Ironically, despite three syllables, there's no double-u sound ('wuh'?) in the name. Go figure.
Originally posted by Lord LucienEcks, Aych, You/Ewe. Also problematic in that the sound of the letter is not in the name. Friggin' English.
Either way, this is going to f*ck up the end of the alphabet song. "Tee, you, vee. Wuh, ecks..."Or "Woo! Ecks! Yeah, b*tch--X!"
Originally posted by Omega VisionMerci. This little foray had me wondering about that.
In French it's called "doubleh-veh"The reason it's called double-u is that u and v were not distinguished until relatively late in English's development and were used interchangeably, and the modern W sound was written as either VV or UU.
I still think it should be changed. Otherwise it doesn't pay to abbreviate (in speech) any "w" word 3 syllables or less. Really. By the time it takes me to say, eg, 'double-u, double-u, double-u', I could say world wide web 3x. OTOH, for Winnebago, it still works.
Originally posted by Mindship
Ecks, Aych, You/Ewe. Also problematic in that the sound of the letter is not in the name. Friggin' English.Merci. This little foray had me wondering about that.
I still think it should be changed. Otherwise it doesn't pay to abbreviate (in speech) any "w" word 3 syllables or less. Really. By the time it takes me to say, eg, 'double-u, double-u, double-u', I could say world wide web 3x. OTOH, for Winnebago, it still works.
But as a poet, I oppose any attempts to make our language more logical, as more logical pronunciations would shrink the horizon for wordplay.