aspiringcyclist wrote:Manc33 wrote:
Its the same thing with Darwin, it is a "convincing sounding argument" but not proven because no species can be shown to have turned into another species and that is a basic requirement to make the theory work.
I don't think you quite understand evolutionary theory.
Manc33 wrote:Why is the moon transparent in the daytime, you can see blue sky behind it?
Why have amateur astronomers reported being able to see stars through the moon's dark parts at night?
Every answer and I mean every one, is a "fob off" type answer. Yes you can photograph the moon, but that doesn't prove it is a ball made of rock when it is also transparent in the daytime and night time. Rock isn't transparent.
Manc33 wrote:If a theory in science is something that has been tested, then what do they call something not tested? Bunk?
Vorpal wrote:A scientific theory cannot be proven, only disproven.
Yes, a scientific theory is different than the common use of the word theory. A scientific theory has to be testable. And the more evidence there is to support it, the stronger it is, and the more widely accepted.
But it is still theory, and it is possible that it will be disproven or modified by something that is observed in the future.
johnmillward74 wrote:Yeah, I know very little about bikes. It was ordered from the internet - me and a mate assembled it a day before I set off for Land's End.....I realised something was wrong when my feet started touching the mudguard going round tight corners.....ha ha
Vantage wrote:johnmillward74 wrote:1.1kg sounds a bit hefty to me if every gram is crucial.
I am looking at this one http://www.gooutdoors.co.uk/hi-gear-ult ... at-p287153 admittedly more expensive, but weighs in at only 680g . . .
Having had a quick nosey through your blog I can't help but notice, but whats going on with your forks? They look back to front.
Manc33 wrote:jochta wrote:The comment about the shape of glass in aeroplanes causing the Earth to appear curved is just taking the ****.
Why?
Manc33 wrote:This guy debunks "Ten reasons the Earth is round" pretty easily...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWdjOlJRRJo
Manc33 wrote:They could be floating a model around up there, telling you it is 300 feet wide (not 30 feet wide) and making you think it is ten times further away. Same with the sun, they say we can triangulate it and work out how far away the sun is - how when no one knows how big it is?
Manc33 wrote:You can't take your own, I am talking about the whole Earth in the frame, proving there's a craft far out enough to photograph it that way. Same with videos, I don't want close ups - I want the full Earth in the frame, turning, filmed for at least 6 hours, then speeded up so we can see the changing cloud formations.