What would Vladimir Putin care about video codecs?

Right? An unelected regulatory body that oversees Comcast and Verizon and yet is beholden to Verizon and Comcast is sooooo much better than stupid libtard democracy. Suck Putin's cum from Trump's ass much?

Once daily, an insane person is not wrong if they spend all day insisting it's midnight. It doesn't make them qualified to be POTUS

Once Putin hears about this, he'll create a rule that exempts the president from the rule

Go home, treasonous anti-American Commie Hillary haters. It's one year past the election. Putin's guy won. What else do you need?

Maybe you want to retire that 500 MB drive?

The larger point, which you missed whilst sniffing your farts, is that those who are challenged to provide data to to back their claims but actually have no data will more likely than not often post a link to Google and demand the challenger find the data themselves while simultaneously trying to "blame the victim". You are weak and ignorant, so my guess that you are a Trump supporter is not without merit.

Ah, you don't have any data, so you doubled down on your ignorance. Let me guess - you're a Trump supporter?

The source is available, so you tell us

Can you provide the data you used to make these claims?

It is, and I did, because it's not (though to be fair, I didn't specify a "natural science". One could argue that any body of knowledge is a science, but let's stick to natural sciences, else we could include just about anything, like the "science" of sewing or numerology).

I didn't. Find me quoted as saying "logic is science" and I'll mail you a Kennedy half dollar. Everything I said is all right up there ^^^.

That's true, despite your assertions otherwise. And again, this is natural science we're talking about. The natural sciences don't prove things because there is no one final end-all, be-all fact to find about any given aspect of the natural world. Any new evidence can modify or nullify what we have already observed.

We can't, because theories are provable in the same way the number 9 is salty to the touch. It doesn't make sense. What is the "complete theory" of Evolution? Which fact, once discovered, will close the books on ToE so we never have to study it anymore? That we have such a large body of knowledge about evolution is what makes it such a strong theory, one of the strongest theories of the natural world we have. There's still no proof of anything in there, though.

No, I accept it as a law, and I accept that it, like all scientific laws, only apply in limited conditions and limited circumstances. Newton's Law it only applies in weak gravitational fields. At subatomic levels or in immense gravity fields, for example, Newton's Law is invalid. But it still is immensely useful in day to day life, like predicting eclipses or firing missiles at Iraqi weddings.

Einstein is the people who merged Einstein's work with Newton's work, and he called it the Theory of General Relativity. (As an agnostic, I guess he technically was also a heathen.) There is no blasphemy in science, only in religion. I'm beginning to suspect you are secretly an intelligent design proponent.

That's something you just made up about me, especially in light of the fact that I must have said about 30 times already that theories are unprovable by their very nature, and can be completely undermined by even a single piece of evidence that contradicts all previous observations. Also, what I said about Newton's Law about two paragraphs up.

There is no relation of the two, outside they both explain parts of the same universe.

Then I'm glad I didn't. I really dodged a bullet on that one! Wait, what is the exact scientific definition of "hot", and where do we observe "2+2" in nature?

Technically, we built a mountain of knowledge and then called it "evolution".

Not probably. If they weren't repeatedly and observably true (and true is only ever "true for now" in science), they wouldn't be part of the theory.

That you use the phrase "just theory" means you still don't have any idea what a theory is, yet you continue to argue about it. And I have seen your posts arguing with others in this same article when they, too, present to you the universally accepted definition of theory. I'm about 90% sure at this point of your secret devotion to intelligent design.

Your position is rubbish, because your position is in contradiction to accepted scientific principles, because you feel they are wrong.

Quotes, or it didn't happen.

I can be a snarky asshole.

I feel I've belaboured the point too long, and yet it still falls on deaf ears.

Troll was one option I presented. The other is that you are incapable of learning. Maybe you're both.

That's repetition, not contradiction. I say there is no proof in science, then I say there is no proof in science. Though, in your defense, I made a typo: I should have capitalized "logic" as "Logic", so perhaps that threw you off.

They don't, but luckily science isn't based on what you think, only repeatable observation. And no, Logic is not a science, it's an artificially constructed and self-referencing system, therefore it can have proofs. And it does! Scientific theories are never proven because they are observations of nature, which is infinite and always changing (as far as we have so far observed, anyway).

There is no missing evidence for the facts or theory of evolution. Dog breeding is one example of the fact of evolution. Flu virus mutation is another. Those facts, plus thousands more, contribute to the body of knowledge we call the Theory of Evolution (ToE). A theory can never be missing evidence, though will always allow for new evidence. There is no one ultimate fact that will finally prove a theory to be true at all times and in all conditions.

I don't refuse to accept that you said the ToE isn't proven, because you did. I do refuse to accept, however, that it can be proven, since it can't be. No theory can be. The ToE (like all theories) can only be strengthened by new supporting evidence, modified or nullified by new conflicting evidence, or incorporated into new theories as our knowledge of nature expands. Like when Newton's Theory of Gravity was incorporated into Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. The fact of gravity never went away while we sorted it out. No one floated into the sky while we looked for the missing evidence. We just learned that Newton's observations no longer apply in all conditions at all times, e.g., at speeds approaching c , but are perfectly valid in "everyday" conditions.

You are already burning in the hell of ignorance. At this point I'll have to assume you are either remaining willfully ignorant to the formal definition of scientific theory, and are therefore a troll, or you are just incapable of learning anything new. Either way, it's pointless for me to continue to explain it to you. There are plenty of resources online that do a wonderful job illustrating what a scientific theory is, if you ever care to educate yourself about it.

Yes. So are all scientists.

Claims about validity aren't worth the air used to make them. What criteria are used to judge absurdity? Curved space? That's just absurd! How can nothing be curved? Creatures too small to be seen can kill us? That's the Devil gotten in you, boy, making you talk that kind of nonsense! The Earth goes around the sun? Psh! I clearly see the sun rise and set everyday! Nonsense to suggest otherwise!

Werewolves must exist, because no scientist is trying to prove they don't, right? Or is lack of evidence not evidence? The world may very well be flat, but no one (probably) is studying it for flatness, not because it's an absurd notion, but because we have so much observed data about its shape that until some evidence challenges that data, we can assume that we are living on a sphere.

Absolutely. Math and logic are able to show proofs all of the time. But science never does. Your homework assignment is to find a single scientific proof and post it here. (Hint: Facts are not proof, merely observations. For example, evolution the fact, as a subset of the Theory. We can and have observed change in species over time (evolution) in both the laboratory and in nature. Dog breeders are constantly forcing dogs to evolve, and evolution is why you need a new flu shot every year.)

+1 for "exquisitely timed thunderbolts of Zeus."

There is no such thing as proof in science, only observation and evidence, and a theory is the closest thing science has to proof. "Evolution" is called a "Theory", not because we lack evidence, but because we have collected a significant body of evidence (aka facts) through repeatable and verifiable experimentation and observation about changes in species over time.

Claims about the validity of a theory are meaningless. You either provide independently verifiable evidence that expands, modifies or contradicts the theory, or as Newton once said, you are just making shit up. You also can't use lack of evidence as evidence.

Just like when someone told you a scientific theory means "a hypothesis unproven due to lack of data" and you believed them without verifying it yourself?