Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Cyberman]

Generally it is only when a new theory has established the ability to answer known observations in accordance with known theories that we are willing to trust that theory beyond a point of previously known observations.  In which case most theories are not utterly refuted (though some are), but are commonly expanded or work in conjunction with one another.

Correct. It would take quite the paradigm shift to completely overturn a scientific theory, though many older ones are disassembled to the point where their components still function to a limited approximation. For higher accuracy, one turns to more recent, more accurate studies.

I am utilizing the theory in a manner that seems to come to a viable answer.  To refute that answer by saying I should stop sticking to old theories and get with the times (argument ad novitatem) is no rebuttal at all.  Otherwise I am equally justified in saying that theory is new and has not been traditionally used and tested (or as tested as the old one) so we cannot use that (argumentum ad antiquitatem).

That's not what I said at all. I asked how you can be certain that older 'theories' carry more wisdom than later writings by virtue of them being older, as you appear to be suggesting?

Which sources are  you inquiring about?

Every authority you have cited, from Aristotle to Aquinas.