Elektable

*YAWN*


*YAWN*


LOL. Please tell me what the scientific method has to do with this discussion at all. Please, I am begging you.


Ok. Nice. I don't believe in it either.

The scientific method is there to primarily differentiate between laws, theories and hypotheses.

The difference between scientific theories and religious beliefs is that even the shakiest hypothesis by the greenest grad student has more credence than "and god said let his cock grow and adam felt a stirring in his loins".

<3
 


How is that controversial?

Government schools don't teach morality.

Religion is protected for a reason. You don't want to limit or control people's belief systems. That would be dangerous socialist thinking.

I think the problem is in letting structures outside of the immediate community influence childrens' thoughts on reality. Now that's dangerous. Nobody but a parent and immediate family members have the right to tell a kid about religion. People have the right to preserve their culture/heritage and way of thinking. So keep all that crap out of public domains and have it in private establishments.
 
Cool, just dont feel bad when I don't vote for you to lead a country.
I'm an anarchist. I have no desire to lead any countries.

I think the problem is in letting structures outside of the immediate community influence childrens' thoughts on reality. Now that's dangerous. Nobody but a parent and immediate family members have the right to tell a kid about religion. People have the right to preserve their culture/heritage and way of thinking. So keep all that crap out of public domains and have it in private establishments.
You can't do that when the government interferes in the education process.
 
The scientific method is there to primarily differentiate between laws, theories and hypotheses.
How?

The difference between scientific theories and religious beliefs is that even the shakiest hypothesis by the greenest grad student has more credence than "and god said let his cock grow and adam felt a stirring in his loins".
Why?

You're just asserting shit. You haven't proven anything you've claimed yet.

I can do that too.

"God made the earth and man. Everyone knows that. The bible says so."

There, see, I just proved you wrong, Pewep style.
 
None of the men who signed the declaration of independence believed in evolution, either.
In Nicky's world, what a man claims to believe is more important than what he does.

He likes secular mass murderers like Obama because they believe the things he believes.
 
We already live in a state of anarchy. It just so happened that a group of people got together and told us what the fuck was gonna be up from then on because they had the weapons to do so. Don't kid yourself even if we were in total anarchy now, we would organize into kingdoms in less than a decade.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
Does that help or should I go further? You know what, I think I'm tried of arguing with you so yes I'll go further:
Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions

Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true. Here's a closer look at these important, commonly misused terms.
Hypothesis
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.
Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

Law
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.
As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.
Why?

You're just asserting shit. You haven't proven anything you've claimed yet.

I can do that too.

"God made the earth and man. Everyone knows that. The bible says so."

There, see, I just proved you wrong, Pewep style.

So you see Guerilla, the reason I'm being curt with you isn't because I don't know what I'm talking about. It's because you're wrong and it would tire me to sit down and prove you wrong then try to correct your every flaw.

Your "God made the earth and man. Everyone knows that. The bible says so." isn't even a hypothesis because it cannot be tested. It cannot be verified or observed.
 
i dont think we use it for much anymore, so that's fine by me

What about these guys?

They drafted the Constitution, and not one of them believed in evolution.

Maybe we should toss it, since they must have all been "loons".

nf54Z.png
 
I have seriously made a lot of posts arguing on the internet, and nothing makes me smile more than when some guy posts a link to Wikipedia thinking this has won him the argument.

There should be an entire category of logical fallacies devoted to people who say, "Wikipedia, QED".

Thank you for making me laugh.

You know what, I think I'm tried of arguing with you so yes I'll go further:
Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions
1. What does any of that have to do with the scientific method and this thread?

2. What tests which employed the scientific method have been done to test evolution?

3. What evidence do you have for evolution. What can you prove to substantiate your theory as being more rigorous than a hypothesis?

So you see Guerilla, the reason I'm being curt with you isn't because I don't know what I'm talking about.
Oh, I see. The fact you're being curt is unrelated to your ignorance.

It's because you're wrong and it would tire me to sit down and prove you wrong then try to correct your every flaw.
"I pewep will continue to assert things without proof because I am lazy."

And probably wrong too.

Your "God made the earth and man. Everyone knows that. The bible says so." isn't even a hypothesis because it cannot be tested. It cannot be verified or observed.
A hypothesis doesn't need to be tested based on the definitions you posted.

I'll ask again. What tests have been done to prove human evolution?
 
They also were slaveowners. I guess since they were our founding fathers that makes it okay because everything they thought and did was right.
 
Guerilla, if you don't "believe" in evolution, do you have an alternative explanation that you think is more likely to be true?
No, I don't.

You don't have to choose between competing theories. The intellectually honest path is to admit that you don't really know what the fuck happened 6,000 or 60 million years ago (because you weren't there, and neither was anyone who cooks up these theories). Anyone who claims otherwise is delusional, and perhaps an asshole.
 
On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859

The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787

...

Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

If you can't understand the point I am making, you'd best refrain from posting and just lurk for a while while the grownups talk.