[QUOTE=Valdor;30646651]Although I guess I should have said it's not 100% confirmed if that really would have made you all happier.
[editline]22nd June 2011[/editline]
Goodbye automerge.[/QUOTE]
Yes it is 100% confirmed FOR FUCK'S SAKES.
[URL]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm[/URL]
[URL]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_01.html[/URL]
[URL]http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html[/URL]
You damn idiot.
[editline]23rd June 2011[/editline]
Here's another example. We can 100% confirm gravity. It's still a theory, though
It also depends on what your definition of confirmed is
Miss Indiana is an obvious retard
lol @ people trying to disprove evolution because its called 'theory'
theres enough fucking evidence to shit your eyeballs out your stupid ass
maybe visit the smithsonian
or read 'the greatest show on earth'
idiots
I like Miss Vermont, she just nonchalantly says evolution is a fact and whatnot.
[img]http://i55.tinypic.com/1z1ts80.jpg[/img]
[editline]22nd June 2011[/editline]
My science gland has ruptured.
[editline]22nd June 2011[/editline]
I'm hemorrhaging theories into my abdomen.
I don't think anybody really understands the concept of.
Idea<Theory<Law.
I don't think you understand the concept of idea < theory = law
Law of universal gravitation
Theory of general relativity
(Guess which one is more accurate)
[QUOTE=Laferio;30648583]I don't think anybody really understands the concept of.
Idea<Theory<Law.[/QUOTE]
Besides that the whole concept is full of shit?
[B]LAW [/B]
1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)
2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).
3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).
[B]THEORY[/B]
1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)
2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).
3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).
4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].
5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general [U]laws[/U], principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).
6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).
[URL="http://science.kennesaw.edu/%7Ermatson/3380theory.html"]http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html[/URL]
As used in [URL="http://science.kennesaw.edu/%7Ermatson/naturescience.html"]science[/URL], I think that it is important to realize that, in spite of the differences (see below), these terms share some things in common. [B]Both[/B] are based on tested hypotheses; [B]both[/B] are supported by a large body of empirical data; [B]both[/B] help unify a particular field; [B]both[/B] are widely accepted by the vast majority (if not all) scientists [U]within[/U] a discipline. Furthermore, [B]both[/B] scientific laws and scientific theories [B]could[/B] be shown to be wrong at some time if there are data to suggest so.
Presumably the acceptance of laws/theories also applies across disciplines, although most "Laws" or "Theories" are discipline specific. I can't think of law or theory that really transcends all disciplines [I]per se[/I]; there is, as of yet, no "Unified Law (or Theory) of Everything." Most scientists aren't trained to critically analyze the pros and cons of laws or theories outside our field. For example, biologists usually aren't qualified (by training) to critique the "Theory of Relativity" or "The Atomic Theory". I don't think a physicist, chemist or engineer (by training) is qualified to discuss the details of the "Theory of Evolution" or the "Cell Theory" either.
[quote]Besides that that whole concept is full of shit?[/quote]
And to which concept was I referring to? You could have atleast put the shit in quotes.
[quote]law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics -- Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical. Looking at things this was helps to explain, in part, why physics and chemistry have lots of "laws" whereas biology has few laws (and more theories). In biology, it is very difficult to describe all the complexities of life with "simple" (relatively speaking!) mathematical terms. [/quote]
[QUOTE=Laferio;30648727]And to which concept was I referring to? You could have atleast put the shit in quotes.[/QUOTE]
Concept of:
Idea<Theory<Law
it's the only fucking concept in your post and it's also directly pointed out so that leads me to believe you just avoided my question, but at the expense of looking like a dumbfuck
[editline]23rd June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Laferio;30648727]And to which concept was I referring to? You could have atleast put the shit in quotes.[/QUOTE]
A law describes, a theory explains. So, even if you're bullshit hierarchy WAS true, theory would be above law. But the hierarchy is bullshit and you cannot compare a law and a theory
You didn't ask a question. You just copy and pasted everything in the article and just revised it. Saying that "Besides that that whole concept is full of shit" is not a question. I don't know about you.. I don't think this is a question:
[QUOTE=Meatpuppet;30648624]Besides that that whole concept is full of shit? [/QUOTE]
[quote]I don't think anybody really understands the concept of:[/quote]
I said, "Besides that the (typo, fixed) concept is full of shit?"
Learn to english.
[QUOTE=Meatpuppet;30648943]I said, "Besides that the (typo, fixed) concept is full of shit?"
Learn to english.[/QUOTE]
Then what was the point of your question? Dumb it down for me.. Because I simply don't understand the question in:
[QUOTE=Meatpuppet;30648624]Besides that that whole concept is full of shit? [/QUOTE]
"I don't think anybody really understands the concept of: blah"
INTERJECTION: "Besides that it is bullshit?" Implying that the theory is bullshit. That is a question.
[editline]23rd June 2011[/editline]
Rating my posts dumb doesn't do anything
So you're implying that its bullshit whilst asking a question?
Interesting. You're just as funny as your "Whole wrote the bible" thread.
You're a goddamn retard. I'm not arguing with you anymore, you refuse to understand a simple sentence and don't refute my point I made to make you wrong at all.
:Dawkins102:
Miss California was decent I guess but I don't like the way she worded her answer
You aren't a "huge science geek" by believing in evolution or the big bang
Jesus it's like she's talking about Star Trek
[QUOTE=Laferio;30649075]So you're implying that its bullshit whilst asking a question?
Interesting. You're just as funny as your "Whole wrote the bible" thread.[/QUOTE]
nice logical fallacy there
[QUOTE=Meatpuppet;30649194]nice logical fallacy there[/QUOTE]
You can't commit a logical fallacy if your though process operates outside the realms of logic in the first place.
I did my religion class in school
Even took a extra class of religion whit kinda of the same stuff.
It was a mix of all religions.
So teach children all BIG religions and evolution
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az8k0uzQ6sA[/media]
Geez. Only 1 or 2 of those girls in that video are attractive. Is that the best those states could do? lmao
I'D DO THEM ALL
[QUOTE=MenteR;30650406]I'D DO THEM ALL[/QUOTE]
Of course the girl from California believes in evolution and the Big Bang
Dang lefties ruining the youth :bahgawd:
It bugs me how "I believe in creation" translates to "I don't understand evolution", though evidence and science have shown it. Ignorance seems to be the root of many of the religions that are ruining the world, as reflected by the contestants.
[QUOTE=One Ear Ninja;30651274]It bugs me how "I believe in creation" translates to "I don't understand evolution", though evidence and science have shown it. Ignorance seems to be the root of many of the religions that are ruining the world, as reflected by the contestants.[/QUOTE]
Most every school these days teaches evolution including the one I used to go to. Still, the smartest people we had were Jews and Christians so obviously you're more ignorant than they are.
can i get a source on the pope believing in evolution?
Religious people don't they listen to themselfs ?
"I believe we where all created from nothing for a reason by god" it just sounds ... strange
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.