Originally posted by Shakyamunison
After all of your protests saying that you answered my question it turns out that you never even understood the question. No wonder I did not perceive your answer as an answer.
If I didn't understand it then I would not have been able to arrive at the same answer as you (except I did it three hours earlier).
😄
Originally posted by JesusIsAlivewhy do you think that it is called the "Theory of" evolution?
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.
Originally posted by AngryManatee
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.
So basically what you are saying is that evolutionary theory is substantiated right? Wrong, evolutionary theory is not "fully" substantiated. Just because certain aspects of something appear true or provable (notice I said appear) that does not mean that they are. Using the scientific method, I can conclude that popsicles do not like me. For example:
Observation: popsicles never try to get to know me or talk to me.
Question: why don't popsicles talk to me or try to get to know me?
Hypothesis: popsicles don't like me.
Prediction: if I talk to popsicles they will not talk back to me.
Experiment: talk to popsicles and see if they respond.
Conclusion: popsicles do not like me
Guess what, my hypothesis proved true and it is reproducible. Did I just substantiate that popsicles don't like me?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So basically what you are saying is that evolutionary theory is substantiated right? Wrong, evolutionary theory is not "fully" substantiated. Just because certain aspects of something appear true or provable (notice I said appear) that does not mean that they are. Using the scientific method, I can conclude that popsicles do not like me. For example:Observation: popsicles never try to get to know me or talk to me.
Question: why don't popsicles talk to me or try to get to know me?
Hypothesis: popsicles don't like me.
Prediction: if I talk to popsicles they will not talk back to me.
Experiment: talk to popsicles and see if they respond.
Conclusion: popsicles do not like me
Guess what, my hypothesis proved true and it is reproducible. Did I just substantiate that popsicles don't like me?
🙄 You need to get an education. The first thing you would do is not talk to the popsicle. You would try to figure out how and if popsicles communicate.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So basically what you are saying is that evolutionary theory is substantiated right? Wrong, evolutionary theory is not "fully" substantiated. Just because certain aspects of something appear true or provable (notice I said appear) that does not mean that they are. Using the scientific method, I can conclude that popsicles do not like me. For example:Observation: popsicles never try to get to know me or talk to me.
Question: why don't popsicles talk to me or try to get to know me?
Hypothesis: popsicles don't like me.
Prediction: if I talk to popsicles they will not talk back to me.
Experiment: talk to popsicles and see if they respond.
Conclusion: popsicles do not like me
Guess what, my hypothesis proved true and it is reproducible. Did I just substantiate that popsicles don't like me?
Get your hypothesis peer-reviewed and then published in a reputable scientific journal if you want it to become accepted by the scientific community 🙄
Ok, God does not exist, it's simple, near every piece of info that says he exits is incorrect, over the years the bible has been proved to be incorrect, nearly all of the stores of the bible never even happened or are totally exaggerated, just think about it, if you really have along hard think about things you'll see that there is not a ****in chance that god could exits, it's simple, I really feel sorry for the people that have been brought up in religion and cannot see how ****in stupid it really is... seriously, wake yourselves up for **** sake!