Burden Of Proof

A theory does not equal conclusion.

Period

Would you like to review my work, my peer, is to what you refer.

I believe knowledge to be peer reviewed work that is replicatible.

I believe that you indeed did use your mind to place an image in a far distant place.

Your thought became a thing.

You just don't know for sure if my image is the same as you.

Remember that much of what I see when I interact with people are feelings.

A theory does indeed equal a conclusion.
As new evidence becomes available you can revisit a theory and reach a new conclusion.

This is the scientific method.

Here's a nice definition:
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

A theory believes in an effort to explain the unexplainable.

A religion believes in an effort to explain the unexplainable.

Theory=Religion

Its all relative, my friend.

Fucking your first cousin is relative.

A hypothesis may attempt to explain the unexplainable, but to reach the point where it becomes a theory you must have evidence.

Once you have evidence supporting a hypothesis, the target is no longer unexplainable. You use the evidence to test the hypothesis, whether it is falsifiable*, and consistent.

You keep trying to introduce philosophy into science in your posts. Philosophy is fine, but it is not science.

You certainly aren't letting your brain atrophy with all that thinking though




*(eg. I expect that adding A to B produces C, but if I leave out A then B must not produce C or the experiment is pointless)

Has anyone else thought of fucking your cousin?

What if they were a scientist?

I have 50 cousins, and many of them have kids.
I'm sure at least one had sex with a scientist. And at least one IS a scientist
I haven't seen any papers on it though. I'll check PubMed, and see if they did a study on it.

That was funny though. Gonna rep you for that.

Foer a scientist, you seem unaware of the difference between a legal & layman "theory", and a scientific definition of a theory.

A scientific theorem is the strongest of all arguments. It does draw a conclusion, to which science is saying we believe this to be substantiated to the greatest degree possible.

Religion uses no such terminology. The legal definition of a theory is not nearly as strong a statement as a scientific theorem.

I define scientist as me.

Remember who I am.

I can only go by ur posts..... religion by definition can never attain a scientific theorem recognition, until a bearded guy shows up out of the clouds and brings back human sacrifice as a worship method....

Woodstock.Hippie said:

I define scientist as me.

Click to expand...

Which university/college did you get your science degree from?

You can define yourself as the consort of Alexander the Great as well. It doesn't mean anything.

Remember who I am.

Click to expand...

My suspicion is that you're one of the users involved in the atheism/faith argument just spamming faith based nonsense posts under a new nickname to dilute the forum, so until I see evidence confirming or disproving either I certainly won't be remembering who or what you are.

She's just trying to find her ground.... The hills can be steep.

what does it take to be a scientist?

Insanity, funny hair, and a good sense of humor.

Typically eight years of concentrated study in a particular area of science.

Lay ppl can be a naturalist without a particular rigor... but not a scientist.

DJBoxhouse said:

Insanity, funny hair, and a good sense of humor.

Click to expand...

Like this then.

In one particular area of study you say?

I prefer, when referring to 'Scientists' to consider them less in the practical more modern fashion, and moreso in the 'Dr.Science' one.
Bill Nye with a twist of crazy maybe?

To be a passionately learned man of the sciences, joyfully tumbling down the hills of madness with no heed for moderation or other more seemingly reasonable impediments.


This is no time for such frivolities, there is more science at hand to be had!

So,
following the current theme of the thread, to carry on: From what I've gathered, you theists don't seem to be able to 'play catch', at least where the burden of proof comes into play. I find this silly, especially when you insist on hinting that you have balls to join in on the fun. There is a parallel I'm noticing where 'Most' theists who are stubbornly smashing against a wall of misunderstanding have a reoccurring theme of close mindedness/unreasoning characteristics within what they present of themselves and what is said. So, Can I argue that the trick in comprehension at least where this pertains is being reasonable? I've been implying this the whole time, the fact that to not follow this deduction of logic is no different then an unreasonably fearful child in audience to there parents? All I ask as your circumstantially intellectual parent is you show me that there IS a boogie man. I will show you over and over that there is none, and will unfortunately I'm sure do so until you prove otherwise.
(I say circumstancially Intellectual parent in the sense that I am an audience you have drawn to and intend to prove your claims to. Last I checked there was no boogie man, said room was fine and you were sleeping. ergo, burden of proof.
)
Don't get this confused with me saying you'd do the later"( I will show you over and over that there is none, and will unfortunately I'm sure do so until you prove otherwise.)" I'm just saying another characteristic of being close minded and unreasonable is being stubborn. Heck, I'd be stubborn too if I literally thought as you. The trick is, I won't ever get to that point of certainty because I always employ reason and logic with an open mind.

'What is therein more probable?', I would say in your shoes to MY parents in this scenario. This question alone bares fruit; the exit to the never ending spiral I've noted above. Because, be it right or wrong, simply considering that question rather than not shows a mind of reasoning, question/which leads onto open mindedness and these only support the growth of not just logic, but properly formed logic at that. Hilariously enough right or wrong, it bares fruit to the qualities that bare fruit to the right answer in the first place.

Even if you don't get it, if you GET IT hell, second place is better then not being able to compete in the first place, and in this race, as long as you compete you get first prize anyways.

Well if one is smart and ambitious enough, more fields can be conquered in letters of degrees.

I should be a scientist in every major field.
I'd be so hax.