Evidence & Testing in the Scientific Field (Updated 1/8)

[southerndrawl118]

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

Cuddle-fish

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

Cuddle-fish

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

evidence can be seen as false no matter ho its looked at

No, evidence can be reinterpretted. However, after rpeated testing, we can be confident in our conclusions

no where in there was anything that makes me believe that we are 100% sure

wait....so you refuse to do or believ anything unless you have 100% certainty? How exactly do you justify crossing the street?

i don't justify it and once more i act on what i think is likely... i won't say that our reality is impossible i just say that nothing is a fact because nothing is 100%

oh, so then you absolutely agree with the first post

[VoijaRisa]

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

i act on what i think is likely... i won't say that our reality is impossible i just say that nothing is a fact because nothing is 100%

This is the whole point of the thread. Thanks for repeating what was already stated. Now get out.

[EsgarBlackpoxs]

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

EsgarBlackpoxs

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

Cuddle-fish

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

evidence can be seen as false no matter ho its looked at

No, evidence can be reinterpretted. However, after rpeated testing, we can be confident in our conclusions

no where in there was anything that makes me believe that we are 100% sure

It's not supposed to. Things are supposed to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt

reasonable is an opinion

You're right, but opinion ca n only extend so far. They do not give you carte blanche to spout off whatever you feel like and call it "reasonable".

A reasonable doubt: "How can the big bang be true when we haven't seen any evidence of the universe expanding?" (We've seen it, by the way)

Unreasonable: "HOw can the Big Bang be true when the chocolate monkey sof Equadoria 3.568779 haven't tap danced yet?"

[Grace of light and shadow]

VoijaRisa

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

no where in there was anything that makes me believe that we are 100% sure

If you'd read the OP, you'd realize that the entire point is that we're never 100% sure in science. The whole game is about who can collect the most evidence. Evolution and the Big Bang have won thus far. Most others that could be considered to be "competing" against them (ie, creationism) haven't even left the starting gate in the race to collect evidence.

If you're not going to bother reading the OP (which was required by the thread title for science's sake), then please GTFO of my thread.

i would read it but i can't focus that long and believe me i have tried too... but now i can attack your thread since you gave me its point...

you don't pick the game and you can't say that you have more evidence since creationism and such have logical ideas of factors we humans cannot grasp

[A Lost Iguana]

Oo, nice thread. The stats section is a little hand-wavey, though.

[southerndrawl118]

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

VoijaRisa

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

no where in there was anything that makes me believe that we are 100% sure

If you'd read the OP, you'd realize that the entire point is that we're never 100% sure in science. The whole game is about who can collect the most evidence. Evolution and the Big Bang have won thus far. Most others that could be considered to be "competing" against them (ie, creationism) haven't even left the starting gate in the race to collect evidence.

If you're not going to bother reading the OP (which was required by the thread title for science's sake), then please GTFO of my thread.

i would read it but i can't focus that long and believe me i have tried too... but now i can attack your thread since you gave me its point...

you don't pick the game and you can't say that you have more evidence since creationism and such have logical ideas of factors we humans cannot grasp

actually we can say we have more evidence...since you know...we actaully have evidence where creationism doesnt.

[Grace of light and shadow]

EsgarBlackpoxs

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

EsgarBlackpoxs

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

Cuddle-fish

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

evidence can be seen as false no matter ho its looked at

No, evidence can be reinterpretted. However, after rpeated testing, we can be confident in our conclusions

no where in there was anything that makes me believe that we are 100% sure

It's not supposed to. Things are supposed to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt

reasonable is an opinion

You're right, but opinion ca n only extend so far. They do not give you carte blanche to spout off whatever you feel like and call it "reasonable".

A reasonable doubt: "How can the big bang be true when we haven't seen any evidence of the universe expanding?" (We've seen it, by the way)

Unreasonable: "HOw can the Big Bang be true when the chocolate monkey sof Equadoria 3.568779 haven't tap danced yet?"

prove the second statement wrong

[VoijaRisa]

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

but now i can attack your thread since you gave me its point...

I only gave you half of the premise. The other half is how science knows what counts as evidence.

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

you don't pick the game

In the scientific field, the game requires that you play by the scientific method. Thus, that's the game that's followed.

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

can't say that you have more evidence since creationism and such have logical ideas of factors we humans cannot grasp

That disqualifies them from having any evidence. There's a big bolded part in the middle of the OP explaining this. Go read it our get out.

[southerndrawl118]

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

EsgarBlackpoxs

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

EsgarBlackpoxs

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

no where in there was anything that makes me believe that we are 100% sure

It's not supposed to. Things are supposed to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt

reasonable is an opinion

You're right, but opinion ca n only extend so far. They do not give you carte blanche to spout off whatever you feel like and call it "reasonable".

A reasonable doubt: "How can the big bang be true when we haven't seen any evidence of the universe expanding?" (We've seen it, by the way)

Unreasonable: "HOw can the Big Bang be true when the chocolate monkey sof Equadoria 3.568779 haven't tap danced yet?"

prove the second statement wrong

because youre a troll with the mind of a child. Hows that for evidence?

[Grace of light and shadow]

Cuddle-fish

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

VoijaRisa

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

no where in there was anything that makes me believe that we are 100% sure

If you'd read the OP, you'd realize that the entire point is that we're never 100% sure in science. The whole game is about who can collect the most evidence. Evolution and the Big Bang have won thus far. Most others that could be considered to be "competing" against them (ie, creationism) haven't even left the starting gate in the race to collect evidence.

If you're not going to bother reading the OP (which was required by the thread title for science's sake), then please GTFO of my thread.

i would read it but i can't focus that long and believe me i have tried too... but now i can attack your thread since you gave me its point...

you don't pick the game and you can't say that you have more evidence since creationism and such have logical ideas of factors we humans cannot grasp

actually we can say we have more evidence...since you know...we actaully have evidence where creationism doesnt.

its all fleeting considering there is countless possibilities for the truth, infinite really... so if infinite is in the equation... ratios and such fall short of being significant

[VoijaRisa]

A Lost Iguana

Oo, nice thread. The stats section is a little hand-wavey, though.

It was meant to be. Stats is primarily a mathematical argument (mmm Gaussians....) and most Gaians can barely add.

[Grace of light and shadow]

Cuddle-fish

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

EsgarBlackpoxs

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

EsgarBlackpoxs

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

no where in there was anything that makes me believe that we are 100% sure

It's not supposed to. Things are supposed to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt

reasonable is an opinion

You're right, but opinion ca n only extend so far. They do not give you carte blanche to spout off whatever you feel like and call it "reasonable".

A reasonable doubt: "How can the big bang be true when we haven't seen any evidence of the universe expanding?" (We've seen it, by the way)

Unreasonable: "HOw can the Big Bang be true when the chocolate monkey sof Equadoria 3.568779 haven't tap danced yet?"

prove the second statement wrong

because youre a troll with the mind of a child. Hows that for evidence?

hey that is your opinion and could very well be possible but the same can be said for you...

[southerndrawl118]

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

Cuddle-fish

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

VoijaRisa

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

no where in there was anything that makes me believe that we are 100% sure

If you'd read the OP, you'd realize that the entire point is that we're never 100% sure in science. The whole game is about who can collect the most evidence. Evolution and the Big Bang have won thus far. Most others that could be considered to be "competing" against them (ie, creationism) haven't even left the starting gate in the race to collect evidence.

If you're not going to bother reading the OP (which was required by the thread title for science's sake), then please GTFO of my thread.

i would read it but i can't focus that long and believe me i have tried too... but now i can attack your thread since you gave me its point...

you don't pick the game and you can't say that you have more evidence since creationism and such have logical ideas of factors we humans cannot grasp

actually we can say we have more evidence...since you know...we actaully have evidence where creationism doesnt.

its all fleeting considering there is countless possibilities for the truth, infinite really... so if infinite is in the equation... ratios and such fall short of being significant

tell ya what...ill do you one better than ratios:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Observed instances of speciation
More observed instances of speciation
Mutation, recombination and incipient speciation
Macroevolution: Species formation
Evidence for evolution: An eclectic survey

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://lifesciences.asu.edu/evolution/
http://www.mcb.harvard.edu/BioLinks/Evolution.html
http://books.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/
http://explore-evolution.unl.edu/


now give me your evidence

[southerndrawl118]

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

Cuddle-fish

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

EsgarBlackpoxs

Grace etoiledrexl or moon

reasonable is an opinion

You're right, but opinion ca n only extend so far. They do not give you carte blanche to spout off whatever you feel like and call it "reasonable".

A reasonable doubt: "How can the big bang be true when we haven't seen any evidence of the universe expanding?" (We've seen it, by the way)

Unreasonable: "HOw can the Big Bang be true when the chocolate monkey sof Equadoria 3.568779 haven't tap danced yet?"

prove the second statement wrong

because youre a troll with the mind of a child. Hows that for evidence?

hey that is your opinion and could very well be possible but the same can be said for you...

hardly....i have a firm grasp on reality ....well..firm enough to understand the concept of repeatable, testable, processes

[VoijaRisa]

Let's stop feeding the troll everyone.