that's wrong. Laws state what something does, I.e the apple falls to the ground, and theories explain why and how it does it, ie it's acceleration. They are not varying degrees of certainty, they are entirely different things explaining either what something does or why it does it. There are theories explaining everything from tides to knots. We don't have tide theory because we aren't sure that tides exist, we have it to explain what tides do. Google "scientific theory" to find out more.
we don't have a theory on tides because their is no need for a stated theory. A tide just is, it is not probable or plausible, it is. you don't need a theory to explain the why and how. its just why and how.
WRONG! CLASSIC WRONG! A Hypothesis is an educated guess about a certain behavior, usually based on observation or derivation. A Theory is when a Hypothesis is repeatedly used to successfully predict an event. A Law is a Theory has been successfully used in practical applications and no exceptions have been found. So... every Law was once a Theory, and every Theory was once a Hypotheses. Understand? Words have precise meanings in science My Lord, stOx didn't even bother to look these things up! Ding! Ding! Ding! stOx is WRONG AGAIN!
Eric we do have tide theory, look it up, it's the explanation of tides. That's the point, a scientific theory isn't a guess about somethings existance. It's an explanation of something. Corwin, two points. 1. I didn't say anything about a hypothesis 2. You have just pulled those definition directly out of your arse, as you do with most of what you post. Ding ding ding, corwins making up his own version of reality again. here's what the difference really is, for those of us not living in some fabricated world where anything means whatever we want it to mean. Scientific law A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation (ie a law is what something does) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law?wasRedirected=true scientific theory Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[9] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki?search=Scientific+theory ding ding ding, reality is a bitch isn't it corwin. Now go to your room and have a think about how badly you just got owned.
Um, you can't talk about what how you form a Theory unless you mention the Hypotheses it is derived from. My definitions are EXACT. You, on the other hand, have just proven, once again, that you are pulling your posts out of your arse. And you deliberately used Wikipedia poorly. Shame on you. In any case, you cited text that partially proved my point while you childishly ignored text that made you look WRONG. Let's try the prestigious University of Rochester: http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html stOx, it's useless for you to even attempt to disagree here. Words have definite meaning in science, and for you to desperately pick out something vague from an unscientific source just digs your hole deeper. Don't even attempt to disagree with this - or I will show you further references that will REALLY embarrass you. Give it up, stOx. You can't B.S. your way out of this one. Science is not swayed by rhetoric! You are wrong, classic wrong. Deal with it, and move on. O.K.?
again, i never said anything about a hypothesis. Are you still claiming that theories graduate in to laws? Only, the bit of text you quoted doesn't actually refute anything i have said or support anything you have said. it's just some random text you come across while desperately hunting for something to quote. Theories and laws are different things, they aren't varying degrees of certainty and theories aren't something which graduate into laws (like you incorrectly and ignorantly claimed). Laws explain what something does and theories explain how and why it does it.
stOx, now you are just rambling. My definitions of hypotheses, theories, and laws are spot-on. You, on the other hand, have no respect for science or authentic references as your rambling proves. Like a fat woman in a soda shop, you are desperately grasping at straws. You are wrong. Classic wrong.
Are you still claiming that theories graduate into laws? I love how easy it is to twist you up in your own words. What you don't realise corwin is that other people can see what you write and how consistently you humiliate yourself by denying the definition of words then posting asupposed definition which doesn't even support what you are saying. Like most illeducated people you make your mind up before doing even the most basic amount of research, which in this case would have consisted of a two second google search. Now you are in the unfortunate, and frankly embarrasing position of looking for evidence to support your preconcieved idea, finding none and being left forced to post a random chunk of text which is relevant only in the sense that it contains some of the words we have used in this thread.
Unfortunately obamanation some people have to have the precise moment at which they have lost pointed out to them. And even more unfortunately some people, like corwin, still feel compelled to humiliate themselves.
Are you still claiming they aren't? stOx, give it up. You are wrong. Classic wrong. I've noticed you've given up on the discussion in favor of empty rhetoric. Did my references proving you absolutely wrong sting so much?
I'm definately claiming they aren't. As the definition I posted shows and the definition you posted didn't. Are you still claiming that theories graduate into laws?
Of course I am. That's why you are wrong, and you are left to mindlessly repeat the same claim over and over again. It's Hypotheses to Theory to Law. You saws my authoritative reference. You cited a vauge Wikipedia reference - did you insert that yourself into Wiki? Of course, you still haven't cited an authoritative source because you have none - after all this time, you have no authoritative source. And the University of Rochester backs me up. See quote below: I have the University of Rochester. stOx, you have an unreferenced quote from Wikipedia that you probably inserted yourself. Sucks to be stOx in this thread, doesn't it?????
It's a scam but not the only one intended to enslave the American people into submission to baseless fear.
I don't understand how can anyone call "Global Warming" a scam, aren't you aware or don't you sense the climatic changes that happen everyday? How foolish can this be!