Workch:

scientists propose hypothesis based on observations not beliefs. Do you understand how to formulate a scientific hypothesis? It seem to me that you really do not know a lot about it

I mean this topic is the basics of scientific methods.

Not necesarily on observation, Workch, and unfortunately, the word itself has been basterdised, just like the word belief is basterdised to imply some sort of knowledge which it isn't.

One may hypothesize that the earth is flat and has an edge, and an ignorant person might run with it and claim the earth is therefore flat. That is what believers do.

A Scientist would however take their eyes to the supposed edge of the earth to apply the scientific method to test with the use of their own senses to see if they would fall off the edge of the supposed flat earth or not.

That said, it hope it seems to you that I at least know as little as Merriam Webster.

budaatum:


Not necesarily on observation, Workch, and unfortunately, the word itself has been basterdised, just like the word belief is basterdised to imply some sort of knowledge which it isn't.

One may hypothesize that the earth is flat and has an edge, and an ignorant person might run with it and claim the earth is therefore flat. That is what believers do

A Scientist would however take their eyes to the supposed edge of the earth to apply the scientific method to test with the use of their own senses to see if they would fall off the edge of the supposed flat earth or not.

That said, it hope it seems to you that I at least know as little as Merriam Webster.

you lack basic scientific literacy if you have to take an English dictionary definition instead looking at how hypotheses are actually formulated.
Buda, I have been submitting scientific papers for that past 13years of my life and I don’t even know if you are scientist, well you obviously aren’t one if you can such adulterated knowledge on hypothesis.
If you want me to take you through the basics of hypothesis formulations, I will but you want to believe whatever the English dictionary tells you then feel free.

I’m tired of always arguing on Nairaland with people who think they know about certain topics but barely have superficial knowledge.

Instead of going to study properly how hypothesis works from a science page, you give me an English dictionary. Same dictionary that will tell you that a theory is a guess.

Earth is flat is not a hypothesis, you don’t know what a scientific hypotheses is. It has methods of formulation

alphaNomega:

Now I know you are trolling.

No I am not. My threads and posts prove who I am.

Originakalokalo:


Yes.

I have prepared the money.

My church has branches all over the world... missionaries are in the remote villages also. They need my support.

I may even add more to what I intended to give tomorrow.



Ignorance....

Ignorance is bliss

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the leaders as useful.

-Lucius Annaues Seneca

Dtruthspeaker:


No I am not. My threads and posts prove who I am.

If this was a Muslim thread, I would agree you are a Sharia lawyer, now I'm worried about the type of law you claim to practice.

You know what, join politics. You would do well there.

Workch. May I ask if you are not just intending to get into some sort of battle with buda or something, for first, you claimed not to want to discuss with buda and now all you seem to want to do is insult buda.

It's not that I mind or anything, since I have the patience and the thick skin, just that I wonder, if you are as educated as you claim, why you can't have a civil conversation without the insults. Or are you not aware that I appreciate what can be learnt from you?

Workch:
you lack basic scientific literacy if you have to take an English dictionary definition instead looking at how hypotheses are actually formulated.

It was an intentional choice. You'd have known by my flat earth if not for your need to find a source of argument.

The following is from a nondescript website called livescience. It is intentionally chosen because it references Popper. The science in its title is not to suggest I am presenting it because it is scientific. Personally, I'll call it a layman's definition and less of a scientific one.

A hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. This is called falsifiability and testability, an idea that was advanced in the mid-20th century a British philosopher named Karl Popper, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html

Note that a hypothesis need to have been tested already, or observed, as you suggest, just that it must be testable, or as popper would have it, falsifiable, or to use your words, observable, and since one can clearly go and observe if the earth is flat or not, I'd suggest it qualifies.

Heres another from an even less descript source:

What Is a Hypothesis?
A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. In other words, a hypothesis is an educated guess about the relationship between multiple variables. A hypothesis is a fresh, unchallenged idea that a scientist proposes prior to conducting research. The purpose of a hypothesis is to provide a tentative explanation for an occurrence, an explanation that scientists can either support or disprove through experimentation.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/theory-vs-hypothesis-basics-of-the-scientific-method#what-is-a-hypothesis

Note, "prior to conducting research", as in before going off to observe, as opposed to already observed.

Now here's a third.

A hypothesis, on the other hand, is a specific prediction about a new phenomenon that should be observed if a particular theory is accurate. It is an explanation that relies on just a few key concepts. Hypotheses are often specific predictions about what will happen in a particular study. They are developed by considering existing evidence and using reasoning to infer what will happen in the specific context of interest. Hypotheses are often but not always derived from theories. So a hypothesis is often a prediction based on a theory but some hypotheses are a-theoretical and only after a set of observations have been made, is a theory developed. This is because theories are broad in nature and they explain larger bodies of data. So if our research question is really original then we may need to collect some data and make some observation before we can develop a broader theory.
https://opentext.wsu.edu/carriecuttler/chapter/developing-a-hypothesis/

Note, "a specific prediction about a new phenomenon that should be observed if a particular theory is accurate", and not one that has already been observed.

Workch:

Buda, I have been submitting scientific papers for that past 13years of my life and I don’t even know if you are scientist, well you obviously aren’t one if you can such adulterated knowledge on hypothesis.
If you want me to take you through the basics of hypothesis formulations, I will

I’m tired of always arguing

I have now shown you the hypothesis of my ignorance so you may observe before you begin to educate buda, for which I am grateful in advance. It would after all be improper, I think, for you to start building your theory about buda upon a hypothesis about buda that you have no intention of observing before adopting it as a belief about buda.

One more thing. Please do not tire. The work is plenty, but those here to educate us are few.

budaatum:
Workch. May I ask if you are not just intending to get into some sort of battle with buda or something, for first, you claimed not to want to discuss with buda and now all you seem to want to do is insult buda.

It's not that I mind or anything, since I have the patience and the thick skin, just that I wonder, if you are as educated as you claim, why you can't have a civil conversation without the insults. Or are you not aware that I appreciate what can be learnt from you?


It was an intentional choice. You'd have known by my flat earth if not for your need to find a source of argument.

The following is from a nondescript website called livescience. It is intentionally chosen because it references Popper. The science in its title is not to suggest I am presenting it because it is scientific. Personally, I'll call it a layman's definition and less of a scientific one.



Note that a hypothesis need to have been tested already, or observed, as you suggest, just that it must be testable, or as popper would have it, falsifiable, or to use your words, observable, and since one can clearly go and observe if the earth is flat or not, I'd suggest it qualifies.

Heres another from an even less descript source:



Note, "prior to conducting research", as in before going off to observe, as opposed to already observed.

Now here's a third.



Note, "a specific prediction about a new phenomenon that should be observed if a particular theory is accurate", and not one that has already been observed.



I have now shown you the hypothesis of my ignorance so you may observe before you begin to educate buda, for which I am grateful in advance. It would after all be improper, I think, for you to start building your theory about buda upon a hypothesis about buda that you have no intention of observing before adopting it as a belief about buda.

One more thing. Please do not tire. The work is plenty, but those here to educate us are few.

You don’t know science.
To make a hypothesis, you have to make a statement of problem and ask questions befor the predictions (your predictions will entail what happens if your hypothesis is false). It’s a prediction of “if this is that” then this has to be else “this is the case”. This is a simple template for hypothesis and that’s not a wild guess like scientifically illiterate people think.
you do not believe that prediction, you only make it to guide your experimentation depending on either its true or false. If you don’t make a prediction, there will be no guide, that’s not a belief. Maybe you will know this if you have made a scientific hypothesis before in your life instead of misconstruing what’s written on science pages.

We have several types of hypotheses:
Simple hypothesis.
Complex hypothesis.
Directional hypothesis.
Non-directional hypothesis.
Null hypothesis.
Associative and casual hypothesis.

They have their peculiar ways of formulating them. I can explain each of them to you if you want to learn then you will get an idea of what I am talking about.

Flat earth is not a scientific hypothesis. There are no statement of problems and a hypothesis has to come in two parts. 1. If your hypothesis is true else no 2 idea is the way to go. That’s how it works. Flat earth is just a fanatical belief burn out of sheer ignorance.

I cannot keep debating with someone who finds it hard it grasp stuffs as simple it hypothesis but still proud in the ignorance.

Science is not easy to grasp, you cannot learn it online. You have to go through the proper route of getting a degree and having post graduate degrees to master the concepts. I have done that I can’t be debating what I do on a regular with you especially when you are proud in your ignorance

Workch:
You don’t know science.
To make a hypothesis, you have to make a statement of problem and ask questions befor the predictions (your predictions will entail what happens if your hypothesis is false). It’s a prediction of “if this is that” then this has to be else “this is the case”. This is a simple template for hypothesis and that’s not a wild guess like scientifically illiterate people think.

Statement or problem: The earth is flat.

Prediction: If you walk to the edge of the flat earth you will fall off the earth

What happens if your hypothesis is false: You will not fall off the face of the earth.

Workch:

you do not believe that prediction,

This is very true. Scientists do not even believe theories and laws that have been tested and found to be true. They either know them to be true (at least for now and until further evidence suggests otherwise), or they do not know if they are true or not.

Please put it down to my conversing in the religious section.

Workch:
Flat earth is not a scientific hypothesis. There are no statement of problems and a hypothesis has to come in two parts. 1. If your hypothesis is true else no 2 idea is the way to go. That’s how it works. Flat earth is just a fanatical belief burn out of sheer ignorance.

I can almost see how you'd say it is not a scientific hypothesis, but I can't really see how you'd assume I presented it as a belief or that I am being fanatical about it unless you allowed your own beliefs to blind you from the point being made.

As I've said,

Statement of problems: Earth is flat

If your hypothesis is true: You will fall off the edge of the earth

Else: You will not fall off the face of the earth because the earth has no edge to fall off.

What's funny is how you fail to see that it actually was a real hypothesis until someone set off on their scientific ass to see if it were true or not true.

Might that be because it does not neatly fit into your own field of science, or because you never bothered with the history of such things and assume its modern day fanatics?

Workch:

I cannot keep debating with someone who finds it hard it grasp stuffs as simple it hypothesis but still proud in the ignorance.

Science is not easy to grasp, you cannot learn it online. You have to go through the proper route of getting a degree and having post graduate degrees to master the concepts. I have don’t that I can’t be debating what I do on a regular with you especially when you are proud in your ignorance

I wonder if you recall a conversation we once had regarding work. You wouldn't engage in doing the work then neither, so I'm not surprised you still haven't, but I'd have you consider the sort of hypocrite that buda would have to be to be preaching work to you while doing no work oneself.

No, science, as in use your senses to verify your hypothesis or claims, is not easy to grasp. Its why lesson one is, open your eyes, instead of creating crap inside your head and lazily believing it to be true. Its also why I teach it here with use your senses Eve, instead of dumb ignorant don't bother to even look believing Adam.

Hard to grasp for the lazy, I assure you, especially for the blind, and moreso for those too afraid to test their own hypothesis to pluck the fruit to test if they'd surely die. So let me present you with a hypothesis.

Workch hypothesis
You, Workch, will someday see how far apart we might not be.

Of course if you don't see we'll just drift that much further apart.

Do the science now, for there's no point claiming "13 years of my life submitting scientific papers" if you can't apply any of it to those you engage with here. When you do, and only because this is the religious section, perhaps we'd engage in a discourse (not an argument, mind, nor a debate) about why the understanding of some pits their God against science, especially when no God could have ever created anything without some knowledge of the science of creating things.

P.s. Professor Brian Cox has a wonderful 5 part series called Human Universe in which he speculates on the origin of life. In one episode, he touches on the Big Bang where he suggests the obvious, which is that something big had to exist to go bang. He does not present it or the bang as something to be believed, but something to consider for further scrutiny, though I do wonder how he intends to 'observe' it.

alphaNomega:


If this was a Muslim thread, I would agree you are a Sharia lawyer, now I'm worried about the type of law you claim to practice.

You know what, join politics. You would do well there.

You just came to Attack Me since you could not rebut as The Law Said "There is No Valid Argument Against The Truth"

alphaNomega:


Ignorance is bliss

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the leaders as useful.

-Lucius Annaues Seneca

It feels good to be "common."

budaatum:


Statement or problem: The earth is flat.

Prediction: If you walk to the edge of the flat earth you will fall off the earth

What happens if your hypothesis is false: You will not fall off the face of the earth.


This is very true. Scientists do not even believe theories and laws that have been tested and found to be true. They either know them to be true (at least for now and until further evidence suggests otherwise), or they do not know if they are true or not.

Please put it down to my conversing in the religious section.


I can almost see how you'd say it is not a scientific hypothesis, but I can't really see how you'd assume I presented it as a belief or that I am being fanatical about it unless you allowed your own beliefs to blind you from the point being made.

As I've said,

Statement of problems: Earth is flat

If your hypothesis is true: You will fall off the edge of the earth

Else: You will not fall off the face of the earth because the earth has no edge to fall off.

What's funny is how you fail to see that it actually was a real hypothesis until someone set off on their scientific ass to see if it were true or not true.

Might that be because it does not neatly fit into your own field of science, or because you never bothered with the history of such things and assume its modern day fanatics?



I wonder if you recall a conversation we once had regarding work. You wouldn't engage in doing the work then neither, so I'm not surprised you still haven't, but I'd have you consider the sort of hypocrite that buda would have to be to be preaching work to you while doing no work oneself.

No, science, as in use your senses to verify your hypothesis or claims, is not easy to grasp. Its why lesson one is, open your eyes, instead of creating crap inside your head and lazily believing it to be true. Its also why I teach it here with use your senses Eve, instead of dumb ignorant don't bother to even look believing Adam.

Hard to grasp for the lazy, I assure you, especially for the blind, and moreso for those too afraid to test their own hypothesis to pluck the fruit to test if they'd surely die. So let me present you with a hypothesis.

Workch hypothesis
You, Workch, will someday see how far apart we might not be.

Of course if you don't see we'll just drift that much further apart.

Do the science now, for there's no point claiming "13 years of my life submitting scientific papers" if you can't apply any of it to those you engage with here. When you do, and only because this is the religious section, perhaps we'd engage in a discourse (not an argument, mind, nor a debate) about why the understanding of some pits their God against science, especially when no God could have ever created anything without some knowledge of the science of creating things.

P.s. Professor Brian Cox has a wonderful 5 part series called Human Universe in which he speculates on the origin of life. In one episode, he touches on the Big Bang where he suggests the obvious, which is that something big had to exist to go bang. He does not present it or the bang as something to be believed, but something to consider for further scrutiny, though I do wonder how he intends to 'observe' it.

have you written a scientific hypothesis before?

If you walk to the edge of the earth and fall off is not scientific. It’s not informed, it’s a laughable way of writing a scientific hypothesis.
It’s not how to make up a hypothesis for flat earth theory.

You are trying hard and still making silly errors.

Come down from your high horse and let me tell you how to write a scientific hypothesis. You will not learn with your attitude.

You are trying to learn science online and it doesn’t work that way without the background knowledge.

Dtruthspeaker:


You just came to Attack Me since you could not rebut as The Law Said "There is No Valid Argument Against The Truth"

I am not rebutting the statement, it's even on your signature. I totally agree with it. I am convinced you do not know what it means because your posts show you presenting the Bible as the truth.

The Bible is not the truth

Originakalokalo:


It feels good to be "common."

No wonder.

alphaNomega:
I am not rebutting the statement, it's even on your signature. I totally agree with it. I am convinced you do not know what it means because your posts show you presenting the Bible as the truth.

The Bible is not the truth

The mere fact that you are not able to properly rebut it, PROVES IT SAID THE TRUTH, whether you like it or not!

Truth does not depend on our disposition towards it.

Dtruthspeaker:


The mere fact that you are not able to properly rebut it, PROVES IT SAID THE TRUTH, whether you like it or not!

Truth does not depend on our disposition towards it.

We know that killing human beings is bad. We call it murder in our criminal justice system.

Yet you have a god that orders his people to kill perceived enemies. This same god even murdered innocent Egyptian babies for his satisfaction.

In the so-called 10 commandments he gave his people, it is written "thou shall not kill". Clearly stated. A commandment.

How do you reconcile both? On the basis of murder alone, the Bible cannot be brought forward as the truth. Not to talk of the myriad of situations this book has been found to contradict itself.

The bible is not the truth

Dtruthspeaker:


.....



And the only problem you have with the Bible, is because, it Said "You will be Punished for all your evils." Exactly as a Thief, desiring to steal, hopes that he shall not be punished for it if caught, will definitely hate the Bible as an earthworm can never like salt.

That is all your problem with the Bible.

No one has any Reasonable Complaint against it other than the fact that they are criminals seeking to commit crimes and hoping to escape with both the fruits of their crimes and the judgement for it.

But the Bible says, You Will Never Escape, even if death on earth occurs.

That is why you people do not like the Bible.



....

This is why you choose to believe the Bible and I can sum it up in one word FEAR

You are afraid of eternal torment that comes when you die, so what better way to avoid it than to follow a book that claims to have the answers at all costs even when the fake stories are devoid of logic and morality.

Fear is the reason most of you are Christians. Fear is the reason a lot of you pray to an imaginary entity. It is because of fear you refuse to see the lies in the stories that come from your holy book so you do not face eternal torment in an imaginary afterlife. The fear that not believing in the book will cause punishment for any misdeed you commited while alive.

Take that fear away and you will have nothing to pray for.

alphaNomega:
We know that killing human beings is bad. We call it murder in our criminal justice system.

Here we go again on another new issue and lengthy talk with you.

alphaNomega:
We know that killing human beings is bad. We call it murder in our criminal justice system.

My biased little friend, dispensing the need for long unnecessary argument, I will state thus, did you not see and hear that Most Laws have Direct Opposing Laws called EXCEPTIONS to the Main Laws?

"Thou shalt not kill" -Main Law

"But when a man comes to kill the, thou shalt kill him" (Self-Defence/Just War/Destruction of Harm Full and Dangerous Persons- EXCEPTION.

That is the place of RIGHT-FULL, LAW FULL Kills!

Aside!

alphaNomega:

This same god even murdered innocent Egyptian babies for his satisfaction.

SEE HOW GREATLY BIASED, UNFAIR AND UNJUST YOU PEOPLE ARE?

THE EGYPTIANS FIRST MURDERED HIS OWN BABIES FIRST, BUT YET YOU DID NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT IT.

BUT YOU FLEW TO COMPLAIN ABOUT HIS RETALIATION!

AND YOU THINK YOU ARE REASONABLE PERSON!

FAR FROM IT!
Exactly as Criminals Intending to commit crimes Never Like Laws which prevent their commission of it.

And so unless the Bible hath said "You Are Free to commit crimes", then you will never see anything in it.

alphaNomega:

This is why you choose to believe the Bible and I can sum it up in one word FEAR

ABSOLUTELY WRONG IN MY CASE! YOU ARE USUALLY RIGHT IN THE CASE OF MANY OTHER PEOPLE, BUT YOU ARE VERY WRONG WITH ME.

AND THIS IS THE WISDOM,

A PERSON WHO INTENDS TO NEVER COMMIT A CRIME, IS NEVER AFRAID OF "LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS NOR SHALL HE BE EVER TAKING TO COURT WHERE THEY WOULD FIND HIM GUILTY AND PUT HIM IN A PLACE OF TORMENT (PRISON).

IT IS CRIMINALS AND INTENDING CRIMINALS WHO FEAR LAWS AND IMPRISONMENT.

THAT IS WHY I AM ABLE TO WALK ABOUT FREELY AND TELLING PEOPLE THAT UNLESS THEY ARE CRIMINALS, THEY HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR FROM GOD AND HIS LAWS!

Workch:
have you written a scientific hypothesis before?

If you walk to the edge of the earth and fall off is not scientific. It’s not informed, it’s a laughable way of writing a scientific hypothesis.
It’s not how to make up a hypothesis for flat earth theory.

You are trying hard and still making silly errors.

Come down from your high horse and let me tell you how to write a scientific hypothesis. You will not learn with your attitude.

You are trying to learn science online and it doesn’t work that way without the background knowledge.

Please write a flat earth hypothesis for me.

Dtruthspeaker:


Here we go again on another new issue and lengthy talk with you.



My biased little friend, dispensing the need for long unnecessary argument, I will state thus, did you not see and hear that Most Laws have Direct Opposing Laws called EXCEPTIONS to the Main Laws?

"Thou shalt not kill" -Main Law

"But when a man comes to kill the, thou shalt kill him" (Self-Defence/Just War/Destruction of Harm Full and Dangerous Persons- EXCEPTION.

That is the place of RIGHT-FULL, LAW FULL Kills!

Aside!


SEE HOW GREATLY BIASED, UNFAIR AND UNJUST YOU PEOPLE ARE?

THE EGYPTIANS FIRST MURDERED HIS OWN BABIES FIRST, BUT YET YOU DID NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT IT.

BUT YOU FLEW TO COMPLAIN ABOUT HIS RETALIATION!

AND YOU THINK YOU ARE REASONABLE PERSON!

FAR FROM IT!
Exactly as Criminals Intending to commit crimes Never Like Laws which prevent their commission of it.

And so unless the Bible hath said "You Are Free to commit crimes", then you will never see anything in it.

I am talking about the 10 commandments, you are quoting law of Moses, which one you dey? The 10 commandments came from the supposed god almighty himself, and he is still the one ordering the Israelites to murder other tribes and pillage their villages.

Just know that this book with so many contradictions has never, is not, and can never be the truth.

Fear cannot make you dispute a simple fact and I can see it.

I am utterly pissed at how conmen and charlatans, a.k.a men of God, use this book of fake stories to exploit people like you. You claim to be a lawyer, perhaps you work part-time (or full-time, whatever has been working for you) as one of these MOGs deceiving people in the name the lord, because I see no reason how a lawyer cannot discern fact from fiction, truth from lies, white from black.

Whatever the Egyptians did, god let it happen because it is claimed that he is everywhere and knows it all. God was the one that led the Egyptians to murder those babies. A blood thirsty deity.

Originakalokalo:
There has always been a conflict between the believers of science and those who believe in God.

However, this conflict is not needed...

For instance, the Hebrew boys in the book of Daniel were regarded to be skillful in science.

“Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and

cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace,

and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.”
— Daniel 1:4 (KJV)


This shows that God gave them knowledge to observe, experiment and make conclusions.


Now,

God created the sun while science probed and explain it's principle of operation.

If the Sun will be self-sufficient and operate continuously, then it must function on a principle....

Explaining the principle of its operation does not remove the fact that it was created.

The same applies to the rain, sowing and reaping, seasons and weather. All these happen continuously and timely.

A child of God may believe in Science....he/she should however be aware of the danger of believing everything science says....

I will mention why......

God and science aren’t alternatives.
Science only investigates nature made by God.
Nature does not create and never claimed to do so.

Theists made a lot of contributions to science that gave birth to what we have today. So many renowned scientists and inventors were theists.
So many scientists today are still theists and Christians.

Science does not even make any claim about God or the supernatural. Science is simply silent as it does not have the capacity to investigate any phenomena beyond the 5 senses used in empirical investigations.

Naturalistic methodology is only possible because of the rational intelligibility of the universe which points to order and a law giver who keeps the order for science to study and repeat observations.

budaatum:


Please write a flat earth hypothesis for me.

Hypothesis starts with statement of problem (it's usually in form of a question)

1. Statement of problem
Your statement of problem will be a question that your experiment is hoping to answer to prove that earth is flat.

Example: Does the earth have an edge? This means that your experiment is focusing on researching the edge of earth to prove that earth is flat

2. You write a brief preliminary research you have done on this topic that necessitated this research

3. Put your hypothesis is words: whole doing this, the statement must contained an independent and dependent variable in three sentences, the sentence will contain words like "if" and "then". In that format. It should also include your predictions and specific parameters you want to study.

Since we are looking to research earth's edge, an example will be:
I. If we find the edge of earth, then it means that earth is flat (independent variable)
II. The higher the altitude we travel, the likely that we see that earth is flat (dependent variable)
Iii. The distance covered in the straight is directly proportional to the chance of discovering the edge of the earth.


You see that you can't learn science online. This is a simple hypothesis, Though the most popular style I use is the null hypothesis. "Earth is flat" cannot be a scientific hypothesis, it's simple and uneducated conclusion if there are parameter to investigate.

I just smile when some of your guys think you know alot here on nairaland and say stuffs you don't understand about science because you got some layman definitions from the dictionary. I should get paid for the class.

English dictionary concepts are different from how we see them in science

alphaNomega:
I am talking about the 10 commandments, you are quoting law of Moses, which one you dey?
The 10 commandments came from the supposed god almighty himself, and he is still the one ordering the Israelites to murder other tribes and pillage their villages.

See, Proof you do not know the Bible. For everyone knows that 10 Commandments and what people call Law of Moses, ARE ONE.

Also it is known that it is ridiculous to ask criminals such as you are their opinion on Criminal Laws.

It is known people like you CAN NEVER EVER SPEAK TRUTH FULLY, FAIRLY AND REASONABLY about Justice and Law.
Your Law is that there should be no Laws and everyone knows that that is not REASONABLE!

BUT CRIMINALS LIKE YOU, DO NOT CARE!

Dtruthspeaker:


See, Proof you do not know the Bible. For everyone knows that 10 Commandments and what people call Law of Moses, ARE ONE.

Also it is known that it is ridiculous to ask criminals such as you are their opinion on Criminal Laws.

It is known people like you CAN NEVER EVER SPEAK TRUTH FULLY, FAIRLY AND REASONABLY about Justice and Law.
Your Law is that there should be no Laws and everyone knows that that is not REASONABLE!

BUT CRIMINALS LIKE YOU, DO NOT CARE!

The Law of Moses (Hebrew: תֹּורַת מֹשֶׁה‎ Torat Moshe), also called the Mosaic Law, primarily refers to the Torah or the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. They were traditionally believed to have been written by Moses, but most academics now believe they had many authors.

That is what a quick Google search of "Law of Moses" will bring up. Continue your deceit, oh man of god

Originakalokalo:
There has always been a conflict between the believers of science and those who believe in God.

However, this conflict is not needed...

For instance, the Hebrew boys in the book of Daniel were regarded to be skillful in science.

“Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and

cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace,

and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.”
— Daniel 1:4 (KJV)


This shows that God gave them knowledge to observe, experiment and make conclusions.


Now,

God created the sun while science probed and explain it's principle of operation.

If the Sun will be self-sufficient and operate continuously, then it must function on a principle....

Explaining the principle of its operation does not remove the fact that it was created.

The same applies to the rain, sowing and reaping, seasons and weather. All these happen continuously and timely.

A child of God may believe in Science....he/she should however be aware of the danger of believing everything science says....

I will mention why......

you're on the right path

Workch:
Hypothesis starts with statement of problem (it's usually in form of a question)

1. Statement of problem
Your statement of problem will be a question that your experiment is hoping to answer to prove that earth is flat.

Example: Does the earth have an edge? This means that your experiment is focusing on researching the edge of earth to prove that earth is flat

2. You write a brief preliminary research you have done on this topic that necessitated this research

3. Put your hypothesis is words: whole doing this, the statement must contained an independent and dependent variable in three sentences, the sentence will contain words like "if" and "then". In that format. It should also include your predictions and specific parameters you want to study.

Since we are looking to research earth's edge, an example will be:
I. If we find the edge of earth, then it means that earth is flat (independent variable)
II. The higher the altitude we travel, the likely that we see that earth is flat (dependent variable)
Iii. The distance covered in the straight is directly proportional to the chance of discovering the edge of the earth.

Thank you. So, now lets look at the imaginary Eve.

Her question was, would she die or not if she ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Independent variables)

Her II was if I eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and die then it is true that eating the fruit surely kills, but if she did not die then eating the fruit does not surely kill. (Dependent variables)

She then went ahead to test her hypothesis by performing her experiment of eating the fruit.

Is that not Eve doing science, or will you argue that what we read Eve did was not scientific?

budaatum:


Thank you. So, now lets look at the imaginary Eve.

Her question was, would she die or not if she ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Independent variables)

Her II was if I eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If and die then it is true that eating the fruit surely kills, but if she did not die then eating the fruit does not surely kill. (Dependent variables)

She then went ahead to test her hypothesis by performing her experiment of eating the fruit.

Is that not Eve doing science, or will you argue that what we read Eve did was not scientific?

lol,

Workch:
lol,

That's not an answer workch

Answer please so buda can learn!

alphaNomega:


Are you seriously asking for a video of the big bang as evidence?

So, how did you know it occurred, and lead to the existence of the universe?

Originakalokalo:


Lol.

Were you there when the BigBang happened?

Exactly my point.

budaatum:


That's not an answer workch

Answer please so buda can learn!

Just go in peace Buda.
You are asking loaded questions.

Loaded question fallacy

Workch:
Just go in peace Buda.
You are asking loaded questions.

Loaded question fallacy

What is loaded about it, workch? Don't you think you should observe before concluding and believing?

I think that if you look at the book through your science lens you'd see what I mean. It is my own education as an engineer after all, despite your unverified belief that I am google learned, that allows me to see Eve how I do, and if believers stop believing and instead do 'science' like Eve did, they too will be freed from slavery in the imaginary Garden of Eden that they are currently ignorantly enslaved in.

While you call it a fallacy, it's one that will unfortunately always pop up between us in this religious section. And neither of us is going anywhere soon, insha allah amen.