₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
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.

There's no belief in science, that's where you are taking this to and it won't get there. I have been doing science for 13years and I'm confident that beliefs don't work here. Whatever belief you have, you got to drop it in science then go back to it when you are done.

Hypotheses are not beliefs in science. Just take it or leave it.
You guys like pointless arguments alot on this forum

NNTR:
That will be more lies from religious people who havent got a meaningful relationship with God

The devil doesnt care if anyone's religious or not, what the devil cares about, is people, not to believe in the existence of God. Evil and mischief is on your mind. The devil's got your number. The devil's got your hand. The devil's got a hold on you. The devil's got you beat.

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

God and devil don't exist

NNTR:
No where in the bible, would you find it, speak of a talking snake. Serpent is a placeholder word used for an extinct animal that hisses like snake. The animal that talked in the bible, died out, is dead gone defunct, as in meaning, it no longer exists.

If there is a place in the bible, where the bible, explicitly, mentioned a talking snake, please share the detail of which book in the bible, giving its chapter and verse

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

More lies from religious people.

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

Ola17:
Religious people also say that asking who created God makes no sense as there’s nothing before it.

YES, unless religious people cannot provide evidence for why they say so or for whatever they say.

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,

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

NNTR:
Its only some ignoranus-ignoramus combo person like you who has the sense to know the bible never mentioned a talking snake, but believes not in the existence of God

Serpent is not snake to fanatics and indoctrinated fools

orisa37:
PHYSICS IS SUBJECT IN PNEUMATOLOGY. IMAGINATION IS PNEUMATICS.

lol, you are high in weed

johnw47:
by the way christian hater, if you want to discuss God's word
janosky is your boy, he calls you antichristians/antichrists, brother

Christians are clowns na. No normal person will believe in talking snake

Only Christian do

In physics, it’s illogical to ask “what came before the Big Bang”. Scientifically, there’s no “before” the Big Bang. You are not allowed to asked that question in physics because it doesn’t make any sense.

This might confuse you but ask a physicist then he will tell you why that question doesn’t make sense

johnw47:
laugh, for starters dope, so called jehovah's witnesses are not christians but frauds

you are right at bolded though: "you lack common sense"

Choose one, you want to troll or you want to discuss?
If you want troll, by the time I am done with your religious head, them go think say na trailer jam you.

Rocktation:
I don't know it all, but I very much doubt that Abraham would have agreed to go ahead and sacrifice his son, if he had been asked to, by just any body. Neither would the most of us. Believable stories told of God by his antecessors, outside documented and undocumented personal encounters with God, most certainly have had something to do with his compliance.

Its still blind faith, the same most Christians claim to have now.

Ps: No evidence that Abraham story happened

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.

Clowns, Christians cannot even agree on a thing.
More than 4000 denominations and all of them think they are right.

I piss on relgion and lack common sense

A001:
How so?

many people think that the Doble slit experiment infers that two people can look at the same thing and see something different.

That's not what double slit experiment actually means

A001:
Not at all.

A lot of people misunderstand the double slit experiment.

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

A001:
It's quite straightforward. The picture is an illustration of Young's double slit experiment (showing that light and matter can display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles) and also applies to the quantum superposition principle.

Oh you think this is straightforward to a lot of people?

Lol @ international airport.

We too like mediocrity for this country

How of you will get the joke?

You need a decent physics knowledge

KingJahzmineKing:
Why It Is Made Compulsory To Register NIN To Stay Connected In Nigeria Network.

Nigeria dial code command us to +234 together

That is 2+3+4=9/NINE
NINE minus E =NIN(National Identification Number)
The last letter (E)=e-Naira (The new money introduced by PMB )

Don't forget that the following number 10 means the beginning and the end that is from 1(234567891)0,,,,,,TEN backward is NET(work)
The in-bracket digits total is 45 (4+5=9)
45-9=36 states of Nigeria

Compare (9) with small letter (g) and turn right the digit you get small letter (e)= (9ge)ria (rearrange RIA)=AIR(time)

There is a verse in the bible
...
Revelation .13.17 Without the mark of the name of the Beast or the number of its name, it was impossible to buy or sell anything. (MSB)

Without the mark of the name of the beast is your NETwork SIM card (G,A,M,9)=GAMe or Glo,Airtel,Mtn and 9mobile (turn back 9 you get small> e)

Or the number of its name (The AIRtime recharge card)

It was impossible to buy or sell anything (Make call, send SMS or use the internet )

The number 666(a man's number)
6×3=18

18 before you can vote
18 the rate before you can watch some movies
18 before you can consume alcoholic drinks

Remember NIN & e-Naira is NINe NAIRA and you just need to add 1naira to it to make it 10naira.......this stands for ONE Nigeria.

an unimaginable amount of stupid in one body

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

HedwigesMaduro:
Ok. So prove it. By the way, how doesn't it sound stvpid to "intelligent" atheists that they don't believe there's a creator, but an explosion would create an orderly universe? As in, how does it sound if someone comes to you and says Toyota cars were not created, but came into being by the atom bomb detonation on Hiroshima an Nagasaki? Stvpid, right? At least to me. Don't know about you, though.

You obviously didn’t read my post

budaatum:
A scientist proposes a hypothesis based on a belief. The scientist then tests the belief to discover if is true or false.

An example is the hypothesis/belief that pigs can fly. A scientist tests this belief to find out if pigs fly or not. And if pigs do fly, the scientist no more believes pigs fly because the scientist now know that pigs fly.

When a scientist claims to believe something they mean they do not really know for certain but hold it as a working hypothesis. If I claim to believe a particular woman is my mother, you'd likely ask why I'm ignorant about who gave birth to me because if I know my mother I wouldn't merely believe but know she's my mother.

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

HedwigesMaduro:
While it doesn't sound stupid that an explosion would create the universe? Especially as all the explosions you've ever heard of have given rise to skyscrapers and factories? Really?

Who says it was an explosion?

HedwigesMaduro:
Ok. So prove it. By the way, how doesn't it sound stvpid to "intelligent" atheists that they don't believe there's a creator, but an explosion would create an orderly universe? As in, how does it sound if someone comes to you and says Toyota cars were not created, but came into being by the atom bomb detonation on Hiroshima an Nagasaki? Stvpid, right? At least to me. Don't know about you, though.

Prove what?

It's sounds stupid that you think a creation of Toyota which is within the natural and it's testable can be compared to supernatural creation which cannot be tested.

That's a fallacy of faulty equivalence

HedwigesMaduro:
Especially as that theory of evolution is not a myth, right?

Yes, it’s not

Ehiscotch:
The fact that believed that a Sovereign, Almighty God created the universe and exists independently outside it made them to believe that there was order and laws and principles guiding the universe and it wasn't just random matter coming together by chance.

This influenced their thoughts and there are books abound about it.

what did they discover in science with their beliefs? I mean outside of routine scientific methods?

I want to know the connection between beliefs and how that’s relevant to scientific methods?

It doesn’t matter what you believe, when it comes to science, your religious beliefs don’t hold water, you have to drop it and follow the procedures if you must achieve anything.

I was asked a question by a student I was teaching the theory of evolution and he asked if there has been anytime ideas in science flipped drastically that new evidence suggested the directed opposite of what we knew, like can creationism flip scientific fundamental ideas on evolution?. It’s an interesting question because most people think that’s how science works but that’s not how it really works.

Laws, theories and principles maybe fallible but the new evidence usually do not suggest a direct opposite of what has been known outrightly, however it builds upon the knowledge and gives better understanding of what we knew. The new evidence usually modifies the existing idea, it doesn’t flipped it because the existing idea must have been tested many times.

Ideas don’t flip, better knowledge are gained. it’s very impossible that the idea of evolution of life will suddenly change and become that life has been immutable ever since. I will tell you why. Although, it doesn’t mean that we won’t accept it if anyone brings forward a method to test creation just as evolution as been tested million times and it works.

In science, If you perform an experiment to demonstrate the conduct of reality, maybe I don’t agree with that experiment because I think you are intentionally or passively bias, so I’m going to doubt you by performing the same experiment to see if I get the same result. If I get the same result, then maybe the idea is reality. But still in science, two repeated result is not statistically significant enough, more and more scientists come and repeat the experiments even using some other experimental design, this is why creationism doesn’t make it in science, it doesn’t pass the test every time. This gives science a very vital advantage in authenticity. If all of the many scientists get same results then that result is obviously a reality. It becomes very difficult to flip that idea in future, it doesn’t become overturned.
What becomes overturned are ideas around that discovered reality that hasn’t been experimentally verified.

Since Galileo, modern science started officially with its methods of getting empirical evidence, nothing it has said it’s true has ever been totally flipped. Like all the ideas of a theory flipped, no. Never happened

For example, Newton has law of motion and gravity, most people have the misconception that Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity flipped Newton’s laws. No, not the case. Newton’s law didn’t get the big picture, it could only account for reality at low speed and gravity. Newton laws breaks down at huge speed and gravity, Einstein’s theory of relativity enlarged the view and explained what happened at high speed and gravity. At low speed and gravity, theory of relativity will give same figures as Newton’s law.
Newton’s law still works perfectly, we still lunch rockets, satellites and make cars with Newton’s laws. It means that Newton’s law will work perfectly on earth within that range of speed and gravity humans can actively comprehend with their senses but at higher figures like in blackholes and speed of light, Newton’s law breaks down.
Another example is Darwin’s theory of evolution, he was wrong on the idea of genes but very accurate on natural selection, his theory wasn’t flipped when genes and their structures were discovered. The discovery of gene created more knowledge, it didn’t flip Darwin’s fundamental ideas which has been tested by many scientists overtime to be true.

So no, there’s never going to be a time when Science will drop theory of evolution and say life has been immutable. The idea around the theory might change but the fundamentals of life evolving has been tested millions of times and has given same results. It’s not gonna change.

You have made the right choice.
Watch how you will live a more quality life henceforth knowing fully well that no imaginary celestial dictator is watching you whatever you do.

Ehiscotch:
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't many of the leading scientists in earlier centuries believers in God?

I'm sorry but this feels like a false dichotomy.

Give me list of scientific discoveries made as a result of religious practices?

Your religious background has nothing to do with your scientific career because it will be useless in that field. You cannot discover anything in science with by using your religious beliefs but science has the power to uncover a lot of anomalies in your beliefs and this is why religion is trying to find a common ground