By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Tyrannical on 07 April 2009
Edit Thread
Quickdraw McGraw said:
Tyrannical said:

You have "fact" and "law" confused.

No, I don't. Laws are physical (Or analytical, if you will) 'facts' that are universal to all areas of science.
The difference being, if a physical law is proven to be wrong, the entire structure of our current scientific knowledge would have to be dramatically replaced, which is not the case with theories. The word 'fact' isn't even used to explain anything in science; it doesn't carry the same definition that Webster provides.

For the topic on hand, there are no 'laws', nor 'facts' for that matter, in biology.
Biology abides by the analytical laws already conceived, it doesn't create its own.

Yeah, you do.

A scientific fact is something that is objective and verifiable through observation.

A hypothesis, theory, or law trys to explain why that observation occurs.



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire