@ripfire:

I can see by your recent illogical reply to fuzz54 that you will just continue to debate your ignorance in an attempt to prove that you're right. Therefore I will refrain from getting into a long seeded debate with you on the topic considering it is less than trivial and irrelevant to the post.

However, for the sheer enjoyment in ridiculing your naivety, I will say that you are completely and utterly incorrect. So you copied and pasted the definition of the scientific method from somewhere online. Big deal. That, again, had no relevance to your arguing point, nor did it do any good in aiding to back up your statement. Not to mention anyone born in the last 50 years was taught the scientific method since middle school. Then, to top it all off, your second comment:

"I'm sorry, but you're understanding of science is just bothering me.. I can't even think straight anymore!"

just further added to making you look like an ignorant jack ass. First off, grow up. Secondly, read a book. Now, the education part: the entire article is in fact based off the hypothesis that any of this actually exists or could be done. Hypothesis and theory are two totally different words that often get misconstrued to have the same meaning, which is what you did. Now, instead of googling the definition of the scientific method, google the definition of the actual points you are arguing which are hypothesis and theory. Then you might actually learn something and become an educated contributing factor to society.