Evolution, Divine Creation, Starseed, or Other

Ive a question me me me me ..... ?

If i was to study science for 30 years and was very well known in that world for my studys and then If made up a bunch of theories of the creation of life and stuff

Does that mean its correct or nearly correct ????

Or would it not be any different to say a heavy thinking budsmokers theory who watches the discovery channel daily and internet reading ?

just a theory any 1 ????

Cheese x Kush said:

Ive a question me me me me ..... ?

Click to expand...

you have to support your work- have facts or references to prove your point.

Now this is what happens when you mix cheese and kush. People, this could happen to you!

LOL

Cheese x Kush said:

Ive a question me me me me ..... ?

If i was to study science for 30 years and was very well known in that world for my studys and then If made up a bunch of theories of the creation of life and stuff

Does that mean its correct or nearly correct ????

Or would it not be any different to say a heavy thinking budsmokers theory who watches the discovery channel daily and internet reading ?

just a theory any 1 ????

Click to expand...

Is there any facts thou thats my question

Cheese x Kush said:

Ive a question me me me me ..... ?

If i was to study science for 30 years and was very well known in that world for my studys and then If made up a bunch of theories of the creation of life and stuff

Does that mean its correct or nearly correct ????

Or would it not be any different to say a heavy thinking budsmokers theory who watches the discovery channel daily and internet reading ?

just a theory any 1 ????

Click to expand...

if after 30 years of scientific research you started to just make shit up what would happen? the science community would feel very badly for you but your theories would be marginalized because you "made them up" and have to evidence for them.

I would assume you were suffering from some sort of mental breakdown - see Michael Behe (just kidding.. sort of).

What is a theory ???

Sorry, I should have answered more seriously. A lifetime of scientific research would tend to incrementally build into a consistent body of knowledge (facts) which taken together would constitute or contribute to a theory. The likelihood of that theory being 'true' or valid would depend on the quality of your research. How is that quality determined, you say? When original scientific research is first published it is subjected to a process of 'peer review'. Other scientists in your field and familiar with the kind of work you do review your research and in some cases duplicate your experiments to test their validity. Thirty years of peer reviewed published research would tend to increase your credibility when it comes to any theory you might advance if it was solidly based on the research you have done. But watching the discovery channel and internet reading don't constitute actual research and while they might increase your own personal knowledge you would just be absorbing an unreliable mixture of fact and fiction that is great entertainment but not science.

Cheese x Kush said:

Is there any facts thou thats my question

Click to expand...

Cheese x Kush said:

What is a theory ???

Click to expand...

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.

This is a technical definition. Sorry I cut and paste it to save time. Not my own words!

Cheese x Kush said:

What is a theory ???

Click to expand...

i think the confusion comes from school where they teach a theory is a guess or an "educated guess" - but a theory is far from a guess.

See post above for common usage....

and another very important thing to remember is once evidence is gathered that makes the theory incorrect, the theory is abandoned.

Wow so some theories can be fact ?

Why would the get classed as a theory and not just a plain old fact

Its confusing now .......So a theory is some parts fact and the rest made up from lots and lots of different views over the years of science and is this why it can not be fact and remains a theory ?

cheese

there is always a margin of error in science. the theory of gravity is still just a theory but it would be very strange indeed if you tossed a brick into the air and the brick floated rather than falling to the ground as the theory of gravity predicts.

there are theories with A LOT of evidence like gravity and evolution. And there are theories that border on philosophy in that they make no predictions or the predictions they make can not be tested like string theory for example. one quick aside ... scientists are just now beginning to be able to put some string theory predictions to the test.

Science demands that you follow the evidence, if some piece of evidence were presented, verified, and reproduced that somehow made natural selection impossible, scientists would be forced to abandon most, if not all of the theory and come up with a new one. The longer this lack of evidence to prove the theory incorrect, combined with all of the predictions the theory makes coming true under observable conditions makes the theory stronger and less likely to be proven wrong.

But there are always error bars or margins in science ... there is always a chance to be wrong.

You might be confusing theory and hypothesis. A hypothesis is a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation. A question, if you will. Like; will an apple fall at the same rate as a bowling ball? In other words it is the starting point for scientific inquiry. A theory, as the definition I gave earlier, is for many scientists not different from fact, because its components have been tested through empirical observation. This is the basis of the scientific method.

A theory is a complex type of fact Apples fall to the ground is a fact. All matter moves through space and time according to the same set of laws is a theory (well, not really, but for this argument it will do) which is a set of many facts including that apples fall to the ground. Yes??

Cheese x Kush said:

Wow so some theories can be fact ?

Why would the get classed as a theory and not just a plain old fact

Its confusing now .......So a theory is some parts fact and the rest made up from lots and lots of different views over the years of science and is this why it can not be fact and remains a theory ?

cheese

Click to expand...

email.
Thats all i ment in my very 1st question bro ,

What would make a theory from some one has studied science a bit any more valid than a couch-scientist,s theory that did enough research on the net and on the discovery channel

Thanks for the info

Cheese x Kush said:

email.
Thats all i ment in my very 1st question bro ,

What would make a theory from some one has studied science a bit any more valid than a couch-scientist,s theory that did enough research on the net and on the discovery channel

Thanks for the info

Click to expand...

hope i helped.

Here's what Stephen Hawking said in A Brief History of Time:

"a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model which contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations". He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory".

Just thought I'd throw one last thing in there.

No one commented on my Inuit creation story

shnkrmn said:

Once the Sun lived with her brother the Moon,...............................because her lamp-moss was burning when she came up into the air.

Click to expand...

comment

now someone commented on your story

i can be a wise guy sometimes shnkrmn, sorry.....

Thanks, bro, I'll forgive you temporarily for being a 9/11 whackjob, lol

We TaRdED said:

comment

now someone commented on your story

i can be a wise guy sometimes shnkrmn, sorry.....

Click to expand...

So if i were to make some views up on the basis of what is fact in are universe , Then if the people i sell my theory too can some what understand it can then become a theory ?

Is that not are own minds trying understand something we cant understand and just taking on-board other peoples opinions that is easy for us to understand ,

If some 1 were to make up a new theory today that we could understand more, The rest would just go out the widow like it has done from the begging of time and im sure will do again

From relativity to his theories on gravity Einstein has been proven wrong. Much as Nikola Telsa predicted they would be and for the same reasons.
If the conservation of energy was "by law" only able to manifest in a closed system there would be no way to extract energy in limitless amounts from nothing, and there would be no effects from energy such as lightning (the earth isn't a closed system). Scientist have been able to "extract" energy even out of vacuums for many years, thereby proving energy can be extracted from "nothing".
Anyone who is putting their "faith" in Dawkins and his Darwinian inspired pontifications obviously hasn't updated their encyclopedia in about fifty years.
You guys on here can snicker and sneer and google a few things that you think will make you sound intelligent. Though when the information you have is wrong then it doesn't really matter how intelligent you sound. cut and pasting, and parroting others words and ideas doesn't an intellectual make .