Is this our planet?

indough

jackthekipper wrote: »

You're right about his as it removed reptiles as the dominant species and paved the way for mammals.

never heard about our reptillian overlords then eh?

indough

indough wrote: »

never heard about our reptillian overlords then eh?

Jeering, even in jest, won't be tolerated indough.

indough

how do you know im not being serious?

The leads me to believe that you're not. Anyway, enough about it.

King Mob

squod wrote: »

This video doesn't explain any of the stuff talked about in Torakx's videos. Thanks for posting it, I wonder what that guy would have made of the findings on Torakx's videos.

Did say it did.
I did say however that just because one person can't imagine how some one did something it doesn't mean it's impossible.

The argument Torakx is making relies on that logical fallacy.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg

A little video demonstrating that pretty much all of the universe is uninhabitable.

Is this our universe?

uglyjohn

Flamed Diving wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg

A little video demonstrating that pretty much all of the universe is uninhabitable.

Is this our universe?

why should any of the universe be inhabitable?

life is so complex and naturally requires specific conditions to flourish that it is inevitable that the vast majority of the universe will be uninhabitable.

Flamed Diving

uglyjohn wrote: »

why should any of the universe be inhabitable?

life is so complex and naturally requires specific conditions to flourish that it is inevitable that the vast majority of the universe will be uninhabitable.

Yeah, thanks.

Overblood

DangerMouse27 wrote: »

Ok,firstly i dont believe in bigfoot or that Barack Obama knows much about Aliens,let alone an exit strategy for Afghanistan,but of late ive formulated some uncomfortable pieces of info that maybe you could help me with.

Why do we sun burn?
Why do we get hay fever?
Why do we get frost bite?
Why do we get viruses and infections from our environment?

I dont think this is our planet! How come all other species dont seem to get the same ailments as we do? We cant stay in the sun or cold for too long,and e have had long enough to adapt to these environments..yet animals adapt alot quicker and live at ease in these conditions.

Ive spoken of this with a theology friend of mine and i argue with him that in this, God is proven more powerfull in that we are here on some space dust as a result of His intervention.Of course he doesnt agree with me a whole bunch but accepts mine is a point worth asking.

I came to more of my conclusions as a result of this climate change fiasco(its not man made but we arent helping) that its just a natural climate cycle and there is nothing we can or cant do to prevent what might be our demise..There is no Bruce Willis gonna ride in and blow the asteroid up and save us..sometimes when we are doomed...were just doomed!

What age are you? 5?

uglyjohn

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Yeah, thanks.

ok, so now that i've watched your video i dont get your point....are you saying life evolved in another dimension and moved/was moved to this one? is that it? just to be sure...

Flamed Diving

uglyjohn wrote: »

ok, so now that i've watched your video i dont get your point....are you saying life evolved in another dimension and moved/was moved to this one? is that it? just to be sure...

No.

uglyjohn

ok cool, i just got kinda lost with the wierd flat tone of voice on the video and wasnt sure of your point.

Flamed Diving

I'm just parodying the OP.

nullzero

The only possible connection I can find to Consiracy theory in this topic would be theories regarding humans being native to other planets and arriving here for some reason.
I've heard theories about how we originally arrived here to avoid pursuit from the Draco Reptilians. The most obvious source for related information would be David Icke.
Please note that I'm not attempting to say that these theories hold water or are definitive in any way, I'm just throwing them into the discussion. As it's easier than shooting fish in a barrell to make fun of theses theories it might be advisable to to address this idea in a mature manner free of the giddy thrill of slagging off an easy target.

King Mob

nullzero wrote: »

As it's easier than shooting fish in a barrell to make fun of theses theories it might be advisable to to address this idea in a mature manner free of the giddy thrill of slagging off an easy target.

You mean like pointing out the fact that there isn't any evidence to support any of these theories?
And that there is a mountain of evidence against them?
Namely the genetic, fossil and geological evidence that humans and all other life on earth are connected by common ancestors going back millions of years.

In fact this very thread was started based on complete misconceptions bout how the world works.

So unless some one's got some kind of evidence or reasoning to back it up, I fail to see how any of these theories are any different from the plot of the average episode of Stargate SG1.
I.e. fictional.

espinolman

King Mob wrote: »

So unless some one's got some kind of evidence or reasoning to back it up, I fail to see how any of these theories are any different from the plot of the average episode of Stargate SG1.

The technology man is developing is not compatible with the life organisms of this planet , that is an indicator that man could be alien to this planet , the theory is that man is building up something here that existed elsewhere in the universe .

King Mob

espinolman wrote: »

The technology man is developing is not compatible with the life organisms of this planet , that is an indicator that man could be alien to this planet , the theory is that man is building up something here that existed elsewhere in the universe .

No it's an indicator that humans are developing.
And which technologies is not with the "life organisms"?

And how does the theory explain common ancestry?

nullzero

King Mob wrote: »

You mean like pointing out the fact that there isn't any evidence to support any of these theories?
And that there is a mountain of evidence against them?
Namely the genetic, fossil and geological evidence that humans and all other life on earth are connected by common ancestors going back millions of years.

In fact this very thread was started based on complete misconceptions bout how the world works.

So unless some one's got some kind of evidence or reasoning to back it up, I fail to see how any of these theories are any different from the plot of the average episode of Stargate SG1.

I for one am not saying that these theories are right, I'm just adding to the topic at hand by talking about something that's related to it.
When I or anyone else here discuss theories we're not stating them as fact, by refering to them as theories we're accepting that the are speculative interpretations of subjects, which we incidentally find interesting. We're not saying "this is right, everything else is wrong", we're just discussing theories, even if they are more than a little left of centre to say the least.
Yes modern scientific research simplifies a lot of things in our world and we are a lot more enlightened than we have been in the past. We still exist in a universe we struggle to understand, and I think it's fair to say that the weight of what we don't know is exponentially greater than that of which we do know. As far as we know we live in a universe of limitless possibility in which it is foolhardy to make definitive statements about things that cannot be either proved or disproved.
While I can agree with you that using percieved logic leads us to the conclusion that we did evlove on this planet and that we did not come from some other galaxy or what have you, the weight of what we don't know always leaves a tiny little gap of possibility that perhaps some wacky theory could be right, even if the odds are stacked against it.

This whole topic is very much in the field of "what if's" rather than definitive statements, I doubt anyone is really sitting at home now having an epiphany after reading this thread.

espinolman

King Mob wrote: »

And which technologies is not with the "life organisms"?

Anything that causes pollution , just about everthing man does , man alters just about everthing and he can't leave anything as it is .

King Mob

espinolman wrote: »

Anything that causes pollution , just about everthing man does , man alters just about everthing and he can't leave anything as it is .

And volcanoes pollute as well.
And ants alter there surrounding area quite a bit as well.

What exactly about technology indicates that humans didn't evolve on earth?
How does the theory explain common ancestry?

nullzero

espinolman wrote: »

Anything that causes pollution , just about everthing man does , man alters just about everthing and he can't leave anything as it is .

Human's are a bit of an anomoly.
The problem we have for defining how we fit into our habitat is that we don't have a case study of how a dominant species should behave within it's habitat.
IF we knew of other intelligent life like ours and we saw that they were much the same as us, we might conclude that the dominant species behaves that way as a matter of course.
As things stand we see that as earths dominant species, we're not exactly living in harmony with our habitat.
When you introduce a new species into an environment where they have no natural predators that species usually "takes over" so to speak.
While that behaviour is reasonable in animals as we percieve them to not be as intelligent as us, surely an intelligent race of rational beings should be able to live in some sort of harmony with it's environment. Perhaps it's our greed that is the problem, but most "undeveloped" aboriginal tribes live in a reasonable level of harmony with their natural environment.
So we have the potential to be both holistic or destructive, the reason's for the latter are I would suggest more a matter of interpretation than anything else.

King Mob

nullzero wrote: »

I for one am not saying that these theories are right, I'm just adding to the topic at hand by talking about something that's related to it.
When I or anyone else here discuss theories we're not stating them as fact, by refering to them as theories we're accepting that the are speculative interpretations of subjects, which we incidentally find interesting. We're not saying "this is right, everything else is wrong", we're just discussing theories, even if they are more than a little left of centre to say the least.
Yes modern scientific research simplifies a lot of things in our world and we are a lot more enlightened than we have been in the past. We still exist in a universe we struggle to understand, and I think it's fair to say that the weight of what we don't know is exponentially greater than that of which we do know. As far as we know we live in a universe of limitless possibility in which it is foolhardy to make definitive statements about things that cannot be either proved or disproved.
While I can agree with you that using percieved logic leads us to the conclusion that we did evlove on this planet and that we did not come from some other galaxy or what have you, the weight of what we don't know always leaves a tiny little gap of possibility that perhaps some wacky theory could be right, even if the odds are stacked against it.

This whole topic is very much in the field of "what if's" rather than definitive statements, I doubt anyone is really sitting at home now having an epiphany after reading this thread.

So then what's the difference between this theory and complete fiction?
There's a slim possibility that Stargate SG1 is based on a true story so therefore it's as valid a theory as this one.

And as for definitive statements: This thread was started on definitive statements that where false.
What's the point of speculation based on completely false statements?

RoboClam

nullzero wrote: »

Human's are a bit of an anomoly.
The problem we have for defining how we fit into our habitat is that we don't have a case study of how a dominant species should behave within it's habitat.
IF we knew of other intelligent life like ours and we saw that they were much the same as us, we might conclude that the dominant species behaves that way as a matter of course.
As things stand we see that as earths dominant species, we're not exactly living in harmony with our habitat.
When you introduce a new species into an environment where they have no natural predators that species usually "takes over" so to speak.
While that behaviour is reasonable in animals as we percieve them to not be as intelligent as us, surely an intelligent race of rational beings should be able to live in some sort of harmony with it's environment. Perhaps it's our greed that is the problem, but most "undeveloped" aboriginal tribes live in a reasonable level of harmony with their natural environment.
So we have the potential to be both holistic or destructive, the reason's for the latter are I would suggest more a matter of interpretation than anything else.

Would it be fair to say that some bacteria are also anomalies? Some commensal bacteria can live in their environments without damaging it, they live in harmony.

Other bacteria destroy their host organism. They destroy their natural environment.

Or how about locust?

nullzero

King Mob wrote: »

So then what's the difference between this theory and complete fiction?
There's a slim possibility that Stargate SG1 is based on a true story so therefore it's as valid a theory as this one.

And as for definitive statements: This thread was started on definitive statements that where false.
What's the point of speculation based on completely false statements?

The topic wasn't opened with definitive statments.
The term "I don't think" is far from definitive.
You have to stop thinking that eveyone here is a lunatic and believes everything we discuss whole heartedly.
This is the Conspiracy THEORIES forum. Not the "Conspiracies are all true" forum. We're discussing theories, not telling you you're wrong.
As for Stargate being based on reality, maybe that's more down the road of the nature of reality, a very interesting topic which you can feel free to PM me about anytime you like.

King Mob

nullzero wrote: »

The topic wasn't opened with definitive statments.
The term "I don't think" is far from definitive.

Really?

How come all other species dont seem to get the same ailments as we do? We cant stay in the sun or cold for too long,and e have had long enough to adapt to these environments..yet animals adapt alot quicker and live at ease in these conditions.

Was this statement true or false?

nullzero wrote: »

You have to stop thinking that eveyone here is a lunatic and believes everything we discuss whole heartedly.
This is the Conspiracy THEORIES forum. Not the "Conspiracies are all true" forum. We're discussing theories, not telling you you're wrong.
As for Stargate being based on reality, maybe that's more down the road of the nature of reality, a very interesting topic which you can feel free to PM me about anytime you like.

So then what's the difference between a theory and fiction?

nullzero

RoboClam wrote: »

Would it be fair to say that some bacteria are also anomalies? Some commensal bacteria can live in their environments without damaging it, they live in harmony.

Other bacteria destroy their host organism. They destroy their natural environment.

Or how about locust?

All fair points and the obvious reply to what I said.
I think it's fair to say that we as a species consider oursleves more intelligent than locust or bacteria and that through our development as an intellectual species we should know better than to treat our habitat the way we do.
I think we all know that if we treat the habitat with respect and only take what we need from it and replenish it afterwards we wouldn't have the problems we have today. So why the hell don't we do that then? That's the question we need to answer as a species it would seem.
If we can do that and still develop technologically we may be on the right road so to speak.

nullzero

King Mob wrote: »

Really?


Was this statement true or false?



So then what's the difference between a theory and fiction?

I just saw someone asking speculative questions, you obviously saw someone ramming crazyness down your neck and telling you to believe it. I wasn't offended by his OP and to be honest I don't see how it was a statement of supposed fact.

That's really down to your own perception, and as for what the differnece between theory and fiction, would you like me to give you a text book answer or should I just treat it as a rhetorical question to which the answer lies more in your own beliefs than in any definitive statements?

King Mob

nullzero wrote: »

I just saw someone asking speculative questions, you obviously saw someone ramming crazyness down your neck and telling you to believe it. I wasn't offended by his OP and to be honest I don't see how it was a statement of supposed fact.

Where are you getting this idea that I was offended or that I think anyone is crazy and force stuff on anyone.

My post only pointed that the OP's idea that animals don't suffer common afflictions. My subsequent posts are just asking people to clarify or support their ideas.

Were the statements made by the OP true or false?

nullzero wrote: »

That's really down to your own perception, and as for what the differnece between theory and fiction, would you like me to give you a text book answer or should I just treat it as a rhetorical question to which the answer lies more in your own beliefs than in any definitive statements?

Well the definitions I'm working off is that fiction is totally made up and a theory is a explanation of observations.
The things you're calling "theories" don't even seem to be based on actual observations.

So may you can explain how this theory that humans aren't from earth is any different from fiction?

RoboClam

This is probably going to be off topic, but I'll just say that in my opinion the only problem with the OP was that he was stating his opinion on something that he clearly knew very little on. I wouldn't try to pretend to understand a subject I hadn't studied or at least researched a little. The questions that were posed could be answered with a simple google. If he had have phrased the OP as more of a "search for knowledge" type post, I don't think anyone would have had any problem in helping him find more information. But this clearly wouldn't fit into the CT forum.

So I was happy to answer his questions, but if he had thought more about the questions he was asking and had done some basic research into biology, he would have found his answers.

OK in an attempt to get back on topic I will ask a question, not a CT but relating to the topic I guess.

We assign importance to this planet that we live on, obviously as it is the only known place in the Universe where we can survive. It is a small island in a near infinite and expanding ocean. But what if we could in the future travel to another planet. Would you assign the same importance to this new planet as our own? If we were to "pollute" the new planet would it be as relevant as what we are currently doing to our planet? I've read forums where people talked about how humans (hypothetically) could travel to Mars in the future and terraform it. But wouldn't this be polluting the natural environment too?

nullzero

King Mob wrote: »

Where are you getting this idea that I was offended or that I think anyone is crazy and force stuff on anyone.

My post only pointed that the OP's idea that animals don't suffer common afflictions. My subsequent posts are just asking people to clarify or support their ideas.

Were the statements made by the OP true or false?


Well the definitions I'm working off is that fiction is totally made up and a theory is a explanation of observations.
The things you're calling "theories" don't even seem to be based on actual observations.

So may you can explain how this theory that humans aren't from earth is any different from fiction?

A lot of theories have been proven to be little more than ficticious garbage, theories that at some point were respected.
I can appreciate what you're saying, but by your logic this forum should be renamed "Conspiracy Fiction".
Some people in this world believe that everything is easily explained by scientific means. Others belive that there are other explainations. You clearly fall into the former bracket.
If you wish to refer to this topic as fiction as oppossed to a theory then that's your right, you could concievably call it Peter as well.
I'm really at a loss as how to continue this discussion as it's gone so far off topic.
If you'd like to continue the theory/fiction debate PM me and we can get our heads around it in private.

nullzero

RoboClam wrote: »

This is probably going to be off topic, but I'll just say that in my opinion the only problem with the OP was that he was stating his opinion on something that he clearly knew very little on. I wouldn't try to pretend to understand a subject I hadn't studied or at least researched a little. The questions that were posed could be answered with a simple google. If he had have phrased the OP as more of a "search for knowledge" type post, I don't think anyone would have had any problem in helping him find more information. But this clearly wouldn't fit into the CT forum.

So I was happy to answer his questions, but if he had thought more about the questions he was asking and had done some basic research into biology, he would have found his answers.

OK in an attempt to get back on topic I will ask a question, not a CT but relating to the topic I guess.

We assign importance to this planet that we live on, obviously as it is the only known place in the Universe where we can survive. It is a small island in a near infinite and expanding ocean. But what if we could in the future travel to another planet. Would you assign the same importance to this new planet as our own? If we were to "pollute" the new planet would it be as relevant as what we are currently doing to our planet? I've read forums where people talked about how humans (hypothetically) could travel to Mars in the future and terraform it. But wouldn't this be polluting the natural environment too?

That raises a lot of interesting questions.
Would the terraforming be destructive to any possible existing life froms of Mars? Could it damage a natural balance that we may have over looked in our haste to colonise a new planet?
As for polluting another planet, I think the morally responsible thing to do would be to act respectfully of that planet, although our track record isn't great in that regard as it could be argued that we may one day have to leave due to the damage we're doing to our own planet now.

indough

nullzero wrote: »

I can appreciate what you're saying, but by your logic this forum should be renamed "Conspiracy Fiction".

either that or people could start posting theories that have a bit of supporting evidence

nullzero

indough wrote: »

either that or people could start posting theories that have a bit of supporting evidence

To be fair, a lot of the topics discussed here are called thoeries for a reason.
What are your thoughts on this topic for instance?

King Mob

nullzero wrote: »

A lot of theories have been proven to be little more than ficticious garbage, theories that at some point were respected.
I can appreciate what you're saying, but by your logic this forum should be renamed "Conspiracy Fiction".
Some people in this world believe that everything is easily explained by scientific means. Others belive that there are other explainations. You clearly fall into the former bracket.
If you wish to refer to this topic as fiction as oppossed to a theory then that's your right, you could concievably call it Peter as well.
I'm really at a loss as how to continue this discussion as it's gone so far off topic.
If you'd like to continue the theory/fiction debate PM me and we can get our heads around it in private.

Dude, I was posting on topic.
I was pointing out fairly large gaps in the theory.

And as I always say wouldn't discussion on a topic involve pointing out flaws in peoples arguments?
Isn't it relevant that the thread was based on the false idea that animals don't get frostbite, sunburn and viruses?

A Primal Nut

Torakx wrote: »

when you look at the pyramids around the earth it could be also construed that it was built be a more intelligent civilization than ours. so did we get stupider or was there some interference with mankind to change its genetics or crossbreed.
lots of conspiracy angles i could take that.

the nephilim may have been one or aliens another.
also we seem to be the only species with free will.i cant explain this and would appreciate all concepts on that because it looks like one of the few things if not only one that seperates us from every living creature on earth.

There isn't anything too impressive about the pyramids - it was mostly just effort and time with a small amount of genius. They could easily be built now without any slaves, without anyone dying or serious injury and in a lot shorter time.

Bring an ancient egyptian back to life and show him the pyramids and then show him the KFC nearby. He will be much more impressed by whats inside the KFC than the pyramids.

nullzero

A Primal Nut wrote: »

There isn't anything too impressive about the pyramids - it was mostly just effort and time with a small amount of genius. They could easily be built now without any slaves, without anyone dying or serious injury and in a lot shorter time.

Bring an ancient egyptian back to life and show him the pyramids and then show him the KFC nearby. He will be much more impressed by whats inside the KFC than the pyramids.

I'm pretty sure that the certain food poisoning and or starvation of ancient egypt would be preferable to the "food" served up in KFC

indough

nullzero wrote: »

To be fair, a lot of the topics discussed here are called thoeries for a reason.
What are your thoughts on this topic for instance?

theories are by their nature supported by evidence, a theory is about recording observations and drawing conclusions from it, its nothing to do with just making up random stories

i already gave my opinion on the topic several pages back

A Primal Nut

nullzero wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that the certain food poisoning and or starvation of ancient egypt would be preferable to the "food" served up in KFC

Haha probably - I was of course referring to artificial light, cash registers, computers, monitors, electric cooking.

I used KFC as an example because I read an article recently complaining that a KFC was built near the pyramids - ruined the spectacle apparently, but it depends what century you lived in.

RoboClam

Conspiracy hypotheses!

nullzero

King Mob wrote: »

Dude, I was posting on topic.
I was pointing out fairly large gaps in the theory.

And as I always say wouldn't discussion on a topic involve pointing out flaws in peoples arguments?
Isn't it relevant that the thread was based on the false idea that animals don't get frostbite, sunburn and viruses?

I know that you were pointing out the obvious.
I made my point also, I pointed out that some other theories support the notions put forward in the OP, I also stated that as they're fairly ropey to begin with that challenging them was incredibly easy. I never defended the OP or the other theories discussed, I merely pointed their existance out so that any interested parties might follow it up.
You chose to quote me and call me out to explain what I said when it was quite obvious that I didn't have a whole lot to say about the topic to begin with. If you like I can dig up some info on humans not being from earth, although I'm just recalling it from memory right now, I do remember reading something by David Icke discussing a related theory.
All that stuff about the difference between theory and fiction was really down to perception rather that the topic at hand and I felt that it was a bit off topic to be honest.

Also, could you please not refer to me as dude, I feel a trip to the ranting and raving forum coming now...

nullzero

indough wrote: »

theories are by their nature supported by evidence, a theory is about recording observations and drawing conclusions from it, its nothing to do with just making up random stories

i already gave my opinion on the topic several pages back

I can understand your point, but I think you're wrong about the definition of a theory.
A law is supported by evidence, a theory has to be proven before it can become a law.
Gravity is a law, relativity is a theory. Do you know what I'm getting at?

King Mob

nullzero wrote: »

I know that you were pointing out the obvious.
I made my point also, I pointed out that some other theories support the notions put forward in the OP, I also stated that as they're fairly ropey to begin with that challenging them was incredibly easy. I never defended the OP or the other theories discussed, I merely pointed their existance out so that any interested parties might follow it up.
You chose to quote me and call me out to explain what I said when it was quite obvious that I didn't have a whole lot to say about the topic to begin with.

You also went on about how people where just dismissing the theory without discussing it.
I restated the arguments already put forward by myself and others on this thread.
Mostly about how the theory was based on false statements, had nothing to support it and had quite a bit of evidence against it.

nullzero wrote: »

If you like I can dig up some info on humans not being from earth, although I'm just recalling it from memory right now, I do remember reading something by David Icke discussing a related theory.

And is any of that info backed up by any kind of evidence?

nullzero wrote: »

All that stuff about the difference between theory and fiction was really down to perception rather that the topic at hand and I felt that it was a bit off topic to be honest.

No it's about how you define the word theory and how the rest of us define it.

So I'll say it again:

So unless some one's got some kind of evidence or reasoning to back it up, I fail to see how any of these theories are any different from the plot of the average episode of Stargate SG1.
I.e. fictional.

Can you show that this theory is any different than any random crap I make up off the top of my head?

nullzero and King Mob, cool it a tad.

RoboClam

nullzero wrote: »

I can understand your point, but I think you're wrong about the definition of a theory.
A law is supported by evidence, a theory has to be proven before it can become a law.
Gravity is a law, relativity is a theory. Do you know what I'm getting at?

I don't want to nit pick, but I think you might find this link interesting.

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

So first off, a law is essentially an observation that is easily observable (Gravity is a law. Things fall towards other things).

A theory is an explanation of a law, it can never become a law however, as theories change (ie newtonian gravity vs. general relativity).

A law is not "better" than a theory, it is just different.

Really, I'm not trying to annoy you or anything here, it's just I see people make this mistake all the time

indough

if it doesnt provide empirical evidence or stand up to logical criticism then its not really a theory

for example, the story put forth in the op does contain observations (animals not suffering from the same conditions etc), but it is illogical because the observations were false

you would have a hard time convincing any serious professionals in the field that this was a legitimate theory based on such a lack of evidence

nullzero

King Mob wrote: »

You also went on about how people where just dismissing the theory without discussing it.
I restated the arguments already put forward by myself and others on this thread.
Mostly about how the theory was based on false statements, had nothing to support it and had quite a bit of evidence against it.

And is any of that info backed up by any kind of evidence?


No it's about how you define the word theory and how the rest of us define it.

So I'll say it again:


Can you show that this theory is any different than any random crap I make up off the top of my head?

I never said anything about people dismissing the topic without discussing it. I just said it's a topic which is very easy to ridicule. I never defended the topic I never said it was true. I never made any statements that indicated that I was attached to the topic in any way. What I did was make a small contribution to the discussion stating that similar theoriea bound in the Conspiracy theory world.
You can define a theory any way you like, I'm really not interested in having a fight with you. If you think the topic is a load of crap then I agree with you. If you think that a theory is always something based on facts then that's your thing.
If you want to draw me into an argument you can just get the boat, I'm not interested in entertaining you in that way. If you want a fight go hassle someone else.

nullzero

RoboClam wrote: »

I don't want to nit pick, but I think you might find this link interesting.

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

So first off, a law is essentially an observation that is easily observable (Gravity is a law. Things fall towards other things).

A theory is an explanation of a law, it can never become a law however, as theories change (ie newtonian gravity vs. general relativity).

A law is not "better" than a theory, it is just different.

Really, I'm not trying to annoy you or anything here, it's just I see people make this mistake all the time

Point taken without offence.

King Mob

nullzero wrote: »

I can understand your point, but I think you're wrong about the definition of a theory.
A law is supported by evidence, a theory has to be proven before it can become a law.
Gravity is a law, relativity is a theory. Do you know what I'm getting at?

No, you definitely have the definition of a theory wrong.

A theory, in science, is a model that explains a phenomenon or related phenomenon with quantifiable properties and is modified and tested by making falsifiable predictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A law in science is fundamental, well tested and testable phenomenon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

Theories explain laws.
There is the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity.
There is also the laws of gravity and relativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
Relativity and it's effects have been observed in experiments.

Theory in the colloquial sense is an untested explanation of an observation.
For example: I observe that my car's window has been broken, my theory is that the group of shady teenagers I observed last night may have done it.

However on this thread no one can seem to even point out observations that support a theory, let alone evidence.

nullzero

King Mob wrote: »

No, you definitely have the definition of a theory wrong.

A theory, in science, is a model that explains a phenomenon or related phenomenon with quantifiable properties and is modified and tested by making falsifiable predictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A law in science is fundamental, well tested and testable phenomenon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

Theories explain laws.
There is the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity.
There is also the laws of gravity and relativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

Theory in the colloquial sense is an untested explanation of an observation.
For example: I observe that my car's window has been broken, my theory is that the group of shady teenagers I observed last night may have done it.

However on this thread no one can seem to even point out observations that support a theory, let alone evidence.

Ok, I was wrong in that sense.
I was using the word theory in relation to Conspiracy theories which are largely using the word theory incorrectly it would seem.
As Im said earlier, this topic isn't one that stands up to much scrutiny as you pointed out, although I think somewhere along the line you thought I was agreeing with it.

King Mob

nullzero wrote: »

I never said anything about people dismissing the topic without discussing it. I just said it's a topic which is very easy to ridicule. I never defended the topic I never said it was true. I never made any statements that indicated that I was attached to the topic in any way. What I did was make a small contribution to the discussion stating that similar theoriea bound in the Conspiracy theory world.

And I was pointing out that myself and others where addressing the topic without ridiculing it.
I also asked why do you distinguish this theory from fiction if at all.

nullzero wrote: »

You can define a theory any way you like, I'm really not interested in having a fight with you. If you think the topic is a load of crap then I agree with you. If you think that a theory is always something based on facts then that's your thing.

I'm not defining it myself, I'm using the accepted definition of the word.
And yes theories are generally based on facts, otherwise it's fiction.