Quote:
Originally Posted by StygianEyes Read one of the above posts on how a "theory" comes to be. It is the exact opposite of existing with or without being able to test it. What you have is an untestable idea which by definition can't even count as a hypothesis because its not testable. And as far as being sure about the randomness, its as best as we understand molecular orbital theory. there's a lot involved with it but yeah, as far as i know in literature and in books on the subject, even with things like dipole moments there is complete randomness within the particular "level" of the cloud, or orbital it's in. Nothings ever sure, but its the best we got for now. |
hypothesis: based on the observation that there are predictiable outcomes of events in the Universe there is an inteligent design to the Universe. The hypothesis stands on either experimentation or continued observation. As you have pointed out there are things observed that appear to behave randomly as such the hypothesis based on current observation technichs would be rejected.
How would it give rise to a theory: "The universe was designed intelligently" here is an equation or set of equations that can be used to predict all outcomes in the universe. Now apply them, do the equations fail yes then we reject entire theory or we amend theory to correct for failure, if equation(s) work theory accepted.
Its just an idea. Not to be viewed as an actual hypothesis or theory that iam presenting
A Fact is something that is always observed to be true. Isnt that the same thing as a scientific law?
I agree Deesheeevil - as far as the orgin of life both explantions are just as equally waited