posted by .

What would happen if correct new evidence was discovered that did not agree with a well established scientific theory?

a) the theory would be modified or replaced
b) the evidence would be false. evidence has to match the theory.
c) this couldn't happen. the theory is correct


  • science -


  • science -

    d) the new evidence would be repeated, and validated, then the theory would have to be modified or replaced.

  • science -


Respond to this Question

First Name
School Subject
Your Answer

Similar Questions

  1. Science

    As an environmental science teacher, how would you respond to someone who tells you (a) that he or she does not believe in biological evolution because it is "just a theory," and (be) we should not worry about air pollution because …
  2. Biology 100

    Choose one theory spontaneous generation theory or cell theory. Select one statement that corresponds to the theory you want to refute or suppot. I choose cell theory and the one statement that I choose is all living things are made …
  3. Bible Study

    The fact that the Flood lasted over a year is?
  4. science

    Just need to know if my answer is wrong or right. Thank You! :) A well accepted theory in science is Einstein's Theroy of Relativity. If new evidence was found which contradicted the theory, the theory could be rejected. true false …
  5. berkner

    what would happen if correct new edvidence was discovered that did not agree with a weel established scientific theory?
  6. Earth Science

    True or false? ------------------------- Although there is scientific evidence and many scientific theories about the origin of the universe, how it all happened remains a question. Which statement is true?
  7. science (theory of evolution)

    1.What is two pieces of evidence used to support theory of evolution?
  8. Science

    What is the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law?
  9. Science

    1. What is the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law?
  10. forensic science

    if handwriting evidence was not yet considered to be considered to be scientific evidence at the time of united states v. starzecypzel,how was it admissible as reliable evidence

More Similar Questions