Sentences with phrase «accept theory as»

... Brokerages attempting to convert themselves into home - services companies will find that consumers gladly accept the theory as long as the additional «concierge» services are confined to the buying or selling process — finding home warranty and insurance companies.

R. Gates December 18, 2014 helps you Michael «I can only accept that theory as provisionally true until such time as enough new data would cause me to abandon or alter that stance.

Thus, even if enough data seems to support a theory, I can only accept that theory as provisionally true until such time as enough new data would cause me to abandon or alter that stance.

Then, in order to accept that theory as fact, one then proves it via experimentation that can be duplicated by others.

The importantly thing here is that honest skeptics NEVER accept any theory as 100 % certainty.

The second is to demonstrate that Newman himself only came to formulate and accept this theory as late as 1839 - 40, contradicting Newman's own recollection that he had key elements in his mind by the time he published his first major book, The Arians of the 4th century, in 1833.

Whether you choose to accept the theory as valid is entirely up to you though.

The vast majority of people accept theory as fact.

But because sophisticated people accept these theories as the best available, they influence the direction of inquiry and thereby of policy.

Neither of you is arguing from fact but are instead accepting theory as truth.

In challenging the generally accepted theory as a basis for policy action, it is also beside the point to show isolated data that the theory does not explain.

In challenging the generally accepted theory as a basis for policy action, it is beside the point to show isolated data that the theory does not explain.

Too many influential people have their reputations and their money on the line for them to give up, and too many well meaning people have been convinced to the point of accepting this theory as an article of faith.

Not exact matches

If ID were presented as a scientific theory and as such had scientific evidence, then I have no choice to be to accept it (regardless of my beliefs, again).

In much the same way that most Christians would not like to see their pastors discuss «tooth fairy theory» as being a possible path to salvation that's just as good as accepting christ.

You accept only your view and theory but when someone with a different view comes along then all of a sudden you are not as accepting!

Have the JPL scientists get jobs at his church as deacons, then have them hand out DVD's on evolution and the Big Bang theory after Sunday service and then see how accepting and open minded they are (G).

faith goes against science itself; faith means no proof, in science without proof nothing is accepted to be fact (aka theory) as far as a god, which one?

The theory of evolution is also embraced by many who claim to accept the Bible as the word of God.

Either you accept it as the theory which best explains the every - growing mountain of data across all scientific disciplines for the origins of our species or you do not.

At least those scientific theories we accept as true have physical evidence to support them and / or can be replicated in a lab.

= > current accepted Chuckles «As for your evolution question, chad... give up, seriously, you're asking pointless questions that have no bearing a) on the theory itself and b) are important to answer.

You are willing to accept gravity as a theory and I would presume you accept that the moon orbits the earth with orbits the sun which is then part of a cluster of stars called the milky way.

Theory is a tested, proven conclusion (i.e. a hypothesis becomes a theory once it is proven or accepted as truth, such as the theory of relativity, computational theory,Theory is a tested, proven conclusion (i.e. a hypothesis becomes a theory once it is proven or accepted as truth, such as the theory of relativity, computational theory,theory once it is proven or accepted as truth, such as the theory of relativity, computational theory,theory of relativity, computational theory,theory, etc..

I understand and accept the big bang theory as how our current universe was created.

«Darwin accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior at his deathbed... he renounced his theory (it is a «theory,» after all), thus, evolution is nothing but... but... but a «theory»!»

It is as a lawyer in the Bible said, that it is «inexcusable» to cast aside all the «proof» that life and all the universe just arose at random and accept a mindless speculative theory called evolution.

Today, the religions of Christendom display a similar disrespect for the truth of the Bible, by giving preference to scientific theories, such as the Catholic church accepting evolution.

But the Catholic church, which accepted the geocentric theory, rejected Galileo's views as heretical and forced him to recant.

Mountains of «theories» that are unproven but for some reason accepted as scientific fact, that are then the basis for more theories... I've always said, atheists have WAY more faith then Christians LOL

It then takes the difficult steps of finding verifiable evidence to support that theory, which has to be able to be duplicated before it is accepted as fact.

If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.»

«We ought in humble submission to accept the real scriptures that god has provided us as they are, rather than ungratefully and stubbornly forcing scripture to be something that it is not because of a theory we hold about what it must and should be.

The legitimate point of the theory was, of course, that as they developed individuality, it was still important for them to accept sufficient government control to insure security.

But evolution is more than change, and every theory accepts as evidence only what fits the theory.

We concede that not all who doubt the existence of a personal God do so because they accept the theory of evolution, whether the word be restricted to biology or enlarged to its cosmic significance, but we do say, and from experience know, that most modern agnosticism is bound up with those non-theistic philosophies of evolution that stream off from Hegel as their modern fountain - head.

A theory is accepted as true when its predictions are tested over and over again and repeatedly confirmed.

But it is so open to be all - inclusive, all - consuming, like a unifying theory that applies to everyone from atheist to believer in any religious or spiritual tradition, that most wouldn't accept me as a part of their club.

In some museum displays, he said, the birds - descended - from - dinosaurs evolutionary theory has been portrayed as a largely accepted fact, with an asterisk pointing out in small type that «some scientists disagree.»

3) True creationism has full respect for the unknown; science by itself is destined to explain everything away even if it is not bona - fide and complete (theory accepted as truth).

As a result of this intense scrutiny It has been honed and modified and become one of most widely supported and accepted theories in the scientific community.

Teaching Creationism as a scientific theory teaches people to reject the value of evidence and accept dogma and tradition.

The Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution can not be proven so they are not scientifically proven laws and are accepted on faith as true by some.

Hawking's idea has not been tested much less accepted as a scientific theory.

The difference being that even after something has been proven, or at least widely accepted as fact, can still be called a theory.

You and I both agree that a very large number of religious people accept the big bang theory as a reasonable description of the early formation of our observable universe.

Now these theories are interesting, although as theories they are indemonstrable and can only be accepted on the basis of a particular way of reading the New Testament material, differing according to the assumptions of those who study this material.

The Church has accepted evolution since its inception, as well as the Big Bang theory, etc..

What we have done here is (a) accept that mathematics arises from experience, (b) recognize that we can get a general idea of twoness from our experience, (c) accept constraints on our experience — what we can assert as existing and what we can construct — by accepting some formal system, in this case a system defining set theory, and (d) acknowledge that we can define precisely within that system what we mean by number, successor of a number and in the process twoness.

In past ages some have talked as if there were a gulf between these two; and in reaction from that utter separation, some have talked as if there were no distinction between them, The fact is that throughout Christian history, whatever may have been the theory accepted as valid, there has been precisely such a distinction.