Sentences with phrase «explanation than the theory»

Places like the Grand Canyon also receive a much simpler explanation than the theory (which is rapidly losing favor) that the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years by a small trickle of water.

Not exact matches

If it's all just alternate explanations that work with the evidence, I would much prefer people change their theory to meet the facts (as the Dalai Lama, for instance, recommends) than keep going with some simplistic idea of «faith».

Please, any Christian, honestly answer the following: The completely absurd theory that all 7,000,000,000 human beings are simultaneously being supervised 24 hours a day, every day of their lives by an immortal, invisible being for the purposes of reward or punishment in the «afterlife» comes from the field of: (a) Astronomy; (b) Medicine; (c) Economics; or (d) Christianity You are about 70 % likely to believe the entire Universe began less than 10,000 years ago with only one man, one woman and a talking snake if you are a: (a) historian; (b) geologist; (c) NASA astronomer; or (d) Christian I have convinced myself that gay $ ex is a choice and not genetic, but then have no explanation as to why only gay people have ho.mo $ exual urges.

My theory, of course, goes much further than your «God's silence is a mystery» explanation.

You don't know what theories are in a scientific context, you make an argument equivalent to «people can't take strides greater than ten feet, therefore it's impossible to run a marathon,» and you think that the lack of a full understanding about a particular hypothetical explanation is some kind of demonstration that science is an abject failure.

Today, more than three hundred years after John Locke spelled out his theory that the greatest good is served by each person following his or her own best interests, some economists and politicians are still trying to bend and stretch this outmoded «explanation» of life to fit social realities that say it just doesn't meet human needs today.

It appears that McGrath has got too sucked into the Popperian insight that human understandings of the world are «theory laden» (p. 61)-- wherein human culture rather than human nature is made not just intrinsic to explanations of observations, but determinative.

Even an explanation of the actual «big bang theory» (not just popular understanding), something truly existing out of nothing (rather than just not knowing yet where it came from), is absolutely awe inspiring.

Dawkins, Krauss, Hawking, etc. develop theories and explanations and expose their theories to other scientists and the public for rigorous review, unlike religion which is no better than unproven myth and astrology.

PDX — It doesn't take a Genius to realize from my statements that i have read things other than the Bible you moron i have spent many hours reading and listening to scientists about their theories on the big bang, i have listened to ideas from the most revered scientists including Hawking and others, and they all admit that there are holes in their theories, that nothing fully explains their big bang theory, the physics doesn't add up let alone the concept, there are plenty of scientists hard at work trying to make the numbers fit and the theory hold weight but if you ask any of them they can not give you the answers and the reason being... there are none, the theory doesn't work, If by the observable laws of Physics, Matter in this Universe can not be created or destroyed, you can only change its state, i.e. solid to liquid, to gas... to energy... There is no explanation for how an entire reality full of Matter can be created out of nothing... Scientists know this... idiots that are atheists and simply would rather NOT believe that their lives and actions they take within their lifespan are being witnessed by an Omnipotent God do not WANT to believe... but Your belief in God does not change whether or not he exists you will be judged.

The completely absurd theory that all 7,000,000,000 human beings are simultaneously being supervised 24 hours a day, every day of their lives by an immortal, invisible being for the purposes of reward or punishment in the «afterlife» comes from the field of: (a) Astronomy; (b) Medicine; (c) Economics; or (d) Christianity You are about 70 % likely to believe the entire Universe began less than 10,000 years ago with only one man, one woman and a talking snake if you are a: (a) historian; (b) geologist; (c) NASA astronomer; or (d) Christian I have convinced myself that gay $ ex is a choice and not genetic, but then have no explanation as to why only gay people have ho.mo $ exual urges.

For example, his theory of the round earth's compression of people as a leading factor in socialization appears to be more a poetic conceit than a serious scientific explanation.

This is just a working theory, but you have to admit that it already makes more sense than any other explanation for the the way the two programs have performed since becoming conference mates.

He contends there is still more evidence for human - animal differences than for similarities and believes our own theory of mind fools us into seeing our abilities in animals, even when simpler explanations would suffice.

Yesterday, India's three science academies released a statement endorsed by more than 2000 scientists, declaring that «it would be a retrograde step to remove the teaching of the theory of evolution from school and college curricula or to dilute this by offering nonscientific explanations or myths.»

Whitehead admits that the theory «is far from proven,» but it «fits the data better than any other explanation.»

But an alternative explanation could flip this theory on its head: perhaps the brain changes in obese individuals are the cause of obesity, rather than the result.

«Robert Lanza and Bob Berman present an audacious program to restore meaning to science — to provide explanations that go deeper than today's physical theories.

Here, as part of the show, a narrator (Derek Jacobi) toys with the theory, veering off into a much darker explanation than what's in textbooks.

That theory is more a judgment than an explanation.

There's also an academic Modern Portfolio Theory explanation for why you should diversify among risky assets (aka stocks), something like: for a given desired risk / return ratio, it's better to leverage up a diverse portfolio than to use a non-diverse portfolio, because risk that can be eliminated through diversification is not compensated by increased returns.

There is more than one theory on this, but the most likely explanation is that your cat views you as an incompetent kitten who needs schooling in the ways of hunting.

Only Sega knows, and realistically, our theories are likely much more interesting than the actual explanation.

But if we happened to find strong evidence that, say 1K years ago temperatures were as high or higher than the ones predicted for the coming decades (not implausible as yet) we would have at least 2 major problems with the AGW theory: 1) According to the forcings commonly considered (for example in Crowley's data set) there would be no explanation for such a phenomenon.

-- They primarily focus on sowing doubt and confusion over the science they deny, rather than offering a coherent alternate theory or explanation.

There are countless examples down through history of theories that were rejected time and time again by the established scientists, only to later be shown to provide a better explanation of observations than the theories of established scientists.

«Sticking to evidence» is easier said than done, and leads nowhere without a theory, an explanation or at least a hypothesis.

While there are alternative explanations for the ratios over shorter periods, I remain very doubtful on the possibility of fitting the history of the isotope ratios to any alternative theory that includes the large changes in natural fluxes that are required to make human influence less than dominant factor.

My major critique of the NIPCC report concerns their inability to look at the relative uncertainties of different explanations / hypotheses: They pretend that their pet pieve theories are somehow more certain (ie supported by stronger evidence) than the mainstream theories.

So, any theory which projects more than 0.4 C in the next 70 years requires an explanation why the system will change its behavior and where the energy is stored for the more expanded temperature gains and why this energy will suddenly be released now and wasn't released earlier.

There may be a correlation, but is there an explanation for the «delay» that makes any more sense than the «heat in the pipeline» theory?

So if you think about your Graduate School training you were more than likely taught the basic premise of structuralism — that all behaviours have a structure below the surface level of meaning, and this structure constitutes the reality of that thing (think of content / process or attachment theory explanations).

Therefore, social structural theory perhaps provides a better explanation than evolutionary psychology for sex differences in jealousy.

While therapists may consider some intuitively appealing ideas about human development — like attachment theory — beyond dispute, the researcher's job is to challenge unproven explanations shaped more by our biases and preconceptions than by hard evidence.