Sentences with phrase «fit the theory of»

The facts (such as they are) I'm afraid, don't fit the theory of a greedy board, businessmen (and women) though they are.

Importantly, these nine genes were chosen solely because of the statistical evidence for a relationship to ASDs, not because their function was known to fit a theory of the cause of ASDs.

Back in 2003, early WMAP data already seemed to fit the theory of inflation, but there was one big question mark.

The CICO model is essentially the overarching umbrella that we have to fit our theories of obesity in.

Indeed, they, and the Bureau of Meteorology are remodelling temperature series so that they fit the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Incidentally it is evident from this that Newton «fudged» his reported observations to fit his theory of deriving the law of universal gravitation from Kepler's data reduction, but Newton couldn't have known that the indeterminate errors of observation propagated in a systematic was

Not exact matches

That theory fits well with China's lack of domestically developed GMO seeds, though the country actually spent years in the 1990s trying to develop them.

Researchers at the New School for Social Research in New York have determined that reading literary fiction — books that have literary merit and don't fit into a genre — enhances what scientists call «Theory of Mind (ToM), or an ability to understand the mental states of others.

Some of the world's fittest human beings have gathered on this Friday evening to endure thirty - minute waits for food that, in theory at least, could spoil their Olympic dreams.

They point out that Uber, commonly hailed as a disrupter, doesn't actually fit the mold, and they explain that if managers don't understand the nuances of disruption theory or apply its tenets correctly, they may not make the right strategic choices.

Highlights the recent article in the MIT Sloan Management Review co-authored by Andrew King, which argues «the majority» of Christensen's 77 case studies did not fully fit his theory.

Your theory that God cretaed things requires an awful oot of assumptions, not the least of which is that he can magically summon the universe or transform energy as you put it to fit his will.

An oft repeated misquote of Darwin's theory is «survival of the fittest».

Smolin's theory of fecund universes fit that notion well.

A theory of constitutional law that may be out of fashion in today's legal academy, but that fits comfortably within the modern conservative and the traditional liberal views of the courts, begins with certain basic premises: the existence of law and the possibility of meaningful rules of law.

Stripped down to the basics, they call themselves skeptical, but are generally only skeptical of theories and beliefs that do not fit in their very narrow reductionist belief system.

The theory of evolution fits all those cases of factual evolution like a hand in a glove.

First, you seem to not understand what a «theory» is (since you BOLD theory) A theory in Science is a set of principles that fit the facts that we know of.

Theories come and go, and if new evidence comes along that trashes the Big Bank Theory of the Universe, it will be replaced with something better that fits the «model» (the totally of the evidence) better.

When, in the great movement of modern liberalism, we demythologized the state and rejected most of the metaphysical foundations of politics, we gained much» but we also lost something, and one of the things we lost is any coherent theory about the nation's continuing authority to enact such metaphysically fitting punishments as the death penalty.

nothing makes the atheist more ticked off more than when you bring up GOD... God gets all the blame for all the tragedy in the world... If there wasnt a god in the first place, humans would not know tragedy or injustice when we see it... it would be a non-issue to us... survival of the fittest would not permit the emotions of love, compassion, empathy... Darwininian theory could not allow any of those and many other of the best of people's capacity for caring to surface... You cant explain it away by synapse or neurons... without a Supreme Being, there would be no sense of justice or injustice, we would not call it anything because there is no Ultimate Moral Standard to compare it.

As Montgomery puts it: «Science and theology form and test their respective theories in the same way; the scientific theorizer attempts objectively to formulate conceptual Gestalts (hypotheses, theories, laws) capable of rendering Nature intelligible, and the theologian endeavors to provide conceptual Gestalts (doctrines, dogmas) which will «fit the facts» and properly reflect the norms of Holy Scripture.»

Whitehead's educational theory is grounded in his philosophy of organism, or an organic understanding of how every part fits with the whole.

@Rainer, «Theory of evolution is very harmful because it teaches the survival of the fittest, a contest between all human beings.

Through his knowledge of Indian religion and culture, he did not submit himself to a racial theory of any kind which will fit into the scheme of «human origin» advocated by the Naturwissenschaft school.

The general issue is that we have not yet overcome the theory of evolution whichs supports the survival of the fittest.

Actually, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me for it to be that way than any days = eons theories and other stupid ideas people come up with trying to make the bible fit evolution.

I have a great many possible theories that can not be ruled out and fit within our physics for «Big Bang» area of concern.

For example, the theory of evolution is contradicted by the existence of technically advanced pyramids that we could not even re-create today, or by ancient hieroglyphics that depict our solar system before Galileo ever made his discoveries, whereas these things fit perfectly well within the Christian account that acknowledges the antediluvian and / or pre-Adamic worlds.

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.

All manner of other arguments are alleged, from the point of view of culture to the life - boat theory of triage and survival of the fittest.

On the other hand, these clearly are not alternative theories that may be decided among on the grounds of which one «best fits the data.»

It is true, of course, that when the hypothesis is applied, some passages at once fit in with the Petrine theory, especially in chapter 1; but others definitely do not, and surely no one with only this Gospel before him would ever suspect that it was a mélange of Peter s reminiscences he was reading.

One can at least glimpse how physical theory might someday provide an account of «spiritual substances [capable] of coherently interacting with matter,» all within a framework fitting pretty comfortably with the current structure of physical law yet allowing for mental or spiritual agency, including the possibility of free will.

Indeed, her conspiracy theory fits right into the culture of victimhood and complaint.

Nevertheless, Hartshorne's ideas do not necessarily conflict with physics, inasmuch as the whole notion of God fits nowhere into physical theories; but they do exceed or supplement what physics is able to conceptualize.

This going theory does fit Occam's Razor quite nicely and in all honesty lines up with how we treat other books of the Bible — we take note of the writer, their context, etc. and see inspiration coming through that lens.

I love it when people like you claim they know the «Truth», as a scientist myself it was especially funny when commies threw a fit at the big bang theory since it didn't fit their materialistic view of the world.

can't figure out the meanings of the phrase «survival of the fittest» or the words «theory» or «law,» I guess I shouldn't be surprised that it doesn't have a clue what «perversion» means, either.

Darwin's theory of evolution was predicated not only on the law of natural selection and the survival of the fittest, but on the assumption that this law had operated over an enormous period of time.

The river reminds me of your Z theory imagery — nice fit, right in synch, but a slightly different perspective — an evolving perspective.

Most of the empirical characteristics that fit in one way or another with these theories do not apply uniformly to the entire population.

Once we see through the logical mistakes that underlie the cosmology on which the theory of projection has parasitically fed, we can begin to locate in a fresh way just where the symbolic expression of religion fits into the structure of the evolving universe and how the language of religion relates to that of science.

Justin was suspicious of this theory from the get - go because his story simply didn't fit.

So although this theory is compelling and seems to fit the context of Matthew 12:31 - 32, the fact that it is impossible to live out in real life indicates that it is not the proper understanding.

The self - interest theory of ethics fits neither the facts of experience nor the metaphysical view of Whitehead.

Benedict favours intelligent design, which says God directs the process of evolution, over Charles Darwin's original theory which holds that species evolve through the random, unplanned processes of genetic mutation and the survival of the fittest.

But this does not fit in well with the theory of evolution (or at least I don't see it doing so).

The idea of a beginning may fit the «Big Bang» theory of the origin of the universe, but the primary purpose of the Christian doctrine of creation is to affirm that the world is not self - existent but dependent on a purposive being.

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.