Sentences with phrase «n't fit his theory»

Arsenal has conceded 11 goals to date whose origins do nt fit your theory.

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

Their beliefs are so powerful that any factual data that contradicts this view would be dismissed with the outlook, «If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.»

We do live in a society with norms about what we can and can not share, what we can and can not do, but as Einstein once said: «if the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.»

The discrepancies between NASA and other data sources can't help but make us consider Einstein's advice: «If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.»

The observations do not fit the theory that CO2 quantities were the cause of that period of stratospheric cooling.

No matter how wonderful the theory, if the observational evidence does not fit the theory, the theory gets tossed.

So I still maintain that the data doesn't fit the theory «just so» neatly as is claimed.

Empirical Data (actual measurements) doesn't fit theory predicted or models.

If the evidence doesn't fit the theory, amend the theory to adopt the new evidence as proof of the original theory.

The facts are not fitting the theory nor backing the scare, so the media simply suppress them.»

Not exact matches

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.

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.

But it doesn't really fit with the new Trump Administration's expressed theories about trade and economic policy.

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.

Creationists refuse to subject their «theories» to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts.

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.

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.

It's not the only theory we've put together to explain the matter, but it best fits all the evidence we've been able to gather so far.

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.

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.

God did not make new things look old to fit your theory.

you do nt dismiss some symptoms to fit your theory but you include all the symptoms to find better theory.

Scientists don't overturn things to fit their theories.

I realized not too long ago, for that theory to fit with their system, they would by necessity say that being born again happened to all OT saints.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Alt's work was undermined by shifting sociological theory, Albright's by accumulating archaeological evidence that did not fit his correlations between archaeology and the Bible.

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.

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

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.

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 judgnot 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 judgnot 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 judgNOT 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 judgnot WANT to believe... but Your belief in God does not change whether or not he exists you will be judgnot change whether or not he exists you will be judgnot he exists you will be judged.

For most years, I stuck with my «people hate the BCS because it can't fit three teams on one field» theory.

Dr. Roy Pool, a bone pathologist and professor at UC Davis who has published 60 scientific articles on his studies, says, «He ignores anything that does not fit into his theory.»

Not the theory I like, but this might be the case.We might go for cambel, but untested for this huge match, or for poldi, but as well lact of match fit, but wenger chose ozil.

Strong driving hypothesis: You need to make sure that there's a theory to explain your results, otherwise you'll often times end up with a custom - fitted betting system that is not predictive of future results.

There may be some that fall through the net — we managed to sign Ozil, Sanchez and Cazorla who would fit into almost any team — However, more often than not, if we try to recruit from this age - group we will be destined for mediocrity and Mustafi and Xhaka are testament to this theory.

In theory, the answer should only be bounded by the limits of human physicality, imagination, and cruelty, and as such not really fit for publication on a family website.

I believe you are guilty of that old phony trick of trying to make the theory fit the facts, when in fact they do not.