Sentences with phrase «n't tested this theory»

All MODERN scholars (non-religious fundamentalist) agree «creationism» is NOT A tested theory, but a Myth based belief.

Actually do nt test this theory at all!

That is what will happen if we can not test the theories.»

I haven't tested this theory, but I was wondering what other may think of it.

I haven't tested this theory on anyone other than myself, but hear me out for a quick sec.

Why not test the theory and see who bites?

Well fundamentally because you can not test a theory in isolation.

@Frank 5:14 pm Pairwise adjustment are hypotheses than make assumptions about the nature of the events that produced undocumented breakpoints, not tested theories.

Not exact matches

If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite, the theory can't be tested.»

I have not been able to test this theory to a Buffettesque - level myself, but my gut tells me he's right.

Three might be the lucky carrier group to test out this theory, but don't forget that its U.K. operation is about to merge (pending regulatory approval) with local rival O2, meaning around 40 percent of the country's subscribers might find themselves with network - level ad - blocking on the menu.

Unfortunately, Dr. DeSilva doesn't have access to every face on the planet to test this theory.

The allergy is not fully understood, and scientists are still testing theories.

It's far too early to tell if the fund will continue to outperform the market, and it'll be interesting to see how the recent market swings will test their theories, but it may not be long before people start posting pics of their rising bank - account statements instead of the food they had for dinner.

Does it not enable a test bed for economic theories?

He's testing hundreds of homes like hers and he has a theory that points to a place people can't easily see — behind the air conditioning vent.

The newly - proposed course description for â $ ˜Financial Economicsâ $ ™, still contained among its contents the â $ ˜testing the efficiency of markets.â $ ™ When I objected to this, given the financial meltdown that we had just witnessed and the irrefutable evidence that this theory did not hold water, I was told that the theory of efficient financial markets still had to be tested to decide of its real - world relevance.

Hawking comes up with things such as his theory that blackholes can radiate energy and since we don't have any blackhole sitting around to test his theory it remains unchallenged until a physicist of equal standing challenges it.

our next science project is testing out the theories of natural selection... at my house babe so your husband does nt interfere with my technique

Einstein's Gravity Theory Passes Toughest Test Yet... E = mc2... (U — Pb)... two math formulas... that do not lie or sin!!!

Tom tom: I'm sure you accept many things without absolute proof - for example, you probably accept that matter is made of atoms which you can not see; you probably accept that gravity is not going to disappear tomorrow; you probably believe that testing a theory over and over will yield reliable results.

As for not «seeing» evidence for evolution or the Big Bang, both of those scientific theories have been tested, and ample evidence has been found to support them.

Fundamentalists must turn religion into a conspiracy theory: any fact or figure, however simple or reasonable, not in accordance with the story must be part of a conspiracy by sinners, a trick by a demon, or a test from a god.

I had a Geology professor once who candidly stated that the subject of Evolution would come up frequently during the semester, that if anyone felt uncomfortable it, to remember one thing: You «are not» required to «believe» any of the theories discussed in this class; however, you «are» required to «know» the materiel well enough to pass the written tests».

After all, there is no proof there is a supreme being, and for the record Intelligent Design and Creationism are NOT actual theories because there is no physical evidence to support and there is no way whatsoever to objectively test those ideas.

Whether that means not participating in an organized religion but still studying its teachings, proposing a new mathematical theory to explain the origin of the universe that can't easily be tested experimentally, taking the notion of a personal God and trying to have an actual personal, and not a corporate, herd - instinct, everyone - else - is - doing - it, relationship?

The neutrino test you are referring to was a huge deal, which is why most of the scientific community was skeptical and didn't immediately rewrite Einsteins theory of relativity.

If it were correct, there would be so many bodies of relevant theory that one would not be able to learn the theories and test them critically in a three - or four - year course of study.

One theory I have is that the devil attacks them harder, and that while trying to live the life of the Cross, it acts like testing metal in fire — the worst will come out, burn brighter, they may have more suffering going on and less wordy things to turn to as crutches — these aren't excuses, but possible reasons.

it isn't called the theory of gravity — it is the LAW of gravity — it has been tested and proven, hence a law.

The principle difference that most people don't understand though is that «scientific theory» means that it's a hypothesis that's been repeatedly tested and supported with multiple pieces of evidence through many different trials and approaches.

It may be conjecture or simply wishful thinking, but it is not a theory for the simple reason that it can not be tested.

Theories are not wild guesses, they are tested by observable facts and those tests can be reliably verified.

Science has theories about the way the world works which are not necessarily true, yes, but those theories must hold up to observable fact and testing.

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

So following scientific theory is you can not reporduce the hypothosis or test it then how can it stand?

A scientific theory has been tested, your theory of creationism has not been tested nor can it be.

Science lives of theory — believes and tries to test them... Faith is the same, but can not reproduce the work that only is reserved to a Superior Being.

Evolution is not testable — Every new fossil dug up, every genome sequenced, every new species discovered, every new simulation run is a test of evolutionary theory.

Creationism is not a theory, it isn't even a hypothesis, it can not be tested therefore it is invalid.

The correspondence theory of truth is a definition of the meaning of truth, not a statement of how truth, thus understood, is to be tested.

Correspondence, in the sense specified, is the nature of truth, the meaning of truth; yet the test of truth that we most frequently employ in connection with the past is the test of coherence: historians and archeologists have nothing available to them that is not given in the present — this book, the reliability of which must be evaluated; this artifact, the significance of which must be construed — and coherence is the final test of their theories about the past built up from the givens of the present.

I bet not one of you ever questioned the theory, or looked for other explanations for it, or worked to validate it for yourself, with your own empirical testing.

But note that the shared observational core, against which competing theories may be tested, is not in general free from theoretical interpretation.

I can't remember a time when we got to see this so clearly — a concentrated effort to learn, to develop a theory, to test, to research, to learn.

Theories typically can not be proven, but they can become established if they are tested by several different scientific investigators.

Here we have known methods of life on this planet that we have studied and observed to come to an evolutionary conclusion for part of the origins of life (the manual transmission) and then you have your theory of a prime mover, a universal creator (the flux capacitor if you will), which can not be tested, can not be seen, can not be heard, can not be felt by any known testing methods and yet you want to say «Hey, why havn't you learned to drive the flux capacitor transmission yet?

I don't care if you don't believe it, the fact is you can't breathe on Mars... you'll die there if you try to breathe without life support... test your theory all you want there.

Although I can not say what the exact logical entailments between the cosmological and the neurophysiological theory are, it seems to me that tests of the neurophysiological theory can have relevance for the cosmological theory.16

16 But I believe that the relevance of cosmological theories for scientific research does not depend on how readily they can be tested by experiments.