Sentences with phrase «not changed the theory»

Even when he got on the ball he didn't really make anything happen, and it doesn't change the theory that he doesn't work with Firmino and Coutinho.

In any case, I certainly have not changed the theory.

What AGW supporters do is change their theory while claiming that they haven't changed their theory at all.

Not exact matches

Many people have theories why Niantic made these changes — some think the game's three - step tracker had a negative impact on the «Pokémon GO» servers, so they shut down the feature until they could fix the problem — but most people are frustrated not just because this crucial feature was removed, but because Niantic hasn't given any kind of official explanation, and has done nothing to calm worried fans.

Has Modern Portfolio Theory failed to deliver over the past decade because users employ long - term averages for expected returns, volatilities and correlations that do not respond to changing market environments?

In its original and most basic form it held that the general price level would change in direct proportion to the change in the supply of money, but to get around the problem that what was observed didn't match this theory it was subsequently «enhanced» by adding a fudge factor called «velocity».

«Evolutionary theory is great at explaining how an system can change but can't explain how the system comes about.»

The fact that scientific * understanding * changes indicates that we are * learning * more about our world — it does not indicate that the world itself is going through some slow metamorphoses to keep up with scientific theories.

This may come as a shock to you — BUT - evolution could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court — if it is a «Law» of science and not a theory explain to me why Scientist in the same field have differing opinions theory has undergone massive changes since the 1850's when Darwin first came up with the THEORY — there are a lot of interesting similarities to true science which makes it sound so plausible, but it should sound good — After all the top scientist / humanists in the world promote it and they are all prettytheory explain to me why Scientist in the same field have differing opinions theory has undergone massive changes since the 1850's when Darwin first came up with the THEORY — there are a lot of interesting similarities to true science which makes it sound so plausible, but it should sound good — After all the top scientist / humanists in the world promote it and they are all prettytheory has undergone massive changes since the 1850's when Darwin first came up with the THEORY — there are a lot of interesting similarities to true science which makes it sound so plausible, but it should sound good — After all the top scientist / humanists in the world promote it and they are all prettyTHEORY — there are a lot of interesting similarities to true science which makes it sound so plausible, but it should sound good — After all the top scientist / humanists in the world promote it and they are all pretty smart

southerneyes44, you wrote «Germany doesn't teach about him» in regards to Hitler That's a ludicrous assertion as is «Theories in science change with the newspaper.»

Or i could point out that the big bang is the biggest joke ever told... That even the top physicists can't figure out how their own theory could work, not to mention the fact that for it to work they would need for the Universe to break the fundamental laws we understand as true since the beginning i.e. (No matter in the Universe can be created nor destroyed, you can only change it's state (solid to liquid, liquid to gas etc.).

Here's the rest of it:»... Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

The first thing discarded is the basics because we think the basics don't apply and then we find out that all the more complicated theories don't work because the basics never change.

Yet since, on the other hand, the single step separating case two from the older theory involves the entire difference between admitting and not admitting real change, growth, possibility of profit.

Such a Christianisation would not discredit all theories or change all work habits in domains generally considered to be non-religious.

Whether we like to admit it or not, whenever the world changes, Christians instinctively change with it, and I have this theory that God actually created us that way.

Thomas Kuhn's work on paradigm shifts in the history of science presents the idea that changes or increases in our understanding not only fill out gaps in previous knowledge, but at times bring about a reorganisation of the structure of the theories or paradigms by which previous ideas were organised and understood.

This led James to the theory that the stream of consciousness, and time itself, must come in discrete durational units which in themselves do not involve change.

As we have seen, one implication of this theory is that the basic durational units of time do not change in their own constitutions.

Evolution would be a little more believable Bill if the «theories» didn't constantly change because you eggheads and science keep proofing significant parts of your own theory to be completely wrong.

The only changes you'll see to modern scientific theories are very detailed changes to very small pieces of the theory, not an entire paradigm shift.

Evolution was not correctly taught if you believe that it is a belief or a mere theory in the colloquial sense, that it unnecessarily complicates the world, and that understanding how organisms change over time is not crucial for environmental policy, agriculture and biomedical research.

However, even if they were all creationist it would not change the fact that evolution is one of the most supported theories in all of science.

The interpretation that all species came to be by natural selection will and is changing, but what is changing is minutia that is beyond general public understanding (mutation rates and such), not the whole theory.

Science does not uses the term law anymore because it was always found that more could be added to a theory without changing the nature of the theory.

Referring to explanations for set of facts as theories allows for modifications as sceintific knowledge expands, it does not change the fact that apples fall to the ground, or that lifeforms descend with modification over time, or that the Earth has been dated to be approximately 4 billion years old.

However, evolutionary theory does not consider such short time scales, but rather developmental changes occurring over millions of years.

Inflation is not the first set of theories to predict gravity waves or an epicenter to the universe either, so not much has changed on that front except that we can now make models which reflect these waveforms and weed out disagreeing models.

The cell theory of organisms was a change in principle, not merely in degree, compared to all ancient thought.

Because of the cultural changes of modernity, however, the just war tradition has been carried, developed, and applied not as a single cultural consensus but as distinct streams in Catholic canon law and theology, Protestant religious thought, secular philosophy, international law, military theory and practice, and the experience of statecraft.

We might not know exactly how life first occurred, we have theories from the evidence before us and will change if new, differing evidence is provided.

I know that i have prayed and things changed for the good and i have learned that faith requires a courage that atheist just don't have, so now you atheist can start your shallow explanations about how you can think for yourselves and your laughable big bang theories and your evolved from monkeys nonsense and i'll just stay with truth.

The change in Hinduism is not just in theory but in practice.

Although he initially rejects physicalism because he thinks that a human person is not just an organism and mental changes are not simply physical changes, he concludes «physicalism is the most reasonable theory about the nature of human beings».

It can only if the abstract can make decisions or resolve its own indefiniteness — which Hartshorne would deny.2 It will not change the situation to assert that Hartshorne's theory, though it has no place for the internal development of an actuality, does provide for temporal development by stipulating that each succeeding actuality comes into being as a whole.

However, in a section appended to his lecture on «Relativity,» Whitehead changed his mind.7 On this atomic theory of events, there was a lowest threshold for actual events, below which it can not be subdivided into smaller actual events.

The influence of Eastern philosophies in Peris» thought is reflected in gestalt therapy, for example, in his Taoist - like admonition, «Don't push the river, it flows by itself,» (20) and in the paradoxical theory of change.

Most importantly, history is not like a Greek tragedy, but much more like the world revealed by chaos theory, in which a small change in one place effects a huge change overall.

In Whitehead's theory it is the eternal objects, the qualities, which undergo changes, not the unsubstantial substances, the actual occasions.

Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.»

Certainly not in a strictly deductive sense, because scientific theories are subject to change and revision.

The theory had not changed — one should obey the laws, in the kingdom of this world one had to submit to its ways.

Not only does the theory of dipolarity make Altizer's cosmic reversal unnecessary, it also makes any ontological or fundamental cosmic change impossible.

Although Pius XII was influenced by the fundamental changes in economic theory initiated by Keynes, it was not until Pope John XXIII in 1961 published Mater et Magistra (Mother and Teacher) that a new methodology and the identification of the problem of «development» emerged, requiring substantial changes in the social teaching of the Church which were expressed in Pacem in Terris (Peace throughout the World) in 1963.

When heterosexual chauvinists have told homosexuals to change, essentialist theories have provided a ready response: I can't.

Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium can co-exist — that some creatures have changed gradually and others have had long periods of stability doesn't invalidate evolutionary theory.

Furthermore, there was no school of thought in China that would have presented a substantialist alternative to the view of being as change; the closest candidate would be the common - sense view of things attacked by the Buddhists as illusion, and even here it was the Indian, not Chinese, sources of Buddhism that became most exercised about criticizing the theory of permanent substances.

The deduction presupposes that the meanings of the terms of the two theories are fixed; the deduction could not be carried out if the meanings of terms changed in the successor theory.

For though Darwin's particular theory of biological evolution was destined to undergo changes and modifications in the hands of successive biologists and zoologists (and with this we are not here concerned), there can be no going back to the simple Biblical picture of origins which was commonly held before Darwin.

A theory of Supreme Value which, despite many changes in formulation, can always be understood (whether or not Wieman himself said so explicitly) in aesthetic terms;