Sentences with phrase «other than theory»

There is nothing - other than theory - that could suggest it being close or feasible whatsoever.

(I know we discussed this in an old thread, but I do not recall suggestions other than Theory).

Not exact matches

«It makes sense to point to an increase in the number of travelers as one likely reason, but other than that, we have no theories.»

Their Game Design degree, like many other schools that offer such a degree, focuses on visual communication and game design theories, rather than the culture and businesses behind gaming environments.

HBO's «Westworld» is a series unlike any other, the first season of which provided fan - theory - enthusiasts with more fodder than any single person could digest.

The premise of its success hinges on the theory that the high - frequency engine works quicker than any other algorithm.

If I remember my economics correctly, an extension of Ricardo's theory is that countries do not have to have an advantage over other countries in a particular area, just that they are relatively better at one thing than another.

Extending the time families have from ten to more days — as the phony «reform» bill would do — would accomplish nothing other than to validate futile care theory.

In advancing these theories they disregard factors universally admitted by all scientists — that in the initial period of the «birth» of the universe, conditions of temperature, atmospheric pressure, radioactivity, and a host of other catalytic factors were totally different than those existing presently, including the fact that we don't know how single atoms or their components would bind and consolidate, which involved totally unknown processes and variables, as single atoms behave far differently than conglomerations of atoms.

There is no fossial records other than an extict chimp, there is no archeological records, but there is a darn good theory.

-LRB-... Still not sure how the Big Bang «THEORY» even became a theory, other than somebody desperately trying to find an alternative to creation, but it should NEVER be taught as a fact, but rather as a THTHEORY» even became a theory, other than somebody desperately trying to find an alternative to creation, but it should NEVER be taught as a fact, but rather as a THtheory, other than somebody desperately trying to find an alternative to creation, but it should NEVER be taught as a fact, but rather as a THEORYTHEORY).

This can not be argued and no scientist will ever support scientism other than a philosophical application or non falsifiable extrapolation of a valid scientific principal or theory.

And By the way... 1 in 50 would be only 2 %... the number of gay priests and higher is quite a bit higher than the world average, and higher than in any other religion... which is explained (at least in theory of why that is the case) in the frontline I saw... they estimated it is closer to one in 5

well if i had a theory and later found it to not be ture and refuted it then i would not want anyone else to belive it either as i found it wasnt true and further more i would like to think that me and all other humans are better than coming from an animal that eats bugs off its friends and throws its own poo... I'm just saying

About 59 years later, Darwin published his theory and other than a bit of a rough start, scientists (other than those half dozen) have not looked back.

The theory is not uncontroversial even among Muslims, many of whom believe that teaching anything other than the «substitution» model is tantamount to heresy.

Indeed there are indications that those most formed by the theory are less likely to see reasons for giving to others than are those less influenced by it.

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.

too true; you're right, we are holistic people in a holistic world living holistic lives and political theory, religion, ethics, behavior, psychology, these and many others are all so inextricably intertwined with each other that it may be better to think of them as different views of the same object rather than distinct objects that are inter-related (using «object» here, of course, metaphorically)

And the thing is that you haven't even given all of the theologies and theories to even be brought up to date; that is except only the only Reality finds appropriate without even proving why those particular theories and theologies are even better than others.

It also confirms more than any other evidence that the universe had a beginning and expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light within less than a trillion of a trillion of a trillion of a second — less than 10 ^ -35 of a second — of the Big Bang by detecting the miniscule «light polarizations» called B - Modes caused by the Gravitational Waves — which were theorized in 1916 by Albert Einstein in his Theory of General Relativity but never detected before — of the Inflation of the Big Bang which are embedded in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation — CMB or CMBR that was discovered by American scientists back in 1964.

But, then, any such theory is fallacious because it implicitly asserts that alternatives in respects other than those marked by the nonteleological principle are morally indifferent, and that assertion is a moral evaluation of the alternatives in those other respects.

12 Probably Whitehead assumes the validity of his theory of prehension, which he holds on grounds other than those provided by the experience of CE, when he describes the experience of CE and treats it as reliable.

I've yet to meet the first who would even entertain the possibility of any other evidence other than the grossly miscalculated Darwinian theory.

@justageeker, «Not any harder to believe I am the only thing that exists than any other theory explaining existence.»

There were many ways to live, not simply one, the spiritual theory taught, all of them good, some of them better than others from one moment to the next.

There is nothing in the theory of evolution, nor in astronomy, or in geology, nor in paleontology, or any other branch of the sciences which contradicts Christianity, or any other type of theism (except Mormonism — we know scientifically that the Indian peoples of the Americas are not descended from the Jews — which is a key point of belief for them, much more central than there having been a literal Garden of Eden is for classical Christianity or Judaism).

From simple things like the so - called «earth heartbeat» predicted by multiple theories — some better than others, but most ridiculed as a bunch of hippies — to activity which is perfectly analogous to neuro - networks along cosmic filaments, and many others.

This doctrine also is questionable if pressed as far as Sherburne's theory would require, but it is far more defensible than the other.

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.

Existentialists such as Bultmann have largely misunderstood these ideas because, it seems, it did not occur to them that Kierkegaard might be doing something other than developing a latter - day theology or theory of humanity.

For a long time now the Christian understanding of man has been obscured by theories of his nature built on other dogmas than that of the sovereignty of God and constructed out of observations of his behavior made from other points of view than those of Christian faith.

The theory is that mass exerts a force on other masses and the greater the mass the greater the force, so the earth being much larger mass than you exerts a force that draws you to it and so on.

Materialism used to be a theory; in this integration with the West, it is a fact... Before and during 1989 there was a genuine spirit, a true reform light, and our church was filled by no other means than word of mouth... But today, even if we put out 1,000 posters, we would not get so many.

I do not see anyone other than you even talk about big bang theory and now you accuse someone else of not knowing it from evolution.

In Ernest Nagel, The Structure of Science, the distinction between theory and observation is less absolute than for these other authors.

Structural contingency theories are more likely to emphasize the institutional qualities of religion than some other approaches, but they often neglect patterns of value and belief.

But Feuerbach's theories work better with some kinds of religious experience than with others.

If you properly engage in this work, you will be interested in arriving at a position on whatever it is that interests you (philosophy, critical theory, history, philology, literary criticism, or whatever) that is preferable to any other that you know of on that question, and you will concomitantly want to be clear as to what the position that you construct and defend is, what it excludes, how best to show that its competitors are less adequate than the one you want to defend, and in what sense this is true.

And if, as I have tried to show, this latter theory (and other symmetrical theories) has more defects than its asymmetrical alternative, then opposition to abortion is, at the very least, questionable.

Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to claim that no other major area of Whitehead's philosophy has received less attention than has his theory of civilized society.

It does bring up some interesting points and goes into more detail on this theory than others I've heard.

It seems impossible also to organize a genuine course of study including the Biblical disciplines, church history, theology, the theory and practice of worship, preaching, and education on other grounds than those of habit and expediency unless there is clarity about the place of these studies and acts in the life of the Church.

The American Christian debate about just war theory is in a sense nothing other than a debate about America's role in the world, a debate little changed since, say, 1968.

They have no viable theory of their own other than «god did it»... an argument from ignorance.

Whitehead devised his metaphysic to elucidate forms of experience besides perception, and to systematize concepts drawn from other sources Nevertheless, certain problems can be solved while accepting perception more nearly at face value than Whitehead did in his later theory.

But as no criterion for «fittest» has been found to be workable other than «the ones who survive,» the theory is circular.

Some have advanced the theory that the strong family and in - group ties of the Jewish culture provide a more secure childhood than in other groups, thus producing less need for artificial escape.

Since both capitalist and Marxist theory developed without consideration of the contribution of the natural world to the economy, any consideration of nature as something other than a commodity falls outside the discipline of economics.

This theory posits that God is not the only force in the universe and all evil originates in wills other than God.