Sentences with phrase «prove theories on»

No doubt time travelling sociologists are using us in a large lab test to prove theories on mass delusion; the worse the climate gets, the more we will deny it is happening.

«If Dr Evans is correct, then he has proven the theory on carbon dioxide wrong and blown a hole in climate alarmism,» she writes.

Not exact matches

«On that dangerous theory, the government is secretly blacklisting people as suspected terrorists and giving them the impossible task of proving themselves innocent of a threat they haven't carried out.»

The response by counterterror officials would be very different depending on which of these theories proves to be true.

There is no point posting on here that evolutionary theory is unproven because every theory can not be completely proven.

Now, if you want to talk about religious theory, that's a different definition, as religious theory is based on belief and assumption and written statements that can not be verified or proven without having faith and belief.

In the early days of his influence on literary studies, his theories proved particularly pernicious, sending scholars scurrying after phallic symbols and psychoanalyzing authors.

They're just mad more people don't want to share their depressing theories on the non-existence of anything the scientific method can't prove.

When you propose a theory the onus is on you to prove it, not on others to disprove it.

Einstein's General Relativity theory of how mass distorts time and space was only proven a few weeks ago, but we've been basing advancements on it for the last 80 years.

Come on... I do see scientific theories as interesting — However, I am open to the idea that it is all wrong, even the theories that were «proven» and became «fact» — Why?

The Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution can not be proven so they are not scientifically proven laws and are accepted on faith as true by some.

Over 150 years of building on and refining the original hypothesis has proven the theory of evolution to be true over and over again.

Science is based on finding the facts, but many times throughout history different scientific theories (once beleived as fact) have been proven incorrect - thus creating a new theory based off the original but inclusive to the new facts that have arisen.

His theory is dependent on billions of years to prove.

Many discoveries are made, or truth uncovered, when someone acts on a theory or presupposes a belief, then sets out to prove or disprove it.

For example a century ago, the only transportation was the horse riding or camel or donkey and so on... you can not imagine at that time people would be thinking about travelling the globe in a day or two... and we do not know what is coming as every scientists theory is being abrogated by a new scientist and the old one becomes obsolete... these also proves that human theory can not be perfect and will never be perfect... there will always be modifications...

It is precisely BECAUSE the bible and christians have to rely on interpretations that proves that it is just mere philosophy and not a theory which can be proved or disproved..

but i didn't state anything example — i stated that the theory of evolution is yet to be proved and so with that i agree that due to that lacking it is equal to the theory of god... the only thing i said which is cemented truth for anything is that we don't know what the real answer is... and by stating ideas as facts serves no real purpose but a selfish one... lets call it an ease - ment on the inner self, the mind can now be at peace with the hope that when i die i get to live yet again... full belief in this is insane without evidence.

Darwin's theory of evolution, on the other hand, now 160 years old, is still by no means proven and its effect on souls has been, and continues to be, horrendous!

And even more irony is seen when the «science only» people lean on mathematic formulae and theories to explain the universe, but their only proof is more math... Math proving math, but no observable reality to back up the math.

That is a very dry world to live in... as far as theory is concerned it is as enigmatic as religous beliefs... Example 2 hydrogen and on oxygen make water... it is proven fact.

Scientists have been able to provide evidence for the Big Bang Theory, but not the singularity itself that the «big bang» spawned from... so Hawking's assumptions, are just that, assumptions and opinions... and he does not, as you say «tell the truth» based on a proven, factual basis.

«The forms of a living being are not but rather come to be,» says Ludwig von Bertalanffy (BW 120), and his «organismic» biology and later general system - theory for overcoming the opposition between mechanism and vitalism has given central insights of Whitehead a new formulation on the basis of science, 8 Something similar holds for all the directions of research which Jean Piaget has brought to the [264] concept of genetic structuralism.9 The genetic epistemology founded by Piaget has proved through empirical research on the problem of knowledge the fruitfulness both of genetic analysis and of Whitehead's principle of process.

In an opening section of which a theological scholar would be proud, Gladwell turns the tables on the classic interpretation of the shepherd boy's battle with the Philistine giant, gradually proving his theory that David actually went into the fight as the favourite.

As was proved by events on the morning of September 11, the laissez - faire theories of government do us an injustice.

i see no proof of your statements, at least science has the integrity to admitt to whatever being only a theory and not fact — your BELIEF is nothing but a thought you hold on to like a baby and there special blanky... sceince attempts to prove or even to disprove itself, you just go on believing what some silk covered so called humble man with gold in his pockets tells you.

If you want to prove atoms exist just read on atomic theory.

there isn't any «faith» in science, it's based on facts which science calls «theories» meaning they have already been proven to be true.

It is based on what man knows to be at the time, but as I said, even theories based on «facts» has been proven to change.

Scientists gather information, prove facts, and then extrapolate a theory based on the facts that exist.

On the one side was the utter ruin of the old, sustaining sacred places and customs with which their faith in God had been identified, and on the other side was the competition of the brilliant gods of Babylon, who, according to ancient theory, had proved their reality and power by the ascendency of their peoplOn the one side was the utter ruin of the old, sustaining sacred places and customs with which their faith in God had been identified, and on the other side was the competition of the brilliant gods of Babylon, who, according to ancient theory, had proved their reality and power by the ascendency of their peoplon the other side was the competition of the brilliant gods of Babylon, who, according to ancient theory, had proved their reality and power by the ascendency of their people.

Here's the thing: science is based on being able to prove / disprove a theory.

The Big Bang Theory was as proven as something could get four years ago by the winner of the Nobel Prize in physics who discovered radiation in our universe on a scale and pattern that could only be explained by a gigantic explosion that created our universe 6 billion years ago.

Same for evolution, evolutionary theory is not fully proven (although there is NO evidence found that goes against it which makes it very very likely to be correct), but its a FACT that we evolved along with all other life on earth.

The not - so - late Doctor Reginald Stockhausen proved the theories of the esteemed Dr. Eric M.D. Berne to be base on a small sampling and inherently flawed due to a comprised control study.

«divide themselves into oblivion» LOL — yes, well that might actually prove some theory in the process — when do tickets go on sale?

The theory being that 1 - 2 mill spent on a youngster is just as likely to succeed as spending 12 mill on an oldy like Debuchy or 16 mill on a proven failure Wellbeck.

We were keeping a close eye on Islam Slimani, and I was certain that Joel Campbell's loan deal to Sporting was to set up the striker's move to us, but that theory was not proven right.

He was not even on the pitch for the last two games, so the theory that we are totally reliant on him has already been proved wrong.

Even IF it could be proved that the Odent theories on natural oxytocin could be proved somehow, then what?

She tested this theory on one thousand newborns and it proved to be true.

Webb's conservative position on gun laws is well - known, but here he is on evolution: «This confrontation between religious and scientific theories is still unsettled even today, as creationists rationally argue that the living world could not have been fashioned without an «intelligent designer,» and that the theory of evolution as presented by the Darwinists still rests on scientific speculation that has yet to be proven.»

But, he added, «if the legislators could prove they were acting on a good - faith interpretation of existing law, or if they got advice from counsel before making the stipend submissions, they may have defenses to some of these theories.»

«I don't believe the evidence of a crater off Madagascar, and the impetus is on Abbott to prove it,» says Jay Melosh, an impact expert at the University of Arizona and an outspoken critic of the theory.

Although no one could ever prove James Allen's theories, we can certainly find lots of examples of people who have brought negatives into their lives by concentrating on the wrong things.

In these nano systems, energy dissipation has been observed to depend on the amplitude of the vibration, described as a non-linear phenomenon, and so far no proposed theory has been proven to correctly describe this dissipation process.

He returned after a year to Japan, having worked on a theory of particles moving in one dimension that is currently proving useful to string theorists.

So there's this kind of gee - whiz stage of it, and then you also see those ideas seeping into the theories, disproving some, suggesting that others are on the right track, proving some even; and those theories, in turn, incorporate principles, new laws of nature, new principles of nature that will, I think, inform our broader culture.

In 1972 he published a book called Man & Woman, Boy & Girl on the John / Joan case, which appeared to prove his theory.