Sentences with phrase «scientists proved this theory»

Not exact matches

Many scientists throughout history and even today believe things that they can not prove (the Higgs Boson for example, or string theory for another).

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 preScientist 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 prescientist / humanists in the world promote it and they are all pretty smart

Also, scientists have to prove their theories.

Also, Darwin coined the theory of evolution and didn't prove it like most scientists I know prove their thought theories, just saying.

Science takes credit for trying to interpret what God has created (yet of course there theories are always wrong or never proven, even after proven, often changed when found out to be false (because scientists are wrong all the time and think they are right)

Even his most complex theory which seems to involve matter in the universe disappearing permanently in various places, which he even challenged to his opponents to prove wrong, was pretty much proven wrong by a group of determined scientists.

Piper, when a scientific theory is proven incorrect, scientists celebrate for now they have more to learn and new ways to approach learning.

A scientist who studies the galaxy will fight hard to prove his theory is correct, but the moment there is evidence to show otherwise, they adjust their original theory.

Look up Multi-verse, a theory, which BY DEFINITION can not be proven, yet widely adopted by top scientists, even Steven Hawkings himself.

As Scientists, we do need to prove each and every theory we bring forward which is why Science has progressed since a few old men wrote the bible thousands of years ago and what do you have?

@Robert Must be the same cabal that's got all those thousands of scientists from various fields of study falsfiying the results of tens of thousands of experiments that prove the validity of the Theory of Evolution.

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...

Science is not at all infallible, and if you think it is we can scientifically prove that scientists» theories have been disproven by other scientists for the whole of history.

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.

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

Remember top scientist say if you don't accept the M - Theory which has no evidence and is impossible to prove, your only option is God.

In 2006, the nobel prize for physics was awarded to two american scientists who PROVED that one aspect of the Big Bang «Theory» is absolutely correct.

Compare to the big bang theory that scientists are quickly proving as fact.

BRC, there is no evidence?!?! what an uneducated statement, there are hundreds / thousands of books and studies, research by thousands of scientists, some christians some not... evolution is REAL... it's a proven theory and i would put that against your ONE book that was written when everyone thought the earth was flat.

A study carried out by environmental scientists from the University of Basel has now shown that although the research community considers this to be a proven theory, no studies have been published to confirm it.

The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured.

For years scientists have quibbled over which theory proved the best, but few doubted that, among the three, they explained the evolution of aging.

Blood formation was the first process for which scientists formulated and proved the theory that stem cells are the common origin that gives rise to various types of mature cells.

Scientists have good theories for why, but these are difficult to prove with the short records we are working with.»

Scientists have long believed that acids formed from human - generated pollution and natural emissions dissolve iron in airborne particles — increasing the amount of iron to the ocean — but have lacked direct evidence to prove this theory.

Despite prior attempts, the tiny size of the objects kept scientists from determining some of the key characteristics that could prove or disprove the theories.

And beyond that, scientists if they prove the theory true, will then have to discern exactly how birds perceive the magnetic field.

To prove their theories Cuddy and her team of scientists gathered 42 students, both male and female, and assigned each of them a high power or low power pose, which varied according to the picture above.

Although he spent winters in Arctic conditions to gather evidence to prove his theory, created complicated mathematical models to support his field work and even built a machine in which to recreate the lights in his laboratory, few scientists of his day believed Birkeland.

What began as a theory has now been proven through extensive research by a team of over 220 vets, PhD nutritionists and food scientists.

Now in both cases some of the elements of it are unknown or not yet nailed down, but the over all theory is sound and proven again and again from a variety of sources and literally thousands of different scientists in many different fields.

by Howard Fischer Capital Media Services PHOENIX — The University of Arizona has been ordered to surrender emails by two UA scientists that a group claims will help prove that theories about human - caused climate change are a false and part of a conspiracy.

Global warming believers need only to counter dry recitations of skeptic science material with assertions about the numbers of «IPCC scientists», declare this to be the settled consensus opinion, then claim there is leaked memo evidence proving skeptics are paid industry money to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» — hoodwink the public, in other words.

The best the climate scientists have done is to test theories of how CO2 may change the climate, but constructing climate models and then recording how those models (not the actual climate) respond to changes in the amount of virtual CO2 in their virtual atmospheres doesn't prove or confirm anything.

She does not search for agreement between scientists about theories, and she does not look for agreements between theories and observations to prove a consensus.

It is up to the climate «scientists» to prove that their climate model is accurate and there is no mathematical or numerical analytic theory that can be used to do so.

Sorry, but this really sounds just like the computer «models» used by certain «warmer» orientated scientist to «prove» their global warming theories.

There are so many unknowns about climate change that it's impossible to know if a climate scientist is really an expert, or whether his current theories will be proven completely wrong in the future.

Scientists, see little need to correct observed errors, since there is always a possibility that future data might exonerate them on the long path to prove a theory.

Abdussamatov is the same scientist who claimed that current warm temperatures on Mars proved that the sun - and not human activity - is behind the global warming trend on Earth, a theory debunked on realclimate.org.

I would research myself to find alternative theories, as many have done before and proved wrong the «body of qualified scientists».

The story goes that The University of Arizona has been, ``... ordered (by the Arizona Supreme Court no less) to surrender emails by two UA scientists that a group claims will help prove that theories about human - caused climate change are false and part of a conspiracy.»

If 95 % of scientists believe a theory that has been falsified by the last 15 years of data, that doesn't prove they are 95 % right, it just proves 95 % corruption.

But that does not prove relativity is wrong, nor establish aether theory as valid; it merely explains the origin of «mad scientists»; such as will believe uncritically in the outputs of «vapour - free» climate models.

So that means some crackpot creationist can say they are a scientist that's proven the Theory of Evolution wrong.

It seems to me the guys I used to interact with at judithcurry.com, well, the brighter ones appreciate a clever argument, and some of them even have their own elaborate theories, though they don't compare or criticize each other's theories - it is enough that any one of them «disproves» CAGW - but these theories don't have to stand up to the next group of junior scientists who, to get beyond their current low paid adjunct position must prove something unexpected.

A good scientist understands that no theory can be «proven».

What I found in late 2009 almost always led me to myriad praise of Gelbspan as the discoverer of leaked industry memos containing the awkward «strategy» phrase «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact,» which proved skeptic climate scientists were on the payroll of «Big Coal & Oil.»

These are not scientists that are trying to prove a theory, these are political people.

If you are an enviro - activist with no intellectual curiosity about the matter, and one of your prominent leaders tells you a leaked industry document's strategy statement to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» proves skeptic climate scientists were paid industry money to lie and misinform, then that's all you need to know on the topic.