Sentences with phrase «which proves the theory»

Which proves my theory that of all the dating apps on your phone, Lyft and Uber might be the best.

It is both data and the atmospheric processes AGW theory predicted which proves this theory is full of it.

Not exact matches

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

In theory, proponents could prove that economic benefits would offset the environmental damage, but B.C.'s Ministry of Transportation, which must implement the government's tunnel - removal plan, chose instead to avoid the issue.

Many of the theories which were taught as scientific fact have been proved wrong.

The people that have brought forth these theories, none of which have been proven, have not jumped to the God of Abraham as you choose to do.

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

I like to think stuff through and not follow every new idea and theory, which should be distinguished from facts proven scientifically.

You have correct definitions, except you left out the definition of a SCIENTIFIC theory, which is different than a regular theory in that these theories are true but still might be able to be proven false.

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.

There is another respect, however, in which Whitehead's theory may prove to have advantages.

For example, he said, look at the Buddhist theory of impermanence, the idea that the physical world is changing by the second, which was later proved by quantum physics in the movement of atoms.

How would a person living in a desert know these things without actually someone telling him this?!!! And who is that someone?!!! No one at that time knew anything about big bang theory?!! The actual translation of the arabic word رتقا is it was like a fabric that got torn apart?!!! Isn't that big bang?!! And the other part that was proven too is that everything alive needs water to live?!!! How did they know that then?!!! Islam and science support each other and science only getting to prove things now which was mentioned 1500 years ago in the Quran!!!

What is true is that if one uses the scientific theory which is what you must use to prove or disprove a theory or law then evolution simply fails.

A theory is a mathematical model which describes a phenomenon, and if you would look at the data for yourself, it has been proven correct time and time again.

This misconception, which has ever since flourished unquestioned among Whiteheadian philosophers, proved a powerful factor, I think, in Whitehead's ultimate adoption of an atomic or epochal theory of becoming.

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

So its ok for him to prove his points (which btw science can not prove something to be real when it comes to THEORIES which is what evolution is, which i believe to be true), yet when someone wants to believe in something that they see points to proof in thats not ok?

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?

Big Bang Theory including Cosmic Inflation has been mathematically, theoretically & experimentally proved as baseless in the published paper «Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space - time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe» which is available at the journal site at http://indjst.org/index.php/indjst/issue/view/2885.

Even if many instances of agreement with experiment do not prove that a theory is true, it would seem that even a single counterinstance of data which disagrees with theory should conclusively prove it false.

This is not only because it has as yet proved impossible to define consistently the notion of the «optimum» population upon which activist efforts to shape the demographic composition of society seem in theory to rest.

This has been important for economic theory and practice, and economists can point to many instances in which they have been proven correct.

But people in science have the sense and methods to stay sensible about leaving behind things that are later proven false (or for which better theories come along).

He never tires of citing the numerous novel scientific theories which were initially condemned but later proved true.

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.

Its an unprovable concept, and therefore it should not be taught in science classes, which aim to study those things that have been proven by scientific theory.

«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.

Darwin's theory did nothing to prove that God did not exist, but it did destroy the only argument by which many people thought the existence of God could be established.

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.

The principle would have excluded scientific theories which can never be conclusively verified or proved to be immune to modification.

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 people.

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.

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 natural world is replete with examples of widely accepted theories which have yet to be not just proven, but even observed.

i believe in quantum theory, which has been, and is constantly being proven.

A theory is just that an idea a thought a supposition until proven, which evolution never has been, evolution is all unproven speculation, but it sure sucks in a lot of believers.

5:7), but it is difficult to prove that I Peter knows an etymological theory which we otherwise find only at the end of the second century.

It's not rocket science, these are basic theories / opinions which many think would make us great, but the obstinate one will not do what other want him to because he is obsessed with proving sensible voices wrong by playing decent (but not great) players and playing in a stylish fluid manner, which other teams have worked out and which makes us largely one dimensional.

In theory the sale of one to enable the signing of a few could leave Tottenham in with a better shot at securing a Champions League return, however the way in which Andre Villas - Boas invested funds from Bale's sale, and the manner in which Brendan Rodgers squandered money from Luis Suarez's sale to Barcelona, prove that such a sale can set a club back a number of seasons.

As it has proved impossible to wholly separate political, economic, and social concerns in analysing the background to the riots, only a truly cross-disciplinary account — for instance, one rooted in a sociologically - informed theory of political economy — can hope to have the necessary tools to fully capture and interpret the societal phenomena from which the riots derive.

Hawking was studying the work of Roger Penrose, which proved that if Einstein's general theory of relativity is correct, at the heart of every black hole must be a point where space and time themselves break down — a singularity.

In 1992, Richard Borcherds proved monstrous moonshine: He found the link between the monster group (which does exist) and the j - function through string theory, the idea that the universe is made of tiny strings vibrating in high dimensions.

APRIL 1860 ELECTRIC THEORY — «The results of the experiments instituted by Sir William Grove are exceedingly curious, and must be regarded as all but proving the truth of the modern theory, which assumes that electricity is not, in any sense, a material substance but only an affection (state) or motion of the particles of ordinary mTHEORY — «The results of the experiments instituted by Sir William Grove are exceedingly curious, and must be regarded as all but proving the truth of the modern theory, which assumes that electricity is not, in any sense, a material substance but only an affection (state) or motion of the particles of ordinary mtheory, which assumes that electricity is not, in any sense, a material substance but only an affection (state) or motion of the particles of ordinary matter.

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.

It had — it took some time to first prove the consistency of our theory which was up to the beginning of the 70's the standard model was being done and only after that could one look for a test because a standard model was wonderfully made, except for the missing element which was that Boson whose condensation is what gives the mass particle and the short - ray forces.

It's proven remarkably hard to write down a theory which produces exactly the universe we see and nothing more.