Sentences with phrase «wrong theory of»

Might misleading measurements by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) have been leading us towards the wrong theory of cosmology?

Ah, the something goes wrong theory of birth.

In the dark ages you're religion suppressed science.When Copernicus said that The earth revolved around the sun you ridculed him.Also, you push the wrong theory of creationism.

Not exact matches

A separate panel looks at liability when things do go wrong, Eric Hibbard, CTO for security and privacy at the Federal Trade Commission, will examine emerging theories of liability for manufacturers and vendors when a hacked device turns fatal.

Jared: Can you explain what wrong with my theory that the FRB should purchase the loan / asset inventory of the GSEs?

If the Theory of Evolution were somehow wrong almost all of modern biology would also be wrong.

Calling the theory of evolution «only a theory» is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong.

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

And no surprise, since if we believe that Jesus is God, then that means Jesus» theology would be His study, theory, and opinion of Himself, which I don't think is really what anyone meant... But anyways, maybe I'm wrong there, but it made it awfully hard to understand what people actually meant.

He's the wrong person to debate the intricacies of evolutionary theory, as he has no degree in biology, and never worked as a research scientist in biology.

Like all science, of course, it is falsifiable — but no one has ever proven it wrong, and no one has ever come up with a better theory that explains so much of the natural world using one simple concept, testable using logic and experiment.

More like from chemistry to astrophysics — there's a lot about the universe that can't be explained but but physicists put a lot of faith in theory until their definitevly proven wrong.

People're seduced in the «right or wrong» and «black or white» theory confined in our prison of logic..

Darwin was hopeful that future fossils would prove his theory correct, but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong.

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.

Lincoln, he believes, renewed the theory of statecraft by insisting that «ultimate moral questions did not admit of relativistic interpretations,» while knowing at the same time that the attempt to right moral wrongs may have tragic consequences and almost certainly will not achieve unqualified success.

The theory of evolution is simply wrong.

It is true that many scientific theories have proven to be wrong but many have also been proven to be fact including many that religion had deemed as blasphemy such as the world is round and the sun is the center of our solar system.

Yeah but they want to teach the controversy... you know, how the earth might be only 10,000 years old (no it isn't) and that humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth together (no they didn't) and that evolution has no evidence (yes it does) or that there was a global flood (no there wasn't) or that the earth might be flat or the center of the universe or a million other wrong headed theories that fly in the face of the evidence.

The relativity that Newton here rejected is not the relativity that Einstein propounded; and although the Special Theory of Relativity has shown Newton to be wrong in some respects, and in particular has shown that we should not think of time by itself in complete independence of everything external, time is related to space, and also to velocity, contrary to Newton's opinion, it has not shown that time is relative in Newton's sense, and merely some numerical measure of process.

Newton's laws weren't wrong, they worked over a limited range, the theory of relativity has a wider range.

Trying to insert god into scientific theories is only setting yourself up for science to prove you wrong in time, so how about you try and look at things with a fresh perspective and consider the possibility that god (or at least the version of god you have in mind) has a very low probability of existing.

You do understand that EVERY scientific theory and equation has been modified and will continue to be modified, e.g. Newton's laws of motion were wrong — they worked ok at low speeds, but were nontheless wrong: they have since been modified.

The brand of creationism that believes in the 6,000 year theory is not to be respected because it is plain wrong.

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.

History is full of theories that we think are ridiculous today (like: the earth is the center of the universe etc.) that at one time millions of people believed and even fought for, and they were dead wrong.

It took someone else to show him that he was wrong... He even accounted for a constant - sized universe in his theory of relativity...

What is wrong, from a Buddhist or Christian point of view, with the theory of neo-liberal economics?

In his book Beegle attacked «inerrantists» for being overly rationalistic, obscurantist in fixing upon the «autographs» of Scripture, naive linguistically in thinking language can be precise, misguided in their use of proof - texting, Docetic in their denial of Scripture's humanness, and wrong in their commitment to a domino theory regarding inspiration.

There is no attempt to account for the fact that, if the theory that John the Apostle is not the author of the Gospel were true, then much of the iconography of the Crucifixion (with John comforting Mary) is wrong.

He based his theory of motion on false premises, and so the results are absurdly wrong.

Stephen Meredith's «Looking for God in All the Wrong Places» in the February 2014 issue of First Things accuses Intelligent Design theory (ID) of being a variant of occasionalism, which he defines as the denial «that efficient causality occurs outside God.»

drkstrong on March 15, 2011 @MsSpeakersCorner No body say it was impossible to use the sciiftenic method there just cant ever be proof of a theory because there is always the possibility of a new observation that will show it to be wrong.

So simple versions of secularization theory seem just plain wrong.

... That being said, here are my «top books» of profound interest: Letter to the Romans, by apostle Paul Proverbs, by Solomon Now That I Believe, by Robert Cook Reality Theory & Control Therapy, by William Glasser Handbook of Personal Evangelism, by Stanford & Seymour Exposition of Hebrews, by Arnold Fruchtenbaum The Gift of GOD, by Richard Seymour Sin, the Savior, & Salvation: The Theology of Everlasting Life, by Robert Lightner Systematic Theology, by Norman Geisler Systematic Theology, by L.S. Chafer Getting The Gospel Right: A Balanced View of Salvation Truth, by Gordon Olson Getting the Gospel Wrong, by J.B. Hixon His Needs Her Needs, by Willard Harley *** grin ***

Anyway, I really struggle with these books on non-resistance to violence, not because I think they are wrong in theory, or because I think that Jesus didn't show a «third way,» but because I have at various times in life looked evil straight in the eyes, and can not think of how to overcome evil with non-violence.

In particular, he continued his claim that the ideas of congruence and measurement as understood in the orthodox theories of relativity were not only wrong, but meaningless.

Rodney Stark's rational choice theory of religion has energized the social scientific study of religion by being big and wrong.

Scientists do not have clear, provable theories to describe the evolution of all species in existence, and everything about the earth (if you think I'm wrong on this point, you either live in a box or you're delusional), but we do not throw out evolutionary theory merely because it is incomplete.

If you have an issue with evolutionary theory, then do your work on why it's wrong and submit it for publication and collect your many prizes (Nobel and otherwise) and rejoice at the reprinting of every single science book in the world with your theory in it.

=============== @momoya» If you have an issue with evolutionary theory, then do your work on why it's wrong and submit it for publication and collect your many prizes (Nobel and otherwise) and rejoice at the reprinting of every single science book in the world with your theory in it.»

The church eventually accepted that what they thought the Bible taught was wrong, and that the discoveries of Galileo were right, and many within the church accepted the Dual Revelation Theory.

Why rehash theories of psychology promulgated by the early thinkers, many of which are just plain wrong?

The main point of this essay is that this theory — though it could well be wrong — is intelligible.

Another question: why is it that, more than a century and a half since Darwin's theory (and it's still taught world - wide as an unproven theory) has the evidence increasingly pointed away from him, not in support of him», is utterly and quite refutably wrong by an abundance of verifiable scientific evidence.

The authors felt themselves to be greatly daring in setting at the head of their analysis of the troubles a «false theory», that the Pope owns every benefice in the Church and may sell them without doing wrong.

It is still a theory I widely accepted theory and probably true but still it has not been proven and may yet be proven wrong and another theory replace similar to your eample of Newton versus Einstein.

Newton's theory was partly wrong because his equations failed to explain the elliptical orbit of planets.

Good scientists are always open to new evidence that completely obliterates their most - prized theories, and in the face of that evidence they do not simply say, «well, the theory is obviously true, I just need to recalculate,» they instead look at the theory itself and assume there must be something fundamentally wrong with the theory.