Sentences with phrase «as science points»

As science points to the troubling health consequences of climate change, the American Medical Association and various public health organizations are bracing themselves.

Not exact matches

As the British Psychological Science Research Digest blog points out, this isn't the first study to link tea drinking with improved mental performance, but it is the first to suggest that a cup of Earl Grey or chamomile might enhance creativity specifically.

Even science - and you know it better than I do - points to an understanding of reality as a place where every element connects and interacts with everything else,» the pope said.

But with broad and efficiently concentrated giving, you reach (if you'll forgive another social science buzzphrase) a tipping point at which your reputation as a giver and your accumulation of grateful pals grows to the point that positive effects ensue.

Plus, as UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center recently pointed out, a growing number of studies also show that in specific situations, too much good cheer is actually counterproductive (beyond the obvious like going through the grieving process).

Activist hedge fund Third Point, which owns about 6 % of Yahoo's stock, pointed out that Thompson did not have a computer science degree, as many had thought, but a mere accounting degree.

Baybars also read up on business, technology, and science current events, as the interviewer makes a point to ask about the news, she said.

Also be sure to check out this awesome infographic on the Beginner's Guide to Wet Shaving that provides more points on the advantages of wet shaving as well as the infographic on the Science of Wet Shaving.

In a CNBC interview last Thursday, Pruitt rejected established science pointing to carbon dioxide as the main driver of recent global warming.

According to Science Daily, Dr. Nagy, senior investigator at the Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute of Mount Sinai Hospital, there is a «new method of generating stem cells that does not require embryos as starting points and could be used to generate cells from many adult tissues such as a patient's own skin cells.»

Next you'll be pointing to Science as an explanation for the creation of the Universe; which all intelligent educated people realize is a logical fallacy.

People like to point out science as the one thing that without a doubt disproves God.

I would like to point out to those here who think it is not possible for Jesuits (or anyone) to hold science and faith simultaneously, and who invoke «evidence» as the only arbiter of what is real, that human knowledge is always evolving.

As has been pointed out to you countless times, science has shown that the biblical myths of creation and life are not true — they are simply stories invented to satisfy an ignorant populace.

I could sit here and point out how stupid you are for believing in science, a group of people that once believed the Earth was flat as early as a few hundred years ago, or believed that bleeding someone out was the best way to cure the flu... or as early as the 40's and 50's that it was okay for people to drink water with high levels of radiation because it would give you energy and cure what ails ya.

My point is Science is moving towards greater understanding as is our understanding of God.

The point is you speak of things as FACT and then something changes by 14 BILLION YEARS in a distance of 347 miles from the Earth observation to Orbit, and you just say OH well that's science for ya.

Because of his philosophical starting point (science goes from simple to complex), Dawkins does not regard the existence of the staircase as something whose existence needs to be proved, but rather as a logical necessity that only needs to be illustrated.

As I've pointed out, there have been instances in the past where people explained phenomena with spiritual answers, only to have those explanation later debunked by science.

Science will solve that too and push the fundies back to some point before that as their proof.

Science doesn't disprove God, in fact it points to God as the Mind behind the cosmos.

The translator's introduction points out that Fount of Knowledge is one of the most «important single works produced in the Greek patristic period,... offering as it does an extensive and lucid synthesis of the Greek theological science of the whole period.

People in the science community that taint data are eventually found out and pointed out as frauds, or intellectually dishonest, or just wrong.

Rather it attempts only to point out the logical and cosmological congruity of these unobtrusive formative factors with nature as understood by science.

I like to look to the sciences as well, and see, especially what «quantum physics» has to say about these things, and QT seems to support, at this point, the views we are «currently» espousing.

He no longer seeks the mystery, the divine, but is convinced that science will at one point decipher everything... The other side is that precisely science itself is now regaining an insight as to its limits, that many scientists today are saying: «Doesn't everything have to come from somewhere?»

Buttressed by such a phalanx of support Leo XIII ended his encyclical with a ringing exhortation, «We exhort you, Venerable Brethren, in all earnestness to restore the golden wisdom of St. Thomas, and to spread it far and wide for the defence and beauty of the Catholic faith, for the good of society, and for the advantage of all the sciences» [6] It was an exhortation that was welcomed and followed by many in the Church so that it has been written «We are accustomed to consider Saint Thomas, Thomism, and Aristotelianism as the predominant points of orientation and the most favourable to the Church.»

As Whitehead accurately points out, much of the conflict between science and religion stems from the reluctance, especially on the part of religion, to embrace adventure.

To speak specifically on this point, the fact that form and relationship have been restored to the current image of man, both in the new metaphysics and in the sciences of man, enables us to be more understanding in our anthropology of what is being conveyed in such historically biblical notions as the Covenant and the Imago Dei.

science is not everything, the problem is when the critical and objective philosophy of science is accepted as absolute in reality.God is beyond logic at this point of our consciousness, The process of gods will manfistation is evolution which accepts all variables in the process, the input could be not what scienctists wants.Thats why faith or religion is part of reality.

As neil degrasse tyson pointed out, each of our great mathematicians and scientists throughout the centuries reached their limit and declared God did it... only to have the next guy push though that barrier, reach their own limit... and claim the same... This lady has the benefit of history and science at her finger tips, and judging by her credentials is no stranger to the scientific process, and still fell into the same trap...

As I have outlined, I believe science points towards a super intelligence of some fashion rather than away from it.

19) of the Posterior Analytics, where Aristotle describes how the mind ascends to the first principles on which all science is grounded, he points out that the immediate point of departure of the inductive movement is not mere sense perception, but «experience»: «So from perception there comes memory, as we call it, and from memory (when it occurs often in connection with the same thing), experience; for memories that are many in number form a single experience.

The little dialogue raises some points worth considering, not about the science, though Taylor can't resist the usual demeaning smear of dissenting scientists as «the small vociferous minority.»

But I pointed out that there was new evidence — from biblical studies and from various empirical studies in the human sciences, especially psychology and sociology — that completely undermined the traditional understanding of homosexuality as a chosen and changeable state.

Many scientists are certainly skeptical of many of the finer points of evolution, but as a whole, the evolutionary process is accepted as fact amongst any and all biologists that put science ahead of religion.

By calling his own brand of naturalism «integral,» Artigas wishes to convey the notion that nature as understood by the natural sciences points beyond itself to a larger reality to which the natural owes its existence, a reality to which the methods of the natural sciences do not of themselves, however, give direct access.

This is why science investigates the natural world as if there were no omnipotent being controlling it - after all, if there were, then literally anything is possible, and then what would be the point of scientific investigation?

At one point, in what appears a clever lawyerlike play, Pagels discredits Augustine's doctrine of the literal fall of Adam and Eve with the observation that it is hopelessly unscientific, and as a historian she feels compelled to add that Augustine's great foe, Pelagius, would also have had no use for science.

No I do not (and it's a fair point), but I do insult idiots who try to «sell» myth as science — it's truly insulting... and damaging to the youth of this country who are taught this absolute distortion of the truth

To another point i can not defend either as being innocent as there are aggresors on both side of the spectrum who cuase the friction between the beliefs of science and religion leaving both at fualt.

The hard sciences of physics and chemistry and biology are twisted into grotesque propaganda machines fueled by corrupted versions of sociology and psychology, where science itself dies alongside genuine inquiry and clarity of thought, as man is assimilated into a faceless colony of manageable data points.

It is this kind of «hate - speech» which led to the burning down of 77 churches in Norway by militant atheists and which at the most extreme end of the atheist movement leads to comments such as this from the Church Arson website «Any intelligent Antichrist methodology at that point will involve a consolidation of strength, public education in the ways of science and logic for our individual members, and actions taken against the remaining believers.

I would point out that «addressing» with misrepresentation of the relevant science is not the same as responding with positive evidence.

Evidence points to theories and they're reputable and so I trust those more than a religious person using the bible as the only source of proof for history, science, philosophy, ect...

No, as I never mentioned «the scientific community» or «science» at all in my fourth point.

I also need to point out here, for those whose view of Christian belief is as reductionist as Creationists» views of science, that Creationists, in fact, make up a vanishingly small portion of Christian beilevers worldwide, most of whom are perfectly comfortable with the science of evolution.

Sentence two is the closest to an actual argument he makes, but it is a fact that science has little to no information on what happens after we die, as you pointed out yourself, we do not know (in the sense of having empirical proof).

As Peter Alexander has pointed out, these conditions do not apply to «science and religion».12 They do not refer to the same entity.

Although scientists behave as if their theories are facts, often arguing ferociously against critics, key paradigms of science can shift rapidly and fundamentally when empirical evidence reaches a tipping point.