Sentences with phrase «because science points»
Because science points to a greater intelligence at play in the universe.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/ Not exact matches
Many people do not marry in a church, even more (billions) do not celebrate the birth of Jesus, probably even more do not cry out to any gods, or may to other gods other than (yours), and many people consider life elsewhere in the universe because science and reason points to that possibility.
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.
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.
«matt — just because we can use science and reason to explain natural events doesn't mean there isn't a god, case in point, rainbows, a sign given by god to Noah can be explained by science but is still a promise made by god» But thats not proof of anything.
just because we can use science and reason to explain natural events doesn't mean there isn't a god, case in point, rainbows, a sign given by god to Noah can be explained by science but is still a promise made by god
They are so error - prone, even from a technocratic point of view, at least in part because they are actually engaged in a non-technocratic enterprise that is pervasively ideological, in the same way that Soviet science was ideological.
don't think so... anyway I was trying to make a point... just because you decide to rely on science doesn't mean you know everything... just because I choose to rely on God..
The other point, is that Graham, Cathy, and the other religious nutters want to legalize and legislate discrimination against a group of US citizens simply because the purposefully choose to be ignorant about the science of sèxual orientation.
In this day and age really... just want to put a point to you just because science has not proven everything that does not mean God has..
My point is that creationism does not belong to the science classroom, because it is NOT science and us not based on scientific evidences.
And it is important to make this distinction, because atheists are very quick to point out «religious atrocities», while ignoring the far more numerable science - based and atheist / godless - based atrocities, which are far greater in scope and terror.
Jeffrey Burton Russell points out that among historians of science «there's a strong debate going on between those who understand that the development of science is basically a Western European phenomenon, and that this is because of its Christian or Judeo - Christian roots, and those who maintain that religion blocked the progress of science until the 18th and 19th centuries, and that [science has] to struggle against religion.
The Relevance of Cosmic Unity In the lead letter of the same issue of Philosophy Now the prominent anti-reductionist philosopher of ethics and of science Mary Midgely makes a point often made by Edward Holloway (though he might not have used the word «choice»), namely that «simple logic surely shows that natural selection can not be the universal explanation because «selection» only makes sense a clearly specified range of choices — an idea to which far too little attention has been given.»
The foundation will exist as an entity in its own right within Church law, and Fr Trafny explains: «This is an important step, because we are moving from being a simple project to merge learning between the pontifical universities in Rome to being a new entity recognised by the Holy Father as a reference point for all dialogue involving science and faith.»
Because efforts have been made to obscure the point, it should be emphasized that Simpson's view is not some personal opinion extraneous to the real «science» of Darwinism.
Donald Johanson put the point effectively, if crudely: «You can't accept one part of science because it brings you good things like electricity and penicillin and throw away another part because it brings you some things you don't like about the origin of life.»
Based on the comments I received from my blog posts on the science and religion debate, I want to point Evangel readers in the direction of some resources that would inform the conversation because ---- with the exception of a few interlocutors ---- pervasive ignorance and fear seem to....
We say that the whole of science points to God, not because of what we can't explain but because of what we can.
It's ironic because you said that creationist have no evidence to support their claims but you mentioned organizations that find such evidence And again their point is that history and science will not contradict the Bible
«The standard was lowered not by any real point of science but because the standard was lowered because the ability to judge moral issues was given up by the APA»
The standard was lowered not by any real point of science but because the standard was lowered because the ability to judge moral issues was given up by the APA.The Bible standard was also given up, so now you essentially have no standard just a set of laws telling people you can or cant do.
In any case, from this point of view, psychology is not to be excluded from the «sciences» because it can not provide predictive laws like those of physics, chemistry, and cell biology.
Now I think that in making this distinction Whitehead makes a good and original initial point; because it is the fact that philosophers, by instinct, always think heterogeneously about nature, whereas scientists, equally by instinct, don't, which, more than any one thing, makes the philosophy of science so unreal a subject for actual research scientists.
Laughing — yet again you fail, you sit here and you tell me in one breath that i'm wrong in dealing with absolutes, Yet My whole point in the previous post was to point out that I can't blame science for killing Billions of people because they created the bombs and guns to do so... Just like you can't blame Christianity for people using violence against others, it's the people not the ideology that caused the violence, and i believe that... for whatever reason you apparently missed that and tried to make me sound like i honestly blame science for killing billions... so... maybe you need some reading and comprehension classes... i du n no, just would appreciate if you're going to argue with me, that you actually read my responses.
Based on the comments I received from my blog posts on the science and religion debate, I want to point Evangel readers in the direction of some resources that would inform the conversation because ---- with the exception of a few interlocutors ---- pervasive ignorance and fear seem to prevail instead of knowledge and faith.
I no longer believe because I am done listening to people claim to have answers they don't have, it is dishonest, irresponsible, immoral and can be dangerous I am glad you trust science, to a point, but when science is not able to provide an answer you insert god and like I said, that is lazy.
There's little question that many walk - ons are walk - ons simply because the evaluation system broke down, pointing to what UCLA coach Terry Donahue, a former Bruin walk - on defensive tackle, calls «the imperfect science of recruiting.»
One article on the subject pointed out that because parenting is a relatively new science, the advice given in parenting books is all considered subject to change upon further investigation.
As Gerald Benjamin, Distinguished Professor of Political Science at SUNY New Paltz, points out in aJournal News op - ed; Forty - nine out of 63 New York State Senators received most of their campaign contributions from corporations or big money donors.Millions are wasted and misdirected each year because of sweetheart deals for the special interests.
«His dad made a major point of being unable to run because he had to handle things in Albany,» said Gerald Benjamin, a longtime professor of political science at SUNY New Paltz.
But others point out that science could benefit if Native American tribes use ancient DNA to secure the return of more remains, because this may deliver long - sought data on the peopling of the region.
Bowman said the spacecraft is currently taking science data as well as optical navigation data, which is «very important because it is a measure of how well we are doing on that trajectory to hit that specific point at the specific time that the science team wants us to hit.
«You could imagine, just because of the different ancestral starting points, that the Tibetan birds maybe all went one (mutational) route, and the Andean birds typically did things a different way,» said co-author Jay Storz, Susan J. Rosowski Professor of biological sciences at Nebraska.
And because the melting point of the slurry is much lower than that of the objects, it melted away once the temperature was raised to 37 °C (99 °F), they report today in Science Advances.
«It's remarkable to think that that long ago the science was already pointing in a direction that we had to pay attention to atmospheric changes because they'd be so powerful that they would affect the climate,» said Carnegie Science President Matthew Scott in a video address to the symscience was already pointing in a direction that we had to pay attention to atmospheric changes because they'd be so powerful that they would affect the climate,» said Carnegie Science President Matthew Scott in a video address to the symScience President Matthew Scott in a video address to the symposium.
For science students, furthermore, the quality of any research they have done is increasingly important because «faculty increasingly expect that at the point of admission the student will already have had some research experience,» Posselt notes.
Part of my job in writing this column is to point out things that are obvious once you think about them, but that, because you're busy doing science, you probably don't have time to notice or think of on your own.
The spacecraft wasn't holding fine point on its science target [staying precisely pointed at the target] because that wheel had stopped spinning.
«Geology is the most important science of the 21st century because there is only one earth, and it's becoming clear that we could damage it beyond the point where it could support us,» he says.
He also maintains that Western science is more than simply Western, because it is universal, but this is precisely the claim which conservatives have made a point of rejecting: they do not see a tradition so obviously tied to the history of the West as a system of objective, neutral or universal truth.
The key point, he says, is that bright Americans «are turning away from science as a career because it offers a life of tremendously hard work, delaying all sorts of personal milestones — starting a family, buying a home --» while providing «almost no future job security.»
DiChristina: I was just going to say, that's one thing also what occurred to me is that to me is a lesson in microcosm — because it's just a paragraph what Steve just read to everybody — that shows why it's so important in science to remove all your confounds, you know, remove all the variables so that you can find really what is at the heart of thing, and to me that that's the lesson that science has much more thoroughly adopted probably at this point and can speak with, you know, much greater authority; when something actually is a finding you need to be able to remove all the potential things that could be interfering with the conclusion that you're trying to make.
Over the past 5 years science funding has been kept at the same cash level, so is worth 6 % less today than in 2010 because of inflation, pointed out Nicola Blackwood, chair of the Science and Technology Committee in the House of Cscience funding has been kept at the same cash level, so is worth 6 % less today than in 2010 because of inflation, pointed out Nicola Blackwood, chair of the Science and Technology Committee in the House of CScience and Technology Committee in the House of Commons.
We took a point off because there's no explanation of how HAL works, but again, since we don't know how to build an advanced AI, no explanation might be better than some vague science jargon.
The reason we don't hear candidates talk about science is because they don't get any political points for it.
But many projects come under public and federal scrutiny — the recent fracas over gene therapy trials is a case in point (Science, 24 March, p. 2163), often because the manner in which they were conducted led to concerns over the safety of the recruited participants or the protection of their confidentiality.
That scale makes it a somewhat controversial point in science, because it seems like an impossible feat to map an entire human brain at the cellular level.
My point is that women's studies consists of humans and therefore the danger is this bias reflects over to climate science because scientists are human.
I'm not debating that there are studies supporting what is reported, I'm merely pointing out that those studies are not the final word simply because there are other studies which contradict or draw other conclusions and more importantly, people who are living contradictions to the «science».