Sentences with phrase «explain everything in his science»

Not exact matches

Atheist align with science, which can not YET explain everything in the universe, but a great deal of it.

now as far as science it seeks the most realible and testible idea about everything in the universe to attempt to explain what we are dealing with; it would be a sad world to live in if science simply said «GOD DID IT» GIVE THAT SOME THOUGHT;

the audacity of pride and science to be able to explain everything in the known (and apparently unknown) universe.

There was, indeed, a sense that the natural sciences were completing their task of explaining everything in terms of their model.

Obviously, there are always new things proven by science that explain what people in the past have attributed to things super natural and they seem silly at this point, but that's not the case for everything.

In the meantime, until Science explains where everything came from, it is clueless, and believers can not be expected to prove the existence of God empirically!

I CHOOSE to believe in science and know that science can not explain everything, rather than believe in human mythology.

The task of science was to explain everything in terms of the motions of these atoms.

According to Dennett, these Martian anthropologists would then discover that human behavior in fact displays no such intersubjectivity of its own either: Everything the Martians see in the way humans act can be explained by the standard norms of their science, and since they are missing that extra mental stuff, why assume humans have it either?

Science does not explain everything yet — so a smart man would not make statements in absolutes when the shining principle of his logic requires the measurement of absolutes, facts, and figures that are yet far from complete.

The question was «science can explain» not «science can explain everything» 1) We will never know the position of every bit of matter so knowing everything is not possible — the current theories match observations well enough for the answer to be yes 2) Again knowing everything about every individual step in the creation of life is not possible but current theories match... 3) here do know pretty much everything.

Decoding the Universe: How the New Science of Information Is Explaining Everything in the Cosmos, From Our Brains to Black Holes Charles Seife (Viking)

A recent article in the Daily Telegraph commented: «Gell - Mann's conviction is that it is indeed possible to know it all, that in principle there is nothing to prevent the future day when sovereign science will be able to explain absolutely everything, in a single coherent picture of how the universe works.»

In each post, one of our researchers explains their own science in their own words, providing you with a uniquely personal perspective on everything from exciting new techniques to eureka moments in the laIn each post, one of our researchers explains their own science in their own words, providing you with a uniquely personal perspective on everything from exciting new techniques to eureka moments in the lain their own words, providing you with a uniquely personal perspective on everything from exciting new techniques to eureka moments in the lain the lab.

I believe in science, but I also believe that science does not explain everything we observe.

If religion is right, what is the point of science when everything in the universe can be explained by a higher power creating and controlling all?

If science is right, what is the point of religion when everything in the universe can be explained by equations and formulas?

«Progress in science has come from solving one problem at a time, gaining a limited understanding at each step, rather than attempting to explain everything at once.

For example, a book trailer or book review they made with iMovie, a science experiment they recorded with Explain Everything, a digital story they created with Adobe Voice or Chatter Pix, a social studies project they made in Book Creator, or an essay they wrote in a Google Doc.

«In terms of form, I absorb everything I admire,» explains the artist, «from Japanese woodcut prints, to early Manga comics, and concept artwork for science fiction movies.

Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they haven't even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong.»

Science can eventually explain everything in field two, «One through any number» except for «one», the first caused.

I will take a mathmatical appoach in my second appoach in articulating the dilemma of duality, or why science can not explain it self, Science is fit indeed to discover the laws of an already existing and functioning cosmos, but powerless to explain, via it own methods how it, «everything inclusive» came to be, and logically it must still admit that the mystery exists, and is forever beyond science, or «under the shell» as yscience can not explain it self, Science is fit indeed to discover the laws of an already existing and functioning cosmos, but powerless to explain, via it own methods how it, «everything inclusive» came to be, and logically it must still admit that the mystery exists, and is forever beyond science, or «under the shell» as yScience is fit indeed to discover the laws of an already existing and functioning cosmos, but powerless to explain, via it own methods how it, «everything inclusive» came to be, and logically it must still admit that the mystery exists, and is forever beyond science, or «under the shell» as yscience, or «under the shell» as you say.

In science it is rarely the case that single causes explain something, much less everything.