Sentences with phrase «as a scientist if»

He has to go beyond his function as a scientist if he is to adjust his patient to a world of spiritual reality.

They are every bit as ignored as the scientists if not moreso.

Individuals were counted as scientists if they had doctorates in hard sciences, such as climatology, physics, engineering and ecology.

«[A] lthough you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work... The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.

It's impossible to be taken seriously as a scientist if you are unwilling to consider all variables.

And as a scientist if your hypothesis is that «their result isn't correct because they screwed up their data / used the wrong method for their data» how do you progress?

We classified guests as scientists if they held a PhD in a physical science or engineering discipline, but had not published research related to climate change.

And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work.

Not exact matches

In the human version, scientists use an RNA guide to direct an enzyme, Cas - 9, to a specific point in any organism's DNA — where, like an eagle - eyed copy editor, the enzyme snips out an errant letter or sequence as if it were expunging a typo.

«If we discovered nuclear power today, we would be working like mad to make it as safe and cheap as possible,» Stanford University climate scientist Ken Caldeira tweeted last summer.

If the program can connect scientists to investors willing to put down the capital to help ideas grow through the long — and often massively expensive — development and testing phase, it could leave Ontario as a Boston - like hub for medical commerce.

The research team of international scientists wanted to figure out if the Milky Way matches the spiral shape observed in other galaxies, as part of a larger study that aims to sharpen our image of our galaxy.

«Your presentation was incredible — a great combination of information and humor — and I truly feel as if I have a better understanding of who Warren Buffett is as a person, a businessman, a scientist, a genius, and a humanitarian.

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 preScientist 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 prescientist / humanists in the world promote it and they are all pretty smart

I think my question to those of you who couple atheism with evolution and climate change is: how can we as scientists even start trying to inform you about the details of what you are arguing against if you automatically presume everything we say is a blasphemous lie?

I think my question to those of you who couple evil atheism with evolution, the big bang, and climate change is: how can we as scientists even start trying to inform you about the details of what you are arguing against if you automatically presume everything we say is a blasphemous lie?

And the same can be true of the Edomites spoken of in the Bible — that many scientists scoffed at the idea as if they were a made up people, that is, until the discovery of the city of Petra.

As if God were something produced by scientists conducting a study of the physical world?

if you can prove the sun rotates around the earth as opposed to the earth around the sun, scientists will change every textbook to reflect that new (and proven) information.

It found that very successful scientists are about 5 times as likely to have no current religious affiliation (it's arguable if that equates more to atheism or agnosticism) than the general population.

---- Example: Many scientist have stated as fact, global warming is man made, and if not corrected within a few short years man will become extinct.

Now, if we are not going to outlaw abortion, and the doctors / scientists want to take the aborted fetus and do stem cell research on it, well the damage is done and we might as well get all that we can out of it.

You wise Scientist — Can you please scientifically explain to me where did the stuff came from that caused the «BIG BANG» — if you can not do that your so called science are based on a belief and not on facts as you so eagerly would like to promote — so — then your view is also based on faith and not science, because science should be able to observed and tested, but faith must be taken and believed.

As one of my friends put it in an e-mail recently, «If God says that the moon is made of green cheese, then the moon is made of green cheese despite what the scientists and my own senses might say.

I mean, isn't a scientist «playing god» as it were by creating life out of nothing and if this «abomination» is made in the lab and not in a womb, does it count as even human?

I also found it ironic that somebody who claims to be a scientist would quote Fred Hoyle as if he were an authority on the theory.

As a Christian Scientist said recently in response to a medical student's question as to how she would help starving children in Africa: «I suspect if I were there I would do what you would do — cradle as many as I could and feed them with all the food I could lay my hands oAs a Christian Scientist said recently in response to a medical student's question as to how she would help starving children in Africa: «I suspect if I were there I would do what you would do — cradle as many as I could and feed them with all the food I could lay my hands oas to how she would help starving children in Africa: «I suspect if I were there I would do what you would do — cradle as many as I could and feed them with all the food I could lay my hands oas many as I could and feed them with all the food I could lay my hands oas I could and feed them with all the food I could lay my hands on.

Not what u see on CNN, not what your mum said nor your pastor or priest said and not what u see some Muslims neighbors of yours do... noooo nay,,, what have u searched your self... i dare u do... find the true, i swear nothing makes any sense as Islam does, those guys know the whole truth... even if it will hurt, just like Santa - clause when u 12 year or the rats that gives money to the de toothing kid in our Ugandan myth, u deserve to know the truth... and if no scientist has come out and disproved the divine origin of this universe logically then there must be a mighty some one behind it and that Creator or whatever it is, HE has a way, a straight path to Him and we are obliged to know it... so my adverse to u is look hard for the true coz it is clear from false, even if u may hate it!!

If we are in the midst of the sixth great extinction, as scientists tell us we are, our response has in no way been commensurate with the danger.

Collins puts it well: «When you look from the perspective of a scientist at the universe, it looks as if it knew we were coming.

The difficulty was, that to say so, even for a scientist with the factsat his fingertips, was to go against a powerful and intolerant conventional wisdom: «We liberals», he wrote, «who work in the fields of global HIV / AIDS and family planning take terrible professional risks if we side with the pope on a divisive topic such as this.

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.

Modern empiricism, on the other hand, which locates the possibilities of science in the brain (as if the brain and its patterns of order were not also in part a construction of the scientist's mind), precisely reverses this: the outside world known by the senses is alone the seat of what is — if anything is — universal, objective, real and certain.

I think most of the Americans are in lost... as most of them do not know who their father is and it is very unfortunate... even if they know who their father is, the mom has children from diff men outside of marriage... and while a child is being raised, watching what his / her parents do to enjoy their life... so things become normal when they grow up... like if you go back early nineteen century, women were not allowed to go to beach without being covered... and now it totally opposite... if you do not have a boyfriend or girlfriend before 15, the parents worries that their teenage has some problem... and lot more can be listed... And then you go to Church, what our children learn from there... they see in front of the Church an old man's statue with long beard standing with extending of both hand... some of the status are blank, white, Spanish and so on... so they are being taught God as an old dude... then you learn from Catholic that you pray to Jesus, Mother Marry, Saints, Death spirit and all these... the poll shows a huge number of young American turns to Atheism or believing there is no God and so on... Its hard to assume where these nations are going with the name of modernization... nothing wrong having scientists discovered the cure of aids or the pics from mars but... we should all think and learn from our previous generations and correct ourselves... also ppl are becoming so much slave of material things...

Scientists of many Science Relatives dare not say we are as holograms for if we were why then do we bleed and feel pain?

In such a case, if it exists, the scientist would, of course, be compelled to withdraw his assent to the legitimate teaching authority of the Church, if it were supposed that he really considered the certainty of the scientific «result» as definitively truer and surer than the grounds which he had previously believed he possessed in justification for the claim of the Church to teach.

A responsible scientist will not regard the theory as absolutely certain in every respect and as strictly demonstrated, even if he ascribes a certain pragmatic certainty to it such as is appropriate in the scientific domain.

If you were a scientist hoping to isolate the fan gene, Alabama would make the perfect laboratory... A recent poll by the Mobile Register found that 90 percent of the state's citizens describe themselves as college football fans.

Nevertheless, as we have seen, there is a small but growing number of scientists, both in physics and biology, who operate with a relational model, who see some correspondence between the constructs of the mind and reality itself, however inexact, and who also see the possibility of restoring the experience of meaning if the non-human natural world is perceived as dynamic, creative, full of life and purpose, whom process thinkers have engaged in conversation; together they have attempted to explore new visions of reality better suited for adaptation to the urgent needs of the contemporary world.

And so, if the scientists are right and the human journey is from Big Bang to Big Crunch (or whatever, for God may very well have his own ideas) we will not, as natural materialists say, have travelled from one void to another but from beginning of life to fullness of life: to borrow from T.S. Eliot,

As a behavioral scientist (biologist), I know that there are some that argue that true altruism rarily» if ever, is truly exhibited... there will always be some sort of compensation or benefit from a so called selfless act.

If it could be proven, 99 % of scientists on the planet would be Christian, as their's is the search for truth.

And if there were, whoever chose to could easily dismiss the research as being funded by gays, or conducted by homosexual scientists, or whatever.

Even if all scientists declared evolution to be entirely errant, creationism could be taught as a science only in terms of what it denies, namely, that there is sufficient evidence for evolution.

In addition, scientists such as Melvin Konner are appealing to «the sense of wonder,» involving a sense of the sublime, if not of the divine, to supplement, if not correct, scientific explanations.

Equally dangerous to science, however, if not more so, are those naturalistic scientists who play essentially the same game as the creationists, i.e., seek to lend credibility to their particular worldview by attempting to clothe it in scientific garb.

If our theology is to be taken seriously by scientists and other intellectuals, it is imperative that we frame our theories of revelation in terms that reflect our living in the universe as it is described and understood by the best of contemporary science.

Perhaps laymen presume that scientists have the arrogance to think they know all the answers, as if they were priests of some foreign and sinister religion.

I always find it interesting when people list scientists who happen to be religious, as if that somehow validates their religious belief.

If there was any real evidence for anything divine, you can bet those very same scientists would be testing, refining, and honing that evidence for their own benefit as well as for the benefit of others.