Sentences with phrase «as much scientific evidence»

Not exact matches

You ignore actual scientific evidence, -------------------- Actually, SeaVik, the SCIENTIFIC evidence is that the Biblical Manuscript P72 that shows Peter's description of the divinity of Jesus flat out proves that it was not an invention of Constantine, since it was written as much as 150 years befscientific evidence, -------------------- Actually, SeaVik, the SCIENTIFIC evidence is that the Biblical Manuscript P72 that shows Peter's description of the divinity of Jesus flat out proves that it was not an invention of Constantine, since it was written as much as 150 years befSCIENTIFIC evidence is that the Biblical Manuscript P72 that shows Peter's description of the divinity of Jesus flat out proves that it was not an invention of Constantine, since it was written as much as 150 years before Nicea.

«Actually, SeaVik, the SCIENTIFIC evidence is that the Biblical Manuscript P72 that shows Peter's description of the divinity of Jesus flat out proves that it was not an invention of Constantine, since it was written as much as 150 years before Nicea.

As a medical professional, one would think you'd understand that biological evolution, much like general relativity, quantum mechanics, the germ theory of disease, cell theory, plate tectonic theory, etc is a scientific theory and should be taught in science class based on the preponderance of evidence that backs it.

But, to deny a scientific fact which has been supported by just as much evidence and data as gravity or the germ theory is plain ignorance.

There is much scientific evidence supporting that homosexuality as inherent and not choice.

So, in short, this «evidence» that proves Christianity isn't so much scientific evidence as it is idealistic / philosophical / rhetorical resonance that may or may not occur when an individual encounters the Christian idea of Jesus and the death / resurrection story.

Holt argued that respect for the principles of scientific inquiry, as much as for the evidence it produces, should infuse our political discourse.

They all promote a Whole Plant Food Based diet of one version or another — based on the body of scientific evidence (which you don't find so much with people who promote diets such as the paleo diet)..

Few foods, and certainly not dessert foods, have as much therapeutic potential as this «candy» aisle treat, as evidenced by a wide range of accumulating scientific research linking its consumption to over 40 distinct health benefits.

Despite attracting high - powered backers such as Bill Gates, the much - touted school improvement program known as First Things First has yet to muster conclusive scientific evidence to show that it prevents students from dropping out of school, a federal research review concludes.

To give you a taste of what is coming in Part 2, the arguments can be summarized as: 1) Education does not lend itself to a single «best» approach, so the Gates effort to use science to discover best practices is unable to yield much productive fruit; 2) As a result, the Gates folks have mostly been falsely invoking science to advance practices and policies they prefer for which they have no scientific support; 3) Attempting to impose particular practices on the nation's education system is generating more political resistance than even the Gates Foundation can overcome, despite their focus on political influence and their devotion of significant resources to that effort; 4) The scale of the political effort required by the Gates strategy of imposing «best» practices is forcing Gates to expand its staffing to levels where it is being paralyzed by its own administrative bloat; and 5) The false invocation of science as a political tool to advance policies and practices not actually supported by scientific evidence is producing intellectual corruption among the staff and researchers associated with Gates, which will undermine their long - term credibility and influencas: 1) Education does not lend itself to a single «best» approach, so the Gates effort to use science to discover best practices is unable to yield much productive fruit; 2) As a result, the Gates folks have mostly been falsely invoking science to advance practices and policies they prefer for which they have no scientific support; 3) Attempting to impose particular practices on the nation's education system is generating more political resistance than even the Gates Foundation can overcome, despite their focus on political influence and their devotion of significant resources to that effort; 4) The scale of the political effort required by the Gates strategy of imposing «best» practices is forcing Gates to expand its staffing to levels where it is being paralyzed by its own administrative bloat; and 5) The false invocation of science as a political tool to advance policies and practices not actually supported by scientific evidence is producing intellectual corruption among the staff and researchers associated with Gates, which will undermine their long - term credibility and influencAs a result, the Gates folks have mostly been falsely invoking science to advance practices and policies they prefer for which they have no scientific support; 3) Attempting to impose particular practices on the nation's education system is generating more political resistance than even the Gates Foundation can overcome, despite their focus on political influence and their devotion of significant resources to that effort; 4) The scale of the political effort required by the Gates strategy of imposing «best» practices is forcing Gates to expand its staffing to levels where it is being paralyzed by its own administrative bloat; and 5) The false invocation of science as a political tool to advance policies and practices not actually supported by scientific evidence is producing intellectual corruption among the staff and researchers associated with Gates, which will undermine their long - term credibility and influencas a political tool to advance policies and practices not actually supported by scientific evidence is producing intellectual corruption among the staff and researchers associated with Gates, which will undermine their long - term credibility and influence.

This research is considered to be a critical step in providing much needed scientific evidence as a basis for fostering more serious attention to human - animal bond dynamics and related issues and policy concerns.

In my studies on science communication, I've learnt a lot about how the human brain works — we base our beliefs as much on our values as on scientific evidence.

In as much as the bulk of the evidence relates to the output of GCMs, in a strictly scientific sense this H0: AGW hasn't been rejected on the evidence presented in the IPCC reports.

Michael Mann (see linked article) writes, «Much as lions on the Serengeti seek out vulnerable zebras at the edge of a herd, special interests faced with adverse scientific evidence often... attack those researchers whose findings are inconvenient, rather than debate the findings themselves.»

• There is much scientific and historical evidence that the reported recent warming in the Arctic is not unprecedented, for instance the 1920/30's are recorded to have been relatively warm as in this 2006 paper, and this newer paper is interesting if challenging, but there are still other similar papers and much widespread history of the Medieval Warm Period.

Sadly, if this article had been written with some (or maybe even any) supporting evidence for these highly entertaining but somewhat wild conclusions, it would probably make as much impact within the scientific world as the IPCC's latest report is making now.

This phenomenon is partly attributable to the fact that economic interests opposed to US climate change policies have skillfully and successfully framed the US climate change debate as a matter about which there is insufficient scientific evidence or too much adverse impact on the US economy to warrant action.

There are two prominent and undeniable examples of the models» insufficiencies: 1) climate models overwhelmingly expected much more warming to have taken place over the past several decades than actually occurred; and 2) the sensitivity of the earth's average temperature to increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (such as carbon dioxide) averages some 60 percent greater in the IPCC's climate models than it does in reality (according to a large and growing collection of evidence published in the scientific literature).

The whole point of the scientific process is to move beyond, as much as is humanly possible, the political and cultural biases that every human being has, and to instead encourage rational, objective analysis of the evidence at hand.

That paper, which I posted yesterday, presents data showing that «conservative Republicans» know just as much as «liberal Democrats» about climate science (a very modest amount) and more importantly are just as likely to be motivated to see scientific evidence of climate change as supporting the conclusion that we face huge risks.

«Arctic Oil & Gas cites recent scientific evidence that huge, floating mats of azolla - a prehistoric fern believed to have covered much of the Arctic Ocean during a planetary hothouse era about 55 million years ago - decomposed soon after the age of the dinosaurs and exist today as «vast hydrocarbon resources» trapped in layers of rock below the polar ice cap.»

Teaching good science and scientific process to children is imperative (even if they don't then go into science) as the skills are invaluable in everyday life (evidenced by the fact that anyone with a mathematical, scientific or engineering degree can pretty much work in any field they want).