Sentences with phrase «known from science»

The order of events known from science is just the opposite.

All you are doing is trying to reinterpret verses to match what you know from science, and it doesn't work.

We know from the science of population genetics how many breeding pairs of a species are necessary in order to supply enough genetic diversity for a population to survive.

I know from Science that the time of a day is constantly changing..

It is what we know from science that is changing.

We know from science that matter is never destroyed, just recombined, and always kept in balance.

In fact for this philosopher of process the primary metaphysical question is that of how to hold together the sense of permanence with that of perishing.6 Is the religious vision of something that abides and that saves the world consistent with the fabric of reality as we know it from science and naive experience?

Here is what we know from the science of child development.

«We know from science that cannabis is less dangerous to your health than alcohol.

What we do know from the science however is that a warming world will lead to, and has already led to, far more extreme weather events and other consequences.

We know from the science of early childhood development that the first relationships a child forms with adults are the most enduring influence on social and emotional development for young children.

Not exact matches

The United States has been falling behind on math and science test scores for decades — and waiting for help from the federal government is almost always a bad idea, no matter who is in office.

CES, formerly known as the Consumer Electronics Show, draws more than 180,000 people and 4,000 companies, all of whom are eager to know: Will this be the year [fill - in - the - blank technology] finally makes the leap from science fiction to something people can buy, and might actually want to?

The group, known as Building 8, currently has four simultaneous projects underway, spanning everything from cameras and augmented reality to science fiction - like brain scanning technology, Business Insider has learned.

Cooking is a science and an art, and part of the art comes from knowing how to adapt your techniques to your ingredients.»

I know you didn't pick that title, but how did you go from being a computer science professor to a leading thinker on innovation in Canada?

It's a good lesson to learn from science — where typically we just don't know.

From the National Energy Board and the Ministerial Panel reports, we know science and the environment were mere footnotes in this decision.

We know from various studies done in the social sciences in the past forty years, as well as from fifteen plus years of my being involved with personas, the trio of users / buyers / customers makes decisions based on much more than just content or information.

And it's that upside from the part where human accumulation of science, technology know - how, deployment in creative ways whether it's a technology product, something that somebody uses technology to produce a non-technology product or just somebody with a crazy - assed idea that people end up liking.

Atheists: I know many there are many people that practice religion just by fanaticism, I've seen many people in my opinion stupid (excuse the word) praying to saints hopping to solve their problems by repeating pre-made sentences over and over, but there are others different, I don't think Religion and Science need to be opposites, I believe in God, I'm Catholic and I have many reasons to believe in him, I don't think however that we should pray instead of looking for the cause and applying a solution, Atheists think they are smart because they focus on Science and technology instead of putting their faith in a God, I don't think God will solve our problems, i think he gave us the means to solve them by ourselves that's were God is, also I think that God created everything but not as a Magical thing but stablishing certain rules like Physics and Quimics etc. he's not an idiot and he knew how to make it so everything was on balance, he's the Scientist of Scientist the Mathematic of Mathematics, the Physician of Physicians, from the tiny little fact that a mosquito, an insect species needs to feed from blood from a completely different species, who created the mosquitos that way?

No, but you mean to tell me that we simply popped into existence out of nothing, simply from an involuntary shudder that magically happened in the middle of absolutely nothing and then slowly through the sheer force of will (or accident, or telepathy, science hasn't quiet made its mind up on that one yet) one little green gob of magic stuff morphed into humans.

If you can, please let the science community know, I'm sure they would love to get their hands on a dna sample from the primordial ooze to see what it looked like.

Since I have a Ph.D. in political science (albeit from a Canadian university), some people expect me to know something about voting behavior.

Alicia, do you know how the definition of the word «theory» as it is used in science differs from the way you probably use it in casual conversation?

The Science behind the big bang has some gapping holes yet its put forward all the time to the public as the only other option is..., as well as Macro evolution but well we all know that they say its the only option... Could it be that science doesn't accept a concept of God from the outset so then the big bang and evolution are the only oScience behind the big bang has some gapping holes yet its put forward all the time to the public as the only other option is..., as well as Macro evolution but well we all know that they say its the only option... Could it be that science doesn't accept a concept of God from the outset so then the big bang and evolution are the only oscience doesn't accept a concept of God from the outset so then the big bang and evolution are the only options.

Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith.

The BioLogos position on origins sits partway between two fundamentalisms: on the «left» end of the spectrum is the fundamentalism of people like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett who are committed to the belief that the only reliable form of knowledge comes from science, and that alternate ways of knowing must be either rejected entirely or completely subordinated to science.

it is impossible that the universe came into being from a steady state of absolute nothing according to what we now know of science.

If we know all the answers from science then why can't we figure out how to cure a cold.

In my opinion, being agnostic on many things, I believe we have much more to learn in Dawkins» area of expertise before we can really get to an educated answer to the issue, but that is just a gut feeling, but with serious consideration to what we don't actually know on the issue from these fields of science.

You'll likely find that your «separate realm» is no different from the realm of insanity (but even in that realm, science has a say in the matter).

In fact if they knew anything about science, and Cell Biology, (to say nothing of Physics and Chemistry), it is the FARTHEST thing from that.

He called for «a new Natural philosophy», adding «I hardly know what I am asking for», though «I also suggest that from science herself the cure might come.»

Dispassionate readers, who have studied the Galileo caricature of a war between science and religion will know that, apart from that sorry, somewhat isolated affair, the Catholic Church and the science lab have long been conjoined twins in the advancement of knowledge.

Science now knows that we evolved from chimps, there is a fossil record showing when we began walking upright (Lucy).

When political science students were challenged about being Republicans, they were not thereby disenfranchised from voting; when economics students were challenged on the merits of capitalism, they were not thereby excluded from purchasing notebooks, But when students were told that everything they had learned about their religion before entering this class was wrong, did we know — or care — if their capacity to function religiously in a mature fashion was diminished?

We get to read religious views from people who know nothing of religion and scientific views from people who have no clue about science.

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?»

On the other hand, the man of science has no right to dismiss a religion such as Christianity, for example, as a mere hangover from more primitive days.

It draws from social science studies and a raft of interviews to confirm what we already knew through experience.

In this vast cosmos, such as science knows it, we humans (even as an entire race, from beginning to end) are barely a speck in silent space, unimportant, less enduring than galaxies and stars» less so even than many plants, insects, and viruses» here today like the grass of the field, tomorrow gone.

Science can't at this point and amiit this but YOU seem to know... we'd like to hear your EVIDENCE from your conclusion.

When an autonomous nature and an infinite space dawned in the Renaissance, the world was no longer manifest as the creation, and with the subsequent triumph of modern science, contingency in the medieval sense has disappeared from view.

We already know that just from the flaws in the bible that science has proven false.

I might agree to that if you can provide verifiable evidence of such a god, the amount of said god's knowledge, and what science will know 6,000 years from now.

JDJ, «Smart» isn't learning science from your preacher, or from a book written thousands of years ago by men who know relatively little about the natural world.

So far as I know every science in its infant days has put its principal attention upon what seemed most strikingly different from the commonplace.

«Science» comes from the Latin:» to know».

mama - Today public schools teach evolution as a means to species as fact, even though science knows from the Global geological record and Dr. Gould's work that species occur rapidly followin a mass extinction; in violation of the same seperation claus.