Sentences with phrase «much science proving»

There's as much science proving something isn't true as there is saying that particular thing IS true.

Not exact matches

It's just an electronic ether that doesn't really exist, much like heaven (as far as science can prove).

Like all science, of course, it is falsifiable — but no one has ever proven it wrong, and no one has ever come up with a better theory that explains so much of the natural world using one simple concept, testable using logic and experiment.

When it comes to the big questions, nobody can prove much of anything... neither science nor religion.

As a scientist in my profession, people who understand science know that not much is really «proven.»

Science has proven pretty much all of it to be false and the book itself contradicts itself more so than the hypocrites who read it.

Much of the business of science is in imagining stuff we can't see (representational for all of our senses), then going forth to prove our hypothesis.

Science makes absolutely no attempts to undermine, discredit, or prove false, much less attack any of the thousands of religions and Gods man has created.

The very science that he loves so much has proven evolution can not be true.

Hey «smart one», your science that you love so much proves that things degrade over time instead of evolving into more complex forms of life.

So much is this true that the total separation of faith and religion from life and culture became a cardinal principle of a new outlook, now called The Philosophy of Science, the doctrine of which is that nothing is valid in society, in community law, or in educational principle, unless it belongs to the experimental order and can be proven by the senses.

I find that science offers much better explanations for gravity, energy, emotions, evolution, the universe, and conscience, collaboration, photons, the evolution of eyes, and on and on it goes... I guess the point is... Prove that God exists, and we can talk.

I suspect that science doesn't prove as much as you think, and I can assure you that the things it does prove are not proof that God does not exist.

I'm amused at how much faith people put in theoretical science, that can't prove anything except by falsifying facts with conjecture.

Yet, if they could momentarily throw aside their infantile pseudo intellectual brainwashing, they would see that even though science can never prove or disprove something defined to be outside science, if we look at every other species known to man, we see that they interact with a universe that WE know to be much more complex than what they can perceive or grasp, but they can never even suspect exists but which is perfectly real to us.

All Science proves is how little we know about who God is and how much more we need to learn and understand who God is.

Even the Greek efforts to develop science failed, although they knew that it must be based on experiment and reason, and had developed much of the mathematical knowledge that was to prove so important for science.

Read the «Case for Christ», «Mere Christianity», and research what apologetics is, you may be surprised how much that science proves God's Existence.

My argument is that while science does tell us much about the world around us, IT (science - our most favored epistemological standard) obviously only deals with the physical and can not disprove the spiritual, and that there are other ways of knowing truth that do prove (support is the word I prefer, since no «proof» is satisfactory to al epistemological standards) the existence of God.

Science believes in what it can see and prove; Nature and GOD are something beyond those... much beyond those for anyone to disprove their existence.

Much of the science behind religion bashing is not credible, scientists have seemed to confse a very basic principle, the difference between not proving something and disproving it.

You said: «Until «science» can answer questions like WHERE did the universe come from and how matter created itself, I won't give much authority to the «proving of» evolution and science and its claims.»

Until «science» can answer questions like WHERE did the universe come from and how matter created itself, I won't give much authority to the «proving of» evolution and science and its claims.

Carbon dating, evolutionary evidence, the fossil record, and pretty much all of science is proving that nearly all the major claims of the bible are untrue.

Science has proven, Tough says, «that the character strengths that matter so much to young people's success are not innate; they don't appear to us magically, as a result of good luck or good genes. . . .

I expect the awards will prove to mean as much for international science writers as they have over the years for science writers in the United States.»

As the first university to be established in Ontario in 40 years, UOIT has much to prove — especially with the multidisciplinary approach of its science programs, which has probably raised eyebrows and ruffled some feathers in the academic community, Smith says.

But it turns out planetary science is much more complicated than that, and there's new research from Rice University to prove it.

The exact mechanism for this is unknown, but science has already proven that too much sitting is associated with an increased risk of colon, breast and prostate cancer.

To put the matter simply, the science of Dendrochronology uses tree ring Rings in fossilised pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought - with measurements dating back to 138BC

Dan Zarrella, the social media scientist who authored The Science of Marketing: When to Tweet, What to Post, How to Blog, and Other Proven Strategies, wants you to toss out much of what you've heard about social media marketing and focus on what his research tells you instead.

They've done studies that show, the more expensive the wine, the higher our appreciation: science proves we actually PHYSICALLY enjoy the higher priced wine than the identical wine we think is much cheaper.

Deep meaning into any science field is gained much further by observation, no theory is proven without observations, to really criticize the mainstream you must look for something which contradicts AGW claims.

So, although the science isn't «wrong» regarding the continued heating of the earth (net energy imbalance), the rate of rise of surface temperatures may prove to be much less than predicted by the models.

For their short lifetime on this earth these people actually believe that they have had that much effect while science and other data proves them wrong.

Climatology is a soft science (much like economics, archaeology or geology are) so it's difficult to prove theories and is open to interpretation.

If they are proven wrong...... well that is likely to have contributed just as much to science as if it had turned out that they were right.

The «Do Nothing» alternative is promoted on the basis that the Science isn't «proven» or «complete» (which is an odd thing to promote, since logically an «incomplete Science» should call us to «Do twice as much of Something» if we were true conservatives).

Not only was the science thoroughly vindicated, but the solutions imposed - bans on the most destructive chemicals - and «cap and trade» (very much favored by «free marketers» at the time as harnessing the power of markets) for acid emissions, proved quite effective.

Please understand that by creating a catch - all label like this, you quite literally are moving the entire discussion outside of the realm of science, where evidence and arguments are considered and weighed independent of the humans that advance them, where our desire to see one or another result proven are (or should be) irrelevant, where people weigh the difficulty of the problem being addressed as an important contributor (in a Bayesian sense) to how much we should believe any answer proposed — so far, into the realm where people do not think at all!

Carbon dioxide actually has a minuscule cooling effect, nowhere near as much as water vapour though That's genuine science because it is based on the laws of physics that are well proven over the centuries.

«Prove» isn't a word that gets used in matters of empirical science much unless you are cigarette manufacturer, producer of dioxin, or put lead additives in paint.

Science has now proven beyond a doubt that the Earth's climate is changing, and changing much faster than originally feared.

You can spout «denial» as much as you like, but you seem like a smart guy and would know that science is advanced by exploring alternate hypotheses, and proving or disproving these alternate theories.

Getting out the word that much of climate science is cooked data to «prove» a preconceived answer is racketeering.

That doesn't prove that all such science is invalid — but the problem is that much of that science is, in fact, invalid.

Yet again you attempt to avoid the issue — ie comparing how much the government spends on CAGW progaganda — to proven frauds like Mann and Jones — versus all other funding on climate science.

If you think that you understand and can prove it by selective citations of bits of science that are statistically much more likely to be wrong than otherwise — you are kidding yourself.

It is the use of science to inform public policy that means it is very much about proving something.

But then, for some people, science isn't so much about expanding and refining our understanding of the natural world so much as it is to justify and vindicate their personal «ism», to prove that liberalism / conservatism is right, and therefore the other side is wrong.