Sentences with phrase «much science there»

I sold residential real estate for years (not much science there, but lot's of legal issues).

With only one exception that I know of, they will simply not consider safe threshold levels, no matter how much science there is to support it.

Some experts worry that it is too cramped to carry out much science there.

Not exact matches

If you've been reading much education or business news, you probably know there's a lot of buzz around STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) education and degrees these days.

Michael Jordan, a machine learning expert and computer science professor at University of California, Berkeley, said there is «way too much hype» regarding the capabilities of so - called chat bots.

There's more art than science to taxes, and much depends on how aggressive or conservative your accountant chooses to be.

But according to happiness expert and author Christine Carter there's a more fundamental problem with adjusting your behavior to please others — not only does it harm you, but science shows that other people don't actually like it much either.

Bad news: Much like trading baseball cards, there is no science to pre-revenue valuations.

Syngenta established a Beijing research center in 2008 and is doing biotech science there now; it will be doing much more after the deal closes.

This is very much the topic of science fiction past, but like any other technology, it will start off simple and evolve from there.

Are you aware that there is science behind how much to sleep and when to wake up, but you don't want to dive deep into this stuff?

Yet there's as much science as art in the upsell.

There is so much new science emerging around health and human longevity, and what companies and individuals are doing with it is unbelievable.

However much time they have — and in my opinion they are unlikely to have much more than 2 - 3 years in which to get credit growth under control, but there is no science to this so I can not know for sure — as Beijing moves forward in its struggle to rebalance the Chinese economy, we should keep three things in mind:

You see, there's an entire subfield of computer science that can roughly be described as «pulling information out of things that look exactly like the Bitcoin transaction graph», and while these researchers haven't done much to Bitcoin yet — that's only because they're still fighting over the grant money.

And in truth, there's no exact science to figuring out how much you should -LSB-...]

There is so much bad science here, that any advocate of science should decry this article as the poorest of poor.

One wants to say... well, there is so much one wants to say in response to this sort of touchingly naive faith in the miraculous powers of science.

First a Noah's Ark discovery raised a flood of questions, then there was the much - hyped debate over life's origins between Bill Nye the Science Guy and creationist Ken Ham.

There was too much effort to protect a special sphere in which Christians could maintain their faith while surrendering the dominant domains of thought to science.

We kinda want to go to the opposite ditch, because there is too much hot air being passed in that high science camp, and it gives one a nauseating feeling!

Being a health student and science nerd, there's just too much that is in order that HAS to have a higher power behind it!

I would much rather rely on science to explain the world; probability to explain random events, and natural laws to give me comfort that, whatever happens, there is an explainable order behind it.

There is so much more to science that you could ever fathom.

Face it, you have no idea if there are any gods, or if satan inspired your book (a god would not have gotten so much wrong) You act just like those ridiculous crewationist sites caliming science but clearly do not understand how science works... you do not know how logic works.

There are long passages in the last chapter of Science and the Modern World, for instance, which could easily have served as the source of some of Leopold's ideas, and which suggest that Leopold's notion of community could be derived from Whitehead's theory of organism without much difficulty.

Many highly educated men of science believe there is much «evidence» that God exists.

«Testifies to»: there is a troublesome ambiguity about the logic of this relationship, an ambiguity that pervades much of the recent literature on science and religion.

Obviously this process of descent has not been observed, but there exists so much overwhelming evidence supporting it that most scientists (and probably all scientists in the life sciences) consider it a fact as well.

There is nothing in the theory of evolution, nor in astronomy, or in geology, nor in paleontology, or any other branch of the sciences which contradicts Christianity, or any other type of theism (except Mormonism — we know scientifically that the Indian peoples of the Americas are not descended from the Jews — which is a key point of belief for them, much more central than there having been a literal Garden of Eden is for classical Christianity or JudaThere is nothing in the theory of evolution, nor in astronomy, or in geology, nor in paleontology, or any other branch of the sciences which contradicts Christianity, or any other type of theism (except Mormonism — we know scientifically that the Indian peoples of the Americas are not descended from the Jews — which is a key point of belief for them, much more central than there having been a literal Garden of Eden is for classical Christianity or Judathere having been a literal Garden of Eden is for classical Christianity or Judaism).

There are plenty of hypocrites out there, in Science, religion, pretty much every belief syThere are plenty of hypocrites out there, in Science, religion, pretty much every belief sythere, in Science, religion, pretty much every belief system.

Topher, AGAIN, how do you say there's no science behind evolution when scientists who are much more qualified than you consider evolution to be obvious?

There are no moral absolutes, but there are such things as empathy, sympathy, logic, reason, common sense, and science to give me a much more effective and intelligent set of morals to livThere are no moral absolutes, but there are such things as empathy, sympathy, logic, reason, common sense, and science to give me a much more effective and intelligent set of morals to livthere are such things as empathy, sympathy, logic, reason, common sense, and science to give me a much more effective and intelligent set of morals to live by.

In light of this fourfold division, it appears that the current disputes about Darwin and design are at bottom not so much conflicts between science and religion as disagreements about whether there is room for only one level — not a plurality of levels — on which to understand the story of life.

As the developing sciences began to get into their stride, and that brings us into the last hundred years, there was a tendency for them, having refuted so much of what Christian orthodoxy took for granted, to establish their own form of dogmatism.

Against new knowledge, as men gain new wisdoms from science and new power in the universe, there is no Lordship of Christ over all the ages, unless His voice can speak with as much authority affirming and defining now, and a thousand years from now, as it did in the market towns of Galilee, in the Temple at Jerusalem, and along the shore of the Sea of Tiberias.

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

Most educated people today, however, though aware that there is much we can not yet explain, are so conditioned by the world view of modern science that they find it hard to accept anything that runs counter to the normal processes of nature.

It is time for peace between both sides, between science and faith, there is far too much vitriol from two sides who are are actually care about the truth, and approach it in a different manner.

In more advanced education at the university level, there must necessarily be specialization — in one of the sciences, in literature, in philosophy, in the languages, and in much else.

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.

It is disturbing that so many folks like have no idea how much science has been advanced by «them there dumb Christians.»

I am glad to see the collaboration between science and faith, but it seems there is not very much new under the sun, just new people to do «research and learn it» — Monasteries both eastern and western have been at the core of learning, of science, of faith, of culture, and the development of libraries, and other «storage places of knowledge and wisdom.

If you want to bring science into it there appears to be a neurological brain study about it: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/97 Generally speaking, at this time I'm not sure how much stock I put into the results of these various neurological studies since while they seem to show brain activity under certain controlled situations, I don't necessarily find the situations conducive to what I consider proof.

The Universe, known and unknown, is possibly not the most used definition of God, at least in the western world... but it is the Pantheistic version that jives so much more with science and is not a misappropriation of the smaller definitions of God, merely an unfamiliar definition to those with less knowledge of various more advanced religious and philosophic thought, within and outside those religions... The idea of Pantheism also thoughtfully considers why there is, rather than ridiculing, such a wide range of philosophical and ritual beliefs from a scientific perspective... without having to classify large groups of people, as senseless idiots from one end or destined for hell from the other.

Books upon books, complex explanation on top of complex explanation, lies upon lies, when the simpler and much more elegant solution is that there are no gods, and none are needed — it's all just science we do not fully undrestand — yet!

We all must admit, scientists and religious folks alike, that there is much more in our religions and sciences that we do not understand than we do.

But there is much more to be done, and the FAITH Movement in this Spring of 2017 sees an increasing need for the specifc message of its New Synthesis of science and the Catholic Faith, with its dynamic of understanding that has fostered so many vocations to the priesthood and so much dedicated lay activity over the past decades.

There are many that «trust» in the Lord as much as you «trust» in the science.

Then too in the old South (outside of Virginia) there was much more understanding of art than of science.