Perhaps he who is not a shrill can explain what
his non scientific use of modelling is for.
Not exact matches
The
use of Science to reject God is a
non starter so any
scientific excuses are simply a tool of denial to the atheist or agnostic.
There has been MANY archeological findings that SUPPORT the Book of Mormon's validity (and I COULD go into long, protracted detail, but won't here) as well as
scientific undrstanding about the oft -
used DNA issue, that is a
NON - issue in reality.
But is a science paper the best place to «not»
use scientific language, or maybe it's okay in science papers to be
scientific and then to have folks such as yourself, talking to a
non scientific audience, explain what it means
using relatable percentages, such as the «roll of the dice» analogy (which really isn't that bad because it is relatable).
The idea that you can not and should not
use the
scientific method on the idea «God» is a
non scientific, faith based, entirely «religious» idea, even if the person saying it claims to «be
scientific».
This failure to properly define «Greenhouse gases» in
scientific terms precludes any literature
using this
non scientific term from being called science.