Sentences with phrase «not much scientific»

I can not see any «alternative» interpretations (what should that be, given that there is not much scientific literature suggesting otherwise?)

Not much scientific knowledge needed here.

There's not much scientific integrity if you have to stifle descent.

Ten years ago, there was not much scientific evidence behind the low - carbohydrate diet, however since 2003, there have been over 27 randomized, controlled, scientific human trials.

«There's really not much scientific studies on the use of kukui oil in the dermatologic literature, and the one study I know of failed to demonstrate any differences between kukui oil and the placebo in treating mild psoriasis,» says Julia Tzu, MD, clinical assistant professor of dermatology at New York University School of Medicine.

Though there's not much scientific evidence to prove that this blue light is actually harmful, there are still plenty of people who swear by the positive effects of reflective glasses.

And while there isn't much scientific research on their effects, many mothers who have taken them, felt that their milk supply improved.

However, with the exception of one study conducted in 1986 (Hunziger and Barr 1986), there isn't much scientific evidence to support the idea.

I did another few sessions over the coming weeks, and although there isn't much scientific evidence to prove its benefits, the salt certainly helped me personally.

It probably can't hurt to try those new tampons and pads promising to help «rebalance» vaginal pH, but know that there isn't much scientific evidence that they work.

Although man boobs and our masculinity is a huge concern to you and me, there isn't much scientific literature out there to pinpoint why men are becoming feminized.

However, with the exception of one study conducted in 1986 (Hunziger and Barr 1986), there isn't much scientific evidence to support the idea.

Not exact matches

This wasn't so much an art project as a scientific experiment.

Again, it's not a scientific measure, but I've heard much less about the NBC brouhaha over on my Facebook account than I have on Twitter.

Hadfield's return couldn't happen «too soon,» according to the article, since he was wasting so much time conducting public relations for himself and space agencies in general, rather than actual scientific research:

The only other comment I'd have is that whilst he meets a much higher standard of scientific approach than the snake oil dressed as financial advice elsewhere, the core testing methods used are opaque and (as far as I can tell) not peer reviewed or made available for scrutiny.

It is not Dogma... it is a Philosophical function... much like Scientific Method.

It is not exactly «atheism» that is the default position so much as that there is no need to appeal to divine agency in a scientific account of nature.

Thomas was not so much a doubter as he was an empiricist; that is, he was something of a scientific man.

It matters not so much HOW the universe was created (although the first version creation in Genesis is interestingly similar in some ways to the modern scientific view, going from light — the big bang — to simple then more increasingly complex life, but I digress) what matter is that it was created by a loving God.

Meanwhile, to Hawking's supporters who suggest that I am not owning up to his scientific «proofs,» I believe airwx has already said it best for me — he's a THEORETICAL physicist, and having read some of his work, I'm smart enough to know that much of what he says about God is an exercise in jumping to conclusions, even as sound as much of his scientific work is.

Perhaps it is now time to recognize that the third world - changing scientific achievement of the last century is not the unmitigated good that much of Western culture claims it is — and that treating the sexual revolution as a unambiguous, indeed undeniable, boon to humanity can lead to a lot of personal unhappiness, homicidal ghouls like Kermit Gosnell, and the deployment of coercive state power in ways that threaten civil society and democracy.

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.

t's not so much an assault on Christianity as an adherence to historical facts and scientific facts and... well... just basically facts.

«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.

In the modern period the classical Western deity more and more took on the garb of the One who ultimately validates scientific and industrial progress, including not only much that was truly progressive, but also the industrial rape of nature and, ultimately, through a variety of corporate structures, the oppression of the poor, and the dispossessed.

eh huh, if you did not know, study says «the Muslim world produces a disproportionately small amount of scientific output, and much of it relatively low in quality.

Scientists don't so much persecute creationists as deem them irrelevent (the who concept of the scientific method contradicts creationism).

Jeshua, if that were the case then religious authorities wouldn't spend so much time trying to control information, trying to pass off their beliefs as scientific, or attempting to misinform the public on genuine scientific explanations that happen to contradict those beliefs.

If you're in a cult, consider how much more likely it is that you will think and act erratically compared to someone who has not been heavily indoctrinated in a belief system that requires no scientific facts or logic.

the proof of Gods presence in us is not limited to the material or biological evolutionary development only, but most important scientific proof is the effect of His will in historical development of the world.A computer program now used and tested a powerful machine by inputing all recorded events in history during the last hundreds years and found out that it has a purpose and not random.Meaning that an intelligent being could have influence it.It is now presumed by the religious observers that it could be His will.The process now is under improvement, because the computers is not powerl enough the deluge of information and data since the beginning of history, some analyst believes that in them near future if the Quantum computers which is much powerful than the present coventional will be used, then dramatic results and confirmation will be at hand.

(Much scientific theory can not be proven or dis - proven.

Your scientist that you so much want to believe are biased and are not recognized by the REAL scientific community.

While many scientific theories together, like gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, etc. explain much of what we see today, there aren't many generally accepted scientific theories that both explain something equally well and contradict each other.

To them the Bible seems to be full of miracle stories which have much to say that can not be fitted into a scientific way of looking at things.

Hawking's idea has not been tested much less accepted as a scientific theory.

It makes us creationists look like idiots who can't be bothered to read anything scientific, much less understand it.

that is not a scientific statement (science can't even define life itself, much less when it begins).

That scene follows immediately the one in which a Catholic father informs his dozens of children that he has to sell them for scientific experimentation because «God has blessed us so much, I can't afford to feed you all».

you're appealing to scientific findings as a basis for compassion... and yet science can not even define LIFE... much less compassion.

So there was no research because what would you research this decision was a emotional decision based on pure emotions and not much if any scientific data.

We do this not because of some book written 2000 years ago to keep people in line and to explain a world that lacked much scientific ability.

We know so much more than people of the past — not only scientific knowledge about the physical world, but also historical knowledge about our cultural origins.

A general review of the endnotes from Gunter's paper reveals a fair number of sources who will corroborate the claim that Bergson's scientific views are nor only not outdated, but go very» much to the heart of current scientific methods and insights, but particularly, see A. C. Papanicolaou and Pete A. N. Gunter, eds., Bergson in Modern Thought Towards a Unified Science (New York: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1987), and for important background on how Bergson came to be seen as dated when he was not, see also, Milic Capek, Bergson and Modern Physics, (cited above) and The Philosophical Impact of Contemporary Physics (Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, 1961), and the volume edited by Gunter, Bergson and the Evolution of Physics (cited above).

Third, scientific reflection (in the form of observation and much speculation) on the nature of time itself also has profound implications on how man conceives of his reality as a succession of events (how man connects events in his reality)- interpreted as the passage of time - and whether those events are intrinsically connected, and, if so, whether or not such a connection is changeable.

I would submit that much of the scientific and social progress that has transpired since the Dark Ages was driven by those who didn't drink the Kool - Aid of organized religion, but who dared to strike - out on their own spiritual path, without necessarily «tossing out» the concept of a higher power in our lives.

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

50 billion years is not enough, even though your championed scientific testing estimates the age of the earth to be much less.

No Ryan, I am sorry, but you will not find much support for the supernatural / magical elements of your Bronze Age belief in the scientific community.

The world in this formist argument is witnessed not so much in newspapers, scientific works, and eschatological vision as in literature and other symbolic structures.