Sentences with phrase «not on life science»

Because science loses much of its value as it beomes politicized, I am happy that this particular list of questions seems to focus on the specific field of earth and planetary science, not on life science, nor anthropology, nor technology.

Not exact matches

There actually isn't a lack of interest, on the financial side, in fueling Alzheimer's research given the critical need for it and the rewards that life sciences firms would reap from even a modestly - successful product.

The 56 companies on our 2017 Change the World list, which includes six smaller rising stars, are tackling problems obvious and not - so - obvious — from Accenture, which is using data to reduce E.R. visits, to DSM, a Dutch life sciences company, that is fighting greenhouse gas emissions from a notorious source: cow flatulence.

These may sound like slightly airy fairy (if quite pleasant) suggestions, but science shows that adding small does of joy to your life can have big impacts not only on your mood but also on your productivity.

Venter said living to 130 is «a science - fiction fantasy,» but scientists don't know the upper limit on age, and the earlier that scientists can detect genetic risks and couple that with a healthy lifestyle, the better the chances for a longer life.

This doesn't surprise Patrick Fortune, a partner in Boston Millennia Partners, a VC firm focused on life - sciences and health care investments.

Those sales, Alphabet CFO Ruth Porat said on the earnings call, came from three sources: Nest; Verily, which is Alphabet's life sciences business; and Google Fiber, its broadband unit.

Or perhaps you can pause for a moment and think about all the paranormal activity that goes on from UFO's to ghosts and spirits and you will realize that science does not have all the answers and there is little more to life than what society will have you believe.

YOUR imaginary friend Jesus, is DEAD he is NOT coming back, Unless you people find his remains and SCIENCE clones him, just keep on living your life.

After a long time investigating religion and science related to the development of life on earth, I believe that evolution is not an adequate explanation.

not faith in his existence) IM not going to base my whole life on science like some people do... science will fait... science does not say what Is moral and what is... so science can not be everything

Christians have voted to put their God's name on everyones money, add «Under God» to the flag salute, force schools to teach intelligent design with absolutely no scientific basis along side the sciences, voted to write their moral laws on the fronts of public courthouses and tax funded buildings, voted to ban certain people from living together, being intimate or raising children because their orientation didn't fit with their bible beliefs.

Get high on science, really living and enjoying life, not running in fear, or bowing to some fukking «lord / goD almighty do - nothing deity.

There will always be someone trying to prove the Bible is not true, but for those of us who have seen the work of God, who truly believe in him, it doesn't really matter what science says, or what they can «prove» to be false about God or the Bible, what God has done in my life and keeps on doing is proof enough to know He exists.

historical Jesus, lmfao... show me any historical evidence of jesus... let's start with his remains... they don't exist - your explanation, he rose to the heavens... historical evidence - no remains, no proof of existence (not a disproof either, just not a proof)... then let's start with other historians writing about the life of Jesus around his time or shortly after, as outside neutral observers... that doesn't exist either (not a disproof again, just not a proof)... we can go on and on... the fact is, there is not a single proving evidence of Jesus's life in an historical context... there is no existence of Jesus in a scientific context either (virgin birth... riiiiiight)... it is just written in a book, and stuck in your head... you have a right to believe in what you must... just don't base it on history or science... you believe because you do... it is your right... but try not to put reason into your faith; that's when you start sounding unreasonable, borderline crazy...

@KatMat: your analogy would begin approaching realism if: — during the pledge of allegiance kids were forced to say «one nation under The Orioles» — our nation's currency said «In Dallas Cowboys We Trust» — if millions were slaughtered, tortured and burned to death because they weren't fans of The Pittsburgh Penguins — if NASCAR fans endlessly attempted to have Intelligent Car Driving taught beside Evolution in science class as a possible explanation for how mankind developed — if «the 5 D's» of Dodgeball (Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive, Dodge) were constantly attempted to be made into law so everyone would live by the same ridiculous notions, even if those notions knowingly discriminate — if nutters constantly claimed America was founded on the principles of Darts, even though our country SPECIFICALLY calls for a separation between Darts and State because the founders knew the inherent dangers of Darts becoming government instead of staying in the realm of sport where it belongs

That is, those of us Christians who try to truly live a Christ - like life (without forcing it on anyone else, and without trying to «legislate» morality and faith vs. science) would simply like atheists and other anti-theists not to «broadbrush» the entire faith just because some (many) say and do things that are questionable re Christianity.

Even then science hasn't 100 % settled on defining when life begins and there are still on going debates on that subject.

Matter does not control or direct itself, yet science as it progresses is gradually uncovering a sort of organic unity within the universe in which atoms become molecules, molecules link to form chemicals that form proteins, these link to form DNA, simple life forms evolve into more complex life forms, and so on.

Critics of such faiths as Christian Science and Mormonism can not but be impressed with the beneficent effect that the reality of group life has on many young people.

I am an avid reader of the sciences and philosophy as well so I believe that with my educational and life's background I can speak intelligently on these subjects but certainly not exhaustively and stand ready to discuss evidence (s) for and against with anyone willing to dialog without rancor or name calling or nastiness.

Science also does not know how life began on earth nor is it reasonable to speculate that life would form by chance.

I am OK with people thinking the universe had a beginning and that life has shown variation as long as they admit that science does not know how life started on earth, and they admit that God might have created life on earth.

trans, The account in Genesis is clearly not literally true, so any other interpretation is just that — interpretation; there is no science that confirms Genesis except in the axiomatic sense that there is a universe and there is life on earth.

You said, «I am OK with people thinking the universe had a beginning and that life has shown variation as long as they admit that science does not know how life started on earth» Anyone who has any inkling about the state of science will know that.

if you can lie to yourself with immunity, you might be an atheist if you think the indifferent support your side, you might be an atheist if you don't think at all, you might be an atheist if you are drawn to religious discussions thinking someone wants to hear your opinion, you might be an atheist if you copy paste every piece of crap theory you find, you might be an atheist if you think you are right no matter what the evidence shows, you might be an atheist if you can't hold your water when you think about science, you might be an atheist if you can't write the word God, with proper capitalization, you might be an atheist if you think your view has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you think The View has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you live in a tar paper shack, writing manifestos, you might be an atheist if you think you're basically a good person, and your own final authority you might be an atheist if you think your great aunt Tillie was a simian, you might be an atheist if you own an autographed copy of Origin Of The Species, you might be an atheist if you think that when you die you're worm food, you might be an atheist if you think the sun rises and sets for you alone, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is Charles Darwin when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is you when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if you attend a church but palm the offering plate when it passes, you might be an atheist If think this exhausts all the possibilities of definition, you might be an atheist.

Who knows, there might be other life forms out there on planets with differnt types of suns, other types of atmosphere, maybe even based on something other than carbon... Religion can't answer those questions, but science, ever so slowly, is plugging away at the answers.

So don't B.S. me about how you are so SCIENTIFIC and EMPIRICAL and yet live your life by faith based on what the «elders» have said in the sacred science books.

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.

I have not always been a Christian, but upon an honest assessment of facts ranging from science to history to common sense, Christianity is logically the most likely «theory on life» that exists.

On balance, Berger's theoretical perspective has provided a modern apologetic for the value of religion, arguing not from theological tradition but from the secular premises of social science that humans can not live by the bread of everyday reality alone.

A century later, we are living in the closing years of a pontificate that has, above all, taught Catholics not to be afraid» afraid of those who hate the Church so that we do not honestly contemplate the failings of our own past; afraid of the progress of science so that we needed to be reminded by the Pope «that faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.»

Is it possible and after reading about it i kept on thinking «i will sell to my soul for 20 carats get out shut up i will never ever sell my soul to you oh god please help me and this is continuing for a few days i am afraid that i have sold my sold to the devil have i please help and still i think god's way of allowing others to hate him us much worse even you know and can easily think think about much better punishments like rebirth after being punished for all the sins in life and i am feeling put on the sin of those who committed the unforgiviable sin (the early 0th century priests) imagine them burning in hell fire till now for 2000 years hopelessly screaming to god for help i can't belive the mercy of god are they forgiven even though commiting this sin keans going to hell for entinity thank you and congralutions i think the 7 year tribulation periodvis over in 18th century the great commect shooting and in 19th century the sun became dark for a day and moon was not visible on the earth but now satun has the domination over me those who don't belive in jesus crist i used to belive in him but now after knowing a lot in science it is getting harharder to belive in him even though i know that he exsists and i only belived in him not that he died for me in the cross and also not for eternal life and i still sin as much as i used to before but only a little reduced and i didn't accept satan as my master but what can i do because those who knowingly sin a lot and don't belive in jesus christ has to accept satan as their master because he only teaches us that even though he is evil he gives us complete freedom but thr followers of jesus and god only have freedom because they can sin only with in a limit and no more but recive their reward after their life in heaven but the followers of satun have to go to hell butbi don't want to go to hell and be ruled by the cruel tryant but still why didn't god destroy satun long way before and i think it was also Adam and eve's fault also they could have blamed satan and could have also get their punishment reduced but they didn't and today we are seeing the result

12 Even on the assumption of a Vitalism of essentially higher principles of that kind, which raise the organic, as an intrinsically higher level of reality, above merely inorganic matter, and constitute biology as an independent science, and even if we regard the entelechy factor as simple and indivisible, there would only be an eductio e potentia materiae when a new living being came into existence, if we excluded creation in this case in the way it is exemplified in the human soul, though that is not very easy to prove, and at the same time rejected the not at all absurd supposition that in the generation of new life below the human level what happens is only the extension of the entelechial function of one and the same vital principle to a new position in space and time within inorganic matter.

For far from being a deviation from biblical truth, this setting of man over against the sum total of things, his subject - status and the object - status and mutual externality of things themselves, are posited in the very idea of creation and of man's position vis - a-vis nature determined by it: it is the condition of man meant in the Bible, imposed by his createdness, to be accepted, acted through... In short, there are degrees of objectification... the question is not how to devise an adequate language for theology, but how to keep its necessary inadequacy transparent for what is to be indicated by it...» Hans Jonas, Phenomenon of Life, pp. 258 - 59; cf. also Schubert Ogden's helpful discussion on «Theology and Objectivity,» Journal of Religion 45 (1965): 175 - 95; Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice - Hall, 1966), pp. 175 - 206; and Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).

The teacher's approach to such problems might start from three assumptions: (a) the teacher should be concerned with how science fits into the larger framework of life, and the student should raise questions about the meaning of what he studies and its relation to other fields; (b) controversial questions can be treated, not in a spirit of indoctrination, but with an emphasis on asking questions and helping students think through assumptions and implications; an effort should be made to present viewpoints other than one's own as fairly as possible, respecting the integrity of the student by avoiding undue imposition of the lecturer's beliefs; (c) presuppositions inevitably enter the classroom presentation of many subjects, so that a viewpoint frankly and explicitly recognized may be less dangerous than one which is hidden and assumed not to exist.

Long concludes that science alone can not determine a life philosophy, and that many of these authors overestimated the extent of its influence on their beliefs.

The problem is that their stand on reason, logic, and science does not allow them to ascribe traits and feelings of living things to inanimate and non living objects like the moon, sea, stars, etc..

«The forms of a living being are not but rather come to be,» says Ludwig von Bertalanffy (BW 120), and his «organismic» biology and later general system - theory for overcoming the opposition between mechanism and vitalism has given central insights of Whitehead a new formulation on the basis of science, 8 Something similar holds for all the directions of research which Jean Piaget has brought to the [264] concept of genetic structuralism.9 The genetic epistemology founded by Piaget has proved through empirical research on the problem of knowledge the fruitfulness both of genetic analysis and of Whitehead's principle of process.

Generis: «For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God» [italics added].

For instance, relating these losses to (1) increased leisure time, (2) use of and reliance on mass media, (3) influence of science, (4) standard of living, and (5) competition of secular or volunteer organizations can not be supported since each of these factors was already present and increasing in the 1940s and 50s as well as in the «60s.

And no, I don't just disregard science (nor the common consensus in matters of politics, social norms, alternative lifestyles, etc.)-- I understand the importance, but also the shortcomings of relying on man's own inferences about the nature of life, the universe, and the meaning of existence.

Since I am not a scientist, I am not always sure what I am looking at, nor do I have the theoretical background to discern all the implications of a particular phenomenon, but as a preacher — that is, someone who lives on stories — I find the stories rolling in from the frontiers of the new science as rich in meaning as any stories I know.

The new science of DNA mapping not only convicts criminals, it shows in undeniable, full detail, how we differ from other life forms on the planet.

More than half the country doesn't understand the most basic, fundamental science about life on earth.

His position on the origin of life is religion, not science.

If you want to start saying science is flawed, if you want to say it can't be counted on, you can kindly put down your computer, throw away all technology, give up modern healthcare and go live in a cave.

Ayala goes on to argue that «science and religious beliefs need not be in contradiction because science and religion concern different matters», respectively «the composition of matter» etc, and «the meaning and purpose of human life» etc..

If there is life in another universe that may work in a different way, even though we can not imagine how that can be based on OUR science, and / or there is a life form we can, or can not recognize as such, which has a different unit of measure of time, which of us will be the more intelligent.

It is our best friend in life if we learned and not taken issues in to our hands as Gods on Earth a-busing or applying force but by the power of the science «Sultan» in Sura» t Al - Rahman through which we are told will be able to penetrate Heavens Hight «s God Allah permits..