Sentences with phrase «of much scientific»

Without that assumption (and hence tacit endorsement), the paper is as of much scientific interest as 19th century papers about how long it takes for ants to wander outside circles of specific diameter.

The «best estimate», which is the current focus of much scientific research, is less meaningful for robust decision making strategies than it is for optimal decision making.

The change — a subject of much scientific debate at the time and since — made no sense, says Runyon, lead author of a short paper making the pro-Pluto argument that will be presented next week at a scientific conference in Texas.

Not exact matches

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.

Finally, for as much as we want to believe that polls are a scientific reflection of reality, polls can also affect reality.

Given the tax consequences, companies spend millions on some of the best legal and scientific minds in the country to determine how much fun a child could have using a chair.

There are a lot of popular myths about business creativity, yet none of them have much scientific evidence.

So thinking of a particular shift within the system as «anti-capitalist» makes about as much sense as thinking that the discrediting of a particular scientist or the fall of a particular scientific theory amounts to the downfall of science, as a whole.

As a result, much of the language around management and leadership has — or aspires to — a technical, scientific tone.

Still, while other companies like Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic and Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin are planning much of their business around space flights for the super wealthy, SpaceX's model is primarily to serve as a vehicle for scientific missions, satellite launches, and trips to the International Space Station.

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snake oil dressed as financial advice elsewhere, the core testing methods used are opaque and (as far as I can tell) not peer reviewed or made available for scrutiny.

For those of you who blindly follow Evolutionary Theory, you are the ones who should show a little intelligence and try researching Scientific Creationism, which is much more credible.

Scientific researches show that prolonged and big calorie deficit created through too much exercise, and quick loss of body weight all may lead to different forms of menstrual dysfunction in women.

What's so sad is his willingness to completely ignore the reams of scientific evidence, data, knowledge, inference, etc. that very much describes what was going on thousands or millions of years ago.

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.

A singular universe is a scientific lie brought about thru mixed and still yet young educated rationalisms... Our Cosmos is littered full of celestial universes... So much so it will take us practically forever to map out our universally contained cosmos with much certainty... Our Cosmos being filled with all manner of celestial universes is but one Cosmos within a vast sea of multifaceted cosmological universes...

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

Schwartz's explicit antimaterialism and embrace of dualism therefore places him very much at odds with the scientific and philosophical mainstream.

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.

Science writers Carl Sagan and Fritjof Capra have pointed out similarities between the latest scientific understanding of the age of the universe, and the Hindu concept of a «day and night of Brahma», which is much closer to the current known age of the universe than other creation myths.

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.

«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.

Re-run the larger science theories through the «scientific method» and see how much of it passes the filter.

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.

In fact, there have been a large number of scientists throughout history who have made major scientific discoveries that have shaped so much of our knowledge, and they worked out of desire to learn the truth about the origin and nature of God's creation.

Much of the research has now been transferred to Arizona, The Pontifical Academy of Sciences was established as a sign of the Church's commitment to scientific research.

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

And he's a highly regarded meditation teacher, designing meditation courses for much of the recent scientific study of the practice.

Peacocke finds a similarity of intention in religious and scientific cosmologies: «Both attempt to take into account as much of the «data» of the observed universe as possible and both use criteria of simplicity, comprehensiveness, elegance, and plausibility....

It is arguably the best supported scientific theory of all time, much better understood than things like gravity.

He concedes too much in the end to the methods of scientific materialism including the demand for tangible evidence.

I shall discuss how much traditional metaphysics and theology needs to be revised in the light of modern scientific discoveries with four examples: the «new physics» of the 17th century, the theory of relativity, quantum theory and evolution.

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.

The sixth sense which Sir Winston had about the best scientific advice has much to do with England's coping with the trials of an insane war.

As a medical professional, one would think you'd understand that biological evolution, much like general relativity, quantum mechanics, the germ theory of disease, cell theory, plate tectonic theory, etc is a scientific theory and should be taught in science class based on the preponderance of evidence that backs it.

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.

The scientist as much as anyone else is dependent on the tradition of the scientific community, on its especial authority, responsibility and methods of going about its scientific tasks.

To attack something when you're too ignorant of the facts (and too lazy to be bothered to learn about the opposing side) to even know what you're attacking only shows how much society has to gain by embracing the scientific method (even if you reject some theories).

For example, the canons of valid scientific knowledge are as much a matter of democratic concern as are the principles of representation in government.

The currently accepted modern theory of evolution is a conclusion that has been arrived at via hundreds of years of investigation and experimentation, it adheres to the scientific method, and has withstood much scrutiny.

I can use my «faith» to deny the «theory» of evolution even though there is as much scientific data supporting evolution as there is supporting the «theory» of gravity.

I think this one is just kind of for fun, versus the probably much more scientific one used to get these stats.

Atheism is becoming much more mainstream and popular because we are in the era of progressive scientific knowledge in the past decades that is unmatched, and with education comes questions of why and how.

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».

They say, Here are art and music, scientific truths to discover and philanthropic causes to serve, much to read, think about, and do — why concern oneself with the fundamental meaning of the universe?

Much of the time, theories will have to be adjusted and altered according to experiment and observation.BUT... Some of the time theory becomes fact... provable scientific fact, such as that we can use silicon and germanium in such a way that we can create electrical switches from these elements and we can use this to create computers.

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.