Sentences with phrase «of scientific talks»

The 2017 Postdoc Faculty Day drew over 150 attendees to the Carolina Club for a day of scientific talks from Lineberger's top postdoctoral trainees.

For most of the scientific talks and seminars announced here scientific colleagues from other institutions are more than welcome to attend.

[Editor's note: This story was updated on Sept. 22, 2017, to state that geneticist Cliff Tabin's remarks were made as part of his scientific talk.]

So although there will be lots of scientific talk about measurements requiring adjusted parameters and newly discovered feedbacks and whatnot to explain all the changes, underneath it all this is still just a bidding game where people pick numbers which are big enough to be alarming so they'll get funded, but not too big lest people start to laugh.

Not exact matches

This is the first thing we talk about in Lean Startup because you can not do any of the techniques of Lean Startup — the rapid experimentation, the scientific approach, the broad development — none of it makes any sense and can't work unless you have a vision for what you are trying to accomplish.

In a scientific community that is starting to talk about fusion in terms of pennies per kilowatt - hour, General Fusion aims to build a cheaper alternative to the multi-billion-dollar reactor designs.

Keath also cites the show's use of music to inspire creative thought, and how it «always talks about something I've never heard of, some strange new discovery or scientific problem being solved in a weird way.»

Sometimes scientific findings of such head - slapping obviousness — talking on the phone makes you a worse driver and men generally favor large breasts, for example — that they make the average lay person wonder how anyone ever got funding to investigate the question in the first place.

Author Carmine Gallo, who has written on the history of TED Talks, cites scientific research from Dr. Paul King of Texas Christian University as well as insight into how the brain processes new information (and expends energy while doing so).

All of this comes from a combination of reading scientific literature, talking to fitness experts, listening to lectures from high - profile doctors, and doing my own self - experiments.

For all those who are talking to themselves today, thinking that some supernatural deity is listening to them, please seek professional psychiatric help before you hurt someone or yourself in the name of your sky fairy, vote against others» rights, or promote your chosen flavor of insanity over the scientific method.

You're talking about the type of «evolution» that we always knew existed and to make matters worse you're bragging about the advancements made by INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEINGS which still don't even come close to the complication of macro evolution but still required thousands of years of scientific advancement and knowledge and a team of researchers with high iq's working aroudn the clock with microscopes.

There are more stories out of the bible that have been proven impossible and or wrong by science than have been shown to have any credibility... Of course I'm talking about actual science... not that christian science and creation «science»... which use scientific sounding things and jump to ridiculous unjustifyable conlusions, or that create incorrect premises and then make up answers to suit the questionof the bible that have been proven impossible and or wrong by science than have been shown to have any credibility... Of course I'm talking about actual science... not that christian science and creation «science»... which use scientific sounding things and jump to ridiculous unjustifyable conlusions, or that create incorrect premises and then make up answers to suit the questionOf course I'm talking about actual science... not that christian science and creation «science»... which use scientific sounding things and jump to ridiculous unjustifyable conlusions, or that create incorrect premises and then make up answers to suit the questions.

Robert See, I find that anyone who denies what scientific evidence objectively reveals in favour of what they personally think must be correct without any evidence whatsoever must be operating out of the same harmful pride you're talking about.

But unlike such other popularizers of scientific issues as Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking, he does avoid either talking down to his readers or succumbing to adolescent exclamation points at the mere sight of numbers requiring scientific notation.

The first half of the book I talk about, in a sense, the tension between the scientific worldview and a faith worldview.

And, when she describes that change, what she ends up describing is what already more - or-less exists, namely: mainline christianity, embracing the reformed and the catholic, the scientific and the traditional, which has been doing (never perfectly, to be sure) the sort of deep thinking, social justice, and disciplined prayer that she talks about continually while the evangelicals were breaking off to do their own thing (the thing she seems to want them to stop doing) throughout the twentieth century.

It is not to be wondered at if scientific thinkers sense «mysticism» when they hear talk of extraneous causation.

«The European talks of progress because by the aid of a few scientific discoveries he has established a society which has mistaken comfort for civilization».

I want to share with you a scientific discovery that the Quran talked about 1400 years ago and Muslims were perplexed by the meaning of this particular verse.

In the interest of demonstrating its scientific, historical and theological sophistication, the church has talked in these terms instead of telling its stories.

@Timothy, I'm not sure what definition of «Creationism» you are using, but the article is mainly talking about Young Earth Creationism, which is inconsistent with the scientific evidence available.

2) it is only a matter of time until we will have the scientific ability to do the kind of care you are talking about with the unborn (someone other than the mother caring & nurturing the child).

While I am not religious (I will call myself agnostic), and having an IQ well over genius levels, with scientific and mathematical tendencies, let me ask you a few questions, because what I see here are a bunch of people talking about «no evidence» or «proof» of God's existence, therefore He can't possibly exist, existential arguments, which are not arguments, but fearful, clouded alterations of a truth that can not be seen.

He understands theology, which he defines as «the scientific self - examination of the Christian church with respect to its distinctive God - talk,» to be a spiritual discipline within the community of faith.

’28 Kuhn's portrayal of normal science as dominated by unchallenged dogmas, his failure to specify criteria for paradigm choice, and his talk of «conversion» and «persuasion» all seem to these critics to threaten the objectivity and rationality of the scientific enterprise.

God talks to Job, and there is this beautiful series of scientific questions.

Now we may be looking at different problems here, or have different considerations in mind; but from where I view the matter, Bultmann's own statements seem to evade the crucial aspect of change in scientific thinking affecting the vision of our world; and his position, as amplified by Ogden's comments, seems to me simply not to square with the facts, as one may glean them from hearing scientists talk among themselves.

Even though Heidegger talks about such human phenomena as «fallenness» (which sounds remarkably like a Christian conception of sin), he repeatedly emphasizes that his account is scientific, not religious.

The theme of these articles and talks is that there is scientific evidence that the geological features of Australia are explicable within the context of an Earth which is only some 6 - 10,000 years old and that most such features can be attributed to a world - wide flood which occurred more recently still.

The application of process philosophy accomplishes three things which the author considers necessary to make theology relevant today: (1) it reconciles theology with the scientific world, (2) it reconciles immanence and transcendence, and (3) it makes theological talk relevant.

The Christian myths of creation and of the last things can then be dismissed as primitive cosmology, while all talk of miracles can be treated as a misguided effort at scientific explanation.

Of course, man of our scientific age, brought up, as he thinks, to sober exactness, will call such talk emotional, mere poetry and cheap comforOf course, man of our scientific age, brought up, as he thinks, to sober exactness, will call such talk emotional, mere poetry and cheap comforof our scientific age, brought up, as he thinks, to sober exactness, will call such talk emotional, mere poetry and cheap comfort.

This is not to say that nothing is known, but simply that caution must be used in talking about a reality which has only recently become the subject of scientific research.

It is not necessary for me to recount why Bultmann finds this incredibility in the form; suffice it to say that he is not committed to any particular scientific world - view, although Jaspers and others have charged him with this, but is simply stating that the contemporary man does not as a matter of fact think or talk in terms of such a form.

When a believer bit.ches and moans about how if gay marriage is legalized, next is polygamy, in.cest and beastiality, (because for some reason all of those things are related) and we reject that because 1) beastiality is stupid because we're talking about two consenting adults 2) Polygamy is not really immoral but just incredibly tricky legally to design docu.ments that would make sense and 3) inc.est has some scientific ramifications and most of us can agree that as far as icky se.xual stuff goes, that ones a doozy.

Here is what one friend said about him, and remember that this is one scientific man of medicine talking about another:

I'm not talking about «neo-darwinism;» I'm talking about the evolutionary theory that the entire scientific community accepts as proven fact because it is proven fact, and because science reaffirms its factual status a couple of thousand times a day.

Edward Wasserman, dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California — Berkeley, was quoted in Scientific American as saying, «Mainstream media have made a fortune teaching people the wrong ways to talk to each other, offering up Jerry Springer, Crossfire, Bill O'Reilly.

But briefly, it is this: «orthodox» scientific uneasiness about the role of purpose or final causation in planetary evolution has its grounds partly in the fact that over the centuries most people who have tried to describe the role of purpose on Earth haven't known «what» they were talking about.

Scientific studies of global warming talk about the variation of the earths temperature over millions of years — oops.

His Evolution and the Christian Doctrine of Creation (Westminster Press, 1967) demonstrates the remarkable change that the use of the process conceptuality can make in talk about creation and its mode, and in the scientific corollaries of this world view.

It's far too easy for theists to talk people into philosophical circles, causing them to lose sight of the scientific and logical shortcomings of their beliefs.

And we're not talking about mixing up a few new ingredients here and there; we delved into the scientific process of baking — the chemical properties and interactions that turn ingredients into delicious food — so that we could understand how to make flour combinations and baking mixes that would work this well.

We're not talking porcelain, but it's practically scientific fact that food tastes better when eaten from a legit plate, with a fork that won't snap when you stab a piece of chicken.

This article is questionable as it has no links or actual references to the studies it talks about, like someone above has mentioned also there is no information on how the diagnosis were made, and lastly it does not take into account that celiac disease is NOT an allergy, it is an auto immune disease where the body attacks its own cells confusing them with gluten proteins, it is not about tolerance, I would not be trusting this information, do lots of research on your own from legitimate scientific sources before making a decision.

In the following 2011 TED talk, science reporter, author, and mother Annie Murphy Paul discusses the latest scientific evidence gathered from the fields of biology and psychology suggesting that some of our most important learning about the world happens before we are even born.

is pseudo scientific in the sense of specious — it's wrong to talk as if the structural deficit is something that can be measured like an item of a profit & loss statement.

Asked about including new rules for scientific research of guns in the bill, Emanuel suggested that was extraneous, comparing it to the distracting talk of «midnight basketball» programs the last time Congress tried to pass major gun control legislation in the early 1990s.

Such meetings, it was agreed, are an essential element of the scientific process in any part of the world: «In spite of political differences, scientists can always get together and talk,» said Pastrana.