Sentences with phrase «only by scientists»

Such perceptions are shaped not only by scientists, but by interest groups, politicians, and the media.

Systems thinking is needed not only by the scientists and engineers but by the policy makers as well.

«One of the most wonderful changes that has come to NASA over the last decade is the way they share images with the public,» says Lakdawalla, who explains that once upon a time, data would be sent back from missions for use only by scientists, who might publish a paper months later with a smattering of images.

It's really only by scientists performing some of this essential work on early human embryos that we are going to be able to understand why some embryos make it and some don't.

Not exact matches

Solutions are now available (including Watson Analytics developed by my company, IBM) that are designed not only for data scientists and analysts but for every business professional who uses data.

Sarov is an isolated city kept under constant guard by the Russian military, and only scientists and employees of the nuclear centre are allowed to enter, leave, or take residence in the city.

Its only being revived by laymen, not scientists.

Scientists analysing 400 people who've had near - death experiences found they aren't only had by people actually dying - pilots, divers and climbers have also experienced them.

Unfortunately, your way of thinking has been proven to be detrimental over and over again by those Atheists with working brains (only 8 % of scientists claim to have a belief system in the super natural).

Since no one has yet to SEE an atom, the idea of the structure of the atom can only be inferred by experimental evidence — yet I see no Republican trying to stop teaching the structure of the atom in school — oh that's right, its because major corporations and industries rely on this science (pharm, weapons manufacturers etc etc) whereas the theory of evolution is merely think piece of scientists on how life on Earth changes over time.

To understand why Behe's argument is so uncontested in the realm of fact, and yet why so many scientists find the concept of irreducible complexity not only difficult to accept but even impossible to consider, we should start by summarizing the modern understanding of Darwinism, as set out by Richard Dawkins.

It's still happening today, scientists still only exist because they're mostly privately funded by atheists to continue to feed the anti Christian propaganda machine.

We both know that some of the earliest well - known scientists were not only religious but were funded by the church of their day.

Poverty research also tends to isolate policy deliberations from politics by wrapping them in a cocoon of statistical methods that only trained social scientists can fathom.

I am Gay, my God therefore is also gay, we will put into extinction on earth all females.we are scientist expert in cloning, we will propagate only our own specie, thereby cleansing the earth of the animals called cow like smelly animals by the late Rock Hudson

Why appeal to authority when the person writing this article possesses only credentials that are easily trumped by many many scientists who would disagree with her.

As neil degrasse tyson pointed out, each of our great mathematicians and scientists throughout the centuries reached their limit and declared God did it... only to have the next guy push though that barrier, reach their own limit... and claim the same... This lady has the benefit of history and science at her finger tips, and judging by her credentials is no stranger to the scientific process, and still fell into the same trap...

The only problem with your ittle hateful high school rant is that this is an article written by a Scientist who is simply making further extrapolations.

My own view of all of this, as a practicing social scientist interested in the relationship between religious faith and empirical science, is that the general perspective taken by Evans - Pritchard, Douglas, and the Turners is not only entirely reasonable but close to the best account we might give.

Scientific theories that have been shown to be «wrong» in the past were at best only shown to be partially wrong, and more often than not the wrong parts were forced upon scientists by religion and the church.

@hawaiiguest I believe I made my original point that the evolutionist are the more close minded of the two camps because they only trust what they can see or has been proven by «scientist» Scientist or the progressives of their age once thought the earth scientist» Scientist or the progressives of their age once thought the earth Scientist or the progressives of their age once thought the earth was flat.

Scientists who study within the 2 variants of Space, One being Outer and the other being Inner are slowed to rationalize with right - minded fidelity, that Inner Space and Outer Space are but the sameness yet their Sizes of these Spaces are seen only by the material that one sees.

and in that text there are scientific facts that are only now being proven by modern scientists?

Scientists resist such revolutions because previous commitments have permeated all their thinking; a new paradigm prevails only when the older generation has been «converted» to it, or has died off and been replaced by a new generation.

And by scientists I mean not only biologists, etc., but sociologists, etc..

Scientists, by thinking only in terms of their own minds and the bodies of others, miss personal reality altogether.

They are so about the coming revenge of the nerds that they forget that even scientists and philosophers have to be animated by erotic longings that could only exist in beings with bodies, minds, and other stuff too — in persons.

SMURFETT The only truly docu.mented observation of gay s.ex by scientists is an experiment on a highly populated and restricted colony of rats.

For example a century ago, the only transportation was the horse riding or camel or donkey and so on... you can not imagine at that time people would be thinking about travelling the globe in a day or two... and we do not know what is coming as every scientists theory is being abrogated by a new scientist and the old one becomes obsolete... these also proves that human theory can not be perfect and will never be perfect... there will always be modifications...

The spate of bad books on philosophy and religion by prominent scientists — Dawkins» The God Delusion, Hawking and Mlodinow's The Grand Design, and Atkins» On Being, among others — is notable not only for the sophomoric philosophical and theological errors they contain but also for their sheer repetitiveness.

Instead, too many atheists simply regurgitate the «official» atheist position (ironic, given that this is what they accuse believers of doing vis - a-vis the Bible...), not only without having read the book recently enough to cite it accurately, but also not taking into account the most recent arguments supporting or undermining — not only by believers, but by atheist scientists as well.

Buoyed by a self - confidence that, paradoxically, can only be justified by the theistic premise of man's capacity to transcend nature, these scientists began subjecting man himself to an increasing amount of scientific study.

This does not mean that the content of revelation needs to pass the specific tests devised by academically critical methods which generally accept only those ideas that pass muster with scientists.

The problem with appeals like Vatinno's to an ideal science is that science only exists as it is performed by scientists.

Munich professor of theology Wolthart Pannenberg, sounding strikingly like a social scientist, has observed that «it is only by symbols and symbolic language that the larger community to which we belong is present in our experiences and activities.

Millions of people could have been saved from death if he'd only explained the germ theory of disease two thousand years before it was discovered by scientists.

Biological evolution is not only universally accepted by all scientists in some form or other, but it is part of the common knowledge of nearly everybody who has had a secondary school education.

PDX — It doesn't take a Genius to realize from my statements that i have read things other than the Bible you moron i have spent many hours reading and listening to scientists about their theories on the big bang, i have listened to ideas from the most revered scientists including Hawking and others, and they all admit that there are holes in their theories, that nothing fully explains their big bang theory, the physics doesn't add up let alone the concept, there are plenty of scientists hard at work trying to make the numbers fit and the theory hold weight but if you ask any of them they can not give you the answers and the reason being... there are none, the theory doesn't work, If by the observable laws of Physics, Matter in this Universe can not be created or destroyed, you can only change its state, i.e. solid to liquid, to gas... to energy... There is no explanation for how an entire reality full of Matter can be created out of nothing... Scientists know this... idiots that are atheists and simply would rather NOT believe that their lives and actions they take within their lifespan are being witnessed by an Omnipotent God do not WANT to believe... but Your belief in God does not change whether or not he exists you will scientists about their theories on the big bang, i have listened to ideas from the most revered scientists including Hawking and others, and they all admit that there are holes in their theories, that nothing fully explains their big bang theory, the physics doesn't add up let alone the concept, there are plenty of scientists hard at work trying to make the numbers fit and the theory hold weight but if you ask any of them they can not give you the answers and the reason being... there are none, the theory doesn't work, If by the observable laws of Physics, Matter in this Universe can not be created or destroyed, you can only change its state, i.e. solid to liquid, to gas... to energy... There is no explanation for how an entire reality full of Matter can be created out of nothing... Scientists know this... idiots that are atheists and simply would rather NOT believe that their lives and actions they take within their lifespan are being witnessed by an Omnipotent God do not WANT to believe... but Your belief in God does not change whether or not he exists you will scientists including Hawking and others, and they all admit that there are holes in their theories, that nothing fully explains their big bang theory, the physics doesn't add up let alone the concept, there are plenty of scientists hard at work trying to make the numbers fit and the theory hold weight but if you ask any of them they can not give you the answers and the reason being... there are none, the theory doesn't work, If by the observable laws of Physics, Matter in this Universe can not be created or destroyed, you can only change its state, i.e. solid to liquid, to gas... to energy... There is no explanation for how an entire reality full of Matter can be created out of nothing... Scientists know this... idiots that are atheists and simply would rather NOT believe that their lives and actions they take within their lifespan are being witnessed by an Omnipotent God do not WANT to believe... but Your belief in God does not change whether or not he exists you will scientists hard at work trying to make the numbers fit and the theory hold weight but if you ask any of them they can not give you the answers and the reason being... there are none, the theory doesn't work, If by the observable laws of Physics, Matter in this Universe can not be created or destroyed, you can only change its state, i.e. solid to liquid, to gas... to energy... There is no explanation for how an entire reality full of Matter can be created out of nothing... Scientists know this... idiots that are atheists and simply would rather NOT believe that their lives and actions they take within their lifespan are being witnessed by an Omnipotent God do not WANT to believe... but Your belief in God does not change whether or not he exists you will Scientists know this... idiots that are atheists and simply would rather NOT believe that their lives and actions they take within their lifespan are being witnessed by an Omnipotent God do not WANT to believe... but Your belief in God does not change whether or not he exists you will be judged.

According to Rev Hubert Vecchierello, OFM, PhD, «The theory [Lemaitre's model] is a daring one, sweeping aside old astronomical ideas and presenting a picture which is not only one of great splendour but also has the added beauty of seeking to reconcile several conflicting notions held by pre-eminent scientists.»

Dr. Ebert questioned the credibility of the USDA's National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), charged by Congress with reviewing food additives for use in organics, by stating that, out of the 15 - member board, only one seat was designated for a scientist.

Dr Chito Medina, MASIPAG partner scientist, said that Health Impact Assessments and Environmental Impact Assessments as required under the JDC should be done by an independent group of experts, and the process can not be confined from the data presented only by the proponents.

You'll discover that our coconut recipes not only produce great meals, they also encourage a higher quality of life by helping you get away from processed foods found in grocery stores, and back in the kitchen participating in the age - old community of scientists and artists who love to create excellent meals from scratch using whole food ingredients.

This ground - breaking, by - invitation - only program brings together America's most influential high - volume foodservice chefs, leading nutrition scientists, and various world cuisines and other culinary experts to advance healthier food choices in American foodservice.

Releases dictated by Mad Scientist whim... we blast these beers to our full network, but they only show up every so often.

The juice was first created by food scientists at Cornell University who not only uncovered the benefits of tart cherries, but also developed a proprietary juicing process so all the flavor and nutrients could be delivered into a great tasting juice.

About Cheribundi Cheribundi, the most widely distributed brand in fresh tart cherry juice, was first created by food scientists at Cornell University who not only uncovered the benefits of tart cherries, but also developed a proprietary juicing process so all the cherry - goodness and nutrients could be delivered in a great tasting juice.

Until very recently, impact sensors - accelerometers measuring the forces which, when transmitted to the brain, cause sports - related concussions - were only used by scientists in conducting research.

(what they term the «bias blind spot») Only by acknowledging such cognitive biases, they argue, can both scientists and journalists entertain and reconcile the empirical evidence about SRC in its entirety.

By the way, a great book by another skeptical OBGYN is called «Born in the USA» only he's skeptical of medicalized birth because he's a clinical scientist as well, unlike our author here and he's realized that home birth is safer than hospital birth according to peer - reviewed large scale studieBy the way, a great book by another skeptical OBGYN is called «Born in the USA» only he's skeptical of medicalized birth because he's a clinical scientist as well, unlike our author here and he's realized that home birth is safer than hospital birth according to peer - reviewed large scale studieby another skeptical OBGYN is called «Born in the USA» only he's skeptical of medicalized birth because he's a clinical scientist as well, unlike our author here and he's realized that home birth is safer than hospital birth according to peer - reviewed large scale studies.

These complex sugars are indigestible by the infant but appear to play a powerful role in shaping an infant's gut microbiome, the fine - tuned community of trillions of microbial cells that, again, scientists are only beginning to understand.