Sentences with phrase «scientific basis for this belief»

If you want to believe in a god or gods that's your perogative, claiming a scientific basis for that belief enters one into the area of testability.

There's no scientific basis for this belief.

A report entitled «Bioethics and human population genetic research» submitted to the third session of the UNESCO International Bioethics Committee in November 1996 pointed out that there is greater diversity within populations than between them and that population geneticists note that population genetics offers no scientific basis for the belief that certain races (however defined) are superior to other races.

Not exact matches

In any case, no scientist, elite or otherwise, has found any scientific evidence for God's existence, so the basis for their belief in a god has no different than anyone else's.

What religion offers: — The opportunity to avoid eternal punishment for not worshiping / believing in my god (not worried enough to care)-- An explanation for the universe and why we are here (I'll take the knowledge gained from the application of the scientific method, but thanks)-- Living forever in heavenly bliss (I am content with this life)-- The opportunity to divide humanity based upon different belief systems (There is enough dividing us already)-- Purpose, a code of ethics, and fulfillment (I have that already, without religion)-- Develop a personal relationship with god (I've never seen or heard from any gods nor have I seen any independantly verified scientifically collected peer reviewed proof.

alfie, She did not reach a scientific conclusion — she offers no basis in science for her comments; her conclusion is informed purely by her religious beliefs.

Facts like the snows that have covered Mount Kilimanjaro for thousands of years are melting Scientific proof may not be as «warm and fuzzy» feeling as political rhetoric is, but it's better to base our beliefs and actions on objective reality than on self - serving political dogma.

The view for or against is a BELIEF and is not based on any reproducible scientific method.

Our in depth questionnaire uses a scientific approach to ensure we find exactly what you are looking for based on your values and beliefs when it comes to finding a match.

Often justified largely on the basis of junk science they have come up with such wonderful policy prescriptions as using only unreliable sources of energy because they are «sustainable,» keeping natural resources in the ground rather than using them to meet human needs, having government tell manufacturers what requirements their products must meet to use less energy rather than encouraging manufacturers to meet the needs of their customers, all in the name of «energy efficiency,» substituting government dictates for market solutions on any issue related to energy use, and teaching school children junk science that happens to meet «environmentalists» ideological beliefs in hopes of perpetuating these beliefs to future generations even though they do not conform to the scientific method, the basis of science.

Since to me (and many scientists, although some wanted a lot more corroborative evidence, which they've also gotten) it makes absolutely no sense to presume that the earth would just go about its merry way and keep the climate nice and relatively stable for us (though this rare actual climate scientist pseudo skeptic seems to think it would, based upon some non scientific belief — see second half of this piece), when the earth changes climate easily as it is, climate is ultimately an expression of energy, it is stabilized (right now) by the oceans and ice sheets, and increasing the number of long term thermal radiation / heat energy absorbing and re radiating molecules to levels not seen on earth in several million years would add an enormous influx of energy to the lower atmosphere earth system, which would mildly warm the air and increasingly transfer energy to the earth over time, which in turn would start to alter those stabilizing systems (and which, with increasing ocean energy retention and accelerating polar ice sheet melting at both ends of the globe, is exactly what we've been seeing) and start to reinforce the same process until a new stases would be reached well after the atmospheric levels of ghg has stabilized.

What continues to be lacking is a linear scientific methodological demonstration that there's a solid basis for that belief and the alarums that accompany it.