Sentences with phrase «scientific explanation as to»

Oxford physicist and Guardian science writer David Robert Grimes comes up with a scientific explanation as to why people who disagree with him disagree with him...

«Willpower» aside, there is a scientific explanation as to why losing weight is more difficult for some, especially those who have a poor diet and are consistently stressed.

(See: Scientific explanation as to why sugar is «Toxic» http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/articles/sugar5.php) Also, read up on the cause of Type II Diabetes, which is a 100 % avoidable degenerative disease caused by diet.

There's actually a scientific explanation as to why salted chocolate tastes so amazing.

Moreover, perhaps the non-believers would share their very scientific explanation as to how anything was ever created.

Not only do I teach you how to adapt the program for geared lifting in the manual, I also made sure to provide video and written descriptions of special exercises for geared lifters, and I provide scientific explanations as to the science and biomechanical aspects of geared lifting in the bonus product.

Not exact matches

If you don't believe in evolution / the scientific understandings of the beginnings of the universe then the only reasonable explanations as to why your computer and so on works are that its witchcraft and wizardry.

You have chosen to believe it's not possible for God to exist a priori so any possible indication that he may, you simply reject as not possible even when there is no other scientific explanation for credible miraculous events (ones that can not be mere coincidences) other than supernatural.

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...

@ total non sense Perhaps we're splitting hairs here, but I was trying to be kind by implying that rather than treating religiosity as a mental disability, for which the supposedly clinically sick can receive insurance benefits and evade personal actionable responsibility by claiming illness, it would be better to treat religiosity as a societal functional disorder which can be addressed through better education and a perceptional shift towards accepting scientific explanations for how the world works rather than relying on literal interpretations of ancient bronze age mythologies and their many derivations since.

As presented here, the hierarchical scheme shows why «scientific» models of explanation, based on invariant relationships between abstract properties, have failed to satisfy the historical understanding.

Indeed, he turns the tables by arguing that scientific principles of reasoning point to theism as the best explanation of all the relevant data.

(For example, given Wright's understanding of what the Reformers meant by «literal,» I wonder if they wouldn't be open to scholarship that interprets Genesis 1 as an ancient Near Eastern temple text — see John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One — rather than a scientific explanation for origins.)

If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.»

Jeshua, if that were the case then religious authorities wouldn't spend so much time trying to control information, trying to pass off their beliefs as scientific, or attempting to misinform the public on genuine scientific explanations that happen to contradict those beliefs.

The revealed account of creation mentions only the «dust of the earth» as material cause; there is no certain scientific doctrine to the contrary; therefore there is no reason to abandon a «literal» interpretation of Genesis, all the more so as the history of the theory of evolution shows that this tends to be regarded in a radically materialistic way as a complete explanation of man's origin, and so involves theses which are certainly heretical.

A paradigm, such as Newton's work in mechanics, implicitly defines for a given scientific community the types of question that may legitimately be asked, the types of explanation that are to be sought, and the types of solution that are acceptable.

It may be that if we had been there we might have found a «scientific» explanation of what the early Christians regarded as miraculous; and it is legitimate enough to use such knowledge as we now have, for instance, about the treatment of psychosomatic disorders, as a help toward the explanation of some of the cures reported in the gospels.

Any explanation of observed phenomena, that invokes to any extent supernatural influence such as divine motivation, is thus inherently self - disqualified from being a scientific discipline.

The Christian doctrine of the triunitarian nature of God, to which we shall come in the latter part of this chapter, is a symbolic account that gives a better ultimate explanation of what the whole story is about than does some account true (so far as it goes) which is given in scientific (or similar) terms alone.

In addition, scientists such as Melvin Konner are appealing to «the sense of wonder,» involving a sense of the sublime, if not of the divine, to supplement, if not correct, scientific explanations.

In today's One Verse Podcast, you will see why we can not read Genesis 1:14 - 19 as a scientific explanation of how the sun, moon, and stars came to be, and you will also learn from the text what three purposes these celestial lights serve in God's creation.

In this episode of the One Verse Podcast, you will see why we can not read Genesis 1:14 - 19 as a scientific explanation of how the sun, moon, and stars came to be, and you will also learn from the text what three purposes these celestial lights serve in God's creation.

But I shall keep myself as far as possible at present to the more «scientific» view; and only as the plot thickens in subsequent lectures shall I consider the question of its absolute sufficiency as an explanation of all the facts.

It seems to me that anytime the actual entity qua actual, i.e., qua subjective immediacy, is taken into consideration, the naive realistic discourse, appropriate to cosmogonic or scientific explanation, has to be abandoned and the causally efficacious datum is to be conceived as a component of the percipient subject qua concrescence whereby transition as such is lost sight of and replaced by process.

The Scriptural account of creation, in my opinion, while not incorrect, is not intended to be a «scientific» explanation, as we understand «scientific».

Have seen them trying to make a scientific explanation for when Moses struck the sea shore and it was split open in to several paths for the Exodus of the Children of Israel as being strong winds that did that?

He maintained that scientific explanation is to be conceived as a species of metaphysical explanation.

A view of scientific explanation as metaphorical has been developed as a supplement to the deductive model of explanation by some contemporary philosophers of science (Black 1962, pp. 25 - 47 and pp. 219 - 243; Hesse 1966, pp. 157 - 177; MacCormac 1971).

After all, if we «swallow the camel» by not challenging the notion that unplanned natural forces gave rise to all living things, starting from nothing but nonliving chemicals, and «strain out the gnat» of man's consciousness as the sole exception to an otherwise completely natural explanation, are we not allowing religious beliefs to interfere with scientific explanation?

In this episode of the One Verse Podcast, you will see why we can not read Genesis 1:14 - 19 as a scientific explanation of how the sun, moon, and stars came to be, and you will also learn from the text what three purposes these celestial lights serve in.

In general, this school can be characterized by its acceptance of a logic of science; that is, its members maintain that there is a logic with respect to such scientific activities as the testing of theories, theoretical explanation, and conceptual change.

But like I said, if you want to think of it allegorically and blend a belief in God with the scientific explanation — I don't mind, so long as you don't think the earth is < 10,000 years old.

For example, his theory of the round earth's compression of people as a leading factor in socialization appears to be more a poetic conceit than a serious scientific explanation.

The British Humanist Association (BHA) has welcomed a new revision of the model funding agreement for Free Schools by the Government in order to preclude «the teaching, as an evidence - based view or theory, of any view or theory that is contrary to established scientific and / or historical evidence and explanations.»

Students will engage with scientific ideas and practices through hands - on activities and learn to write clear and concise explanations of real - world phenomena as part of a novel curriculum that the National Science Teachers Association Press is slated to publish in mid-September.

Out - of - body experiences belong to a subset of not - so - garden - variety phenomena broadly called the paranormal, although the dictionary defines that word as «beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation,» and out - of - body experiences are neither.

Science has always aimed to explain the world around us, and humanists used to portray scientific explanations as draining the joy and mystery from life.

Listen for clips from some of these lectures on the Scientific American Science Talk podcast, including Fovell's explanation as to why the notion of a freezing air mass that descends on New York City in the movie The Day After Tomorrow is goofy.

And I talked about the deficit model as one of them, and scientific literacy and maybe the media could be an explanation — that sort of is what Emanuel was pointing to.

Reviews range from simple comments such as «this is a good piece of science journalism» to detailed scientific explanations such as how «polar ice cap» fails to distinguish between land ice and sea ice.

I was skeptical of some aspects of yoga, but they opened up my eyes to the scientific as well as spiritual explanations of everything.

More amazing to me is that as recent as the 1960's and even 1970's conventional medical wisdom believed that PMS was a problem associated with a woman's «nerves» or «failure to cope», and because medical science could not give a rational «scientific» explanation, PMS was given very little credence and women were treated primarily with antidepressants (and unfortunately many with PMS still are today).

There's a much more scientific explanation to that, but it basically means that instead of burning carbohydrates (mainly glucose, or sugars), your body switches to burning fat as a primary source for energy.

I like your scientific explanation and I'm sure you're right... as I have a very low tolerance to cold, I'm very happy to hear I'll be all warm and cozy in this oversize coat.

From pop - scientific postulates to bona fide psychological hypotheses, there's an overwhelming smorgasbord of explanations on offer as to why both men and women consistently decide to ditch monogamy and play away from home.

These soldiers — a psychologist (Jennifer Jason Leigh), a biologist (Natalie Portman), a paramedic (Gina Rodriguez), a physicist (Tessa Thompson) and an anthropologist (Tuva Novotny)-- enter what is about to become a living, breathing nightmare, an environmental disaster zone without scientific explanation, as filtered through the mind of «Ex Machina» director Alex Garland, adapting the first book in Jeff VanderMeer's «Southern Reach» trilogy.

The story doesn't bother to offer a plausible scientific explanation for this astounding development, nor as to why our heroes suddenly look young again to everyone other than each other.

Sandwiched among the dramatic vignettes of the story, Greenwood pauses to pepper the book with historical sidebars about the «secret code» language used by those who helped shuttle slaves north to safety; a biographical sketch of Harriet Tubman, known as «Moses» to those along the route; a brief history of storytelling among southern slaves; a scientific explanation for the «swamp ghosts» many slaves encountered along their escape routes; an inside look at some of the methods used to hide slaves from capture; and much, much more.

Despite all of the stories and scientific explanations, nothing can quite prepare you for your own introduction to the Northern Lights - an experience often described as humbling and which has brought many people to tears with their awe - inspiring displays.