Sentences with phrase «scientific fact he existed»

You already accept that magic and invisibility is real so you find it proper when referencing said God that you reference it / him / she as it were proven scientific fact he existed.

Not exact matches

Basically there is as much scientific fact that Santa Claus exists as there is that HE exists and I stopped believing in santa long ago.

But Science is Can be Proof in If You Have The Time, Equipement and knowledge you can try to disprove every scientific Conclusion ever made if you have the time and resources.The Fact that the God Is A Unknown Fills Me With skepticism.No Hard Proof He exist Makes I Flawed science

The earth is approximately 4.5 BILLION years old Dinosaurs existed, just not with man Evolution is both a scientific theory and a fact There is no proof «jesus» or «mohammed» ever existed, none whatsoever.

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...

everything in the universe evolves, not only life forms but also memes, Religion is a meme so it also change in conformity to its era or time of its conception as faith.Because in pre scientific times thousands of years ago, the scientific method of approach or philosophy has not existed yet, myth or merely story telling is considered facts, The first religion called animism more than 10,000 years ago believed that spirits or god exists in trees, rivers, mountains, boulders or in any places people at that time considered holy.hundreds of them, then when the Greeks and Romans came, it was reduced to 12, they called it polytheism, when the Jews arrived, it was further reduced to 1, monotheism.its derivatives, Christianity And Islam and later hundreds of denominations that includes Mormonism and Protestants flourished up to today.So in short this religions evolved in accordance to the scientific knowledge of the age or era they existed.If you graph the growth of knowledge, it shows a sharp increase in the last 500 years, forcing the dominant religions at that time to reinterprete their dogmas, today this traditional religions are becoming obsolete and has to evolve to survive.But first they have to unify against atheism.in the dialectical process of change, Theism in one hand and the opposing force atheism in the other, will resolve into a result or synthesis.The process shall be highlighted in the internet in the near future.

That said, the case has been made that if the Christian god exists, then «God should be detectable by scientific means simply by virtue of the fact that he is supposed to play such a central role in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans», with the conclusion that» [e] xisting scientific models contain no place where God is included as an ingredient in order to describe observations.»

In particular, the denial that epistemology is wholly prior to ontology; the denial that we can have an absolutely certain starting point; the idea that those elements of experience thought by most people to be primitive givens are in fact physiologically, personally, and socially constructed; the idea that all of our descriptions of our observations involve culturally conditioned interpretations; the idea that our interpretations, and the focus of our conscious attention, are conditioned by our purposes; the idea that the so - called scientific method does not guarantee neutral, purely objective, truths; and the idea that most of our ideas do not correspond to things beyond ourselves in any simple, straightforward way (for example, red as we see it does not exist in the «red brick» itself).

Are we still at this point in history where people are being ridiculously unaccepting of scientific fact to the point where they are even referencing studies that they can not come up with a source for simply because they do not exist?

I'm sorry if the facts upset you, or contradict your existing beliefs, but the acceptance of scientific observation and experimentation is the essence of scientific understanding.

But for the sake both of truth and continued human progress, the integrity and independence of science ought to be preserved against those who would compel it to state, as scientific fact, that something exists outside of its sole field of study, which is nature.

This fact drives our scientific endeavors, but it doesn't mean we should assume certain qualities for a particular puzzle maker that may or may not exist and who may or may not be a who or what..

As a NeoPagan — Polytheist, I routinely offer my thought - prayers to a pantheon of Deities... I have NO physical / other scientifically quantifiable «proof», as such, that any deity actually exists but I am left with the supposition / fact that IF a Deity / deities exist, it is more - than - conceivable that for whatever reason (s), such a deity might choose to make themselves remote from scientific / other investigative efforts!

The difference from where we were before and where we are today as a result of this relationship between FIAL, ourselves, and CSIRO, is the fact that we did not have to invest in scientific capabilities that would take a number of years to materialise and to bear fruit, and we had immediate access to an existing knowledge base that was at arm's reach for us.

Paradoxically, what appears to be the most damning fact is not that homebirth has been shown, in every scientific study and existing state and national statistics, to triple the rate of neonatal death, but that MANA refuses to release their own statistics on the neonatal death rate of homebirth midwives.

The word «echolocation» didn't replace existing technical terms — in fact, it's sometimes called «biosonar» — but the scientific community quickly came around.

«Despite the limitations of a single arm, non-randomized study, we infer from these data that Interferon ß - 1a treatment is worth further consideration for the treatment of Ebola virus disease,» said Dr. Fish, who is also a Professor in the Department of Immunology at the University of Toronto, noting that the decision to undertake the clinical trial was based on previous preliminary scientific data, and on the fact that no currently approved antivirals exist to treat Ebola.

So, while the «limited scientific evidence» disclaimer might sound a bit questionable, it in fact communicating that the FDA considers that some credible evidence exists suggesting that resistant starch helps to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes.

Being a theoretical explanation of the fact of researching this very topic, your introduction should also contain the information, which answers whether this very topic is widely researched in scientific literature or there exist some definite gaps, which should be filled in with the help of this very study you make in your dissertation.

Not only is there no evidence for such a teapot, there is no scientific reason to expect it either; in fact there's every scientific reason to expect it doesn't exist.

Exxon tried to block the resolution by telling the Securities and Exchange Commission that the supporting statement for the resolution was false and misleading because «it implies a scientific certainty on climate change which, in fact, does not exist.»

One of these years the scientiifc community is going to wake up to the fact that there is no sound scientific basis on which anyone can claim that CAGW exists, simply because there is no basis whatsoever on which to base any estimate of climate sensitivity.

If you deny that the pause even exists then at least face the fact that the vast majority of the rest of the scientific community has now left this type of reality - denial behind and finally faced up to what skeptics have been telling them all this time.

So, in fact, models are a plague on humanity; not susceptible of confirmation and taken as «scientific consensus» where none exists.

Judy Curry has had this material many times but chooses to ignore the scientific fact that the Greenhouse gas effect does not exist.

In fact, there exists a concerted disinformation campaign one of whose key strategies is to underplay the level of scientific agreement about global warming.

I stand by what I wrote, especially the criticism of your venture as existing largely to create the impression of a crumbling scientific consensus on climate change, when in fact there is no such trend taking place in the scientific community.

Those scientific uncertainties exist even with the acceptance of «indisputable» facts, as scientists seem to interpret those facts differently based on competing theories and differing views of what are the most important facts.

On the other side of the coin, forcing all new facts, all findings of research, to align with existing accepted facts or to the overriding current theories of a field of study retards or even prevents scientific progress.

The exuberance with which the latest «97 %» study has been greeted by many of those who want to promote constructive engagement with climate science reflects a distressing resistance to take in the more general «scientific consensus» that exists among science of science communication researchers that neither a deficit in knowledge of facts — ones relating to the science of climate as well as ones relating to the extent of scientific consensus — nor a deficit in the ability to make sense of scientific information is the source of continuing conflict over climate change.

In fact, sustainability is predominantly a religious movement that is primarily concerned with defending the orthodoxy of its slowly - evolving existing teachings (particularly when those teachings are opposed by logic and scientific evidence), with establishing hierarchies within the community of believers, and with persecuting non-believers and non-adherents within the believer community.

Quite egalitarian, so in fact contrarians, scientists who hold ideas outside of the mainstream can prosper provided their ideas have some factual basis and use the scientific method (Scientific method: based on existing obervations pose an hypothesis; using new observations or experiments, test the predictions of that hypothesis; on the basis of the new data either reject the hypothesis or modify it to fit the better understanding, or accept that the initial hypothesis was right at which point it becomes a «theory» or explanatoscientific method (Scientific method: based on existing obervations pose an hypothesis; using new observations or experiments, test the predictions of that hypothesis; on the basis of the new data either reject the hypothesis or modify it to fit the better understanding, or accept that the initial hypothesis was right at which point it becomes a «theory» or explanatoScientific method: based on existing obervations pose an hypothesis; using new observations or experiments, test the predictions of that hypothesis; on the basis of the new data either reject the hypothesis or modify it to fit the better understanding, or accept that the initial hypothesis was right at which point it becomes a «theory» or explanatory model).

In their factum [read full submission] IAVGO and ONIWG argued that scientific certainty is not required (and in fact definitive scientific evidence on work - related causation rarely exists).

In their submission to Supreme Court case addressing issues of causation and Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal jurisdiction, IAVGO and ONIWG argue that scientific certainty is not required (and in fact definitive scientific evidence on work - related causation rarely exists).