Sentences with phrase «scientific facts do»

For many people, scientific facts do not really speak loud and clear.

'' For many people, scientific facts do not really speak loud and clear» is an understatement of enormous proportions.

I also realize that scientific facts don't care for my beliefs.

Regardless of whether this was just an old Hebrew method of deciding what to eat dependent on observation; the test of scientific fact does not pass.

How much scientific fact does it take to become scientific fact?

Not exact matches

We may all have suspected that heat waves don't bring out our best selves, but having scientific confirmation of the fact should nudge you to be more aware of the effect.

@Mark Just because one or all faiths may have the wrong name or concept of God does not necessarily follow that «God is imaginary» is a scientific fact.

Just don't try to force the rest of the world to treat the idea as a hard scientific fact.

The big bang theory, though not proven, DOES have a mountain of scientific FACTS that support it!

The fact that scientific * understanding * changes indicates that we are * learning * more about our world — it does not indicate that the world itself is going through some slow metamorphoses to keep up with scientific theories.

We do need to separate scientific fact from extrapolations that suggest no god since science has never arrived at such a consensus.

We don't like seeing creationism being described as having the same scientific validity as evolution, when in fact it has no scientific validity at all.

Science doesn't teach «scientific fact».

To keep saying... this is fact, this is fact does not help prove that you have a proven scientific method.

If you want to be blind to reality, I'm fine with that, as long as you don't try to put those blinders on public school kids (my Catholic school taught that evolution was a scientific fact, btw).

Nothing that Alexander Light says or does is «Scientific Fact.»

Please cite actual «scientific» facts that do more than * point * to god's existence.

Don't misunderstand me; some evolutionists (particularly some of the neo-atheists like Richard Dawkins, who argues in his new book people who don't believe in evolution are on the same level as Holocaust deniers) have gone ape over their theory (forgive the pun) to the point that they seem to forget it is a theory, and refer to it as if it is an undeniable scientific fact.

Convenient how the religious always blot out the aspects of PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT that they just don't happen to like.

Tell me, if you don't believe in scientific fact, are you floating around inside your house, since you don't believe in gravitation?

We've really only had a couple hundred years to examine these scientific questions and already have way more theories that have actual facts and clues backing them up that evolution did happen and the universe did bang, etc..

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...

Once you decided not to consider any facts or scientific principles that did not agree with your a priori beliefs, your «investigation» became useless.

For example, how does the Bible harmonize with the scientific fact that the earth is suspended in space without seemingly nothing to hold it up?

the scientific method scares the religious, as do facts and logic.

Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.»

First, its premisses concerning society and modern man are pseudoscientific: for example, the affirmation that man has become adult, that he no longer needs a Father, that the Father - God was invented when the human race was in its infancy, etc.; the affirmation that man has become rational and thinks scientifically, and that therefore he must get rid of the religious and mythological notions that were appropriate when his thought processes were primitive; the affirmation that the modern world has been secularized, laicized, and can no longer countenance religious people, but if they still want to preach the kerygma they must do it in laicized terms; the affirmation that the Bible is of value only as a cultural document, not as the channel of Revelation, etc. (I say «affirmation» because these are indeed simply affirmations, unrelated either to fact or to any scientific knowledge about modern man or present - day society.)

To suppose that the scientific study of nature is a natural by - product of a certain stage of cultural development simply does not fit the facts of world history.

Not only are irrefutable facts being challenged by people who do not understand the science involved or the importance of these facts, but the belief that there is no scientific consensus leads to a lack of attitudes to change.

Science is integral to Christian discernment as it relates to the physical world and evolution of mankind is most likely scientific fact but not yet proven — has nothing to do with doctrine.

While it is true that the scientific method can not easily handle the category of non-natural objects or events (like the Shroud of Turin), this fact does not say anything about the possibility of miracle.

You do not understand science - you simply want to keep believing nonsense and try to square it with irrefutable scientific facts and discoveries.

Evolution is a fact but we do not have the scientific evidence yet to prove that man evolved.

Some facts in Bible indeed can't be explained by the science as we know it but it doesn't change the fact that «there is NOTHING scientific about Genesis» is a false claim.

Confirmation bias is one problem, the other is absolutely lying about several scientific facts: «If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent — separate and apart from the effect — that caused it.»

To believe in creationism and deny the scientific facts, as Nye put it, does indeed hold us all back.

Come on... I do see scientific theories as interesting — However, I am open to the idea that it is all wrong, even the theories that were «proven» and became «fact» — Why?

If you want to believe in your god, then more power to you, but don't make yourself look stupid by trying to refute scientific fact based on what someone told you or what you've read in an outdated book written to scare and control mankind though fantastical and highly embellished stories meant to inspire fear and obedience to ancient laws and beliefs.

The cheerleaders in the scientific community don't mind that the average dude takes their assumptions as facts.

Evolution is sound scientific fact that does not intertwine with religion and belief.

If you want to believe that joke as scientific fact go ahead.Scietific «facts» are nothing more than guesswork on the part bunch of educated morons looking for more free grant money so they don't have to get a real job.

The scientific community does refer to it as fact, because it is indeed a totally estabished fact that guides all biological thinking and has for well over a hundred years.

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).

Also do your homework and see that science says that the events described in the bible of pharohs time have a stricking reseblence to all other scientific facts of the time.

How long did it take humans to believe the world wasnt flat, the center of the universe orbited by the sun even when hard facts (not trillionth of partial scientific theorys but easily observable truths) becuase the teaching of religion contradicted them?

Or does the scientific community really believe that they have proven abiogenesis to be a fact?

If you can do both those things, maybe you won't be labeled ignorant bigots, just silly ignorant people who believe in fairy tales before hard scientific facts.

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?

It doesn't say «Hate gays» or «ignore scientific facts!

We do know that science many a times takes «U» turns, therefore I have restricted the examples only to scientific facts which have sufficient proof and evidence and not scientific theories based on assumptions.