Sentences with phrase «than a scientist doing»

How many Muslim students are here now learning engineering more advanced than our scientists did decades before?

Sometimes philosophers see that truth more clearly than scientists do.

Lay people sometimes put more faith in the concept of race than scientists do, perhaps because they believe they can quite easily identify a person's race or even nationality.

That's because Big Tobacco had much more influence on politicians than scientists did.

I imagine it's possible that governments might come up with stronger statements than the scientists do, but I've not heard of any where this has yet happened.

Not exact matches

Suddenly, the freshness rating of a film became more important than audience interest in terms of success — even though data scientists have found that the score doesn't affect the box office.

According to a blog posted today by LinkedIn senior data scientist Mathieu Bastian, people who call out skills on their LinkedIn profiles receive an average of 13 times more profile views than those who don't.

I asked Dunbar what he made of social scientists» claims that people have fewer close friends today than they did years ago.

But, that's because research scientists don't make much more than $ 75,000!

I'm just saying that if some scientists believe in one pholosophy, and disagree with others who believe in a different philosophy doesn't mean anything other than a difference in beliefs.

As social scientist Arthur Brooks has documented, religious people give far more to all manner of do - gooding than do secular people.

Later, once you've learned the basics, and where you can go for reliable scientific information, you might choose to start trusting scientists, for the reason that it's easier than continuing to do the experiments yourself.

Scientists study science, do you get angry at mechanics for knowing more than you about your car?

If all scientists were constantly attempting to influence the results of their analyses, but had more opportunities to do so the «softer» the science, then we might expect that the social sciences have more papers that confirm a sought - after hypothesis than do the physical sciences, with medicine and biology somewhere in the middle.

Unless you want to give up your computer, internet, electricity and modern medicine, you should be very happy that scientists search for real knowledge rather than settling on «invisible friends who do magic.»

In advancing these theories they disregard factors universally admitted by all scientists — that in the initial period of the «birth» of the universe, conditions of temperature, atmospheric pressure, radioactivity, and a host of other catalytic factors were totally different than those existing presently, including the fact that we don't know how single atoms or their components would bind and consolidate, which involved totally unknown processes and variables, as single atoms behave far differently than conglomerations of atoms.

You want to imagine scientists have some kinda «theory of everything», but science is a process that involves more questions, some of which are never answered, than it does «describe everything».

If you did, and you don't come back with it being anything other than unproven, then you are not a scientist.

«I have always thought it curious that, while most scientists claim to eschew religion, it actually dominates their thoughts more than it does the clergy.»

If that is why you disagree with me, I muct ask, why do those few pages mean more to you than the millions of pages produced by scientists over the past hundred + years?

Labella don't mind at all and i'll say it again, he's more of a scientist than the hatetheists on this blog.

Yes because liberals and athiest Never rationalize anything like, abortion is stopping a beating heart but nobody wants to call it murder or republicans hate blacks yet under Obama and liberal aministration blacks are fairing worse than ever, or that scientist don't know how the world was created and that we came from slime but there's no proof.

But he said most scientists viewed Christianity as a fraud, which means more than half, and you can't disprove that with a dozen quotes unless there are less than two dozen scientists, which I don't believe is the case.

It is blatantly clear why scientists employed by the tobacco industry arrive at quite different conclusions on the relation of smoking and cancer than do others.

The sciences are also concerned with interpreting reality — the universe or universes, if you will — although cosmology means different things to scientists than it does to theologians.

The Mind of God by Paul Davies Simon & Schuster, 254 pages, $ 22 «I have always thought it curious that, while most scientists claim to eschew religion, it actually dominates their thoughts more than it does the clergy.»

The existence of God can not be proven or disproven by scientists, though many have tried, and their desparate need to convince those of us who do believe that God does not exist is more than amusing.

To the Christian, such an atheistic approach to human nature is essentially inhuman, since men do not exist without a fundamental religious vocation any more than they exist in this life without physical needs, individuality or communities, all aspects of the human condition eagerly studied by social scientists.

Scientists don't have all the answers on cosmology and evolution, but they certainly have more accurate information than what is included in the bible.

He was raised in a world that had a higher belief in creationism than exists today so to did all the other «Scientists» of modern times.

I'm not a scientist or anything and I admit to him knowing tenfold more than I do, yet while I do not follow word - for - word creationalism sounds to me that HE is the one ignoring other facts that some may believe in.

Topher, AGAIN, how do you say there's no science behind evolution when scientists who are much more qualified than you consider evolution to be obvious?

Bill, Christian scientists have done just fine and what we need more than anything in our children... is Godliness — integrity, honesty, character, kindness, empathy, compassion, humility... way more important than any other accomplishment!!!

How often do most people other than architects and rocket scientists need to make such a calculation in real life?

But does the bias of a lawyer in a courtroom drama (be it positive or negative) make the legal process any less objective than that of the scientist in the laboratory?

The survey did find that factors other than perception of stigma also deterred childbearing, such as long hours, particularly for research scientists running labs and applying for grants, and the difficulty of finding affordable and reliable childcare.

Many scientists do give up personal convenience and worldly pleasures, but less from any deliberate unselfishness than from interest in their work.

These scientist, and doctors, can not remake skin, bone, eyes, brains, oval eggs, sperm, none of the sort, so they have no real answer to create a life other than how procreation works, where again what, and how is the very first man, or woman, animal, other creatures, either in the sea, or creeping on this earth was originally created from, as where did they first come from?

If there was, than real scientists would be refining and honing that method and religionists would not need to manipulate others into belief with promises of salvation, threats of hell, and tsk - tsking of those who don't show respect for the insanity.

Yet another scientist, or person of education, who thinks they know better than the rest of us, and that we have to follow their thinking or be publicly castigated and humiliated for any belief they didn't proclaim as «good.»

While recognizing that his competence was mainly as a scientist, he was accepting of people who overlapped the scientific and religious spheres more than he did.

We all must admit, scientists and religious folks alike, that there is much more in our religions and sciences that we do not understand than we do.

Again I state... we do nt use theologians to determine the age of the earth, we use scientists... and until such time you can refute all the different methods used to determine age then that carries far more weight than what a 2000 year old book says.

Now I think that in making this distinction Whitehead makes a good and original initial point; because it is the fact that philosophers, by instinct, always think heterogeneously about nature, whereas scientists, equally by instinct, don't, which, more than any one thing, makes the philosophy of science so unreal a subject for actual research scientists.

Having a B.S. degree does NOT make you a scientist any more than having a B.A. makes you the next Rembrandt.

If it is such a «scientifically incorrect» theory then why don't you publish something in a science journal about it and try to sway the more than 99 % of scientists who accept it as true.

I don't think we should restrict scientists (within the bounds of common morality) if they want to hypothesize on something other than the commonly taught ideas of science.

When you are done wasting time reading Lewis try reading Neil Degrasse Tyson, or Dawkins... real scientists, with real facts rather than opine like Lewis.

If someone has a Phd in Physics and works in advertising (with no science on the side as a hobby), is he more of a scientist than a lawyer who does amature astronomy full time after retiring?

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.