Sentences with phrase «than scientific as»

The solutions are technological rather than scientific as such.

Not exact matches

They described it as being different than a businessman, who is an overall scientific manager.

More than that, they lack a funded mission and all that entails, such as a scientific program, support staff, data analysis and office space.

But to every rule there is an exception, and glad I was to be called out (and called up) by the founder and CEO of one mobile - health company whose entire premise is based on scientific research with repeatable results — the exact study, in fact, I had used as my example of what works better than a health app.

We may remember this as the time when scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs were integrated into the fabric of society faster than they had ever been before.

A better policy focus on those areas has a better chance to dramatically alter poverty than the new math being peddled as scientific fact.

The only other comment I'd have is that whilst he meets a much higher standard of scientific approach than the snake oil dressed as financial advice elsewhere, the core testing methods used are opaque and (as far as I can tell) not peer reviewed or made available for scrutiny.

They work to secure media attention for their own work as well as for plant - based and cultured meat companies, and they have been covered in more than 480 scientific and mainstream media venues.16 Little is known about the impact of these interventions on public opinion, though it seems that raising public awareness of cultured products may be valuable, especially since the field is so new.

I found this debate last night as a way for Ken Ham to get more publicity for his Creation Museum, more than to really promote learning and scientific pursuit.

More than a century ago, Frederick Winslow Taylor brought his stopwatch and principles of scientific management to the office, instilling efficiency as the highest calling in what was then a factory for processing paperwork.

As fast as those faster - than - the - speed - of - light neutrinos that have ASTONISHED the global scientific communitAs fast as those faster - than - the - speed - of - light neutrinos that have ASTONISHED the global scientific communitas those faster - than - the - speed - of - light neutrinos that have ASTONISHED the global scientific community?

As for the one god being more valid than any of the other thousands, that things you attribute to him (technically to Jesus), still haven't been proven in anything outside of the bible, which no one of a scientific mind can accept as convincing prooAs for the one god being more valid than any of the other thousands, that things you attribute to him (technically to Jesus), still haven't been proven in anything outside of the bible, which no one of a scientific mind can accept as convincing prooas convincing proof.

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.

Although atheism is semantically the rejection of the claim of an existence of a god, it is also the result of careful scrutiny of reality as explained and analyzed using the scientific method, which in the 21st century is far more reliable than what was used in 1st century bronze aged Palestine.

Catholics (64 percent) and Jews (62 percent) find sex «Deliciously Sensuous» (a carefully chosen scientific term of art, no doubt) as opposed to only 51 percent of Protestants, perhaps indicating that a vestigial sense of guilt is more likely to enhance sexual excitement than a vestigial sense of moderation.

= > There is knowledge other than what is current consensus of scientific facts (they change as we have a history of science).

@ 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.

Bad as the actions of the APS were, they were far better than those of most other scientific societies, which refused to even reconsider extreme statements on climate.

(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.)

As has been argued in the pages of Faith before, as most scientists intuit, scientific knowledge is no more provisional or functional in character than all knowledge of the physicaAs has been argued in the pages of Faith before, as most scientists intuit, scientific knowledge is no more provisional or functional in character than all knowledge of the physicaas most scientists intuit, scientific knowledge is no more provisional or functional in character than all knowledge of the physical.

Instead it has more plausibility as a metaphysical than as a scientific instrument of explanation.

Nevertheless, at specific points such as the time and manner of creation and the expectancy of divine intervention in an established order, the defenders of traditional Christian belief have had to make more adjustments than have the exponents of the scientific spirit.

The principal value of the scientific study of race is to render the concept more exact than it is in common use and to demonstrate its severe limitations as a classification device.

Rather than allow this experience to float free of the moorings of actual science, as Jurgen Moltmann appears to do, we would prefer to ground it in the dynamic of scientific observation, along the lines indicated in this issue's Notes from Across the Atlantic.

Again, proof and evidence guided by the scientific method or a preponderance of evidence weighed objectively seems to work better than taking as «proof» anecdotal testimony.

There have been many such changes, 8 so significant, in fact, that one wonders if Darwin must not be regarded, even by the biologists themselves, more as a precursor of developments leading to present - day evolutionary thinking rather than as a continuing historical source of our scientific understanding of man.

While it maybe be true that large pools of institutional money are better at buying political favors, influencing scientific research, and swaying foreign governments, it has always been known and is frequently demonstrated that individuals always do better at loving and caring for other individuals, tend to be wiser stewards of money, and view their giving and service toward others as a means of actually helping them, rather than a means to gain political power or popular prestige.

iif your refer to quack medicine without scientific research as practiced in china or elsewhere i am sure its goes back even perhaps even more than 2000 years.

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.

Isn't a bit just as zealous as a creationist that tells you creationism is fact, to force an absolutely unproven theory, with zero physical evidence as scientific fact, rather than a wild theory that many scientist desperately hold onto?

The protagonist understands alcohol abuse as a moral problem, having to do with desires and wants, rather than a scientific one, having to do with disease and cures.

I have as much scientific education as him, and I think he has more faith than I do, to believe that the highly complex designs around us randomly evolved, in any time period at all.

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.

Despite this, I still believe in God because of some experiences I've had as a child... other than that, I think people should start considering things through a rational, scientific perspective.

If you accept the carbon 14 dating method as accruate as the entire scientific community does, than that woudl be «proof» that dinosaurs and vegitation fossils are as old as estimated.

This theoretical attitude, which comes so naturally to modern scientific humankind, is likely to be far more destructive to Christianity than any attack that the atheists might launch, because it can cut the very heart out of the Christian life — and in such a way that the individual does not at all think of himself or herself as having given up the faith.

Medieval art as well dealt in symbols in an era when artists were more concerned with the world of Christian faith than with the world of scientific observation.

I am not trying to prove that the Qur» an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified.

Lesser men than the great scientists too readily assumed that all new knowledge must be made to fit the «scientific» dogma, just as earlier it was expected to fit the ecclesiastical dogma.

Demanding strictly scientific precision to guarantee Scripture's trustworthiness, requiring something more objective than the internal, personal witness of the Holy Spirit through the text itself, scholars like Lindsell end up testing the truth of the Bible by an extra-Biblical standard.32 As with Davis, externally derived «good reasons» become the ultimate criterion for judging the gospel.

For theology is more than a scientific assessment of the text; the Biblical texts must also be received as address (they are God's word to us) and made relevant by application (they are God's word to us).

It would be unfaithful to both the best in the world of scientific learning and the wisest kind of religious leadership to offer more than these broad clear strokes in the portrayal of what it means in our day to undertake the work of a scientist as a Christian calling.

The scientific method of study and inquiry, important and indeed essential as it is to us, does not lead us to absoluteness of truth any more than the supposed divine revelation did.

Rather than these unity - level «rational structures» being intrinsic to what «modern scientific reason» discovers a posteriori, the Pope argues that science's «methodology -LSB-... is] based» upon «acceptance of] the rational structures of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given» (our emphasis).

Rather than leaving this as an uninvestigated discovery, as scientific reductionism and materialism would have us leave it, the Holy Father invites us to remit the question to those areas of study which have the appropriate competence, which comprise human subjectivity and creativity within their appropriate object: namely philosophy and theology.

When one appeals to «the world - picture formed by modern natural science» as the common basis for understanding man and his world, do we not have to be more definitive and discriminating within scientific imagery itself than either Bultmann or Ogden appear to be?

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.

Some people feel as though there is more to the universe than a random scientific reaction, but do not agree with the idea of taking rules and ideas that were written down by MEN thousands of years ago as the word of GOD.

This new preoccupation with transcendence is prompted less by a scientific outlook than by human satiety with the world as it is.

Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more «scientific» (i.e., empirically based) than any other kind of faith.