Sentences with phrase «than scientific evidence»

In their article, they claimed political ideology rather than scientific evidence motivates skepticism toward their assertions of a global warming crisis.

Not one of them has restored us to health, and that's because each one is underpinned by profit motives, rather than scientific evidence that manipulating macronutrients, or eating specifically for your blood type, or putting your body into some kind of unnatural state, is a positive or sustainable way to live.

So for now, considerations like parental style, time commitment and kid personality will be more important than scientific evidence in choosing a toilet training approach.

Little do you know, their advice is based on their personal experiences rather than any scientific evidence because they haven't had much training in breastfeeding.

The weight of scientific evidence for your belief is no greater than the scientific evidence for my beliefs.

With that there is no more scientific evidence than scientific evidence for God.

But California's new guidelines — and some of the news coverage they have inspired — can make it seem like using a cell phone carries far more risk than scientific evidence suggests.

Not exact matches

This report cited new scientific evidence that the GM corn might have a negative impact on insects and its pollen could be dispersed further than previously thought.

Scientists, for their part, especially those in the scientific community with burdens against religion, need to understand that the nature of scientific evidence, method and hypotheses and the nature of theological evidence, method, and hypothesis have more in common than they might imagine.

Scientists believe scientific results because objective evidence confirms rather than denies an idea.

There's a lot more mathematical evidence for the scientific origin of the universe than one dusty old book, let's just put it that way.

If you admit the value of the scientific method, if you value the process of questioning assumptions, and requiring evidence to support assertions, rather than the idea of holding assertions because they are plesant, then your beliefs should be tossed out.

Would any of us respect the scientific findings in any field if they used emotional appeals to make their case, rather than evidence?

Evidence that probably shows you more than what a human being backed with a theory about the scientific method, possible misunderstandings and personal opinions can offer you.

In any case, no scientist, elite or otherwise, has found any scientific evidence for God's existence, so the basis for their belief in a god has no different than anyone else's.

The challenge facing the church is to discard the unproven scientific theories of the 1980's and 1990's; to understand the scientific evidence that shows non-reverable sexual orientations; and to give the gay believer in Christ mercy to be married for life to the same sex spouse (rather than to continue to insist on the sacrifice of celibacy).

I have read statements from his peers in the past saying that there is inconclusive evidence in regards to age old mysteries, and I respect him for standing firm with what he believes, but I would expect someone with such a scientific background to have more than conjecture to back their claims.

I don't have scientific evidence to support this, but I would hypothesize that church people tend to feel this pull more than non-church people, because church people tend to pack their calendars stupid full.

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.

You're simply crazy if you think your 2000 year old book of fairy tales holds more evidence than the scientific research done on this subject, research that is within this decade.

You should let them know that their application of the scientific method to the interpretation of evidence is no more or less credible than solving crimes with psychic powers.

Your friend may actually have more scientific evidence than you think.

You need to prove, or at least provide real evidence (scientific method, rules of evidence), before we can move on to using The Babble for anything more than fire starter or toilet paper.

Since this country has both been largely Christian and the leader in scientific discovery for more than 250 years, it seems the evidence proves that being a Christian nation has made us better off scientifically than other countries without our core values.

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?

Bill, please present evidence that children raised by Bible believing Christians are less «scientific» than other children?

The question I have asked, which you have dodged on more than one occasion, is where is the scientific evidence for god?

Thus far every scientific test has shown no substantial evidence of a prayer having been answered, and actually the evidence points to prayer having no effect at all other than wasting time.

Im curious thogh if any christians can actually add some scientific evidence to their claims other than just quoting the bible.

Rather we are well reminded that the Judaeo - Christian God is the immediate sustainer of all, and that to give a scientific explanation is more evidence for the Creator than against him.

Ignoring the proper definition of (scientific) theory, the existence of any god is a theory, and there is far more evidence for evolution (lots) than there is for any god (none).

[1][2] It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as «an evidence - based scientific theory about life's origins» rather than «a religious - based idea».

And so because they're committed to a super-young-earth model of Creation, the AIG folks end up dismissing a ton of actual scientific and historical evidence (like the fact that we have more than 4,937 years of after - Flood history) that's really a deal - breaker for anyone who really wants to sit down and think this through.

Scientific evidence counts for more than anything you believe in.

And, I asked because you seem articulate, so I was just wondering how it is possible that you have just been able to ignore all the scientific evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth is older than 6000 years.

Any opposition that a heliocentric view provoked at the time was due to a lack of scientific evidence and was from fellow natural philosophers rather than Church authority.

Perhaps evidence more compelling than what I've read does exist... but regardless, we still have firm evidence, based on all prior scientific knowledge... that whatever the truth is, about «creation» and everything else... is it is all logical, following natural law, even if its natural law we don't yet know.

There is scientific, proven evidence that the earth is FAR older than 10,000 years old - try 4.5 billion years, give or take a few.

Another question: why is it that, more than a century and a half since Darwin's theory (and it's still taught world - wide as an unproven theory) has the evidence increasingly pointed away from him, not in support of him», is utterly and quite refutably wrong by an abundance of verifiable scientific evidence.

I am (a) A victim of child molestation (b) A r.ape victim trying to recover (c) A mental patient with paranoid delusions (d) A Christian The only discipline known to often cause people to kill others they have never met and / or to commit suicide in its furtherance is: (a) Architecture; (b) Philosophy; (c) Archeology; or (d) Religion What is it that most differentiates science and all other intellectual disciplines from religion: (a) Religion tells people not only what they should believe, but what they are morally obliged to believe on pain of divine retribution, whereas science, economics, medicine etc. has no «sacred cows» in terms of doctrine and go where the evidence leads them; (b) Religion can make a statement, such as «there is a composite god comprised of God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit», and be totally immune from experimentation and challenge, whereas science can only make factual assertions when supported by considerable evidence; (c) Science and the scientific method is universal and consistent all over the World whereas religion is regional and a person's religious conviction, no matter how deeply held, is clearly nothing more than an accident of birth; or (d) All of the above.

That democracy can be made to work, that by the scientific method we can gain mastery over the latent resources of the universe, that trial by jury is practicable, that torture is a foolish method of seeking evidence in the courts, that chattel slavery is a failure — such things we take for granted, not because we individually are wiser than our forebears, who disbelieved them all, but because we share in a social tradition which we did not even help to create, but which has shaped and conformed our thinking with irresistible power.

(04 August 2015) The paper presents no scientific evidence that organic farms put out more greenhouse gases than other farming systems and uses unfounded assumptions to form conclusions.

Among other things she advocates crying, a 3 hourly feeding schedule if you BF or 4 hourly if you FF, overwrap babies with excessive bedding (which is what The Analytical Armadillo has been questioning recently), has some very misinformed views and ideas which are all based on her observations and opinions, rather than any that can be substantiated by scientific evidence and had some weird notions that babies can poo and vomit on cue to manipulate their parents.

Cathy Warwick epitomizes that self - serving blatherer that characterizes contemporary British midwifery: the biological essentialist who believes that «natural» birth is more important than safe birth, the anti-rationalist who invokes «quantum theory» to explain why scientific evidence should be ignored in favor of midwives» opinions, the self - absorbed, self - referential, selfish woman who pretends that the needs of midwives are the same as the needs of women.

Please present scientific evidence (papers published in peer review journals) that show that dononr or home made formula are healthier for term infants than commercially made formula.

Rumbelow explores the genesis of the World Health Organization «optimum» C - section rate of less than 15 % and finds that there is no scientific evidence to support it.

This is despite the wealth of scientific evidence showing that it is far more beneficial for babies than feeding them with formula milk.

All the existing scientific evidence, as well as state and national statistics shows that American homebirth has an increased risk of death of at least 3 - 9 times higher than comparable risk hospital birth.

If you read the scientific and medical literature, the controversy about bed sharing safety primarily concerns babies less than 20 weeks old, and the most recent meta - analysis of published studies found no evidence of increased risk for babies over 3 months of age (Carpenter et al 2013).

Your baby doesn't need anything more than a little wipe down like I said after birth to get the blood off if there's any or the meconium which is that dark sticky poop and scientific evidence is pointing toward mom should wait at least a week actually to do any type of sponge bath.