Sentences with phrase «because false science»

Before this happens, there will be a «great falling away» from the faith because false science (evolution) along with false doctrines (esp dualism) will fall, thus leaving the truth — Christ and His coming Kingdom which is «not of this world».

Not exact matches

Only religion would be so bold as to say that what we do not currently understand is because science has failed or is limited... this has been proven wrong in the past and will continue to be false.

Modern science does not directly imply or require any particular metaphysical theory of reality, but it does suggest to us that the picture presented by Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins is false because the picture is only partial.

Science takes credit for trying to interpret what God has created (yet of course there theories are always wrong or never proven, even after proven, often changed when found out to be false (because scientists are wrong all the time and think they are right)

I am free now of all the stresses, time wasting rituals, contradictions, impurities explained by faith alone, false teachings and illogical assertions which only faith based reasoning can reconcile (because it allows you to ignore facts, science, logic, and truth).

and yes, you would have to say that every branch of science is false because every branch disputes what is in the bible.

It IS funny, because many people who claim that they are «scientific» just blindly accept «Corporate Science» aimed at keeping them logically ignorant, meaning, they can use logic and reason (and even rhetoric if you know your Trivium) to argue well for false ideas.

For Bill Nye to say my beliefs hold myself or my children back because we don't believe in science is false.

Religious insti.tutions make grandiose and false claimes about historical events or «miracles» that aren't miracles at all, science has been able to wrap each one up as false, hoax or true but because of natural laws that have no need of a diety.

If someone claims the theory of evolution is false because it contradicts their understanding of what the Bible says, that is not a scientific argument in the ordinary meaning of science.

Perhaps it's because the post-modern world tries to apply the scientific method to determine the validity of sacred writings, and that debates about religion invariably propose the false dichotomy of faith vs. science.

I also question science, because while there is good science there is also a lot of false science (only looking for evidence that supports a pre-determined answer).

These falsehoods in turn lead to a false conclusion: if people are not signing up for or staying in science, it must be because they can not or do not want to.

If that's the case, then the economic arguments — that we should wait «until the science is settled» because the application of a discount rate makes solving AGW cheaper in the future, and we can't afford the economic dislocation if we act now — are false.

Brian Dodges «If that's the case, then the economic arguments — that we should wait «until the science is settled» because the application of a discount rate makes solving AGW cheaper in the future, and we can't afford the economic dislocation if we act now — are false.

It's false because the latest peer reviewed science, Harde (2017) says that only 15 % of the increase in CO2 over the industrial era is anthropogenic:

It's ironic because Nature, the «International weekly journal of science», has a troubling involvement in the false narrative and controlled message of global warming science.

Possibly because there may well be AGW happening but false science is not the way to explore the cause and extent of this phenomenon.

Yet, failure to do so represents a double standard, and it is also false equivalence, because «skeptical» science has been subjected to critique, it has repeatedly shown to be seriously lacking in rigor, repeatability (e.g., Loehle and McCulloch — it is impossible to compare their analysis with other reconstructions, and that is just the start of the problems), and has failed to even meet acceptable scientific standards (e.g., works by Douglass, McLane, Lindzen and Choi, Soon and Baliunas, Carter, de Freitas, McIntyre and McKitrick et cetera).

If you mean that: The first proposition, that the sun affects magnetic field of the earth, is foolish, absurd, false and deviating because it is expressly contrary to rule of science... and the second proposition, that the earth climate change is caused by the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and, from a our point of view at least, opposed to the true science.

The reason this false science developed is mainly because meteorologists now climate scientists have misunderstood what a pyrometer measures.

What we see operating in Hickman's thinking is the tendency to turn the climate debate into sides, or binary, opposing categories: true and false, good and bad, ideology and science... because ultimately, it's easier to lump «policy sceptics» in with «climate sceptics», and link climate sceptics to «ideology» than it is to deal with the arguments in currency.

Unfortunately, most are repeating the false science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who incorrectly predicted severe weather increases because of warming.

Climate science was similarly hijacked for a political agenda because it was easy to take a few pieces to create a false hypothesis.

a) they think it is a hoax b) they don't think it is a hoax, put tick it because they are luke warm, and a negative will give the sceintist a false opinion of their views c) they fully accept climate science, but such a blatant attempt to paint sceptics as nutter it is irritating.

Often I encounter people who oppose nuclear power but refuse to listen to any description of its potential benefits or learn about its safety record or how it works because they've decided that all of the science of nuclear power and radiation protection is false, that nuclear energy is bad and that's it.

Three years ago, he launched his defamation suit against me because he was outraged that CEI's Rand Simberg had made a «knowingly false comparison» between climate science and sexual molestation.

It's wilful because of the clear evidence of false science and failure of similar policies in any place that pursued green energy.

I personally believe that there is an urgent necessity of investing more funding in scientific methodologies alternative to the traditional GCM approach and, in general, to invest more in pure climate science research than just in climate GCM engineering research as done until now on the false claim that there is no need in investing in pure science because the «science is already settled».

This leads to errors in judgement because a theory, in ANY branch of science, should actively and with strong effort be tried proven false.

He could easily have made the decision simply because the science is false.