Sentences with phrase «believe science points»

As I have outlined, I believe science points towards a super intelligence of some fashion rather than away from it.

Not exact matches

To point your finger at someone and call them stupid for not believing in your science or religion when mankind and science is very very far from having all the answers only leaves several fingers pointing back at yourself.

just to point out that he seemed to believe relegion and science are compatable, so do I.

I could sit here and point out how stupid you are for believing in science, a group of people that once believed the Earth was flat as early as a few hundred years ago, or believed that bleeding someone out was the best way to cure the flu... or as early as the 40's and 50's that it was okay for people to drink water with high levels of radiation because it would give you energy and cure what ails ya.

That radical, salient point rang through that world which believed in many gods — not one — and had absolutely nothing to do with science.

Quit believing nonsense, or if you can't help yourself from believing that nonsense, stop blaming science for pointing out that it is nonsense.

«She said that we'd come to the point in our science topic [evolution] when we had to choose between believing the science and believing in God.»

Moltmann points out that goodness, truth and beauty were always held to be unified, coexistent properties, but that after the separation of science and theology in the 17th century this unity was broken, although he believes that beauty and truth still form a unity in modern scientific thought.

They simply believe science to be the truth, without knowing that the fundamentals of science is that it's always improving, which implies that at any given point it, will never be the «absolute truth.»

So its ok for him to prove his points (which btw science can not prove something to be real when it comes to THEORIES which is what evolution is, which i believe to be true), yet when someone wants to believe in something that they see points to proof in thats not ok?

I was just trying to point out that to believe in both is not actually incongruent or contradictory, one can still study science quite easily without giving up your beliefs.

My point is that people blindly believe that science is infallible.

We all believe in science but at certain points we disagree with it when not clear or mystic and there were moments when it was proven wrong.

These are points where science and Faith become closer than some would want to believe.

Noahs Ark is a fallacy and could not have happened - science has proven this point numerous times over, so I would hope a smart man like Obama would believe the peer - reviewed studies over a 2000 year old story.

The point of being human is to be kind and to help others — no matter if you believe in science or religion.

Laughing — yet again you fail, you sit here and you tell me in one breath that i'm wrong in dealing with absolutes, Yet My whole point in the previous post was to point out that I can't blame science for killing Billions of people because they created the bombs and guns to do so... Just like you can't blame Christianity for people using violence against others, it's the people not the ideology that caused the violence, and i believe that... for whatever reason you apparently missed that and tried to make me sound like i honestly blame science for killing billions... so... maybe you need some reading and comprehension classes... i du n no, just would appreciate if you're going to argue with me, that you actually read my responses.

Investigate the evidence yourself, there is nothing at all that truly suggests that the Big Bang happened, the only thing they have used in order to come up with the theory is that in their observances, the Universe appears to be expanding from a central point, it doesn't prove that a Big bang occurred, we know so little about the universe, that we don't even know everything about our own world, and you really believe that our science has figured out the riddle to the beginning of the Universe?

I no longer believe because I am done listening to people claim to have answers they don't have, it is dishonest, irresponsible, immoral and can be dangerous I am glad you trust science, to a point, but when science is not able to provide an answer you insert god and like I said, that is lazy.

A former Minister of Environment, Science and Technology, Mahama Ayariga, believes government may be infringing on the rights of some fuel distributors following a directive by the President, halting the construction of petrol / diesel and LPG filling points until further notice.

Climate change sceptics love to point out that science is «always realising that it got it wrong» or that «theories that all scientists used to believe in are always being overturned».

Thus, what science has to say about an issue appears to be a reasonable starting point for lawmakers or bureaucrats seeking to forge consensus on a given issue; in a time of extreme polarization, there is some reason to believe that science can offer common ground.»

Talbott points out the dangers of propagandising this myth of continuous linear «progress», envisaged by scientists such as Murray Gell - Mann, who believes that science is on its way to some final knowledge.

Climate science still faces the dilemma articulated by the late Steve Schneider and misrepresented by his adversaries — how do we best ensure that the public arrives at an accurate understanding of climate change, when the «sound bite» limits on our speaking time to the media force us to choose between making a few points with all the appropriate caveats, vs presenting details of all the points we believe important but without acknowledging uncertainties?

I do work with all kinds of eaters, and believe that even though science may point us to one «best» approach, the ability to change can be elusive.

I believe the best science at this point supports a whole food plant based diets with avoidance of GMO foods plus adequate Vitamin B12.

I believe that many venues of science, from basic physiology to the biology and genetics of aging point to a simple, but very powerful statement concerning health, that I have stated for many years and has yet to be disproven.

In an interview of Crichton published in a U.K. newspaper a few days ago, he stated that he might endorse the Kyoto Treaty, or something similar, 10 years from now IF the science, at that point, more strongly supports the global warming theory than he believes it does now.

You can point the finger at all sorts of participants in this battle, but I believe (and we have been examining and discussing at length on this site for more than 8 years now) the principal drivers of the polarization are coming more from: (1) the corporate energy interests who are protecting their profits against regulation and other policies that would move the system away from fossil fuels, and using their clout in the political process to tie things up; (2) right - wing anti-government and anti-regulatory ideologues whose political views appear threatened by scientific conclusions that point toward a need for stronger policy action; (3) people whose religious or cultural identities appear threatened by modern science; and so forth.

Contrary to what the vast majority of «liberal» and «conservative» members of the public think, climate scientists do not believe sea levels will rise if the north pole ice cap melts (unlike the south pole ice cap, which sits atop a land mass, the north pole «ice cap» is already floating in the sea, a point that various «climate science literacy» guides issued by scientific bodies like NASA and NOAA emphasize).

No one who believes in science and cares about humanity can possibly believe it is rational or moral to come anywhere near 1,000 ppm or the tipping points in the carbon cycle.

The point would seem to be that skeptics distrust all government, publicly funded science because they believe the peer review system has been corrupted and incestuous — after all, it's not a free market system — and the «ClimateGate» brouhaha just served as a confirmation to them of this deeper distrust.

@ludwick On one hand, you know that media hype things, on the other, you still believe they're accurately reporting the science — hence the all caps adn exclamation points.

I originally believed Hansen... because until I looked I could not even imagine that Science could have become so crooked (the effective silencing of all opposing points of view).

It means that it is hard to have confidence that those making such over-confident pronouncements are truly objective about what they are studying, that they are not properly «skeptical» from scientific point of view, always re-examining their assumptions and conclusions which I always believed was the bedrock of good science.

there is no reason at this point to believe that climate science has well described the system, much less understands it well enough to make predictions and especially now well enough to manage the climate.

What you believe would be «interesting and scientific» again does not address the point of principle to which Steven Mosher alludes, ie it is better for both science AND for trust in science amongst the lay public, that data be shared regardless of the perceived motives of the requesting person / body.

I assumed @AndyWest was referring to latter, since he was makiing a point about the relative comprehension of climate science among members of the public who «believe in» & «don't believe in» human - caused climate change (also, I'm pretty sure I underscored «correct» answers only in a graphic of item response profiles of latter).

My point is simply that it is not unreasonable to «believe in» global warming based on the science, rather than faith alone.

One «argument» you might come across if you point out the science about turbines and health is «So you believe that all those people who have reported to wind farm inquiries about their health problems are telling lies!».

In my previous blog post, I showed a window into the world of far - left environmentalist reasoning, using the exact illustration of how Desmogblog co-founder James Hoggan immediately believed Ross Gelbspan's «the science is settled / skeptic scientists are industry - corrupted shills» core talking point as literally true upon first reading it, never reading alternative science assessments or doing the most basic fact - checking to see if Gelbspan's accusation was true.

Brandon Gates: «I believe that the science is at the point, past the point, where it is clear that the prudent option is to act against market forces with policy.»

«If you want to insist that you understand and can predict climate into the future — you are nothing but a misguided warrior in the climate wars speaking in a superficial idiom of science» I have insisted no such thing (nor do I believe it), but I have pointed out that I think past time slices offer patterns that may be of use.

In fact, many skeptics believe that the continued positive reception of catastrophic global warming theory is a function of the general scientific illiteracy of Americans and points to a need for more and better science education (see here for an overview of the climate debate that does not once use the ad hominem words «myth», «scam» or «lie»).

assuming what you say about skeptics changing topic as you describe is accurate, and at this point I do we are talking about data that is less than 200 years old, out of which extraordinary claims are made as to how that data relates to distant past and future trends tough sell assuming that all adjustments to the data are scientifically sound, It is very difficult for me to believe that measurements that have gone through so many iterations can be trusted to.0 and.00 in most other sciences, I doubt they would tough sell (the photo of the thermometer is downright funny) in terms of goal post moving I observe predicted heat being re-branded as «missing» a prediction of no snow re-branded as more snow a warming world re-branded to a «warm, cold, we don't know what to expect» world topped off with suggestions that one who thinks the above has some sort of psychological disorder extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence especially when you are teaching children that their world is endangered

Even you might admit that he knows a little bit more about atmospheric science than you do... and you might even believe him since he agrees with your ideologically - driven point - of - view on AGW in general.

Therefore can we please move to longer term studying and more «basic» science that will uncover the true science in climate science which I don't believe we have at this point and forget all this prediction stuff and all the «long term effects» studies.

As far as convincing the people who won't believe anything that Al Gore has to say... we could use better basic science education in this country, as well as more journalists with at least some scientific training — enough to allow them to point out the glaring inconsistencies in the climate denialist's arguments, at least.

In fact, by criticising the IPCC prosess, I believe that Lawson misses the point, as I see IPCC as being faithful to the published science on climate change.

I merely pointed out that this approach may work fine for a defense lawyer whose legitimate job it is to try to generate reasonable doubt (and who legitimately does not need to believe in what he says), but that in science, one needs to have a consistent argument one actually believes in, taking into account the whole picture, if one is to be taken seriously.