Sentences with phrase «even accept the science»

Not exact matches

You had better learn to accept Jesus first or no dice, and even then our «science» will focus on teaching you about the miracles of Jesus.

3) True creationism has full respect for the unknown; science by itself is destined to explain everything away even if it is not bona - fide and complete (theory accepted as truth).

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.

All the science has is hypothesis, not evidence, which are not proven or even provable, that's why they are not accepted by everyone.

We accept and even embrace the discoveries of modern science.

Indeed, most cultures in human history have generated no such marvel as the modern scientific movement, and even in our own culture, scientifically oriented as it is supposed to be, most people accept the benefits of technology and use the vocabulary of science but do not in fact choose to abide by the disciplines that alone make scientific productivity possible.

Is it possible and after reading about it i kept on thinking «i will sell to my soul for 20 carats get out shut up i will never ever sell my soul to you oh god please help me and this is continuing for a few days i am afraid that i have sold my sold to the devil have i please help and still i think god's way of allowing others to hate him us much worse even you know and can easily think think about much better punishments like rebirth after being punished for all the sins in life and i am feeling put on the sin of those who committed the unforgiviable sin (the early 0th century priests) imagine them burning in hell fire till now for 2000 years hopelessly screaming to god for help i can't belive the mercy of god are they forgiven even though commiting this sin keans going to hell for entinity thank you and congralutions i think the 7 year tribulation periodvis over in 18th century the great commect shooting and in 19th century the sun became dark for a day and moon was not visible on the earth but now satun has the domination over me those who don't belive in jesus crist i used to belive in him but now after knowing a lot in science it is getting harharder to belive in him even though i know that he exsists and i only belived in him not that he died for me in the cross and also not for eternal life and i still sin as much as i used to before but only a little reduced and i didn't accept satan as my master but what can i do because those who knowingly sin a lot and don't belive in jesus christ has to accept satan as their master because he only teaches us that even though he is evil he gives us complete freedom but thr followers of jesus and god only have freedom because they can sin only with in a limit and no more but recive their reward after their life in heaven but the followers of satun have to go to hell butbi don't want to go to hell and be ruled by the cruel tryant but still why didn't god destroy satun long way before and i think it was also Adam and eve's fault also they could have blamed satan and could have also get their punishment reduced but they didn't and today we are seeing the result

Even simple ordinary folk today put reason before faith, unlike before the «enlightenment» when theology was accepted as the «queen of sciences» and science its handmaid.

As usually presented, then, even by its more sophisticated spokesmen, classical theism requires acceptance of statements about the world, about its origin or end or the happenings within it, which men today are willing to accept, if at all, only with the backing and warrants of science or history.

Let us suppose that two men have an eye disease, and one of them submits to the cure and takes whatever medical science advises, even if it is disagreeable, while the other not only does not accept any advice from the doctor, but also lives intemperately.

Pro-illegal drugs, even though science has deemed it harmful and dangerous, just accept the science without spinning the truth, the human body is organic bio-chemistry, not herb chemistry!

In the 17th century C.E., even respected men of science, including Francis Bacon and William Harvey, accepted the theory.

Unfortunately, even if we accept the idea that science is the dispassionate quest for truth, we know that scientists are also human beings with their social and economic needs.

I could go on but why bother... why don't you just admit you do not wish to accept anything the Bible says and will not even open your mind to the fact that Science could support Creation.

Science would never accept your size even though Socialists would.

«There are some religious views that do not accept, certainly, evolution and may not even be open to science at all.

I was lucky enough to be accepted by Cardiff University for a postgraduate course in popular journalism, and even got a grant from the Association of British Science Writers and the Wellcome Trust.

Some paradigm shifts take a long time before a theoretical framework emerges, and sometimes anomalies lie dormant for decades or even centuries before being accepted and changing the course of science.

Yet, he indicated that the party is willing to accept them, even as other Republicans openly reject the science behind the greenhouse effect.

As scientists and as a society, we accept the low probability that a handful of people may become accidentally infected and even die doing necessary science.

Some sceptics might argue that it is impossible to tell the difference — but in each set of trials, the volunteers generally preferred the work of the well - accepted human artists, even when they believed it was by an animal or a child (Psychological Science, vol 22, p 435).

It can even be inferred that science has not been accepted by pop culture and scientists have not entered the public's awareness.»

For most climate researchers science went out the window a long time ago, it is such a biased one sided aregument these days that people like me are terrified of being branded a heretic for even challenging the accepted so - called evidence.

Even when we intellectually accept these precepts of science, we subconsciously cling to our intuitions — what researchers call our naive beliefs.

Carbon Isotopes (12 C, 13 C, 14 C) Background The internationally accepted radiocarbon dating reference is 95 % of the activity, in 1950 AD, Over the years, carbon 14 dating has also found applications in geology, hydrology, geophysics, atmospheric science, oceanography, paleoclimatology and even biomedicine.

Her chance of being accepted seems even more certain when her high school science teacher encourages her to take on an extracurricular project in pursuit of a scholarship at the prestigious institution.

Even if the central authority completely misunderstands what science has to say, we will all have to accept that interpretation.

This move accepts the reality that a district that may be strong in providing math and science instruction may not have the capacity to provide art classes or even AP coursework (and definitely can not provide the college - level courses that only universities can offer).

Even the recently announced science fiction and fantasy writers of America will now accept self - published digital authors, BUT they have to sell books.

Even at this point, if our customer has not given any demands we write USA science custom papers and USA science custom essays according to commonly accepted rules of academic writing: http://custom-essay-writing-service.org/blog/academic-help.

can, if answered adequately, create a sort of chain reaction, expanding not merely to encompass the accepted assumptions of the single field, but outward to embrace history and the social sciences, or even psychology and literature, and thereby, from the outset, to challenge the assumption that the traditional divisions of intellectual inquiry are still adequate to deal with the meaningful questions of our time, rather than the merely convenient or self - generated ones.

-- Acknowledge that people with different values would have different policy choices even if the science was exactly the same and everybody accepted the science basis.

Even among the public that accepts the science of global climate change, the dire circumstances we now face in this regard are consistently downplayed, and the logical implications that follow from the scientific analysis of the necessity to enact swift and aggressive measures to combat climate change are not followed through either intellectually or politically.

Whatever happens, one thing is clear: Even as scientists and policy experts suggest changes, they are clear that existence of the internationally accepted authority on climate science is vital.

Since so much climate science comes out a complex ideologically academic / government / political systems dating back decades and so over blown and politically intolerant of dissent it couldn't even accept better science.

For me, that begins with people accepting that there is no hiding place left in the science — the overwhelming consensus of the vast body of scientists that study climate is that the trends we are seeing in the air, the oceans and in our ecosystems are entirely consistent with the theory of global warming, while the alternatives offered by sceptical scientists — even the much heralded role of the Sun — so far fail that test.

Nearly everyone I have encountered who dismisses AGW is either pretty ignorant about doing science (that's fine, I am sure they are good at other things - it's unrealistic to believe scientific literacy could be universal), or are just plainly unable to contemplate or accept the changes required in the organisation of human affairs (even though these changes would also happen in the absence of global warming), or are just full of anti-environmental politics for various delusional reasons of their won.

When formal science advice is perceived as advocacy, trust in that advice and in the adviser is undermined, even if the advice is accepted.

Versus Michael Mann's hockey stick showing there was no enigmatic medieval period (even tried to change the name) with greenhouse gases emerging as the dominant forcing in the twentieth century — but was based on incredible data - selection techniques and was mostly based on one tree core series, the bristlecone pine trees from one mountain which can not possibly be expected to provide a reliable indicator of climate — the worst type of science but still accepted by climate science because that it what they do — rewrite history and get all the facts wrong.

Even if we accept that the whole of the empirical sciences are definitive, consensus is still possible.

I understand why we're talking past each other, but until you accept that there are assumptions built into your science religion that simply aren't correct, or even might not be correct, you won't understand.

I know accepting even one explanation from climate science is a slippery slope for you, but logically then you have to dismiss everything, and it looks like you have.

You want us to accept uncertainty but want us to act even though we actually understand how uncertain the science is.

Ah, well yes skeptics, pseudo-scientists and lunatics I am only a recent member of this incongruent social phenomenon If science eventually accept this: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm than it has to accept this too: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SST-NAP.htm and then no scientist would contemplate ruining his career by even considering this http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm but then how to explain this http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AOP.htm

This is not even a point to discuss as this is accepted science used in daily operations.

You strike me as someone who doesn't know, and won't accept, the data, ever, even while you don't understand the science that's being done.

Does it make sense to reduce reliance on fossil fuels even if you don't accept AGW as bona fide science?

Even the most widely accepted science can suddenly be turned on its head by new data.

Climate science has been suffering from this rot for a long time, so long in fact that some even demand that their conclusions be accepted on faith without possibility of replication or audit!

This debate is a microcosm of the AGW debate in that thermodynamics is a well accepted science, and yet as soon as someone comes along and questions it, certain individuals who seem to have a deep resentment of established science, jump onto the bandwagon even when they don't understand the established science first, and prefer to follow the rhetoric of contrarians.