Sentences with phrase «know much about science»

Don't know much about science, do you?

And when you have people who don't know much about science standing in denial of it and rising to power, that is a recipe for the complete dismantling of our informed democracy.»

And, while I don't know much about science, I do know a lot about fundraising and people's affinity for their dogs and for animals, and that is where I am going to start.»

Skop's parents didn't know much about science, she says, but adds: «They knew that if I got a work study in a science lab, it would lead to something.»

I don't think you know much about science, biology in particular.

You don't know much about science then do you?

I think it's a clever trick to make people (young people generally) who don't know much about science to think you have to be on one «side» or the other (God's side or Satan's side?)

You don't even need to know much about the science behind hydroponics to bring the magic of growing delicious plants into your own home.

Not exact matches

Plus, he adds, Pritchard knows as much about the science as anyone.

«We now know that young people who are going into the office for the first time are making decisions about who they work for not based on how much they're getting paid, but on the space design,» ASID president Randy Fiser told members of the design community at the recent Science of Design Conference at Liberty Science Center in New Jersey.

We don't know much about the author other than he appears to have no professional financial background or qualifications, is well - qualified in computer science and claims experience in data science and simulation.

But you should at least be honest and know that one who believes in the forensic science of origins of life has to have as much faith in the person asserting the theory as one has to have believing God was the witness to the event and told man kind how the world came about in simplistic terms.

We know much more than we did about the origins of science; we know vastly more about nature.

Though much of today's science is applied science — the: discovery of new processes and the making of new products to satisfy human wants — it all rests on the desire to find out with certainty what can be known about the world of nature.

Science may tell us much that the biblical writers did not know about the processes by which God continually fashions an unfinished world, but it can not go beyond the great truth stated in Genesis 1:1, «In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.»

My own suggestion is simply that we recognize the truth in much of what is said in these definitions and what is known about ourselves through the various sciences of our day, but that we refuse to confine our self - understanding to any one of them.

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

All Science proves is how little we know about who God is and how much more we need to learn and understand who God is.

My argument is that while science does tell us much about the world around us, IT (science - our most favored epistemological standard) obviously only deals with the physical and can not disprove the spiritual, and that there are other ways of knowing truth that do prove (support is the word I prefer, since no «proof» is satisfactory to al epistemological standards) the existence of God.

No one will ever know enough about science, life, death, love, God, or even themselves to fully understand it, much less predict what the future holds.

I do nt know much about the «Christian Science» thing.

I don't know much about Rubio yet, but anyone who thinks science is a matter of opinion has lost my vote.

The question was «science can explain» not «science can explain everything» 1) We will never know the position of every bit of matter so knowing everything is not possible — the current theories match observations well enough for the answer to be yes 2) Again knowing everything about every individual step in the creation of life is not possible but current theories match... 3) here do know pretty much everything.

This is also indicated by the aim of IM as enunciated in chapter one: «The object of the following chapters is not so much to teach mathematics, but to enable the students from the very beginning of their course to know what the science is about, and why it is necessarily the foundation of exact thought as applied to natural phenomena» (IM 2).

Those who have read the book know that Tickle goes into much greater detail about the questions and challenges raised by cognitive science, literary deconstruction, higher criticism, Freud, Jung, Campbell, Einstein, Heisenbuerg, and many other philosophical / scientific / cultural movements.

One wonders whether, in the future, when we shall know so much more about what literature says and how it hangs together than we now do, we shall come to see literary myth as a similarly constructive principle in the social or qualitative sciences, giving shape and coherence to psychology, anthropology, theology, history and political theory without losing in any one of them its own autonomy of hypothesis.»

Sadly I don't know too much about the science behind it but the cooling down process really does help them to set.

The Hot Cross Buns were very easy to make and a great learning experience, you know how much we love easy science experiments, as we talked about how yeast works and why we had to wait for the dough to rise.

I don't really put too much stock in academic authority of people in social sciences until they talk about testable predictions like real scientists do; or at the very least deal with # s. Without that, they're just people who have opinions that are no more nor less valid than anyone who isn't an academic social scientist.

The findings, published today in Science Advances, add to ever - growing evidence that humans were living in much of the Americas well before the cultural group known as Clovis were present about 13,000 years ago.

«We don't know much about how kids spend their cash on snacks,» said corresponding author Sean Cash, Ph.D., economist and associate professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University.

As much as I may have learned about the science and practice of wine making in two days of tasting, I know my palette remains shy of sophisticated.

The reviewers dismissed his research as «not impactful,» a common refrain in science funding, which means that Matthew's research might certainly shed light on how cells work — but when it came down to it, how much do we really need to know about how cells work?

I say «basic» because truthfully, my experience has been that a science writer can know too much about his or her subject matter.

In a world wide survey aimed at finding out how much people know about science and the environment (see This Week), only 18 per cent of Russians and 23 per cent of Czechs said they agreed with the statement «Astrology has some scientific truth.»

So little is known about the fossa, and so much of what is known is wrong, that nearly everything Dollar documents is new to science.

I might add, you know, there are so many things that Martin Gardner did that are so important to me, but I should mention his first, the first book of his that I ever saw, which was Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, which I remember very clearly running into at age 14 in a friend's book [shelf] and that book just, what's the word, the scales fell from my eyes I think is the expression; meaning that I, up until age 14, even though I had grown up in a family, my father was a physicist and I was very exposed to science, I never really thought too much about, I mean, things that, sort of, you might say superstitions or just, sort of, I don't know, mysterious [forces] in the world, you know ESP and paranormal things and predicting the future and such Science, which I remember very clearly running into at age 14 in a friend's book [shelf] and that book just, what's the word, the scales fell from my eyes I think is the expression; meaning that I, up until age 14, even though I had grown up in a family, my father was a physicist and I was very exposed to science, I never really thought too much about, I mean, things that, sort of, you might say superstitions or just, sort of, I don't know, mysterious [forces] in the world, you know ESP and paranormal things and predicting the future and such science, I never really thought too much about, I mean, things that, sort of, you might say superstitions or just, sort of, I don't know, mysterious [forces] in the world, you know ESP and paranormal things and predicting the future and such things.

He predicts there will soon be an «explosion» of devices using organic compounds as sensors because they are cheap and easy to make, and much of the basic science about how these compounds react is already known.

Until recently, much of what was known to science about déjà vu came from a single extraordinary study conducted in the 1940s by Morton Leeds, an undergraduate at the College of the City of New York.

In the end one doesn't need to know much about cognitive science to grasp the essence of her argument: if we could only get inside our children's heads, we would learn something deep about ourselves.

And here are the answers to the questions we asked last week, which were taken from the quiz at the Edinburgh Science Festival aiming to find out whether New Scientists's journalists know as much about science as University of Edinburgh acaScience Festival aiming to find out whether New Scientists's journalists know as much about science as University of Edinburgh acascience as University of Edinburgh academics.

He said it doesn't mean that Americans know a lot about the scientific method, the process of scientific inquiry, or really much all about how science is done, which a lot of other panelists explored as a problem, as a gap in our education.

While they will certainly miss out on the pleasure and intellectual excitement that come from knowing how the world works, how much science do they actually need to know to make up their minds about the issues surrounding genetic engineering or global warming?

It's a different business model than the usual academic one, but because Hood learned as much about science from the telephone company and a geology camp as he did in school, he knows that progress is not the province of academia alone.

Science's special news section, titled Mysteries of the Cell (available free with registration), which appeared in the 25 November issue, highlights how much we still need to know about our cells.

The fact that we can know so much about the stars from a distance is one of the triumphs of science.

«If you know carbon dioxide is a «greenhouse gas» but think it kills the things that live in greenhouses,» Kahan said, «then it's safe to say you don't know much about climate science.»

I'm doing a clinical research, writing grants, writing papers, and going down the academic route, but I care so much about the world that I'm also teaching the public, doing TED Talks, creating a website, writing books, and giving the public the same tools that I'm researching and letting them know, «Here's the science behind why I've designed it this way and why I'm doing the science this way.»

LOL, it's great to know the science, to optimize where we can, which is why I hang here, but sometimes I think we stress to much about specifics and lose the big picture... eat a variety of foods as close to nature as possible!

One doesn't need to dig deep into his body of work to see that the late novelist and essayist David Foster Wallace had sincere ambivalence about mass media — his much - heralded 1,079 - page novel, Infinite Jest, features a science fiction conceit where a lethal videotape known as «The Entertainment» is so addictive, its viewers lose interest in anything other than endless repeat viewings of the film.