Sentences with phrase «little science facts»

Not exact matches

Atheists: I know many there are many people that practice religion just by fanaticism, I've seen many people in my opinion stupid (excuse the word) praying to saints hopping to solve their problems by repeating pre-made sentences over and over, but there are others different, I don't think Religion and Science need to be opposites, I believe in God, I'm Catholic and I have many reasons to believe in him, I don't think however that we should pray instead of looking for the cause and applying a solution, Atheists think they are smart because they focus on Science and technology instead of putting their faith in a God, I don't think God will solve our problems, i think he gave us the means to solve them by ourselves that's were God is, also I think that God created everything but not as a Magical thing but stablishing certain rules like Physics and Quimics etc. he's not an idiot and he knew how to make it so everything was on balance, he's the Scientist of Scientist the Mathematic of Mathematics, the Physician of Physicians, from the tiny little fact that a mosquito, an insect species needs to feed from blood from a completely different species, who created the mosquitos that way?

Instead, they find little stupid convoluted reasons to justify their actual views on the matter that reality - based science is actually a real cure to things we know about (thanks to the scientific method) when in fact religion offers nothing but wishful thinking.

You said, «The fact that you and many people believe that a «war» is going on between science and religion shows how little you really know.»

Attacking Christianity We can say of many of the secondary lines of attack upon Christian dogma drawn from the modern sciences and modern critique that the interpretations offered of the evidence is never necessary, and that frequently the evidence itself is too scrappy and too little evaluated as fact to be worth considering.

But I digress, I grew up watching Bill Nye the science guy — in fact as a little girl he inspired me to play with microscopes and science kits.

Sentence two is the closest to an actual argument he makes, but it is a fact that science has little to no information on what happens after we die, as you pointed out yourself, we do not know (in the sense of having empirical proof).

Despite its name, «creation science» has little to do with real science and, in fact, represents the antithesis of science.

But the problem is that after ten years, I'm getting tired of trying to convince fellow Christians that I am, in fact, a Christian, even though I may vote a little differently than they vote, interpret the Bible differently than they interpret it, engage with science a little differently than they engage with it, and understand sovereignty and choice a little differently than they understand those things.

In fact, process philosophers have written relatively little about ethics in general; their major contributions to contemporary philosophy, like those of Whitehead himself, have been in the areas of metaphysics, philosophy of science, and philosophy of religion.1

While there are criticisms associated with extended breastfeeding, your instinct which is backed by modern science, will tell you that you are in fact doing the right thing for you and your little one.

Their background in obstetrics, science and statistics is very limited; so limited, in fact, that they have no idea how little they know compared to those who have far more education and training in these subjects.

In fact, many of Princeton's graduate students in the field have little experience in oceanic and atmospheric sciences; most come from physics, mathematics, and engineering backgrounds, according to Philander.

It's probably worth at least a footnote that like many things in our memory, they are not always as trustworthy as you think — and I think some people would go back and look at some of those old issues and be a little bit disappointed that some things were not exactly the way that they remembered them — but the fact is that for its time, Scientific American was a fantastic science magazine.

And there was this great, it was my favorite moment of the weekend and it was this very dramatic moment, when basically Emanuel was complaining a little bit, very politely, and smiling about the fact that journalists still are doing stories about, you know, the debate around climate science, but there's not really, of course, there's not a debate, there's consensus that anthropogenic global warming is happening and that, why are you still doing these stories, asking questions?

Science still has little place in this trend given that most of fact - check articles analyze political statements or rumors gone viral on the Internet.

In fact, things are not as difficult as they seem, and it is not at all rocket science — but maybe just a little bit of science.What it important is to have a healthy lifestyle, offering your body the nutrients it needs for the right types of food and exercising enough in order to burn out the extra calories.

In fact, science confirms the anecdotes of many soy consumers — that eating a little soy produces minimal gas, but eating just a bit more can result in discomfort or embarrassment.

Science and technology in Africa is an area which children in the UK tend to know very little about and so these facts and lesson plan help to address this.

I was also very good at math, so when I talked to Pacific University (it's little, you might have to Google it) and heard that for the last five years, their Computer Science department had 100 % placement (this turned out to be a huge misrepresentation of the facts.

None of this is rocket science and frequently I feel that financial professionals do little in the way of educating their clients for the simple fact that if you learned what you need to know... they'd be out of business.

In fact, according to PetMD, «breed - specific dog foods are little more than a marketing gimmick and do not have sound nutritional science backing them».

I think this is a tricky communication problem that partly has to do with the common perception of «science» as something that always provides solid facts and is characterized by little uncertainty (probably a product of memorizing scientific facts in high school texts).

And before I start hearing again about how stupid my questions are and how little I understand about climate science, this is in fact a concern expressed by many of the climate scientists I've been reading and listening to.

Dr. Pielke's work on climate change effects has been criticized by Dr. Stephen Schneider, who said that with Pielke «one consistent pattern emerges - he is a self - aggrandizer who sets up straw men, knocks them down, and takes credit for being the honest broker to explain the mess - and in fact usually adds little new social science to his analysis [3].

And, last time I looked, there's precious little censoring of true debate going on here... in fact, there's very little in the way of defense of the science and math that's being debated here.

The fact that eadler2 didn't make this point right away is proof that she is little more than a Skeptical Science parrot and not a very good one considering she didn't point to this canonical restraint on planetary surface temperatures.

In fact, the group serves as little more than a mouthpiece for Big Carbon and the modern Republican Party which, largely thanks to Citizens United in 2010, now eschews the use of actual science in the public sphere.

Panelist and Colorado State University professor of atmospheric science William M. Gray, a hurricane authority, announced that he thinks that the biggest contributor to global warming is the fact that «we're coming out of a little ice age,» and that the warming trend will end in six to eight years.

Forecast the Facts reveals many of these trusted weather reporters are little more than right - wing spokesmen, feeding the American public shoddy climate science denial.»

Wrapping dry technical fact in hi - tech media hardware does little to stimulate an interest in the message in the way that young people can be encouraged to explore science by experiencing something with a genuine «wow factor»: this item took men to the moon; this was the machine that made communication possible across entire continents.

In fact an investigative journalist would have very little trouble undermining the consensus claim that is used all the time to state the «science is settled».

Nurse seems to claim that the sceptics» «message has little basis in fact»; his, on the other hand, comes from science.

UCS employees have given testimony before the U.S. Senate on 453 occasions, despite the fact UCS has conducted little experimental science or independent research; UCS has instead concentrated on producing literature reviews highlighting scientific research that agrees with UCS» political goals.

For all of you who trust environmentalists when they declare that the science of catastrophic man - made global warming is «settled,» it might be time to start digging into the facts a little deeper.

If there is an urgency in getting all the facts on the table with regards to climate science before deciding / embarking on major policies, in my view, it will have little to do with what is discussed at RC or CA and much more with what our politicians judge is in their best interest vis a vis a marketable approach to their constituents.

But the fact of poverty owes very little to science, and very much to politics.

The skeptics, on the other hand, have little more than a political manifesto camouflaged as science (witness Crichton, Inhofe, Michaels, Tech Central Station, The Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Global Climate Coalition, etc.) In fact, as you suggest, the skeptic's arguments fail to rise to the level of a theory of climate at all.

The fact is, you've been sold a load of emotional crap but very little real science.

In fact, in Boyer's Mercury article there is very little «Science Communication».

The philosophy of science shows us that at times even Newton did not understand himself and adding to Eli's point that the terminology was a little different then does not bar the fact that Newton was a scientist anways.

The report «Fact - Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development» was released in February during the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Vancouver, British Columbia, and suggested there is little or no evidence of a direct connection between groundwater contamination and hydraulic fracturing, which involves the injection of water, sand and chemicals to release natural gas from shale formations deep underground.

For all the effort to portray the «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» phrase as evidence of a sinister top - down industry directive, it is clearly obvious that it was little more than an oddly worded way of saying the goal of Western Fuels pilot project PR campaign was to show how the supposed «settled science» of man - caused global warming was not actually settled.

What you'll quickly find is either no information, very little information or information substantiating the fact that the vast majority of signers are completely unqualified in the area of climate change science.