Sentences with phrase «n't accept that science»

Too many people who can't accept science do exist.

To ACTUALLY call Psychology a pseudo science that caters to crack - pots... I forgot that you mormons don't accept science or mental health options.

If this moron doesn't accept science, he has no business being on that committee, and I've already wrote an e-mail to the committee asking for his dismissal.

If he doesn't accept that science is based on fact and religious belief is not, he shouldn't be on that committee.

Alan Ladwig, a top NASA political appointee under Democrats, said this was a case of both party politics and a divisive nominee who doesn't accept science.

It certainly isn't accepted science that changes in grazing methodology can miitgate against current and foreseen human CO2 emissions.

I think it is important to note the enormous role of ideological motivation because it means most of the denial lobby will not accept the science as long as it runs counter to their ideologies.

Family First's Bob Day, set to take a seat in South Australia, said his party did not accept the science of global warming and would vote for the repeal and against Direct Action.

The snake oil salesman will not accept science that says his product is worthless, nor will the climate scientists accept that they are using junk science to produce fear mongering.

There are people who accept the science of vaccines because it is overwhelming and based plausible biology and yet do not accept the science of anthropogenic climate change.

And there were three witnesses that actually are sort of in the fringe of scientists who do not accept the science of climate change.

Up here, if you do not accept science, you die.

RE «The Type 2 deniers don't accept the science that requires the 1 C target be met, and they propose ameliorative actions that won't come anywhere close to [2 C either or] what the science requires for survival.

It's worth noting that the Robert Bryce that prompted Pr Quiggin's article does not accept the science on climate.

First, there are a lot of very stupid policymakers who still haven't accepted the science.

Not exact matches

On Monday, as Irma weakened over Georgia, Bossert used a White House briefing to offer more hints of an emerging climate resilience policy, while notably avoiding accepting climate change science: «What President Trump is committed to is making sure that federal dollars aren't used to rebuild things that will be in harm's way later or that won't be hardened against the future predictable floods that we see.

Obviously not entirely, but as this science suggests, you'll probably be better at achieving mental well - being if you moderate your expectations and accept that constant joy is neither attainable nor desirable.

Not only is the University of Nicosia now accepting Bitcoin is payment for tuition fees, but it is also launching the first Master of Science Degree in Digital Currency in Spring 2014.

Not only is the University of Nicosia now accepting Bitcoin is payment for tuition fees, but it is also launching the first Master of Science

Science is not a religion; either you accept science or youScience is not a religion; either you accept science or youscience or you don't.

And he did not say this to defend religion, he said it to get people to accept science.

Funny, wallace, you mention science because the left consistently refuses to accept the decades of social science research that says single - and step - parent families are not in fact suitable alternatives to the the traditional 2 - parent family.

@sciper: ok so you're saying that faith, which requires no proof works well with science that requires not only proof, but is only accepted if challenged by peers and tested over and over again... sure they get along great.

One may or may not accept Thomas's metaphysical analysis, but at least one can see that the doctrine of creation, in its philosophical foundations, is not challenged by any discovery in the natural sciences.

DO NOT be an apologist or accept the explanation «your mind is too small to understand the greatness of science» or «evolution moves in mysterious ways» when you come upon logical inconsistencies in your belief.

By accepting unfalsifiable ideas, you're already admitting that scientific evidence doesn't matter to you because you've already forsaken the principle core of science, the need for ideas to be falsifiable.

The Science behind the big bang has some gapping holes yet its put forward all the time to the public as the only other option is..., as well as Macro evolution but well we all know that they say its the only option... Could it be that science doesn't accept a concept of God from the outset so then the big bang and evolution are the only oScience behind the big bang has some gapping holes yet its put forward all the time to the public as the only other option is..., as well as Macro evolution but well we all know that they say its the only option... Could it be that science doesn't accept a concept of God from the outset so then the big bang and evolution are the only oscience doesn't accept a concept of God from the outset so then the big bang and evolution are the only options.

Well you do nt have to accept science.

@BillyD:»... if a reliable witness tells me he has experienced something which modern science, in all it's glory can not explain, much less degrade, then the simplest rationale is to accept that he has indeed had an encounter with the supernatural.»

My argument is that if a reasonable, sane and reliable witness tells me he has experienced something which modern science, in all it's glory can not explain, much less degrade, then the simplest rationale is to accept that he has indeed had an encounter with the supernatural.

Santa do you not understand science is accepted by me, its why i have faith.

You can not accept and understand the limits of science then turn around and demand God conform to what you already agreed God could not conform to.

A student with basic training in the sciences knows not to accept something like the «big bang theory», or other science lore.

Unfortunately, a lot of young evangelicals grew up with the assumption that Christianity and evolution can not mix, that we have to choose between our faith in Jesus and accepted science.

Second, that what is taught must not conflict with the accepted facts of science, or the pupil is bound to be in trouble as he senses the disparity.

Steve, you may be right that they are not necessarily incompatible, but I can't help but point out that your religious views are causing you to refuse to accept well - established science.

I would recommend Denis Lamoureux's book I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolutionand, though not directly related to science, Peter Enns» book Incarnation and Inspiration may also be helpful to you (it certainly was to me).

science is not everything, the problem is when the critical and objective philosophy of science is accepted as absolute in reality.God is beyond logic at this point of our consciousness, The process of gods will manfistation is evolution which accepts all variables in the process, the input could be not what scienctists wants.Thats why faith or religion is part of reality.

The new vision of science to which modern physics was forced to come was not to be universally accepted throughout the sciences.

The first step in grasping Christian Science is to recognize that it not only accepts but builds upon these events, as well as upon the healing stories.

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).

You don't BELIEVE theories in science, you accept them or reject them.

Science doesn't just accept what fits into it's predetermined paradigm.

Reading some of the ignorant comments on here about science does make it hard to accept evolution, because so many comments here don't evidence evolution.

In other words, no, the modern militant atheist zealots are NOT willing to accept the fact that some people believe in God and science.

If you don't try to explain it through science, and you just accept that God created all life, why try to explain it.

We all accept that love exists, although it can not be directly measured by science.

In science we can't prove a lot of things that we generally accept or fully discredit things that we do not accept.

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

(Maybe not... based on your ramblings I guess I should not take that for granted) But for some reason you have chosen to accept the revelation of science only up to a specific point in history and then no more.