Sentences with phrase «really about the science»

«It was really about the science, the joy of discovery,» he says.

Re «acidification» here and some comments in other strings, if this is really about the science, then let's say exactly what we mean so as not to give any reason for contrarians to distract folks from the main, coldly scientific conclusion.)

Problem is, I went on, this debate was never really about science anyway.

Rud, All of which will continue to demonstrate that this is not really about the science.

To what extent is the use or abuse of science in the MMR scare or astrology really about science?

But this isn't really about the science, is it?

Because this isn't really about science — it's about climate science.

Attacks on climate policies are not really about the science.

Not exact matches

I really like speculative science fiction, and the book is close enough to now to have some reality to it — it's about environmental disasters.

Finding clients is really about learning the basic art and science of selling.

While science can easily suggest that eating a diet consisting of less meat and more vegetables is likely healthier, there remains a question about what the majority of consumers really want to eat and whether we're heading towards an Uncanny Valley moment.

This whole debate is really all about theology and one's worldview, not factual «science», as evolutionist commentaries are claiming.

In that light, what's really new about the New Atheists is their reliance on an oxymoron: they actually seem to believe in a utopian Darwinism» a faith - based science if there ever was one.

and that comment just shows how ignorant you really are about what science says.

I also agree that it is not a book of science, the way I see it, the Bible is a way for us to learn about God and one of the ways He uses to talk to us, and to be honest, I don't really pay attention to the evolution theory or any other theories, if it really happened or not (or if it keeps on happening), is fine by me, I respect those who believe them to be true.

we either learn about science and math, or we ignorantly ignore it and choose to believe in a magical being who does nt really exist.

and that comment just shows how ignorant you really are about what science says ---------------- Fine.

There will always be someone trying to prove the Bible is not true, but for those of us who have seen the work of God, who truly believe in him, it doesn't really matter what science says, or what they can «prove» to be false about God or the Bible, what God has done in my life and keeps on doing is proof enough to know He exists.

Once we accept that the language of Genesis is symbolic, then there is no difficulty in holding both what it really teaches about creation and what we have learned from modern science.

And back then, wasn't it the fans wrapped up in «theories» who were ultimately disappointed when they found out that Lost wasn't really concerned with answering the thousands of questions it had raised — that it was less a heady show about theology and science and more an emotional show about its characters and the human experience?

Then light was liberated, and then gravity created the first stars and galaxies, then billions of years later, a local star went supernova and seeded the local nebula with heavier elements, elements necessary for life, elements that were not created during the Big Bang, then the sun was born, then the planets coalesced, and billions of years later some primate wrote a story about how the Earth was created at the same time as the rest of the universe, getting it wrong because that primate did not have the science nor technology to really understand what happened, so he gave it his best guess, most likely an iteration of an older story told prior to the advent of the Judeo Christian religion.

If a YEC can not understand how their beliefs are contradicted by evidence from really any field of science, from physics to geology to biology, then I have doubts about their abilities to be talented engineers.

Real Christians Hate Religion... Real Christians Hate Hypocrites... Real Christians should be more like Christ... How could you claim to be a Christian if you don't even know your Christ... The reason why doomed people would never understand Christ is because they never tried to search for the Truth... They only listen to such rubbish things rather than the Truth... Read and do more and Talk less... It doesn't take a genius to know that Someone created you rather than you coming to life with just atoms randomly hitting each other... If you're really smart, think about it... Stop the non-sense talk about God and Science and find it out for yourself...

if you were really about following the science, our discussion would be about the nature of those evidences — something you notably have avoided.

My point about Hindus is that they manage to fit their gods into the natural universe just as easily as Christians do, which tells me that there really isn't anything in science favouring the belief in God particularly.

They also knew that science — or what we really know — isn't most deeply about technology, but about discovering the truth about the strange and wonderful beings born to know, love, and die.

If socies were really serious they'd have science do this experiment with volunteers and I'll be a volunteer, too: Find 3 nearly identical islands that can handle about a 50,000 pop each.

For what he wishes to do is not to discard the mythological material — mistaken science, talk about the divine in this - world idiom, highly fanciful material about descent and ascent of a supernatural divine being who pre-existed this world, etc., etc. — but to get at what it is really saying.

There really is no «competi.tion» between religion and science, except for those who don't understand a few basic things about what it means to «explain» things.

Then again, the business of academic research endowments, especially in fields as conceptually confused as artificial intelligence or cognitive science, really is all about exploiting the credulity of wealthy foundations and corporations and private donors (sometimes with devious cynicism, sometimes in deluded innocence).

To have a really fascinating read about religion and science please check the below resources about ISALM & SCIENCE: http://www.science4islam.com/ http://www.scienceislam.com/ http://www.islamicity.com/science/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 http://www.ummah.net/directory/menu/scienscience please check the below resources about ISALM & SCIENCE: http://www.science4islam.com/ http://www.scienceislam.com/ http://www.islamicity.com/science/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 http://www.ummah.net/directory/menu/scienSCIENCE: http://www.science4islam.com/ http://www.scienceislam.com/ http://www.islamicity.com/science/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 http://www.ummah.net/directory/menu/scienscience4islam.com/ http://www.scienceislam.com/ http://www.islamicity.com/science/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 http://www.ummah.net/directory/menu/scienscience/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 http://www.ummah.net/directory/menu/sciencescience.html

This is a discussion about SCIENCE and «beliefs» really do not matter and shouldn't even enter into the discussion.

The battle isn't really about Religion vs Science — or a god vs satan — or a believer vs an atheist — It is not even a battle at all, it is just your understanding of Light and Darkness --

I think before I was on this blog I probably believe close to the same way, but I have tried to learn more about my own beliefs, plus about science and evolution, although science isnt really one of my best subjects.

Whatever its material causes (about which Heidegger really had nothing to say), the founding ideology of the modern vision of reality was, he believed, easily defined: the triumph of subjectivity in philosophy and of mechanism in science; egoism and technology.

I argued against evolutionist teachers and students, but I never really cared about science except to defend my faith.

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?

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

«Science has confirmed the myriad of health benefits provided by a vegetable - rich diet, so to exclude some of them from receiving a five - star rating is sending the wrong message to Australian consumers about what they should really put on their plates,» he said.

Now we Season: Mix 1/2 stick of softened butter with whatever aromatics you're feeling and about a teaspoon of coarse kosher salt, there's really no exact science to this, we just want to have some sort of paste consistency.

I really appreciate learning about the science of baking.

If you really want to know more about the science behind honey, below we have listed various scientific references — a list we're constantly adding to as the world of science illuminates more and more about the powerful properties of honey.

I used to enjoy chocolate covered coffee beans until some jerk told me that they cause cellulite, no idea about the science behind it but I stopped eating them... Shame really!

Taste and Nutrition are the two things consumers really care about — the multisensory experience of great tasting food and the vital feel - good factor provided by nutritional science.

It's not really rocket science — it's just about using good, whole foods.»

Your comments are very naive and idiotic.Even if he had a limited budget at that time it's not as if every player would cost him a fortune.Also it's not about the limited budget that makes him support his players to perform.It's his philiosophy.Even till this day he tends to support and persist with his players to bring out the best in them.If you think I don't know what am saying wait till they get fit.On Giroud if we are to be honest he should have been dropped long ago even in his second season.It was never rocket science to know that the guy ws not starter quality.Tell me which team would have persisted with Giroud as a starter more than Arsenal.He failed long ago and was really really benched like just last season.As for Szcz Wenger also did persist with him during the times he still wasn't performing.I hope people won't deny this.He persisted till he could take no more of it.That was the reason why he brought Ospina into the starting 11.

There really is science about pitchers facing the hitters three times, just like there's science about... sunlight.

Rosin's article really isn't about the science of breast - feeding, though it makes some claims in that regard.

I was also very pleased to see innovative projects about plant science, which I really didn't expect to find in a LEGO set.

Introducing kids to science is a great way to teach them about concepts, their surroundings and how things work.Have a child really into dinosaurs?