Sentences with phrase «science in the right side»

They have undeveloped bwains with con in the left side with no connections to the science in the right side.

Not exact matches

if you can lie to yourself with immunity, you might be an atheist if you think the indifferent support your side, you might be an atheist if you don't think at all, you might be an atheist if you are drawn to religious discussions thinking someone wants to hear your opinion, you might be an atheist if you copy paste every piece of crap theory you find, you might be an atheist if you think you are right no matter what the evidence shows, you might be an atheist if you can't hold your water when you think about science, you might be an atheist if you can't write the word God, with proper capitalization, you might be an atheist if you think your view has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you think The View has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you live in a tar paper shack, writing manifestos, you might be an atheist if you think you're basically a good person, and your own final authority you might be an atheist if you think your great aunt Tillie was a simian, you might be an atheist if you own an autographed copy of Origin Of The Species, you might be an atheist if you think that when you die you're worm food, you might be an atheist if you think the sun rises and sets for you alone, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is Charles Darwin when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is you when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if you attend a church but palm the offering plate when it passes, you might be an atheist If think this exhausts all the possibilities of definition, you might be an atheist.

I guarantee the reason for them... is not just because the few on one side or the other, are so much smarter... and have the right to classify the other billions of people, convenientlly as idiots... or that all religion is imaginary fairy tales or all science is against God or that any of its truths are not in harmony with a higher concept of God.

On the next page, check the «Science and Human Rights Report» box or the «Professional Ethics Report» box in the bottom left side of the Update Your Email Preferences page in the «Additional Newsletters from AAAS» section.

The very big plus side was being right in the centre of decision - making on the future of UK biomedical science, and, on the international scene, the policy - making behind the EU's Framework Programmes.

Restoring Earth The Field Museum, Chicago This new permanent exhibit highlights the adventurous side of environmental science as documented in field notebooks; preserved specimens of far - flung species, such as a green birdwing butterfly, right; and firsthand accounts from the museum's conservation researchers.

It gained its fame in 1945 when the historian of ancient science Otto Neugebauer recognized the sexagesimal (base - 60) numbers for what they really were: a table of «Pythagorean triples» — the integer lengths of the sides and hypotenuses of right triangles.

Subscribe by checking the «Science and Human Rights Report» box in the bottom left side of the Update Your Email Preferences page in the «Additional Newsletters from AAAS» section.

Its science - fiction status is hinted at by visual design, as in the film's opening moments, when concentric circles appear out of the darkness on screen, then are seen to separate, inhabiting three - dimensional space, from left to right, with a bright light blazing on one side.

The kids came around on the right side of the vehicle (based upon where I can park a car in our garage) with armfuls of backpacks, lunchboxes and display boards for their science fair.

There is no «side» to science, outside of the normal human habit of wishing to be right, and to convince others that one is right, and recognizing when something is as or more important than many discoveries in the history of human civilization.

This dialogue about him being full of pontifical nonsense flows one way, without a response, this silence is a buffer extending his life span as a legitimate skeptic by default, since he can't stand the heat from real climate scientists left on the way side, crushing legitimate science away from any chance to reach a badly mislead audience, simply because he is more popular in the fringe right wing media world dwelling on sound bites and stupidity.

Note how he just comes right out and admits what everyone already suspects to be the case: that his slurring of climate science as «junk science» is rooted in nothing more scientific than his understanding of which side his bread — and Cody's — is buttered on.

In every instance we have been on the right side of science and policy.

So my friend was right that there are many people actively engaged in a well - funded attempt to subvert mainstream science and to mislead the public; although he seems to have been mistaken about which side is doing most of the subverting.

Jan 7 — Tallbloke posts that Gavin Schmdit won't be attending because «he didn't see the point in attending if the policy dimension was to be excluded and we are just going to discuss the science, because his side's science is right and all the sceptic's scientific arguments are just a smokescreen for their agenda.»

It is not good etiquette to quote from private correspondence, so I'll just say that he didn't see the point in attending if the policy dimension was to be excluded and we are just going to discuss the science, because his side's science is right and all the sceptic's scientific arguments are just a smokescreen for their agenda.

That is, you don't expect each lawyer, defence and accusation, to defend both point of views: the judge or jury (in science: experiment) will decide which side is right.

Dineen is a problem in some respects in that she is spot - on when it comes to her analyses of MHP science and related issues, but she decidedly skews her focus toward an antagonism against women's rights - type therapists without similarly critiquing «the other side», and toward an overly heavy - handedly skeptical view of sex abuse and domestic violence accusations, without any indication of a balanced consideration of the many MHP abuses on «the other side».