Sentences with phrase «science sees nothing»

Is THAT what a scalpel does??? Is THAT why you homogenize Class 3, 4, 5 stations to determine breakpoints at Class 1 stations??? Is THAT why the science sees nothing wrong in creating zombie stations??

Where science sees nothing, we see life — and all the best parts of it.

Not exact matches

For me I see evolution the same as you see God not enough proof to say I believe it and see God as how all things started, in my view evolution of man can be true just that it has not been proven where God I can see because there is no other logical explanation for how the matter in the universe came to be from nothing, a higher power for now can be the only possible answer if science was to prove the creation of the universe in some other way I would not deny that truth.

you cant put your finger on it, cant smell it, or taste it, but your soul will rejoice, if you have one left... this is your connection to the world, to the universe... nothing else really matters at all... we see all of this creation, and we've got the math and science to figure out a tenth of it, but if we cant realize that it was put here ultimatly out of love, and saved by the love of ONE true God, then we are blind even to that tenth... God is great, and may he bless you athiest, muslim, christian, jew, gay, whatever... God is Love, but rest assure He is also our Judge, the Judge of our hearts, hope you get them right.

Why has science lagged behind the Bible in knowing that the earth is «hanging upon nothing», as seen at Job 26:7, some 3,600 years ago?

But when we come to this master science, finding that our plumbline can not sound its depth, and that our eagle eye can not see its height, we turn away with the thought that vain man would be wise, but he is like a wild ass's colt; and with solemn exclamation, «I am but of yesterday, and know nothing.»

I see nothing that can not be explained by science.

i see no proof of your statements, at least science has the integrity to admitt to whatever being only a theory and not fact — your BELIEF is nothing but a thought you hold on to like a baby and there special blanky... sceince attempts to prove or even to disprove itself, you just go on believing what some silk covered so called humble man with gold in his pockets tells you.

I see nothing in his teachings that would clash with science in the way I understand science although those teachings clash with a religion that some people call science because in their world view you can not believe in God because science can't prove his assistance.

Again, great post-it's nice to see someone slam dunk with nothing but science and respectability.

The unexpected answer to that is nothing you could either know or guess, even if you've seen hundreds off science - fiction films, because it's something you've never heard of before: the Shimmer, to be precise.

This honestly looks fun, though nothing new (see Rocket Science), but I admit I am curious to check it out.

Like characters in one of those zombie movies where no one says «zombie,» the crew of the Cloverfield space station — a big metal psilocybin mushroom orbiting near - future Earth — doesn't know what it's in for, having left our planet without ever having seen a single sci - fi horror movie: not Alien, not Event Horizon, and definitely nothing about science gone wrong.

I suspect that, like the most despicable political strategists, Jessup, Dauphiné and Cooper, and Lepczyk et al., threw it out there just to see if it would stick — the connection they're attempting to make certainly has nothing to do with science.

Spore creator Will Wright has been talking about the influence of science in his upcoming and oh - so - highly anticipated universe - sim for a while now and while this new trailer above is nothing especially new, particularly to those who saw Wright's hour - long keynote at GDC (a 35 minute edit of which can be found here), it has got me hoping for something a little deeper in this game.

We have also seen a proliferation of «Think Tanks» that are operating with a political and economic agenda that have nothing to do with science.

A paper on «hedging» that I publishedin Science in 2004 with Natasha Andronova and Michael Schlesinger (see Dot Earth for a discussion and link) indicated that starting mitigation now would be the right choice even if our analysis included a significant chance that doing nothing would turn out to be (in 2035) the right choice — that is, even with a 20 % chance that climate change would turn out to be a hoax.

Once you see and dismiss the official climate establishments» «97 % consensus» as nothing more than propaganda, you can only conclude that climate science is either politically - motivated or it is the product of a personal problem — e.g., a problem that is similar to those who suffer from medical maladies they do not actually have, who waste their lives looking for remedies that do not exist.

In 1991, it was nothing more than a suggestion to invite science - based rebuttal back into an issue Al Gore and his friends hijacked with assertions that catastrophic man - caused global warming was settled science; a suggestion which came out of a leaked non-profit coal association's public relations test market campaign which was so obscure that practically no one ever saw or heard about it.

My point was that I see little to be gained in claiming the other side is nothing but oddballs, nutcases and loons, all with motivations having little to do with science.

Move along folks nothing else to see here this science is settled by golly by gum.

Compared with the radical know - nothing litmus test for politicians we see now, on climate science most of the Bush Administration, bad as it was, was downright nuanced and moderate.Link to archived 11 - minute audio webcast.

It is where I started this post — with profound anger at motivated idiots who can see nothing wrong with fitting science to a Procrustean bed.

So if ever CAGW (the social phenomenon, almost nothing to do with actual climate events or [unbiassed] science), then I for one would be watching to see if a new memeplex arose from some of the components of skepticism, which at that point would likely mushroom.

You err, I have grasped the fundamentals well enough to see that many hide the fact they don't know the basics by playing the «superior because so very well educated in science card» and worse, refusing to engage and distracting from this by the use of the ad hom technique that those questioning them have nothing worth listening to because they don't have science phd's coming out of their arses.

Those of us in the skeptics camp have seen the dogma first hand, be it those directly involved in the science, or us who are trying to defend science from the luniatic frindge who want nothing more than to bring down Western democracy.

It isn't simply that Kert Davies is also the source of this «breaking» story for nine different science journals, it is the plain fact that there is nothing new in these reports that wasn't already seen in older reports on Dr Soon which cited Davies just the same way.

I just see this particular argument as obstructionist to say nothing of the fact that implying a primia facie dissonance between the ice core record and consensus of climate science as given by any reputable survey is tantamount to alledging either some sort of conspiracy or that climate researchers are uniquely dull.

Or you might look at misbehavior which is all too common in ordinary pseudoscience disputes, but which in the physical and biological sciences is very uncommon on the funded academic side: e.g., triumphalism about unfalsifiable claims, and circling the wagons around various kinds of data hiding (e.g., remarkably lackadaisical formal investigation of CRU even after FOIA violations, and broad enthusiasm for promoting the formal results into an informal full «nothing to see here, move along» exoneration).

I've been waiting for a number of hours to see if the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology was really going to respond to a fairly uncontroversial statement about climate science with «this is exactly the argument that I do not buy» and nothing else.

We even see people like Ravetz who think that the Climate Science CO2 = CAGW issues are a matter of scientists being unable to get along personally, when this has nothing to do with it — doing real sScience CO2 = CAGW issues are a matter of scientists being unable to get along personally, when this has nothing to do with it — doing real sciencescience.

I was hoping to see more science — I just see a bunch of Know Nothing Ideologues telling me they ONLY care about a tax cut or low regulations.

I am at a complete loss to see how this email could be interpreted as implying that «the science was settled and there was nothing to discuss».

Well, according to Pearce's original phrasing / intent (see below), Pielke Snr also apparently believes that the science is settled and that there is nothing to discuss

But the more science knows, the more it sees of what it doesn't know (the last word on nothing).