As such, I prefer to
stick to the science when making my determinations on whether I'll employ a vaccine or not.
Not exact matches
historical Jesus, lmfao... show me any historical evidence of jesus... let's start with his remains... they don't exist - your explanation, he rose
to the heavens... historical evidence - no remains, no proof of existence (not a disproof either, just not a proof)... then let's start with other historians writing about the life of Jesus around his time or shortly after, as outside neutral observers... that doesn't exist either (not a disproof again, just not a proof)... we can go on and on... the fact is, there is not a single proving evidence of Jesus's life in an historical context... there is no existence of Jesus in a scientific context either (virgin birth... riiiiiight)... it is just written in a book, and
stuck in your head... you have a right
to believe in what you must... just don't base it on history or
science... you believe because you do... it is your right... but try not
to put reason into your faith; that's
when you start sounding unreasonable, borderline crazy...
They like
to stick their fingers in their ears and scream
when you try and quote any fact based
science at them.
This is well backed by much literature,
science and research, especially as we are growing in our understanding of trauma, its impact and how
to heal from it
when we get
stuck in trauma responses.
And
when that unit of the curriculum is up, you know,
when that's happening I want Johnny
to say, «Here's what I believe» and I want the teacher
to say, «Here's what we think the best evidence in
science says» and let that kid go home and say, «Mom and Dad, I really
stuck it
to him» because that kind of conversation I think is important.
Many VC companies don't have experience with
science, and after being burnt badly
when the dotcom bubble burst, these days most tend
to stick to what sectors they know best.
Science sets out what we think is true — but
when it gets
stuck, it's time
to explore what we think isn't
WHEN Mostafa Ahmadi - Roshan, a chemist at the Natanz uranium enrichment plant in Iran, was killed on 11 January by a magnetic bomb
stuck to his car, he became the fifth such victim in Iran, according
to William Tobey of the Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs at Harvard University.
When you
stick a limb on your creature, wouldn't it be nice
to have an optional pop - up window that explains the real (and fascinating)
science behind limb evolution?
And
when I went back
to the skits somebody had written a comment like — it was probably ruder than this — «You had a good thing going there, you should have
stuck with the
science videos.»
When it comes
to supplements, you might having trouble choosing what's most adequate for your goals, given the great number of choices with different price ranges we have today, but the best idea is
to stick with those supported by
science in terms of efficacy and safety.
When you're experiencing nausea, «you want
to stick to simple, bland foods that your stomach can easily tolerate,» Rena Zelig, RDN, assistant professor of nutritional
sciences at Rutgers University, previously told Health.
When I have heard Dr. Ornish speak in the last 2 years he seems
to be
sticking with fish oil despite the lack of
science supporting its use.
Exiting is not an exact
science, and there are times
when deviating from your initial exit plan makes sense, but you should always decide before you enter a trade what your ideal exit strategy is and then try
to stick to that plan as much as possible.
There is no need
to bet
when you
stick to the
science (and measured data and observations as much as possible).
That pretty much is how skeptics feel
when trying
to have an intelligent conversation with global warming alarmist — especially
when they can not even admit Mann's hockey
stick is political and more social than
science.
Why
stick to picking apart hidden meanings and agendas
when there is a plate full of delicious
science to rip into?
Hello Jim, the reply from the paid liars at the Weather Underground gives us another example of how critical is is
to stick to the
science terms
when trying
to share information on the climate engineering insanity.
Can this be even started
when the «hockey
stick» is so blatantly used (by the IPCC and others)
to provoke political / policy changes based on bad
science and bad processing of that data?
We as new and original mathematicians of Climate
Science pose: scientific descent will be proven if you regurgitate the hockey -
stick rammed down your throat, again and again until accepted or
when denied,
to hasten your personal integrity and intellectual demise.
When questioned about new and more worrying climate
science she stonewalled and
stuck to the party line.
So its going
to turn into an area where any true discussion based on the
science of the specific aspect — ice free Artic, sea level rise (
when, where and how much)-- will be missing and any chance of actual education will be gone if the standard «opponents» get used in the discussions and they
stick to their standard behaviors
when discussing anything
to do with climate change.
Thats what I mean
when I say
stick to the
science.