Sentences with phrase «lets see your evidence»

If you could «prove» that your god does exist, let's see the evidence ------- You just don't accept the proof.

So lets see the evidence on this wonderful video of Arsenals very own Denilson taking down Messi

If you are still a student who is majoring in a particular field — say marketing — let's see evidence of your interest in that field.

Not exact matches

But if you have evidence to the contrary then let's see it — but please let's not hear about how many active funds underperform the index again!

Mark, first let's see just what kind of evidence you would accept as definitive.

Lets go through them: All scientific evidence and consensus to date favors causation which I see as agency.

Pick one and let us know where we can see your «evidence.»

While I am not religious (I will call myself agnostic), and having an IQ well over genius levels, with scientific and mathematical tendencies, let me ask you a few questions, because what I see here are a bunch of people talking about «no evidence» or «proof» of God's existence, therefore He can't possibly exist, existential arguments, which are not arguments, but fearful, clouded alterations of a truth that can not be seen.

Let us examine the evidence and see what conclusions we can draw.1

Well, let's just see how well you can use your keen «reason» and «logic» to search for your «empirical evidence».

No... I actually began questioning Christianity and all religions when I was in elementary school and in history class while learning about the greek gods and their myths thought «Well... let's see... these people really believed in these gods and those stories... thought they really happened... but there was no evidence they did and we all know they're not real now... so what's different between that and Christianity and other religions?»

Let's look at Hebrews 11:1 - 6 for a better definition of faith: «1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

' Lets see a guy sits down writes a book proclaims it to be the absolute truth offeres ZERO evidence to it being anything but a fairy tail & from it a Religion is born» Yep, and they called it christianity.

Lets see a guy sits down writes a book proclaims it to be the absolute truth offeres ZERO evidence to it being anything but a fairy tail & from it a Religion is born.

Let us refer to these modes that fill the gaps between the senses as «intersensory prehensions» and see how one might find evidence for them.

That let me see that even without any evidence at all, people believe just about anything reported on what's going on in the locker room.

Wenger put ozil on the wing for his development one thing i do nt get is how the fans do nt see that Wenger done the same process with Wilshere, I remember when Monreal was caught out at the back post from a set piece and ozil did nt cover he just jogged abit n let monreal get beat, that would be video evidence for Ozil to learn and work on his duty to defend instead of giving him Candy like a baby n letting him be lazy in the middle not tracking back for the team its a learning process im 100 % Wenger knows ozils best position is in the centre he followed him since Shalke its obvious but Wenger develops players into world class after seeing Ozil in the world cup and coming back after the world cup i coud see he defended alot more helping out monreal on the flanks and putting in alot more effort only then once hes showed his duty in defending will he be given his free role in the middle.

Arsene can not take Arsenal to first again, respect is due to him as he is growing older but let him respect himself and see this evidence and do the honourable thing, let his place to a younger one, better suited.no shame in that.

However, if a kid has an offer, but he hasn't visited and the coaches have no evidence his family is onboard with a decision to commit, I can totally see the coaches saying, «Hey, let's hold off until you visit the school with your family, because this is one of the most important decisions you'll ever make in your life and we want to make sure you and your family have all the information you need and all your questions answered before you make it.»

Due process in itself is the way out, let's give them an opportunity, let them come with their lawyers, let's confront them with the evidence and let's see who is telling the truth.

«Let me say, I haven't seen any evidence to that effect,» Schumer replied.

Civil war has nearly broken out among neuropsychologists over this issue, so let me tread lightly here — I will simply say that I have seen no scientific evidence for how such recovered memories might work, no supposed cases of it documented to be legitimate in a way that should satisfy a rigorous scientist, and plenty of scientific explanations for why various claims have not been legitimate.

Guth: Let me add one other thing that could be seen at the LHC, which I think would make most of us unhappy if it's seen, but we could see evidence for more fine tuning in nature than we've already seen in the cosmological constant; and that would be taken as evidence for this multiverse, anthropic picture where the laws of physics are not determined by fundamental principles but rather by a wide variety of things happening and certain things selecting for life.

Skeptical Science provides an invaluable resource for examining each individual piece of climate evidence, so let's make use of these individual pieces to see how they form the big picture.

The list therefore contains some substantial specimens (OH9, 12 and 13), which are all way, way outside the morphological range of variation of modern humans, as well as some pretty insubstantial ones (OH11, 14 and 15) which I have not seen, and I bet no - one in AiG has seen — at any rate, if AiG have any evidence to dispute Tobias's assessments of them, then they are not letting on.

Let's look at the evidence to see if there's any rightful heir to King Monohydrate.

Anyone who has seen the evidence cited in documentaries such as «What the Bleep Do We Know» and «E-Motion», let alone seminal texts such as Scott Peck's «The Road Less Travelled» and Louise Hay's «You Can Heal Your Life» will know beyond any doubt that the body and mind / emotions are inextricably linked.

«It says let's take the evidence before us, see where we are, and see what we think we need to do next to make progress, instead of people with formal authority who are supposed to have all of the answers.»

And, as Martinez says, when you achieve great results, «you should let people see the evidence that it's working.»

I know NASUWT has voiced concerns about the academies programme right from the outset but let's be clear that this is about creating a system that is school - led; one that puts trust in you — the professionals inside the system, giving you the freedom from government to do your jobs as you see fit, based on the evidence of what you know works.

Let's begin with a summary of evidence on value - added measurements that a teacher might actually see.

There's no guarantee that this would be the case (and we've seen evidence that Amazon is making it harder for the 99 - cent titles to rank well on the popularity lists), but I believe, if increasing income is your main motivation, it's best to experiment and not let your own beliefs dictate price.

Let's see how well my default views stack up against the evidence.

Let's see the hard evidence of the NRA «owning politicians» by spending a total of 900k last year (the highest since 98) lol.

In order to understand the potential importance of the effect, let's look at what it could do to our understanding of climate: 1) It will have zero effect on the global climate models, because a) the constraints on these models are derived from other sources b) the effect is known and there are methods for dealing the errors they introduce c) the effect they introduce is local, not global, so they can not be responsible for the signal / trend we see, but would at most introduce noise into that signal 2) It will not alter the conclusion that the climate is changing or even the degree to which it is changing because of c) above and because that conclusion is supported by multiple additional lines of evidence, all of which are consistent with the trends shown in the land stations.

I have yet to see any compelling evidence that this effect even really exists, let alone that it could contribute to climate.

Glad to see at least one scientist is getting more comfortable with saying we know things * must be * happening even when we can't yet provide the evidence, let alone proof.

In terms of the comments about the Holocene record, etc, and Gavin's saying that there is «no evidence» of such methane burps then: first, let us all also acknowledge that some of the world's major paleoclimate and methane experts HAVE seen evidence of exactly that [i.e., Nisbet, Have sudden large releases of methane from geological reservoirs occurred since the Last Glacial Maximum, and could such releases occur again?

You might as well say, «let's leave out the parts of the planet that GCM's have long since modelled would see the first and most severe effects of AGW, and see if we can find any evidence of AGW.»

And as to what evidence would convince me on the broader issues, well, John, lets start by seeing if we can find any evidence at all.

Let's see the real world evidence for the lobbyists» wind energy case.

For example, let's say that evidence convinced me (in a way that I wasn't convinced previously) that all recent changes in land surface temperatures and sea surface temperatures and atmospheric temperatures and deep sea temperatures and sea ice extent and sea ice volume and sea ice density and moisture content in the air and cloud coverage and rainfall and measures of extreme weather were all directly tied to internal natural variability, and that I can now see that as the result of a statistical modeling of the trends as associated with natural phenomena.

Skeptical Science provides an invaluable resource for examining each individual piece of climate evidence, so let's make use of these individual pieces to see how they form the big picture.

Let me see the observational evidence that any «mitigation solution» of CO2 by AGW — IPCC changes temperatures — even 1C [up or down].

Anyway, it tries to prove something that flies in the face of the evidence that CO2 keeps us warm, and more CO2 heats up the planet (as can be seen in the nice curves that are not believed by a majority of bloggers in attendance, let alone the obvious increase in average temperatures over the last decades).

When motivations that give meaning or purpose to lives are on the line it is difficult (to say the least) to question or to let go of conclusions — or even to SEE contradictory evidence to firmly entrenched conclusions

If you have contrary evidence (i.e. FACTS) let's see it

I see absolutely no evidence that Briffa changed his mind on anything, let alone changed under pressure.

In other words, over 50 years ago, let me see, around the 1950's -1960's, there is substantive evidence for solar influence on the climate - which is what I've been saying all along.

Comparing his models and archaeological evidence lets researchers see what conditions led to growth or decline for these peoples.