Sentences with phrase «real evidence does»

The British newspaper The Independent, for example, reported in its Nov. 30 article about the Nature study that «the real evidence does point to a possible one degree Centigrade cooling over the next two decades.»

The real evidence doesn't show anything has changed wrt SLR.

«We've seen real evidence it does not have to be that way.»

However, the Sandia Report found that the real evidence did not support the claims in Nation at Risk.

Not exact matches

The 33 - year - old billionaire instead insists that the real mistakes that were made by Cambridge Analytica happened years ago and that Facebook's 2014 policy change served as evidence that the social network had already taken steps to ensure that app developers didn't harvest and exploit too much user data.

Wakshlag, who since has done paid consulting for Purina, says he doesn't «think Blue Buffalo is necessarily worse than other brands, but there's no real evidence it's any better.»

But does real - world evidence support your contention when applied to advanced countries with large unused productive capacities and that issue their own currencies, such as Japan or Canada?

The newly - proposed course description for â $ ˜Financial Economicsâ $ ™, still contained among its contents the â $ ˜testing the efficiency of markets.â $ ™ When I objected to this, given the financial meltdown that we had just witnessed and the irrefutable evidence that this theory did not hold water, I was told that the theory of efficient financial markets still had to be tested to decide of its real - world relevance.

But that's okay, because while I may concur with your equation» Something does not exist = not real» I also realize you have absolutely NO evidence that what I call something does not exist.

Do you know the mathematical impossibility that even one of these could randomly come into existance?Let alone all of the building blocks required for just a single simple cell to come together to form any type of living thing?There sure should be some blobs of fossilized transitions if evolution could happen.You people are real smart why don't you quit bashing Christians and quit believing the garbage you have been fed, and look up the evidence put forth by the Creation Research people.They have in fact proven creation down to a cellular level.Unlike evolution scientists who have no answers, but cleverly devised fables.Evolution is not even a very good fairy tale.Even if I didn't believe in God, Evolution is such a fools explanation of the origin of man that it takes just that to even consider it true.I understand though that you athiests will believe anything that allows you to love your sin and hatred of the one true GoDo you know the mathematical impossibility that even one of these could randomly come into existance?Let alone all of the building blocks required for just a single simple cell to come together to form any type of living thing?There sure should be some blobs of fossilized transitions if evolution could happen.You people are real smart why don't you quit bashing Christians and quit believing the garbage you have been fed, and look up the evidence put forth by the Creation Research people.They have in fact proven creation down to a cellular level.Unlike evolution scientists who have no answers, but cleverly devised fables.Evolution is not even a very good fairy tale.Even if I didn't believe in God, Evolution is such a fools explanation of the origin of man that it takes just that to even consider it true.I understand though that you athiests will believe anything that allows you to love your sin and hatred of the one true God.

you can not prove a negative look it up... also you accept that evolution is legit... why because it has evidence... the sky fairy has none but you want to believe it... that does not make it real.

JUST ONE instance where any god in history has proven itself to be real... oh, and your bible does not count as evidence.

God is not real, and we don't need evidence to justify this churchy nonsense, we need to tell them they are wrong and they should go away.

no apparent evidence of ill - will, and 3)... an experience of unity.Now, David, I haven't known you for very long (blogwise), but I respect what I have read from yr deep and thoughtful spirit, so with that in mind, I just don't see how this personal experience is translatable or cd be used as some kind of template when faced with the real Wal - Mart world.Do we not, like Jesus, show out true colours under pressure.Maybe I'm missing something... please correct me If I am and remember, I'm not into boob jobs (cleavage enhancement)

I don't see how real evidence would be affected by whether or not someone has sought after God.

Clearly if there was any evidence for such things, it would be science — and not religion (woo) and we could do real tests to learn more.

Just because they don't have the photos, artifacts or whatever to convince you personally doesn't mean they don't have real life experience as evidence to base their belief on.

Will he choose to deal with the situation based solely upon doing what is best for the nation, based upon real world evidence - even if that evidence conflicts with his faith?

If God interacts with the natural world (I think that's what you mean when you say he is real with respect to the natural world) then when he does so there should, in principle, be evidence that he does so — measurable and testable.

But we still don't have enough evidence to know which of those is the real answer.

Since the Enlightenment, examples have been relegated to the level of anecdotes: they don't constitute real knowledge or evidence.

They simply do not want to be given evidence of the fact that Jesus was a real, historical person.

Simply because the «language» doesn't exist for me to explain that evidence to you does not make it any less real.

Thus the black / white thinking you mention will require ever more proof from the outsider and will inevitably conclude that there is nothing at all, not one thing, that any of them can do about any of it because the outsider refuses to offer real honest - to - goodness evidence.

Maybe, maybe not, but they CERTAINLY wouldn't insist with the same stubbornness as they do now, without any real evidence of God's existence.

Each one of us must eventually face the real issue, which is quite simply: do I believe after adult examination of the evidence that Jesus Christ was what he claimed to be, or am I prepared to assert quite definitely that he was wrong in his major claims and that, though much of his teaching is beautiful, he himself was a self - deceived fanatic?

But don't forget — if you assert any supernatural ideas, and insist that they are real for all of us, don't be surprised if I demand evidence and criticize these ideas if evidence is not forthcoming or is insufficient.

Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it.

What has been expressed here is that * some * evidence does exist — enough to create a theory or hypothesis that reasonates with people's actual experiences, that fits the evidence and experiences they do have to go on and provides real, demonstrable benefits in the process.

Get real, they did it again trying to respond to your post in question of the evidence, lol.

You want so bad for your god to be real that you will deny all evidence to the contrary «evidence to the contrary» of Gods existence, did I comprehend that wrong?

This may have been a real danger, for the evidence indicates that Shapur's persecution of non-conformists did not extend to the synagogue.»

That doesn't make either of them any more real than God as far as the evidence is concerned.

He doesn't do that, but He does provide evidences, but we must seek if we are to find truth) Anyway, what I was saying before the digression was, it can easily be argued that the Bible was simply a book set in a real place like the Ilead, but Joseph Smith could not have traveled back in time and given the Maya knowledge of Jesus.

It is apparent that all this is only incidental, in any case, to the real issue; for let the material world be what it may, does it evidence an intangible reality?

It is common for people to say that there is much about the resurrection of Jesus that they do not profess to understand, but that the evidence makes it clear that something of a unique and miraculous order occurred, which had the effect of leaving the tomb of Jesus empty, and of convincing the disciples that Jesus was alive in some real sense.

I know that the burden of proof lies upon me to show how my thesis fits with Scripture, but I am beginning to think that the real burden of proof lies upon those who want to maintain that God is violent despite all the evidence to the contrary in the life, ministry, and teachings of Jesus Christ, and especially in what He did for the entire world on the cross.

Of course it is a real leap from sex scandals and bureaucratic mismanagement to the argument that the Catholic Church will go to murderous lengths to stifle evidence that contradicts its teaching, and that the church's highest officials do this cynically, knowing that the faith is a fraud.

to J.W. and fred — i think its rather silly to argue anything as fact if its cleary thought based (i.e. lacking proof / evidence) when asked about the where did we come from or how the universe (whatever) i always answer with i don't know, but then i pose an idea — i state openly thats its only an idea... if any one of you religions folks would simple agree to the FACT that what you BELIEVE is real is REALLY only an idea until proven (much like evolution) then i would find much more pleasing conversations beyond the realm of atheists... but alas, i am still waiting — i found some but most are imovible in there beliefs that god is real, provable, and most def.

but i didn't state anything example — i stated that the theory of evolution is yet to be proved and so with that i agree that due to that lacking it is equal to the theory of god... the only thing i said which is cemented truth for anything is that we don't know what the real answer is... and by stating ideas as facts serves no real purpose but a selfish one... lets call it an ease - ment on the inner self, the mind can now be at peace with the hope that when i die i get to live yet again... full belief in this is insane without evidence.

In these situations, we're called to have faith in the Son of God and reject doubt, but too often, we believe this translates to putting more weight into enticing ideas that don't have real evidence, citing verses that can be twisted to suit a fact-less narrative.

this is a dishonest attempt by evolutionists to hijack very real and substantial evidence and occurrence just as they attempt to do with the natural order.

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?»

Neuhaus, I think, implicitly concedes that the danger of recidivism, and not the doctrine of redemption, is the real issue when he acknowledges the need to argue that «there is not a scintilla of evidence that a person who did a stupidly wicked thing many years ago and is repentant and has rendered decades of faithful service without a hint of suspicion poses any threat whatever to children.»

However, making an assumption about his purpose for making such assertions like the one you just did is completely unfounded in reality and based on no real evidence.

Gil you have asked some very good questions why does bad things happen in the world i personally do nt know God did nt explain to Job either why he had to suffer.What i do know is that God desires that none of us should perish but that all would have eternal life in him through Jesus Christ.This world will one day pass away and the real world will be reborn so our focus as christians is on whats to come and being a witness in the here and now.Both good and bad happens to either the righteous or the sinner so what are we to make of that.What we do know is that God will set all things right at the appointed time the wicked will be judged and the righteous will be rewarded for there faith isnt that enough reason for us to believe.Free will is only a reality if we can choose between good and bad but our hearts are deceitfully wicked we naturally are inclined toward sin that is another reason whyt we need to be saved from ourselves so what are we to do.For me Christ died and rose again that is a fact witnessed by over 500 people that were alive at the time and was recorded by historians how many other religious leaders do you know that did that or did the miracles that Jesus did.As far as the bible is concerned much of the archelogical evidence has proven to be correct and many of prophetic words spoken many hundreds of years ago have come to pass including both the birth and the death of Jesus.Interested in what philosophy you are believing in if other than a faith in Jesus Christ so how does that philosophy give you the assurance that you are saved.Its really simple with christianity we just have to believe in Jesus Christ.brentnz

Haha While I have mountains of evidence that you did coome from apes, you have a book written by ignorant iron age men.You choose to ignore real evidence in, and in its place you place myth.

The shroud of Turin is irrefutable proof of the Crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, I am not going to state all the facts about this shroud but all the evidence is out there proving it is real and that to this day we do not posses the technology to reproduce a image on cloth with the same physical characteristics.

You do not have a single piece of evidence, let alone the large amount of supporting evidence required to show god is real - you know, real as in «reality.»

From the article: «This fragment, this new piece of papyrus evidence, does not prove that (Jesus) was married, nor does it prove that he was not married»: In other words, the fact that the bible contains information does not prove that (Jesus) was real, nor does it prove that any of the content is true.