Sentences with phrase «what evidence have you seen»

What evidence have you seen that you find so conclusive?

What evidence have you seen that mobile billing raises conversion rates?

Not exact matches

I wasn't around in the tech scene in the early 2000s, but from what I've seen we just don't have enough evidence to make that call.

«It would be very prudent for the government to wait until we see if, in fact, there is evidence that what's happening down south in the U.S. is having a detrimental effect on Canadian business,» Perrault said.

Rob Knake, a former official who dealt with the issue under Obama, said he had not seen evidence in what was published to support that conclusion.

From what I have witnessed, the Foundation with Buterin at its helm, has exercised a great deal of rational thought in its decision making process, and I have not seen any evidence that it has chosen self - interest over the betterment of the Ethereum community as a whole.

Given some evidence — uncertain and shaky to be sure — that the job market has cooled a bit while inflation is non-threatening, from what I see from here, the Fed should revert to data - driven mode and punt on a June hike.

We've seen a lot of evidence about what's coming, through the HomePod firmware leak, and reports including one from Bloomberg this week that outlines exactly how the iPhone interface will work without a home button, but Apple should still have plenty to reveal that we haven't seen at this event, including at least a few amazing ARKit demos.

The conditions in any two investing environments are never the same, but we do have historical evidence on what has happened in the past when interest rates rose from similar levels as those seen today.

There is ample evidence for the existence of God, what you decide to do with this evidence is ultimately up to you, but do not claim that there is none... and I would submit to you that many people believe many things without evidence every single day... but do not lump all people of faith into one basket... I have personal proof that God exists, but proof for me may not be proof for you, some people can see something with their own eyes and still deny it, that is why I said it is ultimately up to you to decide what you believe... there is much evidence both for and against the existence of God, you need to decide which evidence you choose to believe...

I have stated to you and others numerous times that there is ample evidence of God, what you choose to do with that evidence is up to you; it's called free will and you have the ability to exercise it in whatever way you choose, but don't deny that there is any, because then you only show that you refuse to see what is all around you...

I see you have no clue what the word «evidence» means, or what const «itutes evidence.

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 saw where you think that you can argue about «fine - tuning» and strong principles, and I would assert that's because you don't even know what the most implicating evidence even is... thanks to your god, Copernicus.

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

I call BS on Jimbo about «a huge avalanche of historical evidence and archeology» and I call BS on your statement because you only refer to «common knowledge» I've seen what Christian common knowledge is like and it often runs a bit shy on facts..

The people who could have reinforced my faith condemned me for daring to exercise it in the face of questions and conflicting evidence: not just encouraging me, but demanding me to believe that much harder in what I could not see.

There is no evidence of a God and many of us have seen belief in God sometimes lead to bad things — probably because people assign power to God and then speak on his behalf (they «hear» what he says).

I'm 58 and have never seen any evidence that what you believe is true.

God had four decades to give me some evidence he was out there, and he didn't, and I'm not going to go vandalize a church and end up in jail to see if what worked for you will work for me.

Instead, as realists, we have to use all available empirical evidence to understand what we can't always see, including the innate capacities and aptitudes we observe in their highly complex expressions when they are realized but can not see when they are not.

Without the use of religion you'd have no reason to deny the evidence but as long as you have that book that you require to get by in this world, you will never see the facts for what they are.

There may be forms of existence that go beyond what we understand, but I have not seen any evidence of that despite hundreds of years of scientific tools and thousands of scientists available for the investigations of such claims and phenomena.

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.

Whats rediculous is that there are people as yourself who have been so blinded that they cant even see the evidence, and results of a person who has faith.

It was those who were good at building systems who built the most fantastic and lunatic systems, who scarfed up every odd or stray fact and fit it in, and found that in the fact they could fit in such odd or stray facts evidence that they had seen what lesser mortals couldn't, or wouldn't.

And while I am far from perfect in this area, it is one way I see the evidence of how God has changed me (which is what we call being «born again.»)

Jesus by this time has enough evidence to see what the outcome of his message is likely to be.

I'm confused, what kind of invisible evidence have you ever seen in a court?

Yes, this was evidence that God also was upset about what this man named Jesus was teaching, and had seen fit to make Him a public spectacle in the sight of all so that nobody would ever again seek to challenge the teachings of the religious leaders or the traditions of the Jewish people.

But if the father sat through the trial of his son, and saw the weight of the evidence, and maybe even heard the confession of his son to his crimes, the father would be forced to believe what he did not want to believe.

You have to find your own reason to believe because if you don't this Christian walk won't ever ever make any sense to you.You say you care only for Christianity because «they impose their laws into secular law» but I think deep down you are lying to yourself.Islam has manifested itself into many many nations with their own law, I don't see you ever demand evidence of Allah heck even what their religion states.You say you demand evidence only when religions impose their laws into secular law but..

You see people who try and disprove God are only tickling your ears they don't have solid evidence only their words and their equations of age using carbon dating if you actually look up whats involved in carbon dating you will see that it's the same as flipping a coin the fossil record has many many holes in it more than most people who believe in evolution will admit.

I personally think that there probably is no God, because I have never seen any evidence for the supernatural, which is what God would be.

But it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if, instead of rioting, the people went to the local police stations and lay down on the steps, the footpath, along the road, and refused to leave until they got a predetermined outcome (eg a review of the evidence, apologies etc, or a form of forgiveness and grace as Jeremy has suggested here).

What tool would help us see evidence for God, other than our human willingness to uncritically believe in things too good to actually be true?

I hope we will remember that, more often that not, what keeps a person from embracing the gospel is not that he hasn't seen enough evidence to support the existence of God in science or in logic, but that he hasn't seen enough evidence to support the existence of God among the people who claim to be following Him.

The beliefs are just so far out there for me, that whenever I see someone in ardent support of them I have to think they're a troll, because I don't know how they could possibly believe or accept that (there are a few exceptions of people who pt things very well, cite supporting evidence, and are consistent and coherent - I don't agree with them, but I can at least understand what they're saying)

I saw in Mohler's review of the book yet another illustration of what I have described here; for as Mohler related the book's argument, there was precious little appeal to evidence, and considerably more to morality and emotion.

Our attempts to see the natural revelation God has installed in the Creation act includes what «Science» discovers, but knowing we need to filter worldly bias in the presentation of such «scientific» evidences since the ideas of the world are driven by another mindset.

What you'll see is that every single piece of historical evidence that we have is consistent with 1.

Eventually, I will have some kind of panel done to see what I am allergic to, so that will be helpful for me in making better decisions, but until then I do want to stay gluten free because of ALL the overwhelming evidence that shows how it messes up our guts.

[63] They cite the cases of Sweden, Norway and Quebec as instances where there is inconclusive evidence that bans have been successful (see the section later in this paper on what actions other countries have taken in relation to junk food advertising for more explanation of the regime in place in these countries).

So I thought I would have a quick look at the evidence and see if there was support for what Mikel Arteta said to Arsenal Player about the Gunners seeming to be punished for every little mistake and not getting rewarded for the things we have done well.

So maybe forehead had a point at some issues AW simply ruin some players» careers my evidence is Podolski, this guy can score goals he never misses three chances his left foot is a real killer but leProf cant use him the guy is not a winger (why not try OG12 as a winger and see what he can do), he cant find a way to get a lot from this guy he NEVER give him a lot of second chances either.

On evidence so far this team still needs at least 2 defenders, i think Mert will soon be feeling the affects of last season too, in this season and if we not getting a DM, Callum Chambers should be moved to that position allowing us to become more mobile (from what i have seen of him in defense i think he would even be more impressive in DM).

But on the evidence of what we have seen this year, we are set to give it our best shot.

That is why we have to wait to see what the real evidence is.

As evidenced in his first go around as Hoss this season, Irving can certainly make plays inside, but given what he showed at left defensive end on Sunday night, I have to believe we'll see more of him there going forward.

Most people in this thread from what I see have been measured in their response and advocate waiting for evidence before coming to any absolute conclusions