Sentences with phrase «accept his evidence in»

According to the American Academy of Veterinary Ophthalmologists, there is no accepted evidence in the scientific community supporting this claim.

I do not accept his evidence in this regard and find that he did not make a serious effort or take reasonable steps to contact or communicate with Vigna to get his side of the story.

The Commission considers that s 82 should be amended to provide guidance as to how the Court should accept evidence in a culturally appropriate form.

Not exact matches

«Even if the evidence allowed that drivers were not obliged to accept all trips, the very high percentage of acceptances required justified the [lower tribunal's] conclusion that, once in the territory with the app switched on, Uber drivers were available to [Uber] and at its disposal.»

If it takes more evidence to accept a change for the better in someone's character than it requires to believe someone has changed for the worse, then equivalent behaviors will warrant punishment while not qualifying for reward.

At present, the evidence indicates that it is appropriate to accept market risk, but with something of a «stop» in the form of put option coverage close to (or a few percent below) current levels.

It has quickly been accepted as foundational evidence in support of the tariffs and other punitive trade measures that President Donald Trump's administration has initiated against China in recent months.

While «operating earnings» are not even defined under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and «forward operating earnings» only surfaced as a creature of Wall Street in the early 1980's, it's simple enough to impute historical values of forward operating earnings because they are almost completely explained by observable earnings and employment data — see Long - term Evidence on the Fed Model and Forward Operating Earnings.

I am consistent in that I will accept the explanation that has evidence.

Publicly - funded institutional investors may be able to leverage private capital on as much as a 10:1 basis by accepting a 10 % first - loss for being the junior equity partner in a stacked capital deal.140 The evidence suggests that pooling risks across institutional investors and developing expertise within one facility can lead to cost savings.

Are there more areas in you life where you accept things as important as this with zero evidence?

There is no action required to accept what is presented in the evidence.

I appreciate it may be difficult to reconcile your religious faith with the available evidence, but despite the claims of fundamentalists, one doesn't need to abandon their religious faith in accepting what the physical evidence indicates.

I want everyone who acts as if this type of thinking is inconsequential to consider this: To accept creationism requires a complete disregard for carefully and elegantly researched scientific evidence, and 40 + % of people in America do so.

I said it to hotair already, but I will expand it a bit for you: what is evidence for some is not accepted by everyone; just as in a court case, some jurors are convinced with very little evidence while some people can not be convinced of something no matter how much evidence there is... much of this comes from how you were raised and your own personal world view, for many people God does not fit into their world view so whatever evidence there is they close their eyes and say, «No, I don't believe that!»

Since the majority of all investigated hypotheses are false, if positive and negative evidence were written up and accepted for publication in equal proportions, then the majority of articles in scientific journals should report no findings.

I would accept certain evidence that would satisfy my requirements... limb growing on an amputee for one in full disclosure..

At least those scientific theories we accept as true have physical evidence to support them and / or can be replicated in a lab.

The religious argument is so clearly nonsense that it is outrageous to accept it without evidence in support.

Gods, fairies, ghosts and leprechauns are things you believe in since there is no evidence to accept.

I'm quite content not having all the answers and in being content, I refuse to accept without evidence a god.

Second, the discipline of critical history, as Martin himself acknowledges, depends upon bringing forth publicly accessible evidence and employing modes of reasoning that are commonly accepted in everyday life: in newspapers, law courts and inquiries of many different sorts.

The difference, however, is that going to a movie requires to you accept some non-truths in order to appreciate the story, while atheism requires that you seek truth and remain skeptical in the absence of evidence.

But the evidence is overwhelming that they do not» and in the foreseeable future will not» accept the legitimacy of its existence.

A few proofs of Gods existence that would be accepted in evidence in any court anywhere.

Because the accepted scientific stand is that there is no such evidence of a worldwide flood as described in the bible.

If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.»

In addition to the significant biblical evidence that you gave for your position (a position which should be either accepted or proved wrong biblically), is one point that has come up in my study and that I have not seen mentioned anywherIn addition to the significant biblical evidence that you gave for your position (a position which should be either accepted or proved wrong biblically), is one point that has come up in my study and that I have not seen mentioned anywherin my study and that I have not seen mentioned anywhere.

With the empirical evidence of the universe evolving, it is possible to accept the Thomistic argument from finitude and contingency as recast in evolutionary categories.5 Without the evolutionary category of birth, it would be impossible for us to argue that the universe had a Creator - Ground, for we would have to imagine process as a horizontal straight line that extends in either direction indefinitely and infinitely.

«If an atheist has belief or faith in anything, it's that believers of religion accept propositions as evidence, and possibility as fact.»

So your work - life is guided by evidence, analysis, logic, and reasoning but in the rest of your life you are happy to accept the best guess of ignorant ancients which has been proven incorrect time and time again?

You do not accept such flimsy evidence in any other area of your life; you wouldn't make investments solely on the word of the salesperson.

(In fact I agree with David, it is pointless to try to «prove» God's existence) If you believe that the interpretation of such evidence must be universally accepted for it to be worthy of consideration then I would be forced to simply throw out your conclusions unilaterally.

I am not entrenched, it is the BELIEVERS that are, since they have accepted NOTHING as evidence of belief and then have to attempt to defend belief in something that even they can not verify.

In science we have to accept that we only know what we know by evidence.

But since it is something that people have been raised to accept in the face of conflicting evidence, rational conversation will never be reached.

I suppose that if supporting my arguments with what I consider to be reliable evidence is the limitation of ideas in your view, then I'm willing to accept that.

My question to Sherburne is whether he accepts these testable implications of his theory, and if so whether he believes that any evidence exists in their favor.

As you're aware, God requires a certain amount of faith to accept; no concrete evidence one way or another, suffering in the world, all that jazz.

Using his experience as a detective, Wallace showed the «Chain of Custody» of the evidence which was recorded in the New Testament Gospels and how they went from the actual life of Jesus to the «courtroom» or the Council of Laodicea in 363 AD where the four Gospel accounts were officially accepted into the New Testament canon.

They have accepted traditional interpretations rather than reevaluating the evidence in search of an underlying consistency in Paul's position.13 Behind this willingness to allow traditional interpretations to remain normative is the hermeneutical principle that the interpreter can separate that which is human from that which is divine in Scripture.

I do not recall anything about Gandi in the Bible, and there is no evidence to suggest Hitler ever accepted Christ.

According to Matthew the reply was, «The words are yours» (literally, «You have said»; there is no sufficient evidence that this was an accepted form of affirmation, either in Greek or in Hebrew or Aramaic; we might paraphrase it, «you may have it so if you choose»).

Interesting as the tales may be, we should always bear in mind that nothing should ever be accepted as «truth» without actual objective evidence.

If the dispute is about values, some of the evidence will include beliefs about good and evil that are not going to be accepted by those who have fundamental disagreements with your values in the first place.

Provine offers this choice in the serene confidence that the biologists have enough evidence to persuade the public to choose Darwinism, and to accept its philosophical consequences.

It's not that I «don't want» to accept the words in the bible as evidence.

Yup, not beliving in a god for which there is zero evidence is much worse than accepting fairytale mythology as reality....

You already know what I won't accept as evidence that hell is real (the words in the bible).

NOT sorry to disapoint you but MY religion or spirituality is NONE of your business and suits me just fine, makes me a better person, more accepting of others, more kind to my fellow earthbound souls, more respectful to mankind and morther earth than all religions combined who unfortunately have over 2ooo years of evidence of horrors committed against each other ALL in the name of the religous organizations you want me to join??? I think I will stick with my smorgasborg of this and that spirituality.