Sentences with phrase «accept the evidence for»

Science will gladly accept any evidence for there being gods, but the real difference here is that there just isn't any evidence to support the belief that any actual gods exist in the first place.

What's equally sobering is that had it not been for the work of Brian Atwater, Kenji Satake, and Chris Goldfinger, we would not even know about the M ~ 9's in Cascadia, just as the makers of the Japanese national seismic hazard map did not know about — or did not accept the evidence for — M ~ 9's on the Japan trench.

Yet, as Festinger would have predicted, instead of falling silent, perhaps even admitting error, the denialists have become more vehement in their attacks on climate scientists, environmentalists and anyone who accepts the evidence for global warming.

While the New York Times notes that «97 to 98 percent of working climate scientists accept the evidence for human - induced climate change,» Robertson claimed that the scientists are merely lying to make money... something Robertson would never do.

The new research supports the idea that the vast majority of the world's active climate scientists accept the evidence for global warming as well as the case that human activities are the principal cause of it.

That is consistent with past work, including opinion polls, suggesting that 97 to 98 percent of working climate scientists accept the evidence for human - induced climate change.

Not exact matches

The Trudeau government believes accepting the scientific evidence for human - caused climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are critical to gaining social licence for pipelines, Carr says.

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.

The reason Keynesianism got such a boost post-crisis was not for any real - world examples of its success — the list of its failures, by contrast, is lengthy — but because of the assertion, accepted far too quickly with far too little evidence, that monetary policy, at the fabled Zero Lower Bound (interest rates of near zero) had lost its effectiveness.

And is this evidence the sort you would accept for any other big claim?

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.

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!»

I can not determine anything that is first person, and you very well may have good justified reasons for your belief, and all I can say is that I don't have evidence to justify accepting the claim.

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..

I'm happy that we're starting to reach a level of understanding, but you must first realize that a) I am not willing to accept the impossible, however I am willing to accept the highly improbable if there's evidence enough for it.

By accepting unfalsifiable ideas, you're already admitting that scientific evidence doesn't matter to you because you've already forsaken the principle core of science, the need for ideas to be falsifiable.

If its claims are true then that is good evidence for accepting it as the Word of God.

Mockery is the only option for people who accept something with absolutely NO evidence.

That doesn't make the theology more believable to discerning people, but it does provide evidence for the innocuousness of the faith which causes the greater society to accept it as a «mainstream religion».

And for the record, when you can prove Santa Claus doesn't exist I'll accept your pathetic defense for your inability to produce any evidence your god exists.

@Live4Him, «I presented the evidence, ut you refused to accept it (without giving any reason for rejecting it).»

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim.

If you want your «hypothesis» to be accepted, substantiate it with evidence, and submit it for peer review.

All we say is that given that there is no physical evidence for your god (no fossil records, no records outside of the buybull), we refuse to accept it as fact.

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 anywhere.

On the other hand, Professor Martin Werner has studied the evidence for this supposed influence of «Paulinism» upon the Gospel of Mark, and concludes that instead of «Paulinism» Mark presupposes only the common Christianity, the generally accepted Christian doctrine, of the Gentile churches at the middle of the first century.

We could throw the Bible out the window and still have plenty of solid, universally accepted, historical evidence of people who were willing to die for the cause they were teaching.

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.

«Evidence» that no rational person would accept for any other claim — even more modest ones.

The problem with «belief» without supporting evidence is that it requires no discipline, and accepts no responsibility for discriminatory practices.

(and you deny exists) But here is where I believe the evidence becomes conclusive enough for me to accept it as «proof».

(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 did, and I found the evidence to support Christianity compelling enough for me to accept Christ as my savior.

I find it baffling that anyone would claim it's good news for the faithful that science has more evidence for what science already accepted as fact for so long.

Accepting things for which there is not a single shred of evidence is a hallmark of gullibility.

You'd think if your imaginary friend had been proven to exist, the world would know and a Nobel Prize would have been awarded to the person proving it... until that prize is awarded and evidence outside of the buybull is presented, there is no justification for accepting it.

Of course you... he makes no sense but nor does the book you two think has facts, so it would be natural for two of the same ilk to deny evidence based facts and accept fairy tales as fact.

By taking that elemental assurance at its face value, he was able to accept a primary rule of modern philosophy — that the evidence for an external world can be found only within occasions of experience — without being drawn into solipsism.

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

I don't get comfort out of believing that I will someday die and not live on for eternity, but I accept it as true - since there's no compelling evidence to the contrary.

Gullibility is the term we use when someone accepts a concept without adequate evidence for that concept.

I don't get comfort out of believing that I will someday die and not live on for eternity, but I accept it as true — since there's no compelling evidence to the contrary.

Call me crazy but i'll take the mountain of evidence that is demanded in order for a theory to be accepted over the complete lack of evidence that is religion.

Given current lack of evidence for proof of anything supernatural, will there be leniency for those who simply and honestly claim, «I don't know», granted there is a supernatural, and that the Christian God is the true God who did present us with an ultimatum to accept him or not, expecting us to wage the eternal fate of our soul?

I guess I have reached a point that, if it can't be backed up with such obvious scientific evidence, then it is not important enough for me to accept it as a fact... yet... even if I would like for it to be true.

Even before you can label a concept as «true», you must first accept it as true, otherwise it remains something you think might be true but you're not sure — A perfect realm for faith if you're not interested in something concrete like evidence.

I will not withhold critisicm of those views and beliefs and I can not accept belief in something for wich no evidence exists as acceptable foundation for laws.

Now that people are more aware of how this scheme works it might be a different story, just as how more people are now aware of how the Bible was actually written and the actual age of the universe to actually accept it as completely factual and as any kind of evidence for a god.