I have made up my own mind about the 19th Congressional District race based on
actual facts and evidence.
I highly suggest watching Cosmos so you can be educated outside of your bible on
actual facts and evidence.
Not exact matches
That would just be ludicrous), as time goes on, there seems to be more
and more
evidence coming up that there isn't a god, especially YOUR kind of god at least, as the Bible just seems to be getting destroyed with
actual facts.
For example, against both dualism
and reductionistic determinism
and in favor of the pancreationist, panexperientialist view that the
actual world is made up exhaustively of partially self - determining, experiencing events, there is considerable
evidence, such as the
fact that a lack of complete determinism seems to hold even at the most elementary level of nature; that bacteria seem to make decisions based upon memory; that there appears to be no place to draw an absolute line between living
and nonliving things,
and between experiencing
and nonexperiencing ones;
and that physics shows nature to be most fundamentally a complex of events (not of enduring substances).
First you must have
actual and real scientific proof that you are 100 % positive that there is no God.You must
facts and evidence not opinions
and faith.
And so because they're committed to a super-young-earth model of Creation, the AIG folks end up dismissing a ton of actual scientific and historical evidence (like the fact that we have more than 4,937 years of after - Flood history) that's really a deal - breaker for anyone who really wants to sit down and think this throu
And so because they're committed to a super-young-earth model of Creation, the AIG folks end up dismissing a ton of
actual scientific
and historical evidence (like the fact that we have more than 4,937 years of after - Flood history) that's really a deal - breaker for anyone who really wants to sit down and think this throu
and historical
evidence (like the
fact that we have more than 4,937 years of after - Flood history) that's really a deal - breaker for anyone who really wants to sit down
and think this throu
and think this through.
I'm waiting for all the
facts and actual evidence before I pass ANY judgement.
Their mission is to get the
evidence from national guidelines
and medical literature into the hands of parents, professionals,
and providers — to make VBAC accessible to more people based on
actual facts, quality information,
and current research, rather than conventional wisdom based on myths
and misperceptions.
This is thinking where you look at what the
actual facts are
and the
actual evidence is.
Add to that the anecdotal
evidence that some patients can tolerate lean meats
and others get sick from eating pork rinds (which, oddly enough, don't contain any
actual meat at all, only fat),
and alpha - gal molecules riding on fat are a strong contender for explaining both the unusual delayed reaction
and the
fact that it's triggered by a sugar.
The U.S. EPA in
fact has no list of «endocrine disruptors» at all — preferring to assess chemicals on a case - by - case basis; taking into account the entire body of toxicological
evidence available;
and factoring in
actual human exposure levels.
Some online sources claim that oil pulling can help with everything from acne to sore throat
and even reduce the chance of heart disease, but I haven't been able to find any
actual evidence to back up these claims, other than the
fact that good oral hygiene is important for overall health.
The judge stated: «They have offered no
evidence that consumers who use Apple's iBooks software to download ebooks have come to believe that Apple has also entered the publishing business
and is the publisher of all of the downloaded books, despite the
fact that each book bears the imprint of its
actual publisher.»
WFA's «Information Council for the Environment» that Gelbspan so widely touts as smoking gun
evidence of a top - down industry directive «to reposition global warming as theory rather than
fact «lasted just six months ** [See Author's 12/19/14 note below] in its entirety, with the
actual PR tour being restricted to just three cities in May of 1991
and maybe a single 60 - second national radio ad on Rush Limbaugh's program at that time.
talks about his funny but
fact - filled documentary, which follows
actual left - wing scientists who examine the
evidence, become climate change skeptics —
and are then ostracized by their peers.»
Ezra Levant Show: «Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com talks about his funny but
fact - filled documentary, which follows
actual left - wing scientists who examine the
evidence, become climate change skeptics —
and are then ostracized by their peers.»
(
and note, I don't put that word in quotes — I really mean more
evidence — more
facts) More
actual measurements of more things is what I ask for.
That's 15 scientific studies, using
actual empirical
evidence, confirming the known
facts and historical anecdotal
evidence.
As someone who follows climate change news fairly closely, something that's been simultaneously frustrating
and scary is how many people seem to believe that scientists are exaggerating the effects of climate change as a scare tactic, when in
fact, if you compare their predictions with the
actual observational
evidence, scientists have overwhelmingly UNDERestimated the speed
and violence of climate impacts.
This is why FMLA cases require the help of an employment attorney to gather the necessary
evidence and prove the
actual facts of what happened.
It covers confidential communications between a lawyer
and his or her client, or a lawyer or client
and a third party (such as a witness of
fact, an expert witness or a consultant) where the dominant purpose is advising on, or obtaining
evidence in relation to,
actual or contemplated litigation.
The principle in R v Sussex Justices [1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233 — justice must not only be done but must manifestly
and undoubtedly be seen to be done — requires that, even where a tribunal shows no
actual evidence of bias, it must also satisfy the «apparent bias test» in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 676 [2002] 2 AC, para 103 «whether the fair minded
and informed observer, having considered the
facts conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased».
If, however, you were convicted,
and the Court found that you knew that the victim hadn't died at the time of trial, but you did not raise the
fact that the victim wasn't dead, it isn't clear if you could have the original conviction vacated because it was a fair trial
and you knew
evidence sufficient to get yourself acquitted (which you may have refrained from presenting to avoid conviction on a lesser charge like kidnapping or aggravated assault),
and the status of an «
actual innocence» grounds for vacating a conviction after trial is hotly disputed, conservatives like the late Justice Scalia generally say «no», liberals generally say «yes», moderates like to say «yes» but make it almost impossible to establish except in rare cases like one where a live person walks in when there was a murder conviction for killing that actually living person.
Adverse possession codified under s. 4 of the Limitations Act was established by
evidence of three
facts: (1)
actual possession, (2) intention to exclude the true owner (i.e. on title)
and (3) effective exclusion: Masidon Investments v. Ham, 1984 CarswellOnt 578 (C.A.), at para. 14.
D - Link denies these allegations
and on Jan. 31 moved to dismiss the case on a variety of grounds, including the
fact that there is no
evidence of
actual or likely consumer injury,
and that liability can not be based on «unspecified
and hypothetical» risk of future harm.
The problem is not with the juries wanting to convict on otherwise insufficient
evidence, the problem is that juries seldom or never get to hear sufficient
evidence to establish the sufficiency of the
actual facts and circumstances involved.
Courts have authority to consider new
evidence of
actual innocence without regard to the statutory one - year limitation period for newly discovered
evidence,
and that the standard for granting a new trial based upon newly discovered
evidence should not be a strict «outcome - determinative» test, at least where the state relied at trial upon
facts that turned out to be false.
If they don't know the dynamics of PA,
and the underlying dynamics of the family in question, they will think, something bad must have happened between this child
and parent, when in
actual fact all the
evidence suggests the targeted parent
and child had a very good relationship.
Please come back with some
actual facts and / or some empirical experiential
evidence, anecdotes even, to buttress your negative opinions vis a vis your perceived impression of me
and my flunkie band of followers / non-producers et al..