Sentences with phrase «argue against this evidence»

Also interesting is that Bill Van Allen does not (because he can not) argue against the evidence that shows his brother committed corrupt acts.

Not exact matches

President Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen shouldn't receive any special access to evidence against him that was confiscated in a raid at the Loews Regency Hotel, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District argued Friday.

Depending on what it says, Trump could argue that it provides evidence of deep bias against him at the FBI and use it as a pretext to fire top Justice Department officials he perceives as insufficiently loyal, like Rosenstein.

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as «1» due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves «7» because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind.

I was not arguing for the existence of God... I was arguing against your declaration that there is no evidence.

Many religious folks accept evolutionary theory because they know they can't argue against factual evidence.

Although scientists behave as if their theories are facts, often arguing ferociously against critics, key paradigms of science can shift rapidly and fundamentally when empirical evidence reaches a tipping point.

My guess is that it will be a difficult case to argue against the impact of the contraceptive coverage rule as anything but an «incidental effect» given it targets a market and there's no evidence that the rule is over or under inclusively fashioned as a pretext to target the religious beliefs of those opposed to contraception.

If you care to apply the proper word (believe) to how you feel about or toward other minds and evidence, then we would not even be having this discussion, for why would I argue against your accurate description of what you believe?

The final three chapters summarily consider the evidence against and for the virgin birth, arguing that it is neither myth nor indemonstrable truth; instead the evidence for the existence of an historical tradition anteceding the Gospels, ultimately from Mary herself, is more credible than any alternative explanation; hence, for anyone open to the possibility of miracles, there is good evidence to affirm Jesus» virgin birth on the basis of the New Testament's testimony.

They do not continue to believe something when the evidence argues against their claim.

At any rate, we at Hopkins hold that official psychiatry has good evidence to argue against this kind of treatment and should begin to close down the practice everywhere.

The influence of these older evolutionary cosmologies on Whitehead's thought, moreover, is never carefully examined so much as it is presupposed.1 Against such presuppositions, I shall argue here that evolution and evolutionist theories play no significant role in Whitehead's metaphysics, and that there is no evidence in his major works of any significant influence from earlier process - oriented «evolutionary cosmologies.»

There isn't, David argues, any evidence for the governor's claims about the benefits of gambling, and the governor himself presents none, and a great deal of evidence against it.

Though no decisive falsification is possible in religion, I have argued that the cumulative weight of evidence does count for or against religious beliefs.

Of course, people on the left can be morally arrogant, but it would have helped if he had offered some specific evidence rather than simply the fact that those writers had argued on moral terms for a stronger presumption against war or a greater redistributive role for the state.

Against deists and the orthodox alike Hume argues that the supposed self - evidence of a supreme and moral intelligence is illusory.

I didn't see anybody argue against that logical theory, or ask for evidence, or call it a «conspiracy theory».

You can argue against it, but you certainly can't claim that obstetricians said that scientific evidence showed that mothers and babies should be separated.

Darwin argued with evidence that humanity's «moral sense» is part of their nature, not against it.

The lawyer, Charles Kwesi Bentum argues that the said video evidence lacks coherence, hence leaves doubts over the allegations of corruption leveled against the judges and magistrates.

The Green party's candidate for mayor of London, Sian Berry, warned against total prohibition, however, arguing there was «no evidence» the Swedish ban had done anything to help trafficked women.

Liberty argues new measures should be introduced to make it easier for police and prosecutors to collect sufficient evidence to bring criminal prosecutions against terror suspects.

Opponents argue that the policies run against the available evidence.

The development follows a lengthy period in which defense attorney Paul J. Cambria Jr. argued against the admission of evidence collected in Pigeon's home almost two years ago following issuance of a search warrant.

Rensselaer County District Attorney Joel Abelove, who is accused of two misdemeanors and one felony related to his handling of a fatal police shooting case, has moved to dismiss the indictment against him, arguing that «the evidence before the grand jury» did not support the charges, according to court filings this month.

From the tidbits of information gleaned at a hearing on Thursday in Federal District Court in Manhattan, it appeared that prosecutors had argued last fall — in a closed hearing and in sealed court papers — to be able to use certain evidence against Mr. Silver at trial.

Darwin was only half - right about evolution: evidence against natural selection is mounting up, argue Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli - Palmarini

Of course, Greenhalgh and colleagues aren't arguing against the need for evidence.

Until we are willing to accept the world the way it is, without miracles that all empirical evidence argues against, without myths that distort our comprehension of nature, we are unlikely to bridge the divide between science and culture and, more important, we are unlikely to be fully ready to address the urgent technical challenges facing humanity.

Instead of making good on his challenge of «a duel to the death,» he argued against the presentation of scientific evidence.

By examining the sequences of nearly 200 human genomes, research led by Ryan Hernandez, PhD, assistant professor of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, found new evidence arguing against selective sweeps as the dominant mode of human adaptation.

But without hard scientific evidence to argue for or against the after - birth ritual, it may just result in a placebo effect either way.

All Else Equal argues, contrary to its own evidence, against trying an approach that can bring better schools to poor children.

But in addition to a growing evidence worldwide a practical note, few teachers argue against an idea that reduces workload, admin, stress, and monotony, while reducing the number of students you're having to focus on.

Yet despite the evidence, some traditionalists and otherwise - sensible reformers who continue to argue against the facts.

More importantly, in making that argument, Duncan essentially argues against the overwhelming evidence that AYP actually led to revealing how poorly districts — especially those in suburbia — were failing in providing high - quality teaching and curricula to poor and minority kids.

On the basis of the evidence that students learn to gather and present coherently, they argue before the Supreme Court for and against Ben's right to wear the shirt.

«We have consistently argued against schools being held to account for raw data alone, and this was something I raised with the committee when giving evidence earlier in the year.

As a follow - up to our most recent post, for those of you interested in reading more about Kane's testimony in the Vergara v. California case, please see the following post written by John Thompson in another blog titled «Does the Gates Foundation's Evidence Argue For or Against Vergara?»

The (scanty) evidence argues against that.

re: «In the distribution of expert estimates we find no evidence in support of the ** two - camps theory **, as shown in the following graph...» — first this arguing against a falsity put out by scientific incompetents and professional skeptics & deniers.

You argue that this «slowdown» is evidence against the truth that an increased greenhouse gas effect slows down the rate of heat flowing out of the planetary system and thus increases the total heat in the system.

The fact that the increase in damage cost is about as large as the increase in GDP (as recently argued at FiveThirtyEight) is certainly no strong evidence against an effect of global warming on damage cost.

There is a great deal of room to argue against human influence on global cycles precisely for the fact that what evidence we have is deductive evidence.

One thing you can't argue against is physics and observational evidence.

Arthur Smith argues that the spatial correlation of ENSO is evidence against chaos, because chaotic systems can not (in Arthur's eyes) produce structures which correlate across large scales.

Rather than argue against their opponents - which surely puts them on a firm footing if the evidence is as irrefutable as they suggest - they try to discredit them.

In his latest column for the New York Times, economist and liberal pundit Paul Krugman argues that a new report from the Chamber of Commerce, intended to show that reducing carbon emissions will be too costly, is actually a great piece of evidence for those who argue that the U.S. can lead the fight against climate change without appreciably hurting its economy.

«Our results argue strongly against using abnormally large losses from individual Atlantic hurricanes or seasons as either evidence of anthropogenic climate change or to justify actions on greenhouse gas emissions.