Sentences with phrase «as verifiable evidence»

is not the same as verifiable evidence), intelligence design doesn't hold any water as a scientific explanation of the world's origin, you see?

Not exact matches

Now, hypothetically, if you personally maintained belief in a supreme being (one in which you had no verifiable proof of its existence, but yet what you considered ample evidence to place your faith in) and that being had communicated morality in absolute terms, would you define that morality as subjective or objective?

It is far more significant to me that no believer, not even a top - dog charlatan shaman such as any Pope - A-Dope, can not provide factual, independent, verifiable and objective evidence for their cult's beliefs.

There is simply not a whit of verified, or even verifiable, evidence that any such transformation from the Jesus - as - scapegoat actually occurred or will occur.

It then takes the difficult steps of finding verifiable evidence to support that theory, which has to be able to be duplicated before it is accepted as fact.

Fine, as long as you acknowledge that it is a dream - wishful thinking - and don't claim it as fact, without a whit of verifiable evidence, as is your wont with your «God» character and the accompanying fantasy scenarios.

Verifiable and irrefutable evidence, such as newsletters published by the Soho Masses Pastoral Council even stronger than that provided by William Oddie, of the dissent of these people and that which has been, and continues to be, promoted by them and through the Masses.

As of yet no Intelligent design creationist has given anything but «faith» or «words» written down in a book equivalent to many other «holy» books with different and competing gods all throughout history that also have no verifiable evidence.

Based on evidence that is verifiable, your position is not based on as - sumption, and thus, is totally logical.

While evidence and peer review of evidence has helped to modify and enhance evolution since its original proposition as a HYPOTEHSIS (look it up; it's the scientific term for what others call «just a theory») and mature it to a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, no sound, reasonable, VERIFIABLE alternative has ever survived the merciless review of the scientific method.

What factual, objective, verifiable and independent evidence do you, or any other believer, have to definitively and conclusively proof that a first cause is a god as portrayed in The Babble?

Science begins there as well but then we ask for verifiable evidence, and build on it to work ourselves free from ignorance.

I highly doubt you have any objective, factual, independent or verifiable evidence, evidence that would stand up to the scientific method or be accepted by a court of law as anything but hearsay.

Without verifiable evidence, it is no more rational or reasonable to assume there are any gods as it is to assume there are Pink Unicorns.

If, as the evidence strongly suggests, the two most empirically verifiable aspects of our nature are original sin and the world's oldest belief system of «you shall be as....

It is because many of the terms lack meaning that squares with verifiable human experience (must be verifiable to others, as well, for purposes of proof; but inverse this requirement, as I did with language, and you end up with the following: if something can't be evidenced to others, there is a good likelihood that it is not what the individual thinks it is).

You must provide verifiable evidence of something supernatural before you can insert as a viable possibility.

As I said, I do have independent, objective, verifiable and smoking signature evidence.

There is no actual verifiable evidence of the existence of this Jesus figure that would be accepted as proof by contemporary historians.

You understand the verifiable evidence supporting scientific theory and refuse to accept it as truth.

Another question: why is it that, more than a century and a half since Darwin's theory (and it's still taught world - wide as an unproven theory) has the evidence increasingly pointed away from him, not in support of him», is utterly and quite refutably wrong by an abundance of verifiable scientific evidence.

My point is that there is no verifiable evidence for your imaginary friend god and when you make dumb a $ s statements as you did and then expect people to believe in your imaginary friend god, you don't make the creature sound very appealing to anyone who is not gullible enough to believe in it... try making it sound like a nicer creature instead of a monster!

the universe serves as evidence for the possibility of a creator, but does not in any way imply the existance of the Abrahamic «God»; it is intelectually dishonest to say so unless you can start providing some verifiable proof to eliminate the alternatives or that points directly to «God's hand».

Heuer also suggested that scientists who engage with the public emphasize what principles they are for, such as striving for verifiable evidence, rather than what they are against.

For the purpose of this discussion, I'm defining critical thinking as the skill (s) required to validate information and ideas based on verifiable evidence and sound logic.

As Mozilla puts it, badges allow earners to «communicate skills and achievements by providing visual symbols of accomplishments packed with verifiable data and evidence that can be shared across the web» (see https://openbadges.org/about).

As many will have read and seen, the allegations made against the MSK and its presentation of the Russian avant - garde art from the Dieleghem Foundation within the permanent collection have taken on large proportions with claims backed until now with little verifiable evidence.

In fact, they crave verifiable evidence, just as they crave falsifying anything that can be falsified.

My sense is that the more effective approach (albeit not a panacea) is reinforcing the trial judge's role as «gate keeper» in the admission of reliable and verifiable scientific evidence.