Sentences with phrase «back it up with evidence if»

Not exact matches

Again, if you disagree with this, prove the only thing that makes gravity stick to a 9.8 constant is god keeping his finger on the button and back it up with evidence, or else you're just making baseless claims and still gettting angry at other people for backing up their claims with hard evidence when you can not.

You have claimed that non-believers must disprove god, but you have recently modified that to «if a person says «God does not exist», they must back that up with evidence.»

If there was even a shred of evidence of a God, there are many supposedly, then most of the people backing him up in these posts would have been struck down along with the rest of us.

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.

If I make a statement about the objective world, which includes everything apart from my subjective world: my thoughts, my feelings, my beliefs, etc., I need to back it up with empirical evidence that can be tested and retested experimentally.

If you can't prove he exists, then you prove that you are unable to provide proof and must needs stop making fantastic claims that you can not back up with evidence.

And, when not given answers by some, going to those who ARE willing to back up their answers with evidence, even if it later turns out to have been not evidence at all, as in the case of some claims by some midwives or many claims by many midwives, or whatever it is.

But, if, say, jurors ask for a read - back of evidence, the alternates join them in the courtroom, so they keep up with what's going on in the event one of them has to replace a deliberating juror.

I would be most interested to learn if «Ex-Labour» is willing to furnish us with a scintlla of evidence to back up his / her assertions.

Tarfia please do not make assumptions about my knowledge base and, if possible, try and base your statements with evidence rather than opinion and what you think — take a leaf out of John Ps responses — he gives us some figures to back up his claims — for example — how do you know how many people occupy the centre ground — what evidence have you got.

If weight lifting is so awesome for burning calories because you're burning more calories while you're resting (a claim that is made over and over again with little clinical evidence to back it up), how come the resistance training group in this study did so poorly in losing weight?

The only shred of evidence backing up the current thinking about grains is that you're likely to be healthier if you replace your white flour food with whole grain food.

I'm going to disagree somewhat with the group here but let me say that I am open to hearing evidence to back up the supposition (even if it's well - reasoned) that makes up this post.

These alternative treatments are unsupported by statistical or scientific method as to their effectiveness and are generally referred to in «Testimonials» with little, if any, scientific evidence or statistical testing to back up such claims.

I mean you have to considerhow long fps games have been out, how many millions if not billions have played fps games a d how many cases of brain damage have actually emerged with evidence to back up.

But hee, it's always nice to have your own conclusions backed up with compelling arguments and solid evidence, especially if it's presented so well!

If you do not fully understand a system, which for climate we're not even close, you can not make any predictions / claims on it's manipulations, natural or not, with anything approaching the levels of certainty that the IPCC et al suggest without reams of evidence to back it up.

If you wish to make the claim and have it not be mere verbiage, back it up with actual evidence.

If there is a «party line» on this blog, it's that statements of fact should be backed up with evidence.

If you say «no» then you damn well better back it up with some real evidence — but if it's more of the same pure, unadulterated, grade - A, USDA choice, Iowa corn - fed bullshit like you've put in this comment, expect an earfuIf you say «no» then you damn well better back it up with some real evidence — but if it's more of the same pure, unadulterated, grade - A, USDA choice, Iowa corn - fed bullshit like you've put in this comment, expect an earfuif it's more of the same pure, unadulterated, grade - A, USDA choice, Iowa corn - fed bullshit like you've put in this comment, expect an earful.

If you do this, your subject line should still be factual and backed up with evidence.

In short, use buzzwords sparingly when describing yourself and if you do, back them up with evidence; that way you'll seem more credible to the hiring manager and more likely to land an interview.

Back your answers up with evidence; for example, if they ask about customer service skills, then give an example of a time you have shown outstanding customer service.

If the company is looking for a CEO with experience in turning around departments, raising equity or international expansion, then your executive resume needs to target these requirements and provide quantitative examples to back up your evidence.