Sentences with phrase «convincing evidence means»

Not exact matches

Just because they don't have the photos, artifacts or whatever to convince you personally doesn't mean they don't have real life experience as evidence to base their belief on.

By that, I mean the sort of evidence that would convince you if someone claimed THEIR god existed.

It is the fact that non-functional sequences of dna have been passed down from parent species prior to a split in sub species or classifications and exist on the exact same location within the strand of the other sub species, which was the final evidence convincing me that God did indeed use evolution as His means of creation.

1 word By «faith» don't you mean that there is no evidence possible that would convince you that you are wrong in believing God exists?

The deposit of revelation is said to be finished or fixed, but this can be a salvific teaching only if it means that there is sufficient evidence in our past history to convince us that we live within the horizon of a promise which by its nature always looks to the future for fulfillment.

Even if you sum up that evidence and are convinced it means god exists it says nothing about who or what god is.

There's the argument here that James is not discussing saving faith but the mere evidence of it; however, I'm not convinced that's accurate of James» intended meaning.

If you mean that you doubt Trumps unreliability, then I don't think I can convince you of anything; there is a mountain of evidence for that, I don't think that anything I can say will convince anyone that doesn't want to see the reality of that yet.

Creationists interpret this to mean that it was the skull of a modern human; in fact, Bowden (1981) thinks it «probably the most convincing evidence» of this.

Levine does not simply mean that one should not tell the child, «You have disorder X.» His comment in A Mind at a Time, «I have seen no convincing scientific evidence that [Asperger's syndrome] exists as a discrete disorder of some kind like a strep throat» indicates a belief that a diagnostic category must have a clear boundary of symptoms and that the relationship between the cognitive, neural, behavioral, and genetic factors must be understood before the category is useful.

«But in the nature of the case much of the evidence is not such as would convince the bacteriologist,» meaning that it was not really plausible even given the limited understanding of disease transmission of that era.

Even though this is pretty convincing evidence that No Man's Sky will come to the Xbox One on June 29, that doesn't mean that fans should get their hopes up too high just yet.

The evidence from those exercises are pretty convincing that anthropogenic climate change (which is what I presume you mean) is ongoing — but that is a conclusion that comes from consideration of the actual physical evidence.

Is that the sum total of evidence that is meant to convince us that climatology is barking up the wrong tree?

Although there is as yet no convincing evidence in the observed record of changes in tropical cyclone behaviour, a synthesis of the recent model results indicates that, for the future warmer climate, tropical cyclones will show increased peak wind speed and increased mean and peak precipitation intensities.

What is meant by the term here is the combination of argument from authority and argument ad populam, in which the arguer does not give the argument and evidence that has convinced the scientific community, but instead uses an an argument the claim simply that all scientists say so.

Operationally, it's clear that the term «climate sceptic» means someone whose criteria for convincing evidence are those set out by the Onion.

It is defined differently in different states and jurisdictions, however, most jurisdiction, including California define the civil lawsuit proof standard as «by a preponderance of the evidence» for most types of claims and, the slightly higher standard of «clear and convincing evidence» for claims for punitive damages (damages meant to punish the defendant rather than just compensate the victim).

First, pleas are not given under oath and second, a not guilty plea simply means «the prosecution does not have enough evidence to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that I committed this specific crime I am accused of in the specific particulars alleged... I think» which is hardly a position that can be a lie.

However, he was awarded future medical costs, which means that he was able to convince the jury by a preponderance of the evidence that the accident did occur and he was injured in it.

In essence this means that plaintiff's evidence must convince a fact - finder's mind more than 50 % that the facts alleged by the plaintiff are true.

It can be assumed that this is meant to be a lower evidentiary standard than «clear and convincing» evidence that would be required in other cases.

To meet the burden of proof in a personal injury case, a plaintiff must prove his or her claim by a preponderance of the evidence, which means that the plaintiff must present evidence that when weighed by the judge or the jury, is more convincing than the defendant's.

By that we mean not merely evidence which might be true and to a considerable extent probably is true, but, as the learned trial judge put it, «evidence which is so convincing in truth and manifestly reliable that it reaches the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt».»