Sentences with phrase «evidence against that view»

Though I have no intention of engaging you in a substantive debate of the scriptural evidence against your views (you have made it abundantly clear it would be pointless) I would like to comment on your behavior.

Another example was alluded to before: the fact that our world seems to have taken shape over a period of many billions of years, rather than having been created in essentially its present form a few thousand years ago, provides evidence against the view that the creation of our world required omnipotent coercive power; this fact is much more consistent with the view that the divine creative power is solely the power of persuasion, the kind of power we can experience working in our own lives.

They see evidence against their view, so they will a) go for the ad hominem maybe noting the poor credentials or the funding source b) find weaknesses in the studies but, there are weaknesses in all studies c) find another study that supports their own and say hey presto....

They seek to map out how we came to view major depression as a discrete illness and provide evidence against that view.

Not exact matches

page 285 ^ Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies existence) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price «Jesus at the Vanishing Point» in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61 [10] Michael Grant (a cla ssicist) states that «In recent years, «no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus» or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.&rviews of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price «Jesus at the Vanishing Point» in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61 [10] Michael Grant (a cla ssicist) states that «In recent years, «no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus» or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.&rViews edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61 [10] Michael Grant (a cla ssicist) states that «In recent years, «no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus» or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.»

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).

One can lay out all the evidence and build (and have built) an airtight case against every single religion on Earth past and present, but still believers will not budge from their point of view, even when presented with the lies and contradictions in the very scriptures they they base their beliefs on.

Dodd's whole thesis with regard to a kerygmatic chronology fails for lack of the confirming evidence required to establish a position which would reverse the course of scholarship, and thus must move against the stream of current views as to the probabilities in the case.

Wallace, for example, writes that, «although the evidence against the authenticity of the pastorals is as strong as any evidence against the authenticity of any NT book (save 2 Peter), it still can not overthrow the traditional view» [15].

Seeing such divergence as evidence against Christianity is based upon the Protestant - Islamic view of scripture (and in any case the gap is gradually closing).

One can lay out all the evidence and build (and have built) an airtight case against every single religion on Earth past and present, but still believers will not budge from their point of view, even when presented with the lies and contradictions in the very scriptures they base their beliefs on.

That is to say that there is no firm evidence whatever against, and an immense amount of evidence for, the view that the «ordinary» laws of physics and chemistry hold within the organism just as they do within a man - made machine.

What appears from a Whiteheadian point of view to be truly postmodern is the emergence of new root metaphors or paradigms, radically thought through, and rigorously tested against the whole range of evidence.

«But technical expertise,» they go on to note, «is no proof against bizarre beliefs,» and they cite as evidence people who have a view of creation that differs from evolutionary dogma despite their «backgrounds in engineering or other technical subjects.»

From evidence taken during the course of its inquiry the Committee takes the view that the current operation of section 46 is inadequate and is not providing protection against price discrimination.

PS: Don't get me wrong, I respect the fact that you post your optimistic yet contrarian views on here despite all the evidence that keep stacking up as an argument against optimism.

And parents are not asking for trouble by co-sleeping, there is ample evidence against that point of view despite one's personal experience.

He said, «In view of our belief in the judiciary and avalanche of evidence against the declaration of Senator Abiola Ajimobi as the duly elected governor in the April 11, 2015 governorship election in the state, Senator Rasheed Ladoja, the gubernatorial candidate of Accord after wide consultations, has resolved to appeal the judgment of Justice Muhammed Mayaki - led tribunal at the Court of Appeal.

«Yes, Mulcaire must have targeted many people, but I took the view that more evidence against Mulcaire would take us nowhere at all.

Evidence has to be viewed as a whole against other eEvidence has to be viewed as a whole against other evidenceevidence.

Most damning of all the evidence against this film, however, is the review given by Donald Clarke of the Irish Times who said, following his viewing, that «Hollywood is incapable of seeing the Irish as anything but IRA men or twinkly rural imbeciles» and described it as «offensive, reactionary, patronising filth».

«You had months to think about whether you wanted my pre-trial views or not,» she told Snyder, and stressed she hasn't made a final decision yet: «My view was a tentative view... The deck is not stacked against Apple unless the evidence stacks the deck against Apple.»

History is not an exact science and thus there are many points of view and a lot evidence for an against them, so even if you have your own opinion and enough evidence to support it, My Thesis Writing Service thinks that it would be wise for you to anticipate evidence that supports other points of view.

In our view, the arguments against are much stronger than the arguments in favor: we judge the evidence that small - cap companies, in general, outperform large - cap companies to be unreliable.

Let's see how well my default views stack up against the evidence.

There is all sorts of evidence for and against natural climate change at various stages of history (and prehistory) that bears discussing, but we rarely ever get to it because everyone is banging on about the hockey stick being inaccurate or accurate (depending on your point of view).

I view CO2 as one of the essential ingredients of life, in no way a pollutant; I find the thermostat hypothesis compelling, such that claims against it must be considered extraordinary — requiring extraordinary evidences; and I knew nothing of Lew's survey and didn't participate.

As you, Bill, should realize, it is difficult for an honest peer review officer — even one who does not have a personal pecuniary or professional interest in the support of a particular point of view — to contest an assertion in a manuscript which is clearly supported by a previously peer - reviewed article, a copy of which has come to said review officer along with the manuscript in question, all highlighted and redlined «with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us.»

Again I (IMO) view arguments against the consensus, made without evidence, to just be efforts to influence public policy - trying to persuade the public to ignore evidence, to ignore reality.

«I chose the lecture's title [«One religion is enough»] largely in reaction to the sanctimonious tone employed by so many of those who advocate quite substantial, and costly, responses to what they see as irrefutable evidence that the world's climate faces catastrophe, against people who do share their view.

Having read through the original article and all the posts, I've concluded this was not a planned conspiracy, but it was mostly a stuff up made all the easier by inherent malice against climate scientists generally (ample evidence all over the internet) and the odd views held by Tallbloke and many of the participants, some of whom seem to think they are under siege.

How much pushback have you demonstrated against the CAGW belief when confronted by facts that do not support your views: e.g. the fact there is a lack of evidence demonstrating that GHG emissions will do more harm than good.

«For many years, judges have been warning juries against viewing the evidence through the lens of «stereotypes», however this research suggests these directions are not having the desired effect.»

That may well be done with a view to the Crown accepting that it may offer no evidence if the ruling is against it, just as it may be done with a view to a defendant considering whether or not to plead guilty if the ruling is otherwise.

Had I known about it at the time, I would have immediately ordered an investigation to gather all evidence to determine the details, extent and duration of his activities with a view to possible provincial and / or criminal charges against Van Allen and, potentially, charges against other involved persons.»

It is useful to quote key observations by Stadlen J [at paras 126 - 129]: «In my view, notwithstanding the absence in the FTPP proceedings of some of the statutory and non-statutory safeguards which apply to criminal proceedings... [I] n deciding whether it would be fair to admit the hearsay evidence, the requirements both of Article 6 and of the common law obliged the FTPP to take into account the absence of all those [safeguards]... [I] n my judgment, no reasonable panel in the position of the FTPP could have reasonably concluded that there were factors outweighing the powerful factors pointing against the admission of the hearsay evidence... The means by which the claimant can challenge the hearsay evidence are... not in my judgment capable of outweighing those factors... The reality would appear to be that the factor which the FTPP considered decisive in favour of admitting the hearsay evidence was the serious nature of the allegations against the claimant coupled with the public interest in investigating such allegations and the FTPP's duty to protect the public interest in protecting patients, maintaining public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of behaviour... However, that factor on its own does not in my view diminish the weight which must be attached to the procedural safeguards to which a person accused of such allegations is entitled both at common law and under Article 6... The more serious the allegation, the greater the importance of ensuring that the accused doctor is afforded fair and proper procedural safeguards.

We see case after case in which the preponderance of the evidence as to the children's better interests seemed obviously in favor of the mother, but the judges appeared to view it through a lens of bias against the mother (often using the very malleable «parental alienation» or «uncooperative parent» technique.)

I have focused on the evidence that appears to favor the prevailing view of parental influence; for the evidence against it, see The Nurture Assumption (Harris, 1998).

Fortunately, conducting randomized trials over the decades, intervention researchers have produced numerous manual - guided, evidence - based treatments (EBTs) for depression, anxiety, and conduct in youth.2 Unfortunately, these treatments have not been incorporated into most everyday clinical practice.3 - 5 A common view is that the complexity and comorbidity of many clinically referred youths, whose problems and treatment needs can shift during treatment, may pose problems for EBT protocols, which are typically designed for single or homogeneous clusters of disorders, developed and tested with recruited youths who differ from patients seen in everyday clinical practice, and involve a predetermined sequence of prescribed session contents, limiting their flexibility.3 - 8 Indeed, trials testing these protocols against usual care for young patients in clinical practice have produced mixed findings, with EBTs often failing to outperform usual care.7, 9

In the panel's view, given the lack of evidence to support the serious allegations made against Mr. Klingel, it is the panel's determination that this matter should not have proceeded to a disciplinary hearing.»