Sentences with phrase «evidence backing the claim»

the bible is not folklore and its clear you just said so without any evidence backing your claim.

Pete, bad news, not one single piece of evidence backs a claim that your jesus existed.

Mr. Gary Nimako Marfo said there was ample evidence backing his claim, evidence he said would be made public in the not too distant future.

In fact, various types of saunas are often touted for their benefits in weight loss, removal of toxins, reduction of cellulite, and much more, but it is difficult to find evidence backing these claims.

«There is no hard evidence backing the claims made by tea companies that their detox teas can actually help to purify human cells.»

Not exact matches

The facts: Trump offered no further details or evidence for his claim that «millions of jobs» were created, and nothing happened during his trip that could come close to backing up such an assertion.

This claim is backed up by evidence.

Kelly also says the FTC never produced any evidence backing up its claims that PC Rental Agent was used to snap sexual or otherwise revealing photos.

But the company also acknowledges that there is no evidence to back up the claims about the «V - Steam» in particular.

It was T. S. Eliot who asserted that April is the cruellest month, but he offered thin evidence to back his clearly defamatory claim.

On Tuesday, TINA.org released the results of its investigation, claiming that Goop markets some of its own products (and promotes third - party products) using «deceptive,» «illegal» health - related claims that aren't backed up by solid scientific evidence.

Syria said it shot down 71 missiles, but no evidence has surfaced to back up that claim.

The Tether company claims to have currency reserves to back up all the Tethers in circulation, but there is no concrete evidence of this claim.

They have continuously claimed their tokens are backed 100 % by actual dollars, yet they have failed to present any evidence to support this claim.

Like I said in my first response, when you have something actually interesting, relevant and evidence to actually back up your claim, then we'll talk.

this is ultra-hilarious coming from someone who posts as: Greatest Flaw of Atheism - they have no evidence backing up their claims

But you are right in a back handed way, I am not going to waste my time on Sunday mornings listening to people claim to know «which god» for which they have no evidence for their claim.

And I note that Chad continues to claim there is scientific evidence that proves his god exists but has not provided anything that even remotely backs up his blather.

Religious people make fantastic, often idiotic claims with zero evidence to back it up.

No evidence existed or exists to back any of their claims.

Compared to say religion which has precisely ZERO evidence to back up any of its claims.

when you make claims, you need to provide evidence to back them up.

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.»

When I was a kid we were told to back up our claims with evidence.

And then the evidence of history pointed toward Jesus having lived, having made these extraordinary claims and then backing that up by returning from the dead.

The bible is the claim that god and Jesus are real, so show me some evidence to back up the claims of the bible.

Remember, neither of you has a shred of external, verifiable evidence to back up anything you claim, so faced with conflicting beliefs supposedly backed by «personal experiences» or some such thing I haven't experienced, why should I take either of you seriously?

The answer is neither, even if you had evidence to back up your claim it is a moot point.

If you want to claim God as the reason for everything, you then must back your claim with evidence for your god or you deserve to be called on it.

And not one jot of evidence backs up the claims that any one of these gods actually existed.

I submit that it is perfectly reasonable to dismiss a claim, any claim, that is made over and over again for thousands of years, yet never backed up by one shred of evidence.

Back your claims with actual evidence for a change... you sound crazy making it otherwise.

I have read statements from his peers in the past saying that there is inconclusive evidence in regards to age old mysteries, and I respect him for standing firm with what he believes, but I would expect someone with such a scientific background to have more than conjecture to back their claims.

A few thousand years ago, unnamed desert dwelling goat herders wrote a book, making all sorts of outrageous and outlandish claims, backed up by zero evidence, and they have hundreds of millions of followers.

And megalomania would be claiming to know all about these things — spirits and gods — when you really have no hard evidence whatsoever to back up your claims.

Last century, L Ron Hubbard wrote a book, as foolish as it is, making all sorts of outrageous and outlandish claims, backed up by zero evidence, and he has millions of followers.

200 years ago, Joseph Smith wrote a book, as foolish as it is, making all sorts of outrageous and outlandish claims, backed up by zero evidence, and he has tens of millions of followers.

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?

I don't mind them using their freedom of speech to lobby others to adopt their view, but constantly proposing spurious legislation with absolutely nothing concrete to back it up should be view the same way frivolous lawsuits are and those who can not give any evidence to their claims should be penalized for wasting everyone else's time.

This non-sense of claiming that the Hebrew calendar is irrelevant to science and the «theory» of evolution is just another pig - rear false statement with no quantifiable evidence to back that up.

The way I see it Chip is Doc is claiming something but you aren't coming back to debunk it with evidence.

Geza Vermes sees the claim of John's authorship as falsified and not backed by any solid historical evidence.

at least I spend more time giving evidence to back up my claims...

that would never stand up in court as proof, there is literally zero evidence to back your claim up.

Religion has no evidence to back up its claims and yet science REQUIRES evidence to take an idea seriously.

Jason: Where is the evidence to back your fallacious claim that the buybull is being proven true?

In fact there are many things that the Bible has claimed happened in the face of (back then) current scientific knowledge and after new evidence arrived the Bible was vindicated.

Then do the hard work and produce the verifiable evidence to back up your claims.

Eberstadt points out that the conventions of modern libertinism lead to a whole host of social and personal disorders, and she has plenty of evidence to back her claim up, but she provides no account of what would truly satisfy.