Sentences with phrase «evidence for your claim in»

There was no scientific evidence for this claim in the Doberman, and there is no evidence for the pit bull either.

Our staff will work strategically to gather supporting evidence for your claim in order to present your case in the strongest light.

Like a well - developed paragraph, your resume will then provide supporting evidence for this claim in your education, experience, and volunteer sections.

Not exact matches

In 2012, a U.S. congressional committee warned that Huawei products could be used for spying — a charge the company continues to deny — but did not release evidence to support its claims.

Even if you didn't have those cases, the very evidence that the Attorney General relies on for his advertising claim is that he says DraftKings suggests in its advertising that anyone can win and that's not true because about 1 % of players win a majority of the prizes.

We covered it during the 2016 presidential campaign, when Donald Trump falsely accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of giving away U.S. uranium rights to the Russians and claimed — without evidence — that it was done in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Another piece of information Facebook has included in the written evidence is the claim that it does not believe AIQ used Facebook data obtained via Kogan's apps for targeting referendum ads — saying it used email address uploads for «many» of its ad campaigns during the referendum.

You provide no supporting evidence for your claim, whereas the website you criticize (which is NOT mine) simply quotes prominent environmental activists, «in their own words».

Fast's last bit of free trade - betraying intellectual rot is in the claim that «there is little, if any, evidence that the system has made dairy, egg and poultry unaffordable for the average Canadian.»

In a new report by Interpol, the international policing agency is claiming that it has found evidence of illegal wildlife products being offered for sale on the darknet.

The Enrollment Program also authorizes a superior court to have jurisdiction over enrollees by allowing it to «appoint a receiver, monitor, conservator, or other designated fiduciary or officer of the court for a defendant or the defendant's assets,» as well as authorizes the Commissioner of Business Oversight to «include in civil actions claims for ancillary relief, including restitution and disgorgement, on behalf of a person injured, as well as attorney's fees and costs, and civil penalties of up to $ 25,000» for up to four years after the purported violation occurred and «refer evidence regarding violations of the bill's provisions to the Attorney General, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury, or the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurred, who would be authorized, with or without this type of a reference, to institute appropriate proceedings.»

That's led some GOP politicians to claim there was a quid pro quo where the Clintons received money in exchange for Hillary's approval of the Uranium One deal, although there's no evidence to prove it.

Among the evidence that would shift our expectations in this regard would be: material equity market deterioration, further weakness in regional Fed and purchasing managers indices, a slowing in real personal income, a spike in new claims for unemployment toward the 340,000 level, an abrupt drop in consumer confidence about 10 - 20 points below its 12 - month average, and at least some amount of slowing in employment growth and aggregate hours worked.

I do not, as I have stated, have any love for the religious fundamentalists in this country, but I do not see any evidence that supports your claim.

So how do you go from that reasoning to «Since it wasn't accidental then it must have been this ancient male diety named (fill in blank depending on religion) who loves me and knows me and cares for me and wants me to perform rituals that have nothing to do with morality like prayer, not eating certain things, sabaath and many more just because he said so, even though we have no record of him saying anything, just records of humans who wrote things down that they claim he said, but I want to believe it all so badly I will base my beliefs on no other evidence than «it just can't be accident».

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.

It's really entertaining to watch the tortuous mental twists and turns and dodges that John will make to avoid acknowledging that his delusion is just that, merely another ancient superstition among many, with no support in evidence for its claims.

In fact, there is nothing special about christianity — it is just one of many cults that claim to have all the answers, none of which provide any real evidence for any of their supernatural claims.

I lack a belief in a god or gods because there is simply NO empirical evidence to support such a claim — for YOUR version or anyone else's.

and I took the liberty of chiming in because if a claim has consequences for anyone beside the claimant those other people have the right to examine the claim and demand evidence for its truthfullness.

But the claims of religion which touch upon things which can be observed and tested in the real world can be proven true or untrue as the evidence for or against those things is discovered.

If it makes any claim that involves spirits, demons, or other supernatural forces it's an example of someone who believes in supernatural forces wrongly claiming with no evidence that they are responsible for something they aren't.

I would «base [my] info on inre the non-existence of God, heaven and hell, etc» on the absolute lack of even a shred of hard verifiable evidence for these extraordinary claims, and the fact that even after thousands of years of frantic and determined efforts by the most ardent and intelligent proponents of these claims, they still have been completely unable to demonstrate them in any testable manner.

More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim.

For example, if I said JFK lived in the White House, staved off the Cuban Missile crisis, and could levitate and turn water into wine at will — then my proving that the White House really existed and the Cuban Missile crisis really happened is NOT evidence of the claim JFK could levitate or turn water into wine.

For example, there are people in all religions who use it to convince themselves they have evidence their religious beliefs are correct, even when their beliefs conflict with those of other religions, whose followers also claim they have evidence their beliefs are correct.

In chemistry we just have observed evidence, just as in claims for gods existencIn chemistry we just have observed evidence, just as in claims for gods existencin claims for gods existence.

We're such terrible people for not acquiescing to your superior knowledge, wisdom, and judgement without issuing a demand for evidence in support of your claims.

I claim disbelief in God / gods because I see no evidence for them, but I am certainly not ignorant enough to claim there is no possibility of their existence.

The claim that celibacy has helped cause sexual abuse is a claim that runs utterly contrary to the evidence, and unjustly moves responsibility for despicably evil acts away from the abusers, and onto some environmental condition such as the discipline of celibacy in a priestly life.

It appears that you believe The Babble is the best evidence for your claims, which originate in The Babble.

In the pages of the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan wonders if a string of failures for the Obama administration counts as mounting evidence not only against his primary claim to rule, executive competence, but also against the undergirding premises of liberal political philosophy.

What if we factor in the evidence for the existence of God, the Messianic claims Jesus made about himself, how his resurrection would act as the vindication of them, and a host of other details?

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.

To say there is no evidence for the real existence of the most discussed figure in history denies the unique manner in which Christianity came about (a claim that God came in the flesh conveyed with real life details, etc).

In fact atheists don't have an ideology — they see no evidence for the claims upon which your ideology is built.

Both claim to «know» that their belief is the right one, whereas I like to state that frankly, since there is inconclusive evidence for every theism in the world, there isn't enough proof that atheists are correct either.

There is no solid evidence for this, although there were trading links between Syria and Britain, and another legend, referred to in William Blake's «Jerusalem», claims that Joseph of Arimathea had brought Jesus as a child to the west of England.

Newman goes on to argue that claiming that faith must always proceed works in living the Christian life is «mistaking a following in order of conception for a following in order of time...» In fact, he writes, our works are «the concomitant development and evidence, and instrumental cause, as well as the subsequent result of faith.&raquin living the Christian life is «mistaking a following in order of conception for a following in order of time...» In fact, he writes, our works are «the concomitant development and evidence, and instrumental cause, as well as the subsequent result of faith.&raquin order of conception for a following in order of time...» In fact, he writes, our works are «the concomitant development and evidence, and instrumental cause, as well as the subsequent result of faith.&raquin order of time...» In fact, he writes, our works are «the concomitant development and evidence, and instrumental cause, as well as the subsequent result of faith.&raquIn fact, he writes, our works are «the concomitant development and evidence, and instrumental cause, as well as the subsequent result of faith.»

Jonson provides ample evidence in his works for those who wish to claim him as Catholic (some poems), anti-Catholic (satires in the plays), and unreligious.

Also, if he claims for statements about Jesus» ultimate significance a self - evidence or demonstration in no way dependent upon participation in the community of faith, he would not intend his statements to be theological in the sense of my definition.

no... how many times must you be told for it to sink in... I am not making any claims, YOU ARE so the onus is on yopu to prove it... the bible is not proof of the bible... proof requires verifiable corroborated evidence, not just «the bible says this and I know it because I read it in the bible.»

1) Evidence of God in Science & Math: Reading some of the worlds leading cosmologists (Hawking, Dawkins, Ross, Behe), etc., they make long and interesting claims of the intricacy of the universe and the balance of the natural elements and gravitational forces necessary for life to exist on this planet.

The claim is like claiming that the most convincing evidence for [magic agency] is the unreasonable fun in computer games.

Nevertheless, there is clear evidence that TM is a religion in secular clothing, and for this reason an alarm should be sounded for the political inroads it is making in violation of the principle of separation of church and state and for its claim to the innocent that it is a technique compatible with all faiths.

Theology can not be historically empirical in the sense that claims about Jesus» special relationship to God could be proved by historical evidence, for the evidence will always be consistent with various speculative hypotheses.

Some do (inappropriately IMHO) affirmatively claim «gods do not exist» but many others simply conclude that in the absence of evidence for gods, they likely do not exist.

The answer is, instead of presenting evidence in support of his claims, he demands others look for evidence supporting his claims.

When I say «I see no evidence for any God / gods and the evidence we do have proves a global flood did not occur as the bible claims» when asked by a believer why I don't believe, it might look very similiar to an anti-theist who is attempting to convince you to quit believing in God.

So why do we need faith to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth if the evidence for this event is as strong as Christian apologists claim?