Sentences with phrase «evidence for your claims then»

Not exact matches

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».

If its claims are true then that is good evidence for accepting it as the Word of God.

For example, if I was abducted by aliens but had no photos nor artifacts nor trace nor any way of reproducing any of that then I would not claim to have any evidence of the abduction.

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.

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.

Then, to claim that the bible wrote that too as evidence for your argument?

For if we try to claim that God is present but can not give evidence of his presence, then God becomes incredible.

She claims to be a scientist but works for an organization that ignores any science that doesn't agree with the Bible, when she should be followinf the evidence where ever it leads and if it shows the Bible to be wrong then so be it.

Come up with some evidence for that then you can start to work on the claims that he performed miracles.

You claim evidence for a young earth but present none and then claim science rejects evolution which is like claiming water isn't wet.

If a group of people were deliberately provoking you and then later claimed you assaulted them, I'd hope the judge asks for concrete evidence then too.

so much so that they seek out something without any merit nor even a shredd of evidence and then claim it to be more then truth but the word of god who for all intents and purposes is equal to every other make believe creature in the entire history of man - kind!

Ssq You also claim that a spiritual gift is evidence of narcicism and then insult me for not warning my cousin.

As for Rev Parsons, saying god exists is the equivalent of lying when it can't back its claims with substantial evidence... neither it or just spewin» can be trusted on their opinion... if they really believe in this god, then they have sinned and are both destined for their fairy land land of hell.

Wenger and Gazidis: Bargain buys until stadium debt largely gone and then Gazidis offers # 40mil and # 1 for Suarez... Try to blame Wenger and I will call you ignorant unless you show some form of evidence to back up the ignorant claim.

If you can do any of get, say, a couple of million people to sign a petition calling for the abolition of the minimum wage; win parliamentary seats by running on this issue; or provide polling evidence showing majorities would repeal the race, gender discrimination laws, etc then I will withdraw the claim about this being a minority position.

The Second Circuit tossed Level Global Investors LP founder David Ganek's claims that then - U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara's 2010 insider trading raid violated his rights, saying there was probable cause for the search even without what Ganek calls falsified evidence.

And then if we have a body of evidence that's somewhere in between these, that will be sufficient for the proponents, but opponents won't be able to accept that claim.

For their chosen ad, students state a claim about how the ad is misleading and / or unhealthy and then use evidence from the ad to support their opinion.

But then one would recall that other public functions exist, such as health, transportation, and higher education, that make large and urgent claims on the budgets of state governments; that problems other than a lack of money afflict the schools, such as students who arrive unprepared for learning or life in a classroom; and that evidence for the efficacy of money per se is at best mixed.

In this dialog, you should introduce the subject, make a claim, discuss necessary background information, and then present the evidence for the position.

* And then there are the dubious claims that lack any supporting evidence whatsoever — for example: «Diminished resources and willingness to collect free - roaming animals have led to increasing numbers of free - roaming animals.»

As I see it, their purpose is to shift the focus from the rising temperatures to cherry - picked stations as if this were the only evidence for rising temperatures, then to discredit the process by which regional and global trends in temperatures are identified so as to discredit the claim that temperatures are rising.

If the recent temperature record statistically significantly deviated from the multi-decadal positive temperature trend, then this would be empirical evidence for the claim something has been different in recent years.

Jim D If and when we have something resembling evidence that CO2 is the problem that alarmists claim it is, instead of just government - funded science / propaganda supporting the case for yet more taxes, then having those who produce CO2 would indeed make sense.

If you have the slightest evidence for claiming that I have a «vested interest in maintaining this level of concern» then please provide it — otherwise please withraw this statement.

You ask them to provide evidence for their outrageous claims and they dish up textbook radiative physics as if it proved their case, and then ridicule the public for questioning them.

If you claim the results of the study were all wrong and can not be derived from the proxy data used in the study, then the burden to provide the evidence for your assertion is on you.

The only change since then is that the evidence for human - caused climate change has become even more overwhelming, though there are still plenty of people who combine global warming denialism (or a long track record of denialism, with no admission of error) with the claim that «nuclear power is the only solution to climate change.»

Then Jim D claims the nutcases have shown evidence for.

Then although there is lots of «strong evidence» for various parts of climate science, it is the claim that these «sub hypotheses» lead to a 90 % certainty for the main hypothesis that really needs assessing.

@Paul — yep «you have no evidence for this» and then you claim that not misspelling a name which has an odd spelling (I am Irish so I know at least 3 other spellings) is a sign of a competent scientist.

It's not a long time, but then again, history is moving quickly these days, and its long enough for us to say that there's little evidence for this nearly universal claim.

Your attorney will assess your situation, gather up evidence and documentation, then determine which damages you suffered and come up with a fair value for your claim.

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