Sentences with phrase «evidence points to something»

And the evidence points to something quite different than the article implies.

All evidence points to something strange on the horizon, and a crucial decision that could prove the key to making a clean break from his troubled past.

All evidence points to something in the heroin drug users are pumping into their bodies, and investigators at first suspected anthrax, a well - known livestock pathogen and potential biological weapon.

But some cognitive scientists argue the evidence points to something far deeper and more radical.

As such, it's impossible to take your conjecture seriously, because you say definitively that it will be the case, despite 4 decades of evidence pointing to something counter, and you do absolutely nothing to back it up with anything beyond hyperbole.

Not exact matches

«We are doing what journalists throughout said mainstream media are supposed to do: challenge the conventional wisdom, hold politicians» feet to the fire, ask tough questions, report facts that are in many cases inconvenient truths for career politicians, and give a voice to the millions of people worldwide who have had theirs taken away from them by world elites who consider the ordinary person beneath them,» Boyle said, pointing to Breitbart's record July traffic as evidence Americans «hunger for something different.»

Amid a dearth of good economic news, the government could point to a buoyant stock market as evidence that it was doing something right.

I used to believe that myth too, but eventually got to the point I couldn't keep rationalizing a belief in something for which there was absolutely no evidence.

My flat - world comment was to point out the illogic of believing something to be true without evidence, and using that belief to displace scientific theories that do have supportive evidence.

All of this is beside the point, however, because the default position in any belief is evidence — meaning, something exists if there is evidence for it, otherwise the default position is to believe only what has been proven to exist.

There are parents who will tell you that they knew when their child was young... it's not taught, it's not something these people can switch on and off; it's not a phase... it has to do with genetic coding to a point and for you to continue to deny the evidence that points to this only shows your bigotry.

Are you able to provide evidence otherwise (without using the bible or something that points back to it)?

There is no evidence for a god, and there is no evidence that people have ever experienced anything inside their minds that pointed to something that was objectively true OUTSIDE of their minds, but which could not be experienced by others unless they too had a «personal experience» of it.

But one thing the book spends a lot of time explaining is in science, you don't have to observe something to know it's true if the preponderance of evidence points to it being so.

It's horrible that they were accused of something so serious that they didn't do, but that kind of «data» is purely apocryphal: all the evidence and studies points to women getting ignored and having their cases tossed far more than the reverse.

It was a claim that's easy to dismiss given the sheer amount of evidence that points to something rotten at the heart of FIFA, but, even in a very minor sense, does Blatter have a point?

But eventually the gaslighting brought me to a point where I was afraid to say anything, so I'd just gather evidence in the hope that I'd eventually find something that couldn't be denied by any reasonable person.

Second point which may not directly answer the question but serves as evidence of: A --RRB- Assad using it for terrorizing the people B --RRB- For those who still deny that Assad done it is: This video of shameless (mind you, he has a verified twitter account) Syrian journalist who is openly threating that «Something Very Special and powerful» is about to come (just hours before the Chemical Attack), plus there is also a leaked phone tape which is allegedly of Suheil - al - Hassan ordering military to go all attack

On an equally serious point, some of the anti-hunting groups are charities, which are supposed to base their policies and public statements on firm evidence, something that has clearly not happened in the hunting debate.

Mineralogist Richard Morris of the NASA Johnson Space Center says, «For something as important as phyllosilicates, I'd like to see two things point to it» — that is, two independent lines of evidence.

She says this points to evidence that there may be something else going on in the body that causes vitamin D and exercise to positively influence levels of each other.

As evidence of our need for the flames, he points to research showing that modern women who follow an all or mostly raw food diet often don't menstruate — something that's clearly needed for species propagation.

So slowly, over time, you tend to bring more and more evidence for something until we reach a point where, «Wow, it must be true» or conversely we pile up so much negative evidence we say, «No, can't really be true.»

This slow decline in brain glucose usage can be seen as a kind of «canary in the coal mine» — preclinical evidence that something has gone awry long before damage has progressed to the point of overt signs and symptoms.

Essentially, my point is that saying something is totally a hoax when some benefits could be present is just called unsound evidence or irreverent evidence for that matter, in regards to the true topic at hand, being... (after reading this whole thing I'm not sure it's what it began as, got a bit convoluted...?)

I agree that, if I am in possession of facts or evidence to disprove an idea, I will volunteer them, knowing that they may become valuable evidence in a position paper, since stating something as a fact and then disproving it is an excellent way to prove a point.

Now, bear in mind that expository essay writing is all about teaching the reader something new, using evidence to back up the points you make.

More important, I hope the individual investor who questions the prevailing wisdom in this area, but can not find the evidence to support their concerns, will have something to point to as they attempt to make the most informed decisions they can.

The evidence points to this being something weird on Amazon's end.

If I'd gotten something wrong, and if you knew what it was, you would have pointed it out — thus providing a scrap (at least) of evidence to back up your angry trash - talk.

Yet these terms point to something that is more important than many scientists seem to realise — that there are innate problems with the ideas of «truth» and «evidence» that may be difficult for science to deal with.

If someone of the ones who state the assertion about the «stopped» global warming, is able to demonstrate that the Null hypothesis above can be successfully rejected, using proper statistical analysis, I will concede that they indeed have statistical evidence at hand, which indicates something has changed significantly in the global temperature record since 1997 or whatever point is claimed to be the one at which global warming allegedly «stopped».

For Armstrong, LTC4 is something he can point to when talking to potential clients, providing evidence that his firm will deliver efficient service and support.

The most obvious point about the whistleblower story is that the one thing Carole has undoubtedly done is provide good evidence for something Vote Leave knew in 2015: it would be lunacy for Vote Leave to ally with Arron Banks and Cambridge Analytica.

[74] The same rationale applies and the same result must flow, in my view, in those rare cases where — as here — «the appellant [can] point to something in the reasons of the trial judge or perhaps elsewhere in the record that make [s] it clear that the trial judge [has] applied different standards in assessing the evidence of the appellant and the complainant»: Howe, at para. 59.

The most obvious point about the whistleblower story is that the one thing Carole has undoubtedly done is provide good evidence for something Vote Leave knew in 2015: it would be lunacy for Vote Leave to ally with Arron Banks and Cambridge Analytica.