Sentences with phrase «evidence we've seen so»

Not exact matches

Wired has a good roundup of the possibilities; some observers fear the company has no intention of reselling e-books, that it merely wants to block others from doing so, but intellectual property experts see no evidence of that.

The amount of «cord cutting» behavior remains a topic of heated debate, with Comcast saying it hasn't seen much evidence of it occurring so far.

So I started doing some digging to see if there was any evidence to support my experience of what we'll call, physical vs digital.

And it is this abatement of the great distortions that have caused growth to slow so rapidly, and although we haven't seen much evidence of significant rebalancing yet, it should take a few years for the effects fully to be worked out.

However, NextOption was placed on our blacklist, and so we encourage forex traders to avoid them and prefer other trusted brokers, principally because we have seen strong evidence of them having involved in soliciting clients through frosty calling and spam e-mails.

Nevertheless, it's important to realize a market bottom is never a one - day event, so we need to see more evidence accumulate over the next two weeks to confirm that an intermediate - term bottom is in place.

So we see some evidence supporting both sides of the argument.

However, the retailer's top brass said they didn't see enough evidence that the turnaround plan was working, so they pulled the plug.

Duguid, however, said he's seen scant evidence from Ottawa so far that it's open to rethinking the job grant program.

What evidence have you seen that you find so conclusive?

Experimental evidence needs to be integrated into a broader philosophy of nature if one wishes to find (or to deny) the existence of a deity, but the deity so discovered would not yet be seen as the Creator.

no apparent evidence of ill - will, and 3)... an experience of unity.Now, David, I haven't known you for very long (blogwise), but I respect what I have read from yr deep and thoughtful spirit, so with that in mind, I just don't see how this personal experience is translatable or cd be used as some kind of template when faced with the real Wal - Mart world.Do we not, like Jesus, show out true colours under pressure.Maybe I'm missing something... please correct me If I am and remember, I'm not into boob jobs (cleavage enhancement)

But since neither he nor his followers have so far not shown me a scrap of reliable evidences, and since I haven't seen any evidence that prayer is any more effective than wishing on a star, I doubt anything different is going to happen now.

I see no evidence to suggest that there is a god, so I don't believe that there is one.

Judge not lest ye be judged, we are all so quick to believe anything b4 all the facts in, people please be still and wait to see ALL the evidence.

No has ever seen actual evidence of your brain or your soul, so we should also conclude that you have no brain and you as a person don't exist.

But there is evidence — beginning with Genesis 1, where we are told that God looked at the whole creation and saw that it was good — that biblical thinking is not nearly so anthropocentric as many interpreters of the Bible have supposed.

Still amazes me how people are so willing to follow an idea, a religion, a dude telling fairy tales from a stage, rather than the things that they see before them every day, and in doing so, tie everyday natural occurrences into evidence for the validity of their fairy tales.

So rather than engaging with the mountains of evidence that I brought, because this situation was one of the most well - documented cases of institutional cover - up I have ever seen, ever, there was a complete refusal to engage with the evidence.

In «Whitehead's First Metaphysical Synthesis,» I offer no fresh evidence for the «shift,» so that those who are antecedently persuaded that there is no «shift» will see little reason to alter their opinions.

They are playing tricks with your mind so you don't see or care about evidence like this so they plan horrible things behind the curtain while people get upset over conterceptives you can still get.

So, while there is so much archeological evidence for subjects and places in the bible, we now know, there truly is the possibility of an existence of «beings» outside our means to see or detecSo, while there is so much archeological evidence for subjects and places in the bible, we now know, there truly is the possibility of an existence of «beings» outside our means to see or detecso much archeological evidence for subjects and places in the bible, we now know, there truly is the possibility of an existence of «beings» outside our means to see or detect.

All things, seen and unseen point to the fact that there is a God, a Creator, the Divine Designer, anf there is an evil being, whose evidence is so clearly seen also.

So the biblical experts say there is not enough evidence to make a determination, yet you, who has never seen the fragment, declares that it is talking about the church.

As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I've never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people.»

God could make himself as obvious as gravity (since he made gravity as obvious as he made gravity), but he doesn't, and so there's no way to determine whether or not god exist and we continue to debate him without any solid proof or meaningful evidence (like we see in biology and chemistry and such).

So funny, or is it just my depraved mind that saw the evidence?

Many Muslims see any depiction of Mohammed as blasphemous, particularly when it's done so in mockery, as evidenced by the ultraconversative Muslims who have vented their rage over The Innocence of Muslims film.

Many people seem much more willing to express opinions when they can do so anonymously, and they are more willing to speak when they see evidence on the screen that they are not alone in their views.

so yes, the very thing you take simply as a given, i see as evidence of the thing you deny: namely, existence itself points beyond itself.

And wanting to see evidence of human life and not just microbial is such an incredibly ignorant comment on so many levels.

It just so turns out that once humans know how something actually works, they have the incredible ability to change it to how they see fit, as evidenced by the amazing piece of technology in front of your face.

Maybe we are not to the point to see the evidence, or maybe we are so self - consumed that we do not see it.

The juxtaposition of Orwell's book and the Barmen anniversary is important, for if we are to stand against those evidences of the Orwellian world that we already see, important resources for doing so will be found in the stance, Conviction and courage of the creators of Barmen.

I haven't even seen convincing evidence that Brevik so much as considered himself a Christian — but if he did, it would be absolute self - deception.

Whats rediculous is that there are people as yourself who have been so blinded that they cant even see the evidence, and results of a person who has faith.

Your evidence is No where near conclusive, its like me saying «So i saw a cow on the beach today so cows must love the beach» its childish in logiSo i saw a cow on the beach today so cows must love the beach» its childish in logiso cows must love the beach» its childish in logic.

Yes, this was evidence that God also was upset about what this man named Jesus was teaching, and had seen fit to make Him a public spectacle in the sight of all so that nobody would ever again seek to challenge the teachings of the religious leaders or the traditions of the Jewish people.

Hotairace, I don't expect you to see the abundant evidence, because sin has corrupted your mind and soul so much that you don't consider even yourself to be factual, verifiable, objective, or independent.

Such feelings, Freud says, are often the unconscious basis for faith, and they were too strong in Dostoevsky to be overcome by his mind that saw the evidence against God so clearly.

The believer can SEE what the materialist sees (like the voluminous amount of evolutionary evidence), but he either refuses to believe what he sees, or he doesn't UNDERSTAND it, and so discounts it.

Dale, your «creator» created the universe to make it look like he didn't do so, at least as seen by sincere people looking honestly at the evidence.

No... I actually began questioning Christianity and all religions when I was in elementary school and in history class while learning about the greek gods and their myths thought «Well... let's see... these people really believed in these gods and those stories... thought they really happened... but there was no evidence they did and we all know they're not real now... so what's different between that and Christianity and other religions?»

So, unless we uncover evidence of ancient transporter devices that could have placed 10,000 year old dinos within solid rock we'll just assume they died at the same time the rocks were formed, see?

Here's the majors, so plan accordingly for your place in this life or the next: 1) there is not a single fossil to evidence mankind's evolution from some so - called earlier form (see missing link) however we do however have mountains of DNA evidence showing we have common ancestors with primates — so you either believe in a Creator, or Aliens, or actual evolution or a mix of any of the three.

Kepel argues that the jihadists are losing ground, but he does so by providing a political, religious and historical tour of the Middle East («a nexus of international disorder») that could be seen as providing evidence that the jihadists aren't losing ground.

The fact that you can't «see» air is so thmehow your evidence for a supreme invisible man made deity?

So I did hours and hours of research, reading books, etc. to see if there could be any evidence to support Creationism / Intelligent Design.

If I could see in scripture the evidence for a hell of everlasting torment then so be it but not only do I not see it but I do see overwhelming scriptural evidence that the fate of the wicked is death.

The beliefs are just so far out there for me, that whenever I see someone in ardent support of them I have to think they're a troll, because I don't know how they could possibly believe or accept that (there are a few exceptions of people who pt things very well, cite supporting evidence, and are consistent and coherent - I don't agree with them, but I can at least understand what they're saying)