Sentences with phrase «fact the evidence supporting»

In fact the evidence supporting evolution does contradict the special creation, the coexistence of all «kinds» together and their destruction in a single (mythical) global flood.

Not exact matches

The Facts: There is no publicly available evidence to support this claim about the violent gang.

The researchers asked a nationally representative sample of 1351 adults about six specific ideas, none of which is supported by evidence or facts.

ME II «While there is no evidence that Jesus «instructs» such, one would assume that Jesus supports the Bible which does in fact allow «people to own other people».

If you search for evidence or fact, you will find that there is nothing to support the existence of your god, or any god.

While there is no evidence that Jesus «instructs» such, one would assume that Jesus supports the Bible which does in fact allow «people to own other people».

Otherwise, you adopt the same kind of mindset they do when they expect people to just accept their statements as facts, yet they provide no evidence to support them...

In fact, most evidence supports the thesis that religion is helping to tear apart the world.

Looking at an exhaustive list of historical facts there is more evidence to support creationism than evolution but you must be willing to see.

To claim something is fact, you must provide verifiable evidence to support your claim of fact.

While evolution can not be confirmed as hard fact... yet, we treat it as fact due to the overwhelming evidence to support evolution.

All that, plus they want to hide fact that all the premises of their religion around the divinity of Christ and the supposed benevolent nature of their rather horrid BOMITS and so on have zero support in evidence, and their bizarro ceremonies and smokescreens don't fool people quite as well as they did in pre-internet times.

It is not «laughable;» in fact, there is a huge mountain of evidence to support it.

Case in point: They believe in ID despite the fact that not one, single piece of evidence has been found in support of it, and not one single experiment has provided any proof for it.

Believers seem to think that these things are welcome (or perhaps they just don't care if they're not welcome) and at the same time they think that their religion should never be criticized, despite the fact that their isn't a single shred of evidence to support the existence of any god.

In any case, worry less about who people are and more about the fact that all you have are a lot of personal feelings and beliefs you can't support with objective evidence.

So basically, you heard a story you liked and decided to believe that story, regardless of the fact that no evidence actually supports that story.

Never mind the fact that there is no biblical evidence to support their claims.

The fact that someone can be a brilliant scientist and believe in God is not evidence science supports the existence of God.

But how does anyone believe in something with no evidence or facts to support it?

In point of fact Christianity is an elaborate web of such theories and claims, none of which is supported by any objective evidence.

If there is no god what argument is needed to support that position if it doesn't conflict with any facts or evidence?

But when you also add to that the fact that Cain's offering was not acceptable, being of vegetables from tilling the ground, while Abel's was acceptable (being an animal sacrifice), then there is very strong evidence to support what God considered «right» back then in relation to the offering.

It then takes the difficult steps of finding verifiable evidence to support that theory, which has to be able to be duplicated before it is accepted as fact.

Not really analogous; there is evidence to support the fact that we went to the moon — there is no evidence to support any religion.

If you continue to make statements of fact regarding your beliefs, I will be forced to demand supporting verifiable evidence for your claims.

Once you get through the deception and their crazy no - fact doctrine based on book where it's history has been proven false due to the lack of DNA and Archeological evidence that does not support the BOOK OF MORMON, I am glad this guy was intelligent enough to leave.

You have no evidence to support you, but your unmatched ability to ignore inconvenient facts and bury your head allows you to maintain this silly mythology into the 21st Century.

The fact that so many believe does not make the story true, it merely means that those believing the story seriously don't care if there is evidence to support it, they merely accept it on faith (belief without evidence).

Which facts do you disagree with, what evidence do you have to support your contentions and where did I claim to be superior to anyone?

«God created all» is a statement of fact that must be supported by verifiable evidence.

Obviously this process of descent has not been observed, but there exists so much overwhelming evidence supporting it that most scientists (and probably all scientists in the life sciences) consider it a fact as well.

But, to deny a scientific fact which has been supported by just as much evidence and data as gravity or the germ theory is plain ignorance.

All Nye is saying is, the future successful development of America and the world depends on people who understand the distinction, and who can relate to and interact with the natural world scientifically and objectively, without being constrained by belief in the creation story or any other explanation of the world not supported by facts and evidence.

It is, in fact, the only explanation supported by evidence.

THere is so much evidence to support evolution that to call it a thory instead of a fact is ignotant.

Second, your account of Noah is just a straw - man attack, and in fact Canada.com published an article regarding evidence to support a global flood that was revealed in Canada.

The truth is that there is no «evidence» «logic» or «fact» to support either claim — both require equal amounts of faith (regardless of which God you believe in).

There's other reasons to believe in God, all supported by evidence, that affirm to me Christianity is in the fact the most compelling belief for me.

Try wrapping your mind around the fact that there isn't a single shred of evidence to support the existence of ANY of the thousands of gods humans have worshiped throughout history.

Its a fact also the molecular evidence supports Darwin — there is no debate — evolution is the best mechanism that explains the diversity of life on earth.

Truth for atheists is defined as fact supported by evidence.

To do that we have to establish a way to prove an assumption by: 1) asserting a hypothesis and its components 2) testing the components for substantial supporting evidence, unsupported components go back to be refined 3) either agree after successful testing that in our shared reality the hypothesis is now supported, or that overall unsupported components may mean the hypothesis fails 4) for sake of ease many people call these tested and supported hypotheses «facts», but again that's just so that we can get on with progress.

First, many claims of «bad design» are not in fact supported by the evidence.

like support their statements with facts or evidence.

Things which are supported by fact and evidence.

I don't believe that fairy tales should be given the same credence as evidence - supported fact.

What is intellectually dishonest is making claims of «fact» in your post without verifiable supporting evidence.

It is based on the total lack of evidence supporting religious claims and the universal fact that everything ever examined operates according to natural laws.

I don't claim that there was «adaptation» or change; I'm merely showing that there does, in fact, exist, evidence to support that claim.