Sentences with phrase «if presented evidence»

Or what would have said if presented evidence that recreational use is religious use?

If present evidence is to be used, two potent contributions to raising student achievement will be widespread: effective preschool programs for all children and intensive interventions that build capacities of families to support the education of their children.

Not exact matches

It'll be up to the jury to determine if Waymo has presented enough evidence to prove that not only did Uber steal trade secrets, that the company was using them in their current self - driving technology.

Understand also that the evidence pointing to steep market risk over the completion of this cycle is quite robust, as the valuation criteria in the overvalued, overbought, overbullish syndromes we now observe would be satisfied even if stocks were significantly lower than they are at present.

If you are the representative of an entity that owns common stock of the Company, you must present a government - issued photo identification, evidence that the entity has authorized you to act as its representative at the Annual Meeting, and, if the entity is a street name owner, proof of the entity's beneficial stock ownership as of the record datIf you are the representative of an entity that owns common stock of the Company, you must present a government - issued photo identification, evidence that the entity has authorized you to act as its representative at the Annual Meeting, and, if the entity is a street name owner, proof of the entity's beneficial stock ownership as of the record datif the entity is a street name owner, proof of the entity's beneficial stock ownership as of the record date.

If you think the home didn't sell for its fair market value and the deficiency is therefore higher than it should be, you can present evidence of this in court.

What is most uncomfortable about the present market environment is that even some people whom we respect are tossing out comments about market valuation here that are provably wrong, or at least require one to dispense with the entirety of historical evidence if their optimistic views are to be correct.

If ID were presented as a scientific theory and as such had scientific evidence, then I have no choice to be to accept it (regardless of my beliefs, again).

If you own common stock in street name, in order to gain entry you must present a government - issued photo identification and proof of beneficial stock ownership as of the record date, such as your Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials, a copy of your proxy card or voting instruction form if you received one, or an account or brokerage statement or other similar evidence showing stock ownership as of the record datIf you own common stock in street name, in order to gain entry you must present a government - issued photo identification and proof of beneficial stock ownership as of the record date, such as your Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials, a copy of your proxy card or voting instruction form if you received one, or an account or brokerage statement or other similar evidence showing stock ownership as of the record datif you received one, or an account or brokerage statement or other similar evidence showing stock ownership as of the record date.

However, if presented with new evidence, I am more than able to adapt and even change that conclusion if provided with evidence to the contrary.

Like I've mentioned a whole lot of times now, I'm an atheist, god or gods most likely don't exist in any way, shape or form however if presented with em.p.ir.ac.le evidence to the contrary that is repeatable and believable I'd be willing to change my stance on the matter.

It is almost impossible to know if Christians would change their thinking if absolute evidence was presented as only one responded, but I would venture to guess that he is probably fairly representative, and no amount of knowledge or evidence would change their opinions.

If you want anyone to believe your schtick these days, you'd better have evidence to present, and you can be sure it will get exposed to a lot of examination.

The hypothesis that is inversely proportional to the evidence presented is the hypothesis that can be tested by repeatable experiments.in other words if you read a book cover to cover you can categorically deny that eastern mysticism is all powerful and the philosophies have mathematical inference to the derivative conclusion that one can not mistakenly ignore.

If you had one shred of evidence that ruled out causation you would present it.

I, as a non-believer, have always said that if presented with any natural evidence of God's existence, that I would then I would not need to «believe», rather that I would then know.

If we define faith as «confidence» or «conviction» based on the evidence presented, and once we recognize that there is no such thing as «degrees of faith,» then this leads to the truth that faith is not a work.

Gravity is proven to exist (even if we don't know exactly what it is) and can be measured... gods have no evidence for existence, past or present, and can not be measured.

Second, I was saying if Zimmerman had been black as well as Martin and it was considered black on black crime, Zimmerman would have been convicted with the evidence presented.

If you have looked in the box that contained the demonstrative evidence, why have you not presented it to support your argument?

There is nothing wrong with saying «I don't believe because I have no compelling evidence to make me believe, but if you present some, I will evaluate it and I may start to believe.»

If evidence for a god or gods would present itself, however, I would have no choice but to «believe» if I am to remain logically consistenIf evidence for a god or gods would present itself, however, I would have no choice but to «believe» if I am to remain logically consistenif I am to remain logically consistent.

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

Keep uttering the rubbish the God doesn't exist but if I were you I would have the courage all the evidence I presented in this forum.

And, for the good of the order, hearsay does not mean that the evidence it presents in wrong — its simply an issue of weight one should give the evidence (particularly if other evidence is available).

But if we hold, as for example in Process and Reality, that all final individual actualities have the metaphysical character of occasions of experience, then on that hypothesis the direct evidence as to the connectedness of one's immediately present occasion of experience with one's immediately past occasions, can be validly used to suggest categories applying to the connectedness of all occasions in nature.

I would appreciate it if you refute the evidences I presented in this forum instead of talking in general terms.

And as I stated previously, Russ, if you had clear evidence, you would be presenting here rather than week after week referring to more written opinion.

You said, «I would appreciate it if you refute the evidences I presented in this forum instead of talking in general terms.»

Neville i agree with you Jesus has the power to forgive sin past present and future through the cross when he died his death covered past present and future.If those in the old testament were justified by faith and made righteous then they are covered by the blood of Jesus even though he hadn't died for them yet because there hope was in God.Isn't that what the definition of faith is it is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things unseen.The proof is Enoch how could he go to be with God if he was not righteous and only the blood of Jesus is able to do that.

You'd think if your imaginary friend had been proven to exist, the world would know and a Nobel Prize would have been awarded to the person proving it... until that prize is awarded and evidence outside of the buybull is presented, there is no justification for accepting it.

Not by presenting us with more evidence, but by appeals to our emotions and / or our fears: Either by using, «Our almighty, all - knowing god will protect you and give you eternal life (security and hope)», or, «Our righteous, just, and holy god will torture you for all eternity if you DO N'T make the jump (using blind faith).»

If someone were denying that a cliff at the end of the road exists, and believes the road continues on in the face of all of the evidence presented to the contrary, we can safely say that person is delusional.

And no a belief does not mean actual knowledge, so when one proclaims a belief, it something that by definition can not be proven, so no I don't have to present evidence in order to declare a belief, but if one is saying outright that angels do not exist as being the absolute truth, then one should present evidence.

But, again, I reserve the right to change this position IF sufficient evidence is presented and admit that I really don't know for sure (99.9 % but not 100 %).

If you think this is an exaggeration, just try to discuss creationism with you and they will laugh at you, deride your intellect and refuse to listen to the evidence you present).

If there is so much evidence, please present some.

derp, I'm wondering if you have read the book by Dr. Stephen Myers called «Signature in the Cell» which argues that specifically encoded DNA strands store information in a precise and logical manner which provides some evidence that an argument for intelligent design is present?

I'd recommend such courses, since I believe education provides the antidote to creationism and that if people are exposed to actual science rather than the distored view I find usually presented by creationists they will be far better equipped to make reasonable judgments regarding the actual evidence.

You may see it as crazy talk, but you make the claim daily and I ask for evidence — if you had any, you'd present it, but each day it's the same dance.

If you refuse to believe then you must present some sort of evidence in that belief because without doing so your just being a fool.

If you are going to make claims at least explain why you think so and preferably present evidence.

If you have evidence of the ark existing, or even of a global flood, then present it.

If It's based on evidence, then present it.

(Shalit presents convincing evidence that modesty was encouraged in part because it was believed that women liked sex too much, and they would get themselves into endless trouble if they didn't learn early on to exercise some restraint.)

If you have evidence to support your claim in a god then please present it.

But I do hope you realize you're putting the cart before the horses in making generalized statements about atheists as if they are facts when you haven't presented anything as evidence for your notions.

But if we are presented with any evidence, that evidence could not be known without our holding it before us for a while, so that the very presentation of the evidence designed to show that nothing occupies our attention for a span of time would be evidence to show that something does....

if evidence was presented tomorrow that proved god did not exist..

It is a logical fallacy to present that position as equivalent to the position; If there is no evidence of X, then X can't exist.