Sentences with phrase «kinds of evidence for»

In a series of papers, Firestone and his colleagues claimed various kinds of evidence for the hypothesis, including deposits of the element iridium (rare on Earth but abundant in meteorites), microscopic diamonds (called nanodiamonds), and magnetic particles in deposits at sites supposedly dated to about 12,800 years ago.

Evolutionists have all kinds of evidence for natural selection, but ZERO evidence for nothing turning into something and ZERO evidence for one creature changing into other creatures.

On another note, people may be biologically disposed to homosexuality (the evidence is hardly huge or even compelling, there's no clear cause / effect relation, and there hasn't been any of that kind of evidence for lesbians.

Unless these aliens brought some kind of evidence for their religion and the existence of their deity, such as a demonstration of the power of their form prayer, I really have to much to rethink.

but it is not necessary to find this kind of evidence for the event.

Now that people are more aware of how this scheme works it might be a different story, just as how more people are now aware of how the Bible was actually written and the actual age of the universe to actually accept it as completely factual and as any kind of evidence for a god.

If he did exist there would be some kind of evidence for him, but there is none.

Not exact matches

We know a lot from various kinds of evidence: a) the experience of the real estate sector, where recent studies by Macdonald Realty and Re / Max have confirmed the dominance of foreign buyers at the top end of the market especially, as stated for years by individual realtors (accounts often denigrated as «anecdotal»); b) there is the digging of several investigative journalists, and most notably by Ian Young of the South China Morning Post who has boldly and effectively raised issues native journalists have sometimes shied from; c) academic work, including the books by Katharyne Mitchell (2004) Beyond the Neoliberal Line and David Ley Millionaire Migrants (2011).

«I think the only way a case could go forward on that basis is if there's some kind of documentary evidence — such as a text or an email — which indicates that (the election) was the reason for the payment.»

«Actually Marx already predicted that there could be a kind of socialism which combined socialist principles with the achievements of Western capitalist civilizations but he didn't say how this kind of socialism would work since there was no evidence available during his lifetime,» Su Wei, a professor at a party school for ideological training in Chongqing, in southwestern China, told the Global Times.

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)

@Herbert What kind of empirical evidence do you have for your belief in god?

There is no chance for mastery in living, by working out what is properly credible on the basis of notions like demonstration, experiential tests, sufficient evidence, and so on» the fool's errands that modernity has sent us on, seeking a kind of legitimation that neither exists nor is needed.

It is not the kind of evidence that atheist's give me for why they don't believe.

Seriously though, you're basing everything off a proposition with no evidence, and the rest of us are kind of astounded that it's still viewed as sufficient justification for policy, especially policies of persecution

Another kind of faith, you may call it that if you want, is the substance of things that have substance and the evidence of things we know and of things that have worked for us in the past.

There are all manner of deist notions that will satisfy your requirement for some kind of causal agent, and none of these represent evidence for Yahweh / Jesus / Allah.

And I have no right to ask a poster for the same kind of evidence he has demanded from me many times?

At least, not the kind of firm scientific evidence you're asking for.

It can not have done so, because all of our evidence indicates that the kind of theological emphasis associated with the «last supper» in the gospels was by no means the major emphasis in early Christian communal meals from the very beginning, as it would have to have been if this had been the occasion for them.

Such passages as the following seem to suggest that the evidence Whitehead offers for believing that CE is a unique kind of perception and that it is not illusory, i.e., supplies the subject with (more or less) accurate information about its environment, is primarily a particular kind of «experience.»

Whenever pluralism in theology resists the need for argument, warrants, theory, evidence, praxis, it becomes a kind of Will Rogers pluralism: one where theologians have never met a position they didn't like.

It is a question not of whether to consider the historical context, but rather of what counts as historical evidence and of what kinds of possibilities one will allow for in using the evidence to re-create the historical situation.

The hunger for such support is perhaps best evidenced by the explosion of 12 - step groups, self - help groups and support groups of all kinds.

The rationalization of southern baptists is truly mind boggling — the idea that each church is «autonomous» as justification for outright racism is pitiful in this day and age — if the Southern Baptist convention had come out strongly and adamantly against this kind of behavior, I'd have at least a measure of respect for them — but to shrug off a blatant act of discrimination as the «work of the devil» and ignore the deacon's cowardice in wanting to avoid «controversy» is laughable — if it weren't for people having the courage to fan the flames of controversy, women and african american would not have the right to vote today — more evidence of the ignorance of most bible thumpers, and Mississippi in particular

As for failure to show that God exists, as I've asked elsewhere, just what kind of «evidence» are you looking for, and just how long do you think it is going to be before you begin to contradict yourself, when it is pointed out to you that your empirical demand for «evidence» will only take you so far when it comes to knowing anything?

I suppose that if any athiests are looking for their kind of evidence (of the existance of a Creator) then maybe they should look into the way Einstein, Flew and other great thinkers arrived at their belief.

For my part, when I look at the way events unfold in the world, I do not see any evidence there of the kind of divine activity called for by the Whiteheadian notion of God's consequent nature weaving itself across his primordial nature and then returning the «superjective» vision back to the world in an operative, effective manner through the shaping of subjective aiFor my part, when I look at the way events unfold in the world, I do not see any evidence there of the kind of divine activity called for by the Whiteheadian notion of God's consequent nature weaving itself across his primordial nature and then returning the «superjective» vision back to the world in an operative, effective manner through the shaping of subjective aifor by the Whiteheadian notion of God's consequent nature weaving itself across his primordial nature and then returning the «superjective» vision back to the world in an operative, effective manner through the shaping of subjective aims.

The complete absence from the kerygma of a chronology for the public ministry should have been sufficient evidence to indicate that the kind of historicity in which the kerygma was interested differed basically from that with which Dodd was occupied.

The same kind of evidence you're asking for to prove that there is one.

The words used in traditional forms have become meaningless and have no performative value, or, if they have, it is open to question whether the evidence for their effectiveness can be found in church attendance or some kind of social action.

I find it difficult in the face of this evidence to argue that the embrace of this kind of liberalism is a strategy for Christian renewal.

The water of life was given to us to make us see for a while that we are more nearly men and women, more nearly kind and gentle and generous, pleasanter and stronger, than without its vision there is any evidence we are....

There is a lot of farcical chin - pulling in the book over various «possible candidates for nothingness» and «what «nothing» might actually comprise,» along with an earnest insistence that any «definition» of nothingness must ultimately be «based on empirical evidence» and that ««nothing» is every bit as physical as «something»» — as if «nothingness» were a highly unusual kind of stuff that is more difficult to observe or measure than other things are.

But, allowing for considerable oversimplification, I can at least try to make clear the essential point: the understanding of reality expressed in this kind of metaphysics is one for which all our distinctive experience and thought as modern secular men is negative evidence.

You'll use things like «faith» and find all kinds of justifications for your belief, but in the end, you lack any concrete evidence that your story is true.

Both kinds of evidence need to be considered, for while the letters provide invaluable insights into his mind and the way in which he viewed his ministry they do not set forth so clearly what it was that he did or the ways in which others viewed him.

I can not explain it, so that kind of evidence is not enough for me.

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!

Yet the evidence of scientific research testifies to these hierarchies having an importance of a kind too great for their existence to be merely fortuitous.

Now that kind of thinking about God which looks for evidence of His activity in phenomena which have no natural explanation is often referred to as a belief in the «God of the gaps».

But the complete and utter lack of any evidence for the existence of these gods makes believing in them kind of silly.

I also believe that my faith is a choice, and am not so deluded as to think that there is either a valid, logical proof for the existence of God, or some kind of irrefutable physical evidence for God's existence.

That many Christians reject that the kind of «evidence» an atheist demands for the existence of God is necessary, and that it is perfectly reasonable to do so.

But does someone with a sharp intellect really bandy about quite so many assertions for which he offers no evidence of any kind, as though they were so well known that proof is unnecessary?

You are free, as you say, to * choose * not to believe in God because you believe that there is insufficient evidence of the kind you would like for God's existence.

When we speak of «evidence» we must look for the kind of evidence that is appropriate to the issue in question.

@jc,»... and atheists aren't willing to accept the notion that the kind of «evidence» they are searching for may not reasonably be expected.»

But many stories in the latter category are the kind of evidence Jesus himself rejected — signs to demonstrate his power (for example, Mark 8:11 - 13).

thefinisher1 Are prosecutors, police and juries stubborn spoiled brats for accepting what DNA, fingerprint, video, and all kinds of other evidence indicate about who committed a crime rather than having the faith to just take the accused word that they didn't do it?