Sentences with phrase «know about the evidence»

We've known about the evidence of epigenetics in nature for quite some time.

He was challenged to apply what he knew about evidence to the accounts of Jesus's resurection.

«I knew about the evidence that said exercise was good for endurance and agility, but I really didn't make any connection with that and brain health.»

I have found her a vegan (from lichen) based D3 supplement instead now, but just wanted to know about some evidence (or lack of evidence) about omega 9 supplements (mum had no idea that was even in there as she doesn't even read the back of the pack just the brand name sounded good to her)?

«Calkins's program flies in the face of everything we know about evidence - based reading instruction,» notes Susan B. Neuman, a professor of early childhood and literacy education at New York University.

Do they even know about the evidence?

Are you implying that people that know about the evidence for global warming are not trying to reduce their footprint, thus they don't «really» believe in the evidence?

Not exact matches

Last month, the panel of 31 independent scientists charged with reviewing the EPA's draft report stated that the agency's broad conclusion about the mining technique known as fracking is at odds with the evidence and «inconsistent with the observations, data, and levels of uncertainty presented.»

The evidence is mounting that the Kremlin knew in advance about an attack on U.S. troops in Syria, says Jake Novak.

If we can detect that evidence, we'll better understand how our universe and its laws came into being after the Big Bang — and we might know more about whatever other universes are out there.

In a nutshell, a statement can fairly be called a lie if there is abundant evidence to the contrary that a speaker should have known about.

At that point in November 2006, it appears, it was simply talk; no evidence has emerged that Piëch knew about it.

While some evidence has suggested a link between diabetes and Alzheimer's in recent years, there's still a lot we don't know about what causes Alzheimer's, let alone how the two conditions are connected.

Superachievers know the value of using feedback or simulations to get empirical evidence about what they're doing, as opposed to relying on gut instinct.

For the record, there's no evidence that DROPOUTJEEP was ever deployed (it was marked «under development» in 2007), or that Apple knew anything about it.

Valukas exonerated Barra and two other top executives, Mark Reuss, chief of global product development, and general counsel Michael Millikin, saying there is no evidence they knew about the problems any earlier than last December.

Your boss may not know about everything you do, so start putting together the evidence of what a valuable employee you are.

We may not know the portion size Taft enjoyed for his lunch and dinner steaks as precisely as we do his breakfast beef (he was often a three - times - a-day steak eater), but there's concrete evidence about his preferred preparation.

The point about e-commerce is very interesting and should be explored further, and adds to evidence even mainstream economists (like Yellen) don't know what they're doing.

We expect that to happen again — particularly because the jury was prohibited from knowing about these court rulings in favor of Gawker, prohibited from seeing critical evidence gathered by the FBI and prohibited from hearing from the most important witness, Bubba Clem.

9 Consumer Social Media Trends That Could Impact Marketers — Social Media Examiner has put together a nice piece with recent evidence of social media happenings that you should know about and take into account when planning for future marketing efforts.

Importantly, these studies only tell us about how current retirees are doing and don't try to make projections about the future retirement landscape — though there no evidence net retirement savings have been reduced.

«There is no evidence that anybody at Uber knew anything about these 14,000 files before this lawsuit was filed,» he said.

If there is a god then I most certainly want to know about it and what it thinks; however, I find no evidence for any gods described to me to date.

We know a lot of what we know about gene mutation and our similarities with other animals precisely because we have been working within this paradigm for which there is a ton of evidence.

There is almost no fossil evidence (which should be in abundance if true) and that what we scientifically know about life is that it reproduces according to its kind (which is all we have observed) and its highly complex.

You talk about what you think you know but have no evidence against that which you do not know.

I saw where you think that you can argue about «fine - tuning» and strong principles, and I would assert that's because you don't even know what the most implicating evidence even is... thanks to your god, Copernicus.

It's not bullying to report on alleged crimes when there's legitimate evidence that they've been committed; and besides he doesn't even know about it.

= > this is a negative confirmation as science can only observe the natural thus even with all the talk about someday we will know the evidence confirms the observation that day never has come.

When you make categorical statements like «not a single shred of evidence» it tends to show that you're (a) dogmatic, (b) misinformed, and (c) know nothing about history, philosophy or science.

Unlike Superman whose creation can actually be traced back to a couple of young Jewish men in 1938 for the purpose of providing a sellable fictional story line to Detective Comics, there is no such evidence in regards to religious belief; especially since in this case being that this is about a God who does not want to be made known but who would rather have us develop our faith.

To the surprise of everyone who knew about the strong evidence for the little ice age and the medieval climate optimum, the graph showed a nearly constant temperature from the year 1000 until about 150 years ago, when the temperature began to rise abruptly like the blade of a hockey stick.

By the second century, Roman soldiers were bringing their new faith to Britain, and in the middle of the third century St. Alban became Britain's first known Christian martyr, but we don't know much more about who these Christians were, and it is here that Malcolm Lambert begins in Pagans and Christians: The Conversion of Britain from Alban to Bede, producing a captivating narrative by squeezing what he can» but no more» from archeological evidence (mostly from burial sites) and the limited historical record.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't consider that sort of thing as a sound basis for deciding difficult questions when we have actual scriptural evidence to use instead.

There's no evidence that they exist, so I can't possibly make know anything about them?

It seems that there is evidence of an affair, but who knew about it, and when?

We have no evidence at all for it and every reason to deny it on the basis of what we do know about the mechanisms of reproduction and inheritance.

Notice, the question is not about what you KNOW, but what you believe — right now, with the evidence that you have.

This will require that the greater body of Christ no longer be complicit bystanders, but instead tell the truth about the standards of pastoral and church behavior that have been violated and discontinue endorsement and promotion of ministries when there is so much public evidence of violation.

The prolific Jesuit scholar, Fr James Schall, now in his eighties, has given us this book about the pleasure of knowing the truth of things, in particular the delight of discovering coherence from reflecting upon diverse aspects of existence, of realising that all sorts of «scraps of evidence» point to the fact that only Christianity provides an adequate account of our existence.

And megalomania would be claiming to know all about these things — spirits and gods — when you really have no hard evidence whatsoever to back up your claims.

We can know and be sure about God's existence from the evidence of creation, but to know God personally and grow in relationship with our creator, we need the gift of faith given to us in Jesus Christ through the Church.

Of course, the evidence of Paul, at first hand, and of many others which we know about primarily through Paul (his letter to the Corinthians is considerably older and closer to the events than the earliest of the written Gospels), is open to the objection that we have no guarantee that the appearances were not hallucinations.

atoms... all brought about by the scientific method have evidence as to their the reason why things are the way they are... NOT god... in EVERY instance god has proven not to be what it is... the reason a volcano explodes is not because the wrath of god is upon a community... we understand the process behind the event but we didn't always KNOW that.

It is a myth, a common theme for men to write about is their fear... this story simply grew until it was a world wide event, but we know from not only the total lack of evidence to support it, but the evidence that clearly shows it never happened.

They usually don't even have half a clue about the ideas, evidence and science they are rejecting and they know even less about the religious dogma they are backing up.

All verses like this and Matthew 5:28 (where Jesus talks about adultery in a similarly harsh manner, are meant to do is point us straight to verses of Paul's such as Romans 3:23 and Ephesians 2:8 - 9: it's the evidence Jesus provides that, no matter what, even if we never murder a single person or in any way commit adultery, we're nothing without Him... and, oh, yeah, it's the meter that shows us who we are and why we need Him, and only Him (John 14:6), to get to heaven.

Why on earth would a minister who had met me twice and could clearly see no evidence of the accuracy of those miserable stories which he «knew had to be true because he had heard the same consistent stories about me all these years?»

That being said, philosophy can only take us so far, and when it conflicts with what is known about the physical world (i.e. science) we should be re-examining our premises, not doubting the physical evidence provided.