Sentences with phrase «many kinds of evidence»

«There's all kinds of evidence now that says companies that use data effectively have a competitive advantage over those who don't,» says Jan Kestle, founder and president of Environics Analytics.

Of course, we can't immediately condemn such marketing based on this kind of evidence.

The rules of evidence that apply in an arbitration fall somewhere between the anything goes «rules» that apply in the court of public opinion and the rules of evidence that apply in court which limit what comes in, generally speaking, to the kind of evidence experience has shown is trustworthy.

He values this kind of evidence - based decision making, and criticized individuals who can't separate fact from

«We are going to find these folks, the Bureau is really good at dealing with this kind of evidence and crime scene,» he added.

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).

Jean joins Jim in being a wavist, in explaining with all kinds of evidence from TR and others that the «first wave» of modernity was transformed into the «second wave» by the progressives.

I wil say: «Lack of any kind of evidence, man!»

Second, and I have posted this before, if I knew the ways of my God completely, then He would not be God, No man can give you the kind of evidence you think you need, and if he could, you would still trash him.

Mark, first let's see just what kind of evidence you would accept as definitive.

I can not explain spiritual events or issues using a material par adig m and you all, or again most of you, will not admit any other kind of evidence.

Do you have some kind of evidence, tf that PE was invented because of some specific shortage of transitional forms?

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

Unfortunately some anti-theists ignore all kinds of evidence.

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.

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

The Gospels do not afford the kind of evidence needed to trace the course of his life or to explore his mind and personality.

l know atheists don't take this kind of evidence into account, however I must say it.

The kind of evidence we would expect from those making any other extraordinary claim.

you are a moron there is all kinds of evidence you idiot his name is written in jewish history book's and roman history book some people

I am not interested in a «God of the gaps» kind of evidence.

And I am not talking about the god of the gaps kind of evidence.

So I think this kind of evidence, the evidence of absence, is indeed possible.

John Donvan doesn't cite any study and it seems spurious at best without some kind of evidence.

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.

And since Carr was reading papers about Bergson to the Aristotelian Society, there is all kinds of evidence that he passed along a great deal of information about Bergson to Whitehead.

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

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

Perhaps this is the kind of evidence you want.

Congruence across multiple kinds of evidence from multiple sources is powerfully persuasive.

Different people accept different kinds of evidence.

A passerby would not have that kind of evidence.

It likely depends on the kind of evidence you might find compelling.

This does not mean that they approached the myths as moderns, believing only what accorded with some kind of evidence, or seeking the kernel of existential truth in the supernaturalistic husk.

In fact, the process is a good deal more deductive — the vast majority of working scientists begin by assuming scientific realism, then asking what underlying, noumenal features of the world might lead to the kind of evidence that we observe, then building a theory concerning what other kinds of evidence these noumena might produce, then seeking confirmatory and disconfirmatory evidence.

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.

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.

Attendance figures of that sort might be difficult to swallow if they were not backed up by other kinds of evidence of Graham's prominence.

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.

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

I know atheists don't take this kind of evidence into account, however I must say it.

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

Although I sometimes wish we had the kind of evidence Science demands of the Bible but, that would remove the faith part.

Especially when you bring up the point of what kind of evidence I am talking about.

There really is only one kind of evidence.

It remains, however, entirely reasonable to believe that statements about God and faith are not amenable, in principle, to the kind of evidence you seek.

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

It's atheists (and you, in particular) who seem to be demanding a certain kind of evidence, and are under the burden to provide a particular definition of the kind of evidence required.

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).