Sentences with phrase «n't accept the evidence»

That is how you can say «You just don't accept the evidence» when you don't present any evidence.

So why haven't you accepted the evidence God has already given you?

If you can not accept an end boundary then you can not accept evidence related to that which is not natural.

On the other side, there are millions of devout followers who wouldn't accept any evidence - no matter how concrete, that proves Jesus is not exactly what his followers have already decided he is.

People are not replying because you have chosen to not accept the evidence on the other side.

What's equally sobering is that had it not been for the work of Brian Atwater, Kenji Satake, and Chris Goldfinger, we would not even know about the M ~ 9's in Cascadia, just as the makers of the Japanese national seismic hazard map did not know about — or did not accept the evidence for — M ~ 9's on the Japan trench.

As for evidence, the problem is you simply do not accept the evidence.

You may not accept that evidence but it is there as presented.

If you don't accept the evidence on human - driven climate change and its likely harmful consequences, there is no need to support «comprehensive» legislation that would put a price on carbon through some framework to drive reductions in emissions.

No... It is not being skeptical to not accept any evidence that disagrees with your ideological worldview and to accept anything that does no matter how ridiculous.

Rejecting «evidence» is not denying anything, they just do not accept the evidence as presented.

I do not accept his evidence in this regard and find that he did not make a serious effort or take reasonable steps to contact or communicate with Vigna to get his side of the story.

«I haven't seen that before, where a judge is accused of misconduct and the inquiry committee isn't able to make a finding that the misconduct is proven to the necessary degree of certainty and yet didn't accept the evidence of the judge and felt that his evidence justified a removal from office in itself,» he says.

Suffice to say, I could not accept the evidence of either, and find that the applicant wife is an optician's receptionist and the respondent husband a landscape gardening consultant.

Mr. Justice Douglas Cunningham of Ontario Superior Court said this is a big distraction for the 34 - year - old woman and as a result he felt he could not accept her evidence as corroboration of the Crown's key witness in the recent high - profile, influence - peddling trial of Ottawa Mayor Larry O'Brien.

Not exact matches

«Even if the evidence allowed that drivers were not obliged to accept all trips, the very high percentage of acceptances required justified the [lower tribunal's] conclusion that, once in the territory with the app switched on, Uber drivers were available to [Uber] and at its disposal.»

«The documentation, such as the evidence demonstrating that the asset was tested and accepted, is not retained or available,» the audit stated.

Asked why the Congressman wasn't prepared to accept the intelligence community's assessment that Russia hacked and leaked the DNC emails, Grubbs replied: «Because over time he's learned that the intel community has not been completely reliable and that its «assessment» of the leaks was more of a subjective consensus than hard evidence.»

Anyone who is serious about being fair needs to look at the whole picture without cherry - picking evidence or pretending that generally accepted principles don't apply to some.

If it takes more evidence to accept a change for the better in someone's character than it requires to believe someone has changed for the worse, then equivalent behaviors will warrant punishment while not qualifying for reward.

As Weston holds approximately 63 % of Loblaw's common shares, Loblaw expects that the TSX will accept Weston's agreement to support the transaction as evidence of shareholder approval and not require Loblaw to hold a shareholder meeting.

The reason Keynesianism got such a boost post-crisis was not for any real - world examples of its success — the list of its failures, by contrast, is lengthy — but because of the assertion, accepted far too quickly with far too little evidence, that monetary policy, at the fabled Zero Lower Bound (interest rates of near zero) had lost its effectiveness.

While «operating earnings» are not even defined under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and «forward operating earnings» only surfaced as a creature of Wall Street in the early 1980's, it's simple enough to impute historical values of forward operating earnings because they are almost completely explained by observable earnings and employment data — see Long - term Evidence on the Fed Model and Forward Operating Earnings.

Difference: atheists that accept evolution, or the theory that all life came from a common ancestor, are more often than not willing to discount that acceptance upon evidence to the contrary.

The idea that you must first accept as truth something that has not provided adequate evidence to justify that position is, to say the least, intellectually dishonest.

I appreciate it may be difficult to reconcile your religious faith with the available evidence, but despite the claims of fundamentalists, one doesn't need to abandon their religious faith in accepting what the physical evidence indicates.

If not being gullible and willing to accept outlandish claims that are inconsistent and just plain stupid without evidence means I'm a fool, colour me a fool.

you can not prove a negative look it up... also you accept that evolution is legit... why because it has evidence... the sky fairy has none but you want to believe it... that does not make it real.

I said it to hotair already, but I will expand it a bit for you: what is evidence for some is not accepted by everyone; just as in a court case, some jurors are convinced with very little evidence while some people can not be convinced of something no matter how much evidence there is... much of this comes from how you were raised and your own personal world view, for many people God does not fit into their world view so whatever evidence there is they close their eyes and say, «No, I don't believe that!»

I can not determine anything that is first person, and you very well may have good justified reasons for your belief, and all I can say is that I don't have evidence to justify accepting the claim.

Because communicating through a burning bush is moronic, and it is, and because I don't accept this nonsense without evidence, I'm the one who is lacking wisdom.

You make the claim that there is a god, I say I don't accept your claim due to the lack of evidence provided... seems to me the one making the claim is the one who needs to provide the evidence.

I can't simply tolerate anything that will honestly tell me to not accept things that a book that have a strong evidence of plagiarism from the book of Gilgamesh and the Egyptian book of that dead said, that something is bad and must be hated and purge, or that because their ambiguous faith is better than mine.

I'm happy that we're starting to reach a level of understanding, but you must first realize that a) I am not willing to accept the impossible, however I am willing to accept the highly improbable if there's evidence enough for it.

By accepting unfalsifiable ideas, you're already admitting that scientific evidence doesn't matter to you because you've already forsaken the principle core of science, the need for ideas to be falsifiable.

I'm quite content not having all the answers and in being content, I refuse to accept without evidence a god.

That doesn't make the theology more believable to discerning people, but it does provide evidence for the innocuousness of the faith which causes the greater society to accept it as a «mainstream religion».

You have no evidence of any god, and you can't accept that fact.

And for the record, when you can prove Santa Claus doesn't exist I'll accept your pathetic defense for your inability to produce any evidence your god exists.

We are also illustrating the fact that most, if not all non-brights accept certain myths as historical fact without any empirical evidence whatsoever.

We don't accept ANYTHING without evidence.

There is no evidence outside of the buybull to support the christards god, so anyone intelligent enough to realize this is not so worried and understands it is the one who is gullible enough to accept that god that is the fool.

You then complained that I don't accept anything as evidence.

But the evidence is overwhelming that they do not» and in the foreseeable future will not» accept the legitimacy of its existence.

If you could «prove» that your god does exist, let's see the evidence ------- You just don't accept the proof.

In addition to the significant biblical evidence that you gave for your position (a position which should be either accepted or proved wrong biblically), is one point that has come up in my study and that I have not seen mentioned anywhere.

'' The great trouble with religion — any religion — is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, can not thereafter judge those propositions by evidence.

I don't just blindly accept hearsay and other weak «evidence».

You are willing to accept hearsay as undeniable evidence... I am not.

The U.S. Embassy doesn't release details on how or why visa applications are accepted or rejected, but all the evidence points to them being very rarely granted.