Sentences with phrase «n't hand them the evidence»

Don't hand them the evidence they need to get out of paying you what you deserve.

Not exact matches

In fact, these flaws are sufficient to not only invalidate the most compelling evidence against the hot hand, but even to vindicate the belief in streakiness.

IMETs can not simply cherry - pick the 50 pages of «smoking gun» evidence that support their case; Canadian courts demand that prosecutors hand over to the defence virtually every document handled during the investigation.

Importantly, this evidence in support of hot hand shooting is not unique.

High - level Justice Department officials and a magistrate judge had to conclude there was probable cause that Cohen had evidence of a federal crime, that he could not be trusted to hand over evidence voluntarily, and that there was reason to believe Cohen had voided his attorney - client privilege by «engaging in crime or fraud,» attorney Ken White writes.

On the other hand, if the recovery of cap - weighted indices like the S&P 500 is not confirmed by uniformity across a broad range of other securities, the historical evidence is that investors have generally been facing the last gasp of a bull market.

But that move will occur on evidence, and the evidence is not in hand.

There is evidence of the cold hand in some players, just not nearly a much.

But you are right in a back handed way, I am not going to waste my time on Sunday mornings listening to people claim to know «which god» for which they have no evidence for their claim.

So, unless you can produce some evidence for your god (and not his alleged bastard son) you stand empty handed.

The second thief could not see the Kingdom and had no fist - hand knowledge of the afterlife (the «evidence» that we have been discussing), yet in the midst of being crucified, He pronounced his faith in Jesus.

Because we have actual evidence for the Holocaust, not manufactured history at the hands of Christian writers like Eusebius.

@one one it is explainable, only that the REAL problem comes when you demand physical evidence which is practically impossible, like i said, God is not going to come and take us by the hand so we make our choice, we have to make our choice on our own without being able to physically watch Him

The evidence indicates that the written sources of our Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are not later than c. AD 60; some of them have even been traced back to notes taken of our Lord's teaching while His words were actually being uttered... We have then in the Synoptic Gospels, the latest of which was complete between 40 - 50 years after the death of Christ, material which took shape at a still earlier time, some of it even before His death, and which, besides being for the most part 1st hand evidence, was transmitted along independent and trustworthy lines.»

Trust isn't about the past, the only possible source of «evidence» that could constitute a proof, but an offering, a handing over of our future safety and interests to someone we rely on to appreciate and protect them.

In any case, even if what you said it's true and evolution and all scientific principles tomorrow were found to be strong, out still would not be evidence of a god's hand in anything.

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.

No, I presented evidence for consideration which you summarily dismiss out of hand as not being possible to use for that purpose.

The gospels were 2nd hand accounts, recorded many years after the alleged events and there is no extrinsic corroborating evidence indicating the alleged witnesses were there at the correct time / place (and again, the authors of the gospels are widely acknowledged not to be the apostles for which they are named).

biochemical evidence such as Cytochrome - cyto - C is just one of the thousands of sequences and is not proof of common ancestry, as there are more variations than similarities in the genetic code, on the other hand a study of the amino acid make - up reveals that man is closer to lamprey than are fish.

Judging others, whomever you think those others should be, is a risky business, since you do it with your prejudices in hand, but not all of the evidence.

It may not have much value as evidence for the facts of the life of Jesus, but it is at any rate undeniable first - hand evidence for the faith of the early church, and this is well worth studying.

«Theistic evolution» is possible when you have a definition of God where you insist that he had a hand in things even though there isn't any evidence that he did, and even when his involvement would complicate things more than a simple, natural explanation.

Starting with the clear historical reminder that crucifixion was a Roman, not a Jewish, form of execution, and with clear evidence of an editor's heavy hand in material like Matthew 27:25 («His blood be on us and on our children!»)

Denial on the other hand, is being skeptical of an assertion that has a lot of objective evidence, little to no conflicting objective evidence, and has been independently verified and often is consistent across multiple disciplines, but hasn't been «proved».

In such a (remarkable, but not - miraculous) case, he could present himself with holes in his hands and feet and in his side, to Thomas, and you and I both know that this «evidence,» which does not prove death and resurrection, still would be convincing to Thomas that Jesus both died and rose from the dead.

The atheist, on the other hand, need not provide sufficient evidence that God does not exist.

Bible scholar and Ancient Near Eastern historian Kenneth Kitchen wryly comments, «One minute biblical David did not exist (we were told), because no scrap of first - hand evidence was available to vouch for him.

Other scientific evidence around brain manipulation supports the soul concept — a subject can have part of his brain stimulated and move a hand and the subject will say «I» did not move my hand — you did it

But to make Newton's leap and conclude that everything we can't explain must therefore be evidence of the hand of God is just incredibly poor reasoning.

On the other hand, Atheists should get slammed for hiding behind «we do nt know» every time conclusive evidence points to an external entity.

Does not matter how much evidence there is, they will just clingon to that stupid book with both hands.

On the one hand we do not think that Scripture can be turned into a naïve palaeontology that is incompatible with the evidence of observation and common sense — man could not exist in the traumatic upheavals of primitive geological formation on earth, nor indeed could he co-exist environmentally with dinosaurs.

There is, on the other hand, the strongest evidence that not all of these tribes were originally involved in the actual historical experience of the exodus from Egypt.

Creationism, on the other hand, is not a scientific theory, since there is really no evidence of it occurring.

the universe serves as evidence for the possibility of a creator, but does not in any way imply the existance of the Abrahamic «God»; it is intelectually dishonest to say so unless you can start providing some verifiable proof to eliminate the alternatives or that points directly to «God's hand».

Agreed: «don't let the left hand know what the right hand is doing...» Those who «show» their faith, whether through their profession (Pastor, Missionary) or pious works (church board, conference speaker), can only be assessed as more sincere if there is evidence they were religious / pious / faithful when no one was looking (Pope John Paul II never confirmed this, but as a young priest, it was reported he worked in the Polish underground to save many Jewish children from the Nazi's, years later, he was visiting Israel and a woman who claimed he was the priest who saved her from the Nazis stepped forward to meet him, he blessed her, yet never did confirm or deny if he had played the part of a hero).

If, on the other hand, the reality and omnipotence of God is not a basic premise of your consciousness, nothing you see will point to it and no amount of evidence will add up to it.

Then on the other hand say that he hasn't got it in him to build a challenging team when evidence suggests he is getting there.

Until that day, I will continue using the evidence at hand, but i'm also not going to call the True Believers nasty names and / or make fun of them.

I mean this site / thread probably isn't the place (understatement) but I have delved into this argument more thn the averge joe, and I guarantee someone taking the opposing position in a debate against me on this subject is going to have their hands full with the amount of evidence I could put forth on them for the supposition that an intelligent enity at the very least kick started this thing off.

There are various theories about why the Gunners keep falling short in the race for the Premier League title and our various and numerous injury problems certainly do not help, but it is the way that the team fails to turn up at times in crucial games, such as the EPL defeat by Wartford recently or the Champions League hammering at the hands of Bayern Munich that many will point to as evidence that the boss is not getting the best from his squad anymore.

I tend not to believe anything anyone tells me until it can be proved by evidence or I can see it for myself (like the story bout some bearded guy up in the sky waiting for me to die so he can have me sit next to him forever) If it is true the institution where he studied should be closed down and the person who handed him his diploma should be taken out and shot (just kidding).

If true, it means are club is being run as a business venture, not as contenders for any major trophy, it means that Kroenke is not as «hands off» as he likes to make out, although there has been evidence to support that in the past as well, and it shows what a huge mistake it was for Danny Fiszman / Nina Bracewell - Smith to sell their shares to him, as he appears to be using the Glazer model as his template.

Last season, for instance, Arsene Wenger kept insisting that his players had the right character but there was not a lot of evidence to back him up as we slipped from top spot at Christmas to hand Leicester City the title.

The evidence of a laddish dressing - room culture (Kilcline proudly proclaiming that he took youngsters who couldn't handle their drink under his wing, John Beresford thanking the Quayside and its array of pubs and nightclubs for the fact that he got divorced), while hardly unique to Newcastle, now appears in a more troubling light following David Eatock's revelations about the sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of coach George Ormond.

Although having deputised surprisingly well for Neil Taylor at left back, we have seen first - hand evidence that Hutton does not fare well at centre back.

Daniel Levy is a business man, Joe Lewis's right hand man, and Lewis doesn't suffer fools gladly, he wouldn't do this based on a red top rumour, he has evidence.

If you were to go around trying everything (and paying money for everything) because there's no evidence the claims ARE N'T true, you wouldn't have much time or money left on your hanN'T true, you wouldn't have much time or money left on your hands.

I couldn't agree more and I've seen the evidence first hand.