Sentences with phrase «none of the evidence of»

None of this evidence of environmental variation surprises Joseph Hartman, another key member of the project.

Not exact matches

There are a lot of popular myths about business creativity, yet none of them have much scientific evidence.

Buffett laid out evidence in his 2017 annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders that he's set to win the wager as none of the funds outperformed the index fund from 2008 through 2016.

None of the meetings between Trump associates and Russian government representatives amounted to evidence of «collusion, coordination, or conspiracy» with Russia.

None of the witnesses who testified before the committee provided evidence of «collusion, coordination, or conspiracy» between the Trump campaign and Russia.

The researchers asked a nationally representative sample of 1351 adults about six specific ideas, none of which is supported by evidence or facts.

But Uber contends that Kalanick said he insisted that Levandowski destroy any Google files he had in his possession before joining Uber, and that this report is further evidence that none of the files made it to the ride - hail company.

To sort through the empirical evidence, as happened in the course of my writing the book, is to find many reasons for concern over secularization — including, for starters, the unhappy fact that the rise of «nones» will reduce charitable donations to good causes.

There is ample evidence for the existence of God, what you decide to do with this evidence is ultimately up to you, but do not claim that there is none... and I would submit to you that many people believe many things without evidence every single day... but do not lump all people of faith into one basket... I have personal proof that God exists, but proof for me may not be proof for you, some people can see something with their own eyes and still deny it, that is why I said it is ultimately up to you to decide what you believe... there is much evidence both for and against the existence of God, you need to decide which evidence you choose to believe...

I'm not sure what I said to lead you to believe that I am «throwing out the most proven and fundamental laws of science» since I'm pretty sure that none of the laws that you mention describe a need for the past to be gone and the future to not exist yet, and I was only forwarding a theoretical possibility with apparently good evidence as far as I can tell to address the question «Why would matter come into existence all by itself for no good reason?»

In fact, there is nothing special about christianity — it is just one of many cults that claim to have all the answers, none of which provide any real evidence for any of their supernatural claims.

Please note, * I * am not asking for any evidence or proof of your imaginary friends and tribal myths — I am 100 % convinced there is none.

There's empirical evidence that supports the existence of oxygen, atoms, neurons, gravity, etc., but none for God.

The existence of God can only be dis - proven by factual evidence, none of which has been produced against it.

According to the article, they know that domesticated camels didn't appear until the end of the 10th century BCE because they looked at all the copper mines, and found lots of camel bones, but none of them had evidence of carrying heavy loads until then.

The point is that Christians need so many answers, none of which is supported by any evidence at all, whereas the atheist only needs one answer for all of them: There is no God.

Lacking any evidence none of these exist I draw the obvious conclusion that they don't exist.

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.

Unfortunately for you, not only is there absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support any of these claims, the existence of any such God leads to numerous questions and apparent inconsistencies for which none of you can provide convincing answers.

Do this enough and eventually you build a relatively complete narrative that is internally consistent, but none of it can be supported with any objective evidence.

You say most Christians, none sounds better considering there is no evidence outside of the bible for the garden of eden or any god.

In point of fact Christianity is an elaborate web of such theories and claims, none of which is supported by any objective evidence.

None of them can or could produce any more objective evidence for their beliefs than any other.

As we mix charges and evidence, it's important to recognize that simply none - of these 6 were perpetrators or even first - hand witnesses to most (maybe some) to the terrible treatment Julie sadly endured.

Atheists have written numerous books, virtually all of which acknowledge countless god concepts, while pointing out that NONE of them has the slightest evidence in their favor.

In particular, Jesus as a savior has no evidence, hell and heaven have no evidence, none of it does.

In every case you pretty much have to want to believe you're looking at «evidence» to believe what they present is evidence, as none of it is conclusive and some of it seems downright silly.

I see al lot of claims of evidence for god, but yet none is provided.

None of the foundational parts of the bible have any supporting evidence, and the evidence we do have points away from a personal god, so those promises are unverifiable and when you're worm food it wil be too late.

None of those are admitted as evidence.

None of us knows, with solid empirical evidence, how matter, and time, numbers — and the universe itself — came into existence.

I am open minded when it comes to «real truth» but real truth requires real evidence of which there is none for a god.

The complete and utter lack of evidence for a creator strongly suggest there was none.

However, none of the gods I have been asked to believe match with the evidence the universe provides.

None of those things are evidence for the existence of God.

How about this... god is a figment of your imagination and you are inventing your own «evidence» for god of which there is NONE.

If there were any such reason, it would be world - wide news given none exists thus far (despite many people devoting their lives to trying to show evidence of the existence of a god).

There are many prophecies in thousands of religions that have regional and local fulfillment's throughout the thousands of years of recorded human history, however all of them rely solely on self fulfillment and none have any factual evidence to support any supernatural claims.

In the case of Evolution, there is a tremendous amount of evidence but none of it contradicts the existence of God.

Another bit of prima facie evidence that might be considered in favor of Hartshorne's «personalism» is that in Virgilius Ferm's 1945 classic Encyclopedia of Religion, a work to which Brightman contributed forty articles, 14 and in which Brightman had particular editorial input, 15 the article on «God, as personal» was written by none other than Charles Hartshorne.16 This, along with Brightman's review of me Divine Relativity (cited below), suggests that Brightman himself considered Hartshorne a personalist.

Normally I'm a bystander, laughing at the attempts of believers to support their cause with the justification of «evidence», but frankly, you have none.

No matter how weak you may believe it to be, it is far stronger than any evidence for a GOD or gods, of which there is none.

creationism is far from an adult theory, its a child like story with fantasy elements based on myth and NO science, we always hear about these crazy people trying to outlaw evolution.But has you stated we have billions of years of evidence, thanks for helping us evolutionists out, unfortunately you have none, just a book, no science, no artifacts, no garden of eden, no bones of adam or eve or even the snake for that matter, no ark, no proof of a biblical flood, no proof of a created world by a higher power, no nothing..

None have a lot of evidence, much less proof, but that doesn't matter.

There are the magical miracles of Jesus, but (predictably) none of these miracles left behind any tangible evidence.

None that meets the standards of the scientific method or the justice system's rules of evidence.

If none of them can provide reasonable evidence for their god, then how could anyone possibly know whether they are the same?

There is also evidence that the warming trend has stopped, for example, a slight cooling trend in the last decade, and that the sun's cycles have more to do with climate warming and cooling than anything we are capable of doing But none of that matters.

I know that none of us believed that he was proved guilty as charged beyond a reasonable doubt, to the point of moral certainty, by the evidence presented to us in court, construed as the law provides and as the judge instructed.

The problem is that none of them have any evidence that they have the truth any more than the next one.