Sentences with phrase «not see proof»

While I do believe there can be global warming issues, I have not see the proof that this is nothing but a normal evolution of the ecosystem of the Earth.

So far, I do not see that proof in the data.

If the breeder does not test or you can not see proof of such tests, this is not a breeder to work with.

In the interest of pointing out true information, I did go to that site and they raise interesting points, BUT I honestly did not see any proof.

So far, I do not see that proof in the data.

I admit that I scanned the docu - ment pretty quickly, so I may have missed it, but I did not see a proof for god — please guide me to the relevent sections.»

i understand evolution, i just haven't seen the proof.

I haven't seen a proof of the book yet and some people have said that the quality of the books printed by CreateSpace just isn't as good as ones from Lightning Source.

Some people swear by garlic for its insect - killing properties, but not only have I not seen proof that it actually works, I'd be extremely cautious when feeding it to my pets.

Mind you, we also haven't seen any proof that the story & gameplay won't be excellent but it's less of a sure - bet than something like Wasteland (which is being made by a lot of the people who made the original).

She said she bases her assessment on emails, and I don't see any proof of anything that goes beyond quibbles between scientists that have nothing to do with uncertainties being hidden.

I don't see any proof of anything that goes beyond quibbles between scientists that have nothing to do with uncertainties being hidden.

Not exact matches

As Michael Browne, portfolio manager at Martin Currie, described, «I honestly don't see how we can find a Brexit proof sector.»

You don't need a fool - proof firewall or a full IT team to keep you in the clear; as you've seen, in most situations a little extra care and attention is all you need to stay professional and secure.

Though she did not make it through to the second round, her score was widely seen as a win for her party and as proof that the National Front had become part of the French political landscape.

I really don't understand now (I am far less naive) how people would sign up for a seminar without actually seeing documented proof that the mentor / teacher is doing deals.

1) See if some billionaire wants to sleep with your wife for a million dollars 2) Give the casino a security interest in your house, and hope you don't have to show proof of income to get the loan 3) Try to get the casino to give you back the money you lost.

Me, I really want to join Cruz's call to battle, but I just don't see how you ever get a veto - proof majority to do this, and in the midst of a shut - down showdown.

but we can see this scientific proof, just because you're too stupid to understand it doesn't mean you can use the argument that everyone else believes it without seeing it

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...

There are many reasons we don't see «proof» of things in the bible.

you can't have absolute science that demands a logical and tangible cause (which no one has the right answer for because no one lived millions of years ago) and then also believe that God exists though you have never seen proof of His existence.

There are many, many reasons we don't see «proof» of things in the bible.

See, proof that God does not exist.

Me, I really want to join Cruz's call to battle, but I just don't see how you ever get a veto - proof majority to do this, and in the midst of....

Tom tom: I'm sure you accept many things without absolute proof - for example, you probably accept that matter is made of atoms which you can not see; you probably accept that gravity is not going to disappear tomorrow; you probably believe that testing a theory over and over will yield reliable results.

I have seen much more proof of GOD than than I have of scietific «fact» Gods word hasn't changed in 6000 years.

For me I see evolution the same as you see God not enough proof to say I believe it and see God as how all things started, in my view evolution of man can be true just that it has not been proven where God I can see because there is no other logical explanation for how the matter in the universe came to be from nothing, a higher power for now can be the only possible answer if science was to prove the creation of the universe in some other way I would not deny that truth.

whatever, Atlas exists and if you can't see him, its only because you're not looking hard enough, give me evidence that he's not there... there, now the burden of proof is on you to show me that atlas, zeus, etc..

Others are just too sophisticated to trust what they can not objectively see and prove — but what is a proof?

Now chad, I don't expect you to see just how idiotic that statement is, you've proven yourself to be immovable when it comes to stupidity so I'll just leave you with this, I positively believe that god is not real, but I don't have proof to prove otherwise so I don't spend any time on it.

See Fishon, NP is not promoting â $ ˜divisivenessâ $ ™ as is dialogued about in the Romans 16 passage you used as a proof - text â $ «just as I had thought.

He told me its real and He said if you want proof, im going to have to find a professional polygraph operator (lie detection operator) and see with my own eyes that its not a joke.

In regards to «scientists» (an engineer or what have you isn't the same a biologist) that believe in god, I fail to see how that is proof.

I don't need to «see» Christ or proof of God's existence (although, the earth and all that is in it is evidence enough).

T, I haven't seen you present any proof that Zeus or leprechauns don't exist.

I fail to see why the burden of proof is on me because you couldn't prove your claim.

So, while your at it how about you providing that irrefutable proof that there is no such God out there who does not want to be made known but would rather have us rely on having faith and that through relying on faith to see whether we would be willing to follow God on our own accord even when there is no irrefutable proof as opposed to having that irrefutable proof and thus having to follow becuase of having really no choice because of obligation.

But given that there isn't proof for it and it claims to be able to violate the natural laws of the universe (which I also have never seen happen) allows me to reach the conclusion that there probably isn't a God.

(103) «Now have come to you from your Lord, proofs (to open your eyes): if any will see, it, will be for (the good of) his own soul; if any will be blind it will be to his own (harm): I am not (here) to watch over your doings.»

While I can see the point of your rejection of both textual criticism and proof - texting, I don't see the only alternative to those two extremes being a «common sense» approach.

SS, your stating that,» I do not condemn / throw a fit over how someone lives» is a proof positive that you are either a liar or one who fails to see one's own wordives before one makes such a blasphemous allegory.

You (that is, religious people) are the ones claiming that something that can not be seen exists, so you must be the one to provide proof of your claims.

There will always be someone trying to prove the Bible is not true, but for those of us who have seen the work of God, who truly believe in him, it doesn't really matter what science says, or what they can «prove» to be false about God or the Bible, what God has done in my life and keeps on doing is proof enough to know He exists.

Agnostic: = no proof one way or another... most, like Darwin, completely discount the Christian God... see my second Darwin post on page 17 (in duplicate)-- he says outright that he doesn't believe in the christain god.

Non-believers see a godless world, walk with the things of man, accept only the proof of man, can not see miracles, can not see answered prayer and basically have only the presence and perspective of Richard Dawkins bible.

What religion offers: — The opportunity to avoid eternal punishment for not worshiping / believing in my god (not worried enough to care)-- An explanation for the universe and why we are here (I'll take the knowledge gained from the application of the scientific method, but thanks)-- Living forever in heavenly bliss (I am content with this life)-- The opportunity to divide humanity based upon different belief systems (There is enough dividing us already)-- Purpose, a code of ethics, and fulfillment (I have that already, without religion)-- Develop a personal relationship with god (I've never seen or heard from any gods nor have I seen any independantly verified scientifically collected peer reviewed proof.

This is why there will never be a satisfactory «proof» of God's existence, because the knowledge of God faces forward, to see potentialities that are not as if they were.

That is not the message of the Bible which you should be able to see if you read beyond a few favorite proof - texts.

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