Sentences with phrase «others about evidence»

We seek out every possible opportunity to educate others about evidence - based treatment strategies so that all children will have access to effective treatment methods.

Not exact matches

Despite his inherent skepticism about the evidence, Pappalardo and other researchers hope water plumes at Europa do exist.

If we can detect that evidence, we'll better understand how our universe and its laws came into being after the Big Bang — and we might know more about whatever other universes are out there.

Valukas exonerated Barra and two other top executives, Mark Reuss, chief of global product development, and general counsel Michael Millikin, saying there is no evidence they knew about the problems any earlier than last December.

Lacking other evidence about product quality (which is usually not available for credence goods), later customers make decisions based on the best evidence they have, without realizing it may be flawed.

In addition to information about Page's Moscow trip, the DOJ also provided the FISA court with other evidence suggesting Page misled the committee during his testimony under oath, the Democratic memo said.

It will help you ask the important questions about what you contribute, your history within the company and what other evidence you have.

We leave «buy signals» and attempts to forecast short - term market direction to other investors, preferring to align our investment positions with the prevailing evidence about the Market Climate.

Accordingly, a year - over-year increase in new claims of about 20 % (which would currently equate to a level of about 340,000 weekly new claims) would create a significant concern of a new recession in progress, particularly if coupled with other evidence such as equity market weakness and slowing growth in real personal income.

We know a lot of what we know about gene mutation and our similarities with other animals precisely because we have been working within this paradigm for which there is a ton of evidence.

= > There is not enough information provided in the Bible or other evidence to reach a conclusion about many of the details.

And that had absolutely nothing to do with his post about applying the same rigors of evidence that you would apply to a number of other claims.

And then all the rest of the «massive» evidence that Christians say they have for their god is either the earliest fragments of these same man - written stories, or the later musings and writings of other people in their cult about the original writings.

All biblical evidence points to the fact that there was an understanding about the nature of the earth and many other topics far beyond the secular understanding of the time.

If new evidence is produced that indicates something else, scientist will consider it, publish articles about it that will be reviewed and critiqued by others, revise their opinions and create a new theory.

Now, when people make broad empirical generalizations, especially about other people, and do so without considering any actual empirical evidence, they usually tell us more about themselves than about the people they are putatively describing.

historical Jesus, lmfao... show me any historical evidence of jesus... let's start with his remains... they don't exist - your explanation, he rose to the heavens... historical evidence - no remains, no proof of existence (not a disproof either, just not a proof)... then let's start with other historians writing about the life of Jesus around his time or shortly after, as outside neutral observers... that doesn't exist either (not a disproof again, just not a proof)... we can go on and on... the fact is, there is not a single proving evidence of Jesus's life in an historical context... there is no existence of Jesus in a scientific context either (virgin birth... riiiiiight)... it is just written in a book, and stuck in your head... you have a right to believe in what you must... just don't base it on history or science... you believe because you do... it is your right... but try not to put reason into your faith; that's when you start sounding unreasonable, borderline crazy...

Usually, if you disagree with a Calvinist on the meaning of a particular Bible verse, rather than deal with the exegetical evidence that was prevented about the verse, they will say that your understanding is wrong, because it disagrees with what John Calvin, John Piper, or John MacArthur teaches (or some other Calvinist).

If this is your level of understanding of how Science works — it would explain why you might think other claims about Gods existing as being evidence.

And even when there is substantial objective evidence to go with the subjective observations and interpretations of myself and others, I refrain from talking about it unless there is a * need * for me to say something specific.

As I read the documents / evidence released by R.L. Stollar, I was struck about how Julie's story is very similar to my story as well as many others I encounter in my ministry to infidelity survivors.

[5] Virtually all scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence can be established using docu mentary and other evidence, although most hold that much of the material about him in the New Testament should not be taken at face value

[5] Virtually all scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence can be established using documentary and other evidence, although most hold that much of the material about him in the New Testament should not be taken at face value

What if we factor in the evidence for the existence of God, the Messianic claims Jesus made about himself, how his resurrection would act as the vindication of them, and a host of other details?

The other possibility, the evocation of the transcendent good — grace, beauty, God — through the hard temporal realities of individuals in action is much harder to carry off, as evidenced in Greene's The Power and the Glory, Charles Williams» Descent into Hell, C. S. Lewis» Out of the Silent Planet, Tolstoy's Resurrection, and perhaps most poignantly in the dismal failure of most literary attempts to portray the central mystery, the life of Jesus — Kazantzakis» The Greek Passion, Faulkner's A Fable, or — most dismal of all, historical novels about Jesus (what could be less hidden?)

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.

Because of God's transcendence it would be mythological to refer to God's action in terms appropriate only to objects available, in principle at least, to ordinary sense perception.13 This especially means that one can not speak of God in terms of the categories of time and space; 14 i.e., whatever is predicated of God can not apply only to some particular time and space, but must apply equally to all times and spaces.15 Thus the implication of Ogden's criterion for non-mythological language about God corresponds to his statement of several years ago, that «there is not the slightest evidence that God has acted in Christ in any way different from the way in which he primordially acts in every other event.

On the other hand, if they are serious about improving the welfare of children, mainline churches must do more to articulate a substantive vision of the family that confronts the mounting evidence that divorce and out - of - wedlock childbearing pose serious threats to children.

Now the flood is supposed to have happened about 4361 years ago (2013)[1] so that means that if we go down that number of layers we should find on or about that layer evidence of the flood in the form of dead plankton, salt, and other ocean detritus.

Look at the age of fossilized bones, look at DNA evidence and all the other mountains of evidence about the LONG - TERM DYNAMICS of LIVING ORGANISMS on this planet over the span of BILLIONS of years.

Some evidences of its coming we see about us in redeemed lives and in a better society; for others we must hopefully wait, labor, and pray.

if you can lie to yourself with immunity, you might be an atheist if you think the indifferent support your side, you might be an atheist if you don't think at all, you might be an atheist if you are drawn to religious discussions thinking someone wants to hear your opinion, you might be an atheist if you copy paste every piece of crap theory you find, you might be an atheist if you think you are right no matter what the evidence shows, you might be an atheist if you can't hold your water when you think about science, you might be an atheist if you can't write the word God, with proper capitalization, you might be an atheist if you think your view has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you think The View has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you live in a tar paper shack, writing manifestos, you might be an atheist if you think you're basically a good person, and your own final authority you might be an atheist if you think your great aunt Tillie was a simian, you might be an atheist if you own an autographed copy of Origin Of The Species, you might be an atheist if you think that when you die you're worm food, you might be an atheist if you think the sun rises and sets for you alone, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is Charles Darwin when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is you when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if you attend a church but palm the offering plate when it passes, you might be an atheist If think this exhausts all the possibilities of definition, you might be an atheist.

Still more evidence that christianity is as bad as the other religions it complains about - chauvanistic, bigoted, and backwards.

Atheists (myself included) think there's something scary (and ultimately dangerous) about defining reality by something other than evidence...

Simply because I exist on a Planet about a billion light years from any other currently living form of life, not chemicals, elements or gases, and how I don't see this as some random thing — there is something greater than you and I and the evidence is all around you.

And I'm not talking about antectodal evidence, I'm talking about the definitive proof that will allow no other conclusion.

Reacting to the judgement, Dr Saunders said: «Conway has a terminal condition but that didn't seem to deter the judges in any way... it was pretty clear that they had put a huge amount of weight on the medical evidence and the evidence from disabled people about how any change couldn't be controlled and they'd also looked at what had happened in other jurisdictions».

Sorry, but that kind of doctrine, and the threat of eternal torture is why many are leaving, and many others are just thinking critically about their beliefs, and finding that it is illogical, immoral, divisive, and incapable of presenting anything resembling evidence to it's own «thruthfullness».

Even if one finds some flaw in the evidence about, say, card playing, there are still several dozen other indicators showing the same trend.

If you deny it, go ahead and answer my question about other minds and evidence.

If you care to apply the proper word (believe) to how you feel about or toward other minds and evidence, then we would not even be having this discussion, for why would I argue against your accurate description of what you believe?

The evidence continues to build day after day that Obama and his adminstration knew about the Libyian embassy attacks that led to the deaths of our ambassdor and 3 other Americans.

Carefully itemizing mercantile bills of sale, inventories of militia and volunteer detachments, the evidence that there was a lack of gun - smiths, records of importation of guns from Europe, the incidence of duels (three in the entire South in the 1760s, none fatal), children's books and toys, comments by eyewitnesses about the abysmal shooting ability of settlers (lacking both the weapons and the gunpowder to practice), court records, and a wide variety of other historiographical resources, the author assembles an overwhelming mass of data to show that military prowess was not, in fact, characteristic of early Americans.

People on here have talked about how arrogant atheists are for saying there is no god since there is no empirical evidence, but I say the religious people that are out trying to convert people of other faiths to their faith are just as arrogant.

@ Bruce «A couple of things about belief and evidence for belief from the scriptures: (1) the gospel of John encourages us to believe based on the testimony of others who were «eyewitnesses» to key events»

No... I actually began questioning Christianity and all religions when I was in elementary school and in history class while learning about the greek gods and their myths thought «Well... let's see... these people really believed in these gods and those stories... thought they really happened... but there was no evidence they did and we all know they're not real now... so what's different between that and Christianity and other religions?»

Nevertheless, the first and even the subsequent early councils were not called at random but because there were people ---- like Arius, Sabellius, the Nestorians (though not Nestorius), and others ---- who were teaching things about Jesus, the Father, or the Holy Spirit that, so far as our evidence can tell us, were not being taught by the majority of the Church.

doubtful jesus ever lived, no good evidence if he ever did live, he didn't do any magic tricks from the bible, he was just a cult leader the fictional character of jesus said some great things about love, but also supported slavery and other awful things

So, it seems to me that it isn't the questions, but that others are unsure about their beliefs and the underlying evidence of those beliefs.

I can't prove God's existence just as much as scientist can't prove the big bang... there is evidence of both but to reach a conclusion takes faith... one side leaves hope and the other does not... maybe I'm agnostic too because I don't claim to know everything about why I'm here, I have to have faith... Honestly, I'm sick of the extremes on both sides... the conservative judgmental Christian, who never thought through things as to why the believe what they do (ie Dinosaurs, cavemen, evolution, etc.) and the intellectually arrogant atheist and humanists.