Sentences with phrase «place for evidence»

[43] The native title party contended that the provisions in Form 4 were procedural only, and that the inquiry conducted by the Tribunal was the proper place for evidence to be put and submissions made.

The Native Title Party contends that the provisions relating to Form 4 are procedural only and that the inquiry is the proper place for evidence to be put and submissions made.

And there is an important place for evidence in the regulatory process.

Not exact matches

By focusing on outcomes for Canadians and making evidence - based decisions that are anchored in meaningful data and indicators, the Government is moving to a culture of measurement and impact, and is putting in place the tools to deliver on priorities, align resources to programs and activities that deliver real value for Canadians, and provide meaningful information to Canadians and Parliament.

While the FCC has argued that net neutrality rules made it more difficult for broadband providers to invest in their networks and thus hurt innovation, evidence suggests that such regulation has had no negative impact on telecom investment — instead, it increased by 5 percent from 2014 to 2016, when net neutrality rules were in place.

Then in 2014, NASA found evidence that it was the seasonal freezing of carbon dioxide that was to blame for the gullies, and that there probably wouldn't have been enough water on Mars to carve them out in the first place.

It was the latest evidence that regulating Facebook will be complicated for Congress: Policymakers seem all over the place on what the biggest problem with Facebook is — that is, if they understand what it does at all.

But for 15 months after the dossier's publication, no evidence emerged that this had actually taken place.

Binary Options Robot really puts the trader in the first place, and evidence for this can be found in the fact that it is completely free of charge.

According to the U.S. Attorney's filing, Cohen was never really integrated into the firm in the first place and only brought five clients to it, for which there is no available evidence those clients were ever billed.

Reality... his bones would have been produced and marveled at as proof that he did not resurrect the Jewish leaders at that time for sure would have produced them... providing of course that they were available... why do nt you take the time to study, read the evidence for yourself before spouting like so many other bitter atheists (that I once was for many years)... give love a try you might enjoy it, it gives live meaning and true purpose, everything finds its place in Christ... I hope you find hope some day...

You might believe gods have a place, but there is no evidence for it.

You know, it's absolutely dishonest that he would use evidence for the big bang to disprove God in the first place: the implications are so theistic that you've got today's brightest atheists positing magical multiverses that are completely and ironically empirically undetectable so that they can elude the big bang implications.

I applaud what he is doing and hope that he brings others to God throught the torture and bloody human sacrifice of his son (himself, actually) where he died (well, for a few hours anyway) for us all (at least so the story goes) so that we may live with him in heaven (a great place for which no evidence or photographs exist) until the end of time.

More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim.

So, while there is so much archeological evidence for subjects and places in the bible, we now know, there truly is the possibility of an existence of «beings» outside our means to see or detect.

(6) As Paul Winter acknowledged, there is no evidence in the Hebrew writings that there is such an eternal place as hell for those who reject Yahweh.

The date was placed in late March, near the vernal equinox, only in 525 AD, for symbolic reasons rather than because of any biblical evidence.

For decades religions denied evolution to even speak of it in some places you would be put to death, but as the years went by more and more evidence that supported evolution surfaced, that it got to a point were it could not be denied anymore so what do the religious do, what religion has been so good at doing and its adapt.

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).

For example, against both dualism and reductionistic determinism and in favor of the pancreationist, panexperientialist view that the actual world is made up exhaustively of partially self - determining, experiencing events, there is considerable evidence, such as the fact that a lack of complete determinism seems to hold even at the most elementary level of nature; that bacteria seem to make decisions based upon memory; that there appears to be no place to draw an absolute line between living and nonliving things, and between experiencing and nonexperiencing ones; and that physics shows nature to be most fundamentally a complex of events (not of enduring substances).

The question is very simple, i'm asking for Atheists to give us some collaborating evidences that you have a better way of life and better solutions to make this world a better place to live.

«This Bill not only provides support for victims, as evidenced by the creation of independent guardians for trafficked children and the statutory duty it places on the Department of Health to provide much needed assistance to women wishing to leave prostitution, it also tackles one of the root causes of trafficking, namely paying for sex.

Examples are 9/11 hijackings, The holding back of stem cell research that could save countless human lives, Aids being spread due to religious opposition to the use of condoms, Christians legally fighting this year to teach over 1 million young girls in America that they must always be obedient to men, the eroding of child protection laws in America by Christians, for so called faith based healing alternatives that place children's health and safety at risk, burning of witches, the crusades, The Nazi belief that the Aryans were god's chosen to rule the world, etc... But who cares about evidence in the real world when we have our imaginations and delusions about gods with no evidence of them existing.

The «overwhelming evidence for naturalistic evolution» no longer overwhelms when the naturalistic worldview is itself called into question, and that worldview is as problematical as any other set of metaphysical assumptions when it is placed on the table for examination rather than being taken for granted as «the way we think today.»

Is it wrong to believe in something that you can't have physical evidence for or believing that there is a better place waiting for us after we die and leave this earth?

I've seldom given much thought, however, to what the manger was --- a feeding place for animals.There's little evidence....

With regard to hell, or heaven for that matter, I wonder why Christians have no problem claiming the existence of such places even though they can offer no evidence that these places are real?

Evidence that the drive for meaning is still alive and well in contemporary society is to be found in a number of current social movements (interestingly, some of these groups find it convenient to use church facilities as their meeting place).

Considering that there is actually no evidence for God (which is why in the first place you have faith...), and hopefully you all do know the definition of faith — Believing in something without evidence, already states that there isn't evidence for God... no going back to Atheism.

There is zero supporting evidence for the abiogenesis myth («life from non-life» foundation of atheism), but mountains of evidence for Jewish (Biblical) history, including written records by multiple authors, confirmed people, places, events, timelines, fulfilled prophesies, Israel scattered, Israel restored etc..

There is not a single shred of evidence that the supernatural events in the bible (or the Iliad, for that matter) took place.

there's really no room for the concept of an independent entity possessed of «will» in a worldview shaped by cause and effect; the only place for «will» to retreat to is the zone of true randomness, of complete uncertainty, which means that truly free will as such must be completely inscrutible [sic]... Statistical laws govern the decay of a block of uranium, but whether or not this atom of uranium chooses to fission in this instant is a completely unpredictable event — fundamentally unpredictable, something which simply can not be known — which is equally good evidence for the proposition that it's God's (or the atom's) will whether it splits or remains whole, as for the proposition that it's random chance.

«As we approach the 2017 Budget, I hope that the fact that the public think that it is important to protect church buildings for the future will provide the Chancellor with the evidence he needs to provide further funding, such as the Listed Places of Worship Roof Repair Fund, to protect churches for future generations.»

The NT was written specifically for the purpose of showing that Jesus fulfilled a bunch of other prophecies, though there's not much evidence that some of those «prophesied» events took place at all.

Striking evidence for this can be found all over Europe, even in the most unlikely places, both before and after the First World War.

Ford, to whom this piece was later submitted for publication in the new journal, found Session's conclusions surprising and frustrating, because that early Hartshorne work appeared to have all the essentials of Hartshorne's later philosophy in place, but without evidence of any direct influence of Whitehead.2 David Griffin, then a new Assistant Professor at Claremont, put together a very valuable compendium of all the differences that Hartshorne had discerned between his own thought and Whitehead's.

Here's the majors, so plan accordingly for your place in this life or the next: 1) there is not a single fossil to evidence mankind's evolution from some so - called earlier form (see missing link) however we do however have mountains of DNA evidence showing we have common ancestors with primates — so you either believe in a Creator, or Aliens, or actual evolution or a mix of any of the three.

Christians can be confident that there is plenty of archaeological evidence for many of the events, people and places described in its pages.

That is why I have to advert to it now, although it is naturally impossible for me in this place to give you any account of the evidence on which the admission of such a consciousness is based.

Regarding archeological evidence for Biblical places and persons: Sure there is some, but there is not one single shred of evidence for the supernatural beings or events alleged to have been present there.

I use the historical apologetic of men like John Warwick Montgomery and come from a place of looking at the Bible like any book and dissecting the claims it makes and going into the historical evidence for the deity of Jesus Christ and proceeding from the view He took of scripture.

but for me, i have evidence and data from the past that gives me the confidence to allow this to be said in the first place.

Funny how star gazing gives one awe and a sense of eternity and in my case it removes the hope of heaven... i.e. there is no heaven, just space with gazeous substance... a place where it is childish and absurd to think we are going when we die... Our solar system / galaxy seem empty of organic life altogether... actually inorganic seems to be the norm... so my faith struggle of the week is how can I possibly believe in after life... when reality shows me decomposition of all that we are, scientific observation does not allow room for a «spirit body» to rise and go in some nebulae... So why do I still need to believe despite this raw evidence... I drive me crazy sometimes...

Consider this... a person goes to college, gets a four year degree in archaeology (or some antiquities preservation analog); spends summers sifting through sand and rock and gravel, all the while taking graduate level classes... person eventually obtains the vaunted PhD in archaeology... then works his / her tail off seeking funding for an archeological excavation, with the payoff being more funding, and more opportunities to dig in the dirt... do you think professional archaeologists are looking hard for evidence of the Exodus on a speculative basis... not a chance... they know their PhD buys them nothing more than a job at Tel Aviv Walmart if they don't discover and publish... so they write grants for digs near established sites / communities, and stay employed sifting rock in culturally safe areas... not unless some shepard stumbles upon a rare find in an unexpected place do you get archeological interest and action in remote places... not at all surprising that the pottery and other evidence of the Exodus and other biblical events lie waiting to be discovered... doesn't mean not there... just not found yet...

Allowing a place for healthy conflict between you and your spouse gives evidence that your trust of one another is grounded in something much deeper than mere conversational agreements.

Science will gladly accept any evidence for there being gods, but the real difference here is that there just isn't any evidence to support the belief that any actual gods exist in the first place.

You said — ``... if you are looking to people as evidence for God and Christ, you are looking in the wrong place.»

This is evidenced in such things as Barth's eschatologically oriented framework of creation, reconciliation and redemption; his focus on promise and hope rather than the present possession of God's reign; the reconfiguration of experience as a determination toward the future; the placing of the divine summons to action — the ethical life — at the summit of each volume of his doctrinal work; and, above all, his refusal to make his theology an apology for Christendom or to give priority to the established church.

Provide evidence for the supernatural, or there is no reason to believe it exists in the first place.