Sentences with phrase «proven by evidence»

Coparenting works — there's proof of it — but forcing coparenting by changing laws is not proven by any evidence the group has shown.

Most psychologists, including this writer, regard this assumption as true and proven by evidence.

* In other words, Deguise offered an opportunity to apply the «injury in fact theory» of liability insurance coverage to facts proven by evidence, instead of legal conjecture.

That, of course, isn't news, but it doesn't mean that all position that aren't proven by evidence are equal.

So, it doesn't make any difference what is taught, but what can be proven by the evidence.

However, when Christians say that they believe that they have a heavenly father I'm disinclined to believe them because such things are not only not common, but have never been proven by evidence anywhere.

Theopneustos, meaning «God breathed») by Jehovah God, self - sustained and self - proved by the evidence of these 7 «C's».

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).

Legal principle must try «to keep the law abreast of the society in which [the judges] live and work»: «If the law should impose upon the process of «growing up» fixed limits where nature knows only a continuous process, the price would be artificiality and a lack of realism in an area where the law must be sensitive to human development and social change... Unless and until Parliament should think fit to intervene, the courts should establish a principle flexible enough to enable justice to be achieved by its application to the particular circumstances proved by the evidence placed before them.»

The class of people entitled to make a dependency claim is wider than for the bereavement award, and includes former spouses and civil partners, but in all cases the dependency has to be proved by evidence.

Whether it was possible to prove by evidence that a form WP / PP, which could not be found, had, in fact, been executed in a manner complying with HFEA 2008, Pt 2 and whether, if that was permissible, and the finding was made, the fact that the form could not be found prevented it being a valid consent, as involving a breach by the clinic of its record - keeping obligations — this was a factual question, the court had to be satisfied the form (which was lost) had been signed before treatment.

Not exact matches

Despite decades of work by public - health researchers hoping to prove their case on a scientific basis, conclusive evidence is nowhere to be seen.

Though there's not much scientific evidence to prove that this blue light is actually harmful, there are still plenty of people who swear by the positive effects of reflective glasses.

These risks and uncertainties include, among others: the unfavorable outcome of litigation, including so - called «Paragraph IV» litigation and other patent litigation, related to any of our products or products using our proprietary technologies, which may lead to competition from generic drug manufacturers; data from clinical trials may be interpreted by the FDA in different ways than we interpret it; the FDA may not agree with our regulatory approval strategies or components of our filings for our products, including our clinical trial designs, conduct and methodologies and, for ALKS 5461, evidence of efficacy and adequacy of bridging to buprenorphine; clinical development activities may not be completed on time or at all; the results of our clinical development activities may not be positive, or predictive of real - world results or of results in subsequent clinical trials; regulatory submissions may not occur or be submitted in a timely manner; the company and its licensees may not be able to continue to successfully commercialize their products; there may be a reduction in payment rate or reimbursement for the company's products or an increase in the company's financial obligations to governmental payers; the FDA or regulatory authorities outside the U.S. may make adverse decisions regarding the company's products; the company's products may prove difficult to manufacture, be precluded from commercialization by the proprietary rights of third parties, or have unintended side effects, adverse reactions or incidents of misuse; and those risks and uncertainties described under the heading «Risk Factors» in the company's most recent Annual Report on Form 10 - K and in subsequent filings made by the company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission («SEC»), which are available on the SEC's website at www.sec.gov.

And his missives have proven to be a convenient source of evidence on the depths of Ontario's travails as the once mighty province slipped into have - not status driven by the McGuinty government's overspending and interference in the private sector.

In that case, the academics could be making the all - too - common mistake of «proving» an adage by using the same evidence that was used to bring about that line of thinking.

Meanwhile, the Investigation Discovery channel, owned by Discovery Communications, plans to air its own series next year, called Hard Evidence: O.J. Is Innocent and executive produced by actor Martin Sheen, that claims it will present never - before - seen evidence that would prove Simpson's inEvidence: O.J. Is Innocent and executive produced by actor Martin Sheen, that claims it will present never - before - seen evidence that would prove Simpson's inevidence that would prove Simpson's innocence.

Please also realize we are presenting what is a sophisticated understanding of the reality of Internet dynamics, but also inclusive of a brick & mortar environment — and as has been proven over and over and over again, Internet financials are a whole new breed as evidenced by America Online, Google, EBAY, Kmart, etc., etc..

«Both men embody Thomas Edison's values and principles as evidenced by Jeff Immelt leading GE to become the world's biggest infrastructure technology company, and Astro Teller creating a place where big, science - fiction - sounding ideas can be turned into proven technologies that make a real impact in the world.

Backed by solid research evidence and case studies, Lisa translates her decades of experience in the communication field into proven strategies and practical, actionable plans to make genuine conversations, build lasting relationships, and influence others.

Do you know the mathematical impossibility that even one of these could randomly come into existance?Let alone all of the building blocks required for just a single simple cell to come together to form any type of living thing?There sure should be some blobs of fossilized transitions if evolution could happen.You people are real smart why don't you quit bashing Christians and quit believing the garbage you have been fed, and look up the evidence put forth by the Creation Research people.They have in fact proven creation down to a cellular level.Unlike evolution scientists who have no answers, but cleverly devised fables.Evolution is not even a very good fairy tale.Even if I didn't believe in God, Evolution is such a fools explanation of the origin of man that it takes just that to even consider it true.I understand though that you athiests will believe anything that allows you to love your sin and hatred of the one true God.

Please prove it with evidence (not by blind faith, such as don't say it says in the Bible).

It certainly is not proven and may never be proven by hard evidence.

If the same Bible can provide a reason for different sects of Christianity where one group can tell another group that they are not «truly Christian,» then there must be some other evidence besides the Bible that proves sect right eo usness since the same Bible is being interpreted (i.e. influenced by some other non-Biblical source) differently.

There has never been a single shred of evidence to prove the existence of any of the literally thousands of gods worshiped by humans throughout their existence.

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?»

Faith is the ability to firmly hold to s conclusion that is supported by the evidence when that conclusion is not absolutely proved.

Many don't understand that scientific theories aren't proven, they are supported by objective, validated evidence.

«By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, — that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible, do miracles become, — that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, — that the Gospels can not be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events, — that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitness; — by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelatioBy further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, — that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible, do miracles become, — that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, — that the Gospels can not be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events, — that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitness; — by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelatioby which Christianity is supported, — that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible, do miracles become, — that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, — that the Gospels can not be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events, — that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitness; — by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelatioby us, — that the Gospels can not be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events, — that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitness; — by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelatioby such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.

19th century, archaeological finds (e.g. earth and timber fortifications and towns, the use of a plaster - like cement, ancient roads, metal points and implements, copper breastplates, head - plates, textiles, pearls, native North American inscriptions, North American elephant remains etc.) is not interpreted by mainstream academia as proving the historicity or divinity of the Book of Mormon.This evidence is viewed by mainstream scholars as a work of fiction that parallels others within the 19th century «Mound - builder» genre that were pervasive at the time.

We even have photos of Bigfoot — but not one scrap of evidence proves a man named Jesus born of Mary, impregnated by God through some mysterious angel (boy, that Joseph must have been one hell of a credulous mark), who worked as a carpenter and rabble - rouser, who traveled the countryside with a bunch of other rabble - rousers and who got in trouble, was crucified, and then arose physically before being carted off to heaven in a celestial Red Ryder wagon EVER EXISTED AT ALL.

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

In fact some of the evidence you didn't mention which was popular fodder in the past has already been proven incorrect (horses in the americas before the spanish, and the BofM reference to elephants) Both considered ridiculous errors by Joseph Smith until elephants appeared on ancient Mayan / Incan temples and horses from the Brea tar pits were dated before the spanish.

You have no evidence to prove any of this otherwise, or else it would have been provided by the prosecution.

What you have posted is not evidence — it is a series of observations or unsupported claims that by themsleves prove nothing.

Krishna, Yewah, Zeus, Apollo, Thor... All have the same amount of evidence proving their existence, so does the idea that the universe was created by a unemotional binary computer that lives in the 10th dimension.

atoms... all brought about by the scientific method have evidence as to their the reason why things are the way they are... NOT god... in EVERY instance god has proven not to be what it is... the reason a volcano explodes is not because the wrath of god is upon a community... we understand the process behind the event but we didn't always KNOW that.

So your work - life is guided by evidence, analysis, logic, and reasoning but in the rest of your life you are happy to accept the best guess of ignorant ancients which has been proven incorrect time and time again?

How sad that you deny real evidence for a 2000 year old book that has never been updated and can be proven to be false on numerous things... a book written by primitive man to fool the gullible out of money and make them live in fear.

And by the way, there isn't any evidence to prove your Jesus was real.

There is no «empirical evidence» for their existence — you could not «prove» they exist by attempting to explain it to someone else — yet they exist.

Skepctics are put to shame by archaeological evidences that proves the event mentioned in Bible are truly recorded and did occur.

for example Unicorns, by your logic I would have to prove that they don't exist using evidence.

Theology can not be historically empirical in the sense that claims about Jesus» special relationship to God could be proved by historical evidence, for the evidence will always be consistent with various speculative hypotheses.

When I say «I see no evidence for any God / gods and the evidence we do have proves a global flood did not occur as the bible claims» when asked by a believer why I don't believe, it might look very similiar to an anti-theist who is attempting to convince you to quit believing in God.

Think for yourself by rejecting scientific evidence and holding on to magic tales that will never be proven?

«I would note that the Genesis story is not recreatable yet you believe that when Genesis is the only «evidence» for it, yet it is proven to be incorrect by many facets of modern knowledge in various disciplines.»

All creation myths are proven incorrect by modern science, so basically religion has no evidence.

We should conclude that as in other New Testament books any evidence which can be adduced to prove that they were written in Hebrew or Aramaic points just as clearly to their having been composed by someone who was imperfectly bilingual.

And no a belief does not mean actual knowledge, so when one proclaims a belief, it something that by definition can not be proven, so no I don't have to present evidence in order to declare a belief, but if one is saying outright that angels do not exist as being the absolute truth, then one should present evidence.