Sentences with phrase «seeing evidence of what»

In fact, we are already seeing evidence of what scientists have predicted in the form of rising sea levels, record temperatures, drought and more extreme weather events.

When we examine the results of standardized test scores we typically think we are seeing evidence of what students know.

Now we're beginning to see the evidence of what the Australian is also injecting — his famous «wedge» politics.

I had the privilege of working with these same students from elementary to middle school, and I could see evidence of what Dr. Jensen speaks about.

You're being a professional marketer, and probable employers need to see evidence of what you can do.

Not exact matches

When confronted with the usual grey areas and inconsistencies in polling data, many chose to see what they wanted to see, which was clear evidence of a Clinton victory.

So I started doing some digging to see if there was any evidence to support my experience of what we'll call, physical vs digital.

In a telephone conversation with THR, he said about Paramount Pictures: «What we need to see is continued evidence of improvement.»

From what I have witnessed, the Foundation with Buterin at its helm, has exercised a great deal of rational thought in its decision making process, and I have not seen any evidence that it has chosen self - interest over the betterment of the Ethereum community as a whole.

That is the very foundation of the Global Opportunity Report, and what we saw in evidence during the Opportunity Lab.»

We've seen a lot of evidence about what's coming, through the HomePod firmware leak, and reports including one from Bloomberg this week that outlines exactly how the iPhone interface will work without a home button, but Apple should still have plenty to reveal that we haven't seen at this event, including at least a few amazing ARKit demos.

«Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen» (Heb 11:1).

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...

«The evidence is being analyzed to see what the origin of the fire was,» Keith Moses, an assistant special agent with the FBI in Nashville, told CNN Sunday.

I have stated to you and others numerous times that there is ample evidence of God, what you choose to do with that evidence is up to you; it's called free will and you have the ability to exercise it in whatever way you choose, but don't deny that there is any, because then you only show that you refuse to see what is all around you...

no apparent evidence of ill - will, and 3)... an experience of unity.Now, David, I haven't known you for very long (blogwise), but I respect what I have read from yr deep and thoughtful spirit, so with that in mind, I just don't see how this personal experience is translatable or cd be used as some kind of template when faced with the real Wal - Mart world.Do we not, like Jesus, show out true colours under pressure.Maybe I'm missing something... please correct me If I am and remember, I'm not into boob jobs (cleavage enhancement)

If it makes you feel better to think of it as mother nature or the laws of physics, or whatever other way you prefer to look at it, what you're seeing is the evidence of God's work.

Robert See, I find that anyone who denies what scientific evidence objectively reveals in favour of what they personally think must be correct without any evidence whatsoever must be operating out of the same harmful pride you're talking about.

Mark, first let's see just what kind of evidence you would accept as definitive.

I call BS on Jimbo about «a huge avalanche of historical evidence and archeology» and I call BS on your statement because you only refer to «common knowledge» I've seen what Christian common knowledge is like and it often runs a bit shy on facts..

The people who could have reinforced my faith condemned me for daring to exercise it in the face of questions and conflicting evidence: not just encouraging me, but demanding me to believe that much harder in what I could not see.

There is no evidence of a God and many of us have seen belief in God sometimes lead to bad things — probably because people assign power to God and then speak on his behalf (they «hear» what he says).

Now, if you're a Mormon, you see this as strong evidence the Book of Mormon is what Joseph Smith said it was.

Without the use of religion you'd have no reason to deny the evidence but as long as you have that book that you require to get by in this world, you will never see the facts for what they are.

... no evidence it was, yet there it is... when you look at it, it in fact was not designed, but it was laid down over millions of years... a sedimentary rock... the rock was not designed... maybe the PROCESSES that made the rock were desined... not really... gravity makes water flow into the lowest ares and when the water moves more slowly, sediment is dropped, forming rock... Still not seeing a designer... what about water... simple chmistry there, designed?

There may be forms of existence that go beyond what we understand, but I have not seen any evidence of that despite hundreds of years of scientific tools and thousands of scientists available for the investigations of such claims and phenomena.

there is endless evidence via fossils and other remains of how certain cells evolved light sensitivity and spent billions of years evolving through simple compound eyes to what we see today; the myriad different eyes used by species that presently inhabit the earth.

While I am not religious (I will call myself agnostic), and having an IQ well over genius levels, with scientific and mathematical tendencies, let me ask you a few questions, because what I see here are a bunch of people talking about «no evidence» or «proof» of God's existence, therefore He can't possibly exist, existential arguments, which are not arguments, but fearful, clouded alterations of a truth that can not be seen.

Whats rediculous is that there are people as yourself who have been so blinded that they cant even see the evidence, and results of a person who has faith.

And while I am far from perfect in this area, it is one way I see the evidence of how God has changed me (which is what we call being «born again.»)

Jesus by this time has enough evidence to see what the outcome of his message is likely to be.

I'm confused, what kind of invisible evidence have you ever seen in a court?

Yes, this was evidence that God also was upset about what this man named Jesus was teaching, and had seen fit to make Him a public spectacle in the sight of all so that nobody would ever again seek to challenge the teachings of the religious leaders or the traditions of the Jewish people.

But if the father sat through the trial of his son, and saw the weight of the evidence, and maybe even heard the confession of his son to his crimes, the father would be forced to believe what he did not want to believe.

In Africa, we see evidence of its considerable gains in spite of what we might regard as insuperable odds against a nontranslatable Scripture.

You have to find your own reason to believe because if you don't this Christian walk won't ever ever make any sense to you.You say you care only for Christianity because «they impose their laws into secular law» but I think deep down you are lying to yourself.Islam has manifested itself into many many nations with their own law, I don't see you ever demand evidence of Allah heck even what their religion states.You say you demand evidence only when religions impose their laws into secular law but..

You see people who try and disprove God are only tickling your ears they don't have solid evidence only their words and their equations of age using carbon dating if you actually look up whats involved in carbon dating you will see that it's the same as flipping a coin the fossil record has many many holes in it more than most people who believe in evolution will admit.

The believer can SEE what the materialist sees (like the voluminous amount of evolutionary evidence), but he either refuses to believe what he sees, or he doesn't UNDERSTAND it, and so discounts it.

But it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if, instead of rioting, the people went to the local police stations and lay down on the steps, the footpath, along the road, and refused to leave until they got a predetermined outcome (eg a review of the evidence, apologies etc, or a form of forgiveness and grace as Jeremy has suggested here).

What if there is evidence of God out there but atheists are like stubborn ignorant children who don't want to see it?

I hope we will remember that, more often that not, what keeps a person from embracing the gospel is not that he hasn't seen enough evidence to support the existence of God in science or in logic, but that he hasn't seen enough evidence to support the existence of God among the people who claim to be following Him.

The beliefs are just so far out there for me, that whenever I see someone in ardent support of them I have to think they're a troll, because I don't know how they could possibly believe or accept that (there are a few exceptions of people who pt things very well, cite supporting evidence, and are consistent and coherent - I don't agree with them, but I can at least understand what they're saying)

I saw in Mohler's review of the book yet another illustration of what I have described here; for as Mohler related the book's argument, there was precious little appeal to evidence, and considerably more to morality and emotion.

Our attempts to see the natural revelation God has installed in the Creation act includes what «Science» discovers, but knowing we need to filter worldly bias in the presentation of such «scientific» evidences since the ideas of the world are driven by another mindset.

What we see is evidence of a willingness / desire to engage in exactly the same form of abuse again.

Ironically atheists see religion as the great evil due to its content, and are blind to the deficiencies of their own ideologies — even in light of historical evidence of what happens when society purges itself of religion and objective morality.

What you'll see is that every single piece of historical evidence that we have is consistent with 1.

or if there is no evidence of God, you go looking for the evidence and see what you find.

Paul Shapiro, the museum's director for Advanced Holocaust Studies said Desbois» work corroborates evidence found in Soviet and German archives, making «it possible for the first time to see in detail what happened on the ground in that part of the world and know that we are looking at the truth.»

It is a shame that they won't recognize the obvious — that the total lack of evidence throughout the universe of a deity really does mean there are none, that the world is exactly how you see it, that everything you thinkis God is nothing more than misinterpreted natural occurances and coincidence, and that death is exactly what it appears — you just stop.