Sentences with phrase «support these claims there»

Not exact matches

While the claim is bold, there is evidence to support it.

Claims like, «That's just how business is done over there,» and «No one really gets hurt,» or «We've always done it that way,» or «That's the only way we'll make our sales targets,» are often false and seldom provide cogent support for the moral conclusions they are intended to support.

There are no actual data to support this claim, however.

The Facts: There is no publicly available evidence to support this claim about the violent gang.

There simply is not enough hard data to support claims that Uber has a sweeping impact on drunk driving, but nor is there evidence to the contThere simply is not enough hard data to support claims that Uber has a sweeping impact on drunk driving, but nor is there evidence to the contthere evidence to the contrary.

Duterte's own ardent assertions about Manila's claims in the South China Sea — he vowed to Jet Ski to Scarborough and plant the Philippine flag there — won him much support, and a reversal now would likely sour his standing at home.

Both patents ultimately were challenged on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence at the time of the applications to support the company's claims.

At the least, there is not enough in this book to support the claim that perjury is an epidemic that threatens the foundations of American society.

There's some empirical evidence to support the claim that rate cuts promote investment.

Susan Jones is a researcher uncovering the truth about the Massey tunnel replacement project While the public has shown support for a new crossing over the south arm of the Fraser River, there is no «overwhelming support» for the planned $ 3.5 billion planned bridge as claimed by B.C.'s Minister of Transportation, Todd Stone.

There are some institutions that make no claim to revenues from IP developed in their institutions and instead hope that successful entrepreneurs will ultimately make donations to back to the university that supported them.

Two weeks ago, I further supported this thesis with the supposition that the Gulf Coast storms would actually accelerate these trends, going against virtually every other oil analyst out there, including an alert from Goldman Sachs claiming the storms would have a far greater impact on demand than supply.

Unfortunately, at this moment in time, in the midst of these allegations, there is little to no proof to support either claims.

there is overwhelming evidence to support the claims.

There is no evidence to support such claims or need of deity in understanding nature.

There is no more support for this claim than for so many other Christian claims.

Jesus didn't «love» his persecutors; there is nothing whatsoever in the bible that supports such a claim.

This whole thing got started because you claimed there was as much support for Zeus as there was for the God of Abraham.

We claim that, because there isn't a shred of evidence supporting your story.

I lack a belief in a god or gods because there is simply NO empirical evidence to support such a claim — for YOUR version or anyone else's.

This, of course, is an empirical claim, and there is, to be blunt, practically no empirical evidence to support it.

@ JImbo: «there is a huge avalanche of historical evidence and acrheology that supports the historical claims of the Bible»

There goes Theo, just like truthfollower, making claims they can't support regarding objective morality:

The fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary theory, which claims there once existed a series of successive forms leading to the present - day organism.

@Kristina: Jimbo claimed that «there is a huge avalanche of historical evidence and acrheology that supports the historical claims of the Bible».

If you are referring to the Bible verses the Book of Mormon, consider this, there is a huge avalanche of historical evidence and acrheology that supports the historical claims of the Bible.

Though there are few statistics to support Renaud's claims about the extent of the problem, Christian media outlets like Today's Christian Woman have recently run stories about women consuming porn, often theorizing that the habit starts with explicit romance novels.

To that assessment this essay will contribute modestly by arguing (1) that an account of experience must be compatible with the fact that there is no one thing which is what experience is or is the essence of experience, (2) that no philosophically adequate account of what experience is can be established merely by appeal to direct, personal, intuitive experience of one's own experience, (3) that generalization from features found in human experience is not sufficient to justify the claim that temporality is essential to experience, but (4) that dialectical argument rather than intuition or generalization is necessary to support the claim that experience is essentially temporal.

Unfortunately for you, not only is there absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support any of these claims, the existence of any such God leads to numerous questions and apparent inconsistencies for which none of you can provide convincing answers.

Never mind the fact that there is no biblical evidence to support their claims.

While I agree that many versions of theology produce bullies, I think there's enough evidence to support a claim that conservative Calvinism particularly lends itself to misogyny and homophobia.

If you try to reconcile this enormous diversity in religions with the claim there is one true god who has always existed you need to come up with theories and rationalizations we both know you can't support with any evidence.

Insisting something exists despite there being no evidence to support your claim is far more foolish than stating something doesn't exist because there's no evidence to suggest it does.

There also comes into play both sides who taint and change the evidence to support their outlandish claims.

I don't believe a god or gods exist because there is no evidence to support such a claim.

That means I do not believe any of the god claims I have heard, because there is never, ever, any hard, verifiable, logical, objective evidence to support them.

If I get an email from a Nigerian prince who tells me I can receive $ 1M if I send him $ 10K, and there's no evidence to support this claim, I'm going to move the email to the «trash bin».

There is little or no empirical evidence supporting Darwin's claim of macroevolution yet on «faith» someday we will prove it.

The thing about making assertions is that they are often more effective when there is some tangible proof to support your claims.

First, Wickman claims that this discovery «has significant implications for the Judeo - Christian worldview, offering strong support for biblical beliefs» because «this new evidence strongly suggests that there was a beginning to our universe», and according to Wickman, any such beginning «sounds a lot like» Genesis 1:1's claim that God did it.

Bob... let's start a discussion with a bit of intellectual honesty... I will admit there is chance I'm wrong in saying I do nt» think a god exists because there's absolutely no evidence to support the claim and actually a fair bit that suggests the opposite..

Atheists claim that, given the inherent limitations on human knowledge, there is no evidence supporting the existence of a god, and therefore we reject the claim that there is one.

They merely claim that there is no good evidence available to rationally support a belief in a god.

i have not «faith» that there is not god, but i have reasoned that there is no evidence to support the religious claims of men.

There are many prophecies in thousands of religions that have regional and local fulfillment's throughout the thousands of years of recorded human history, however all of them rely solely on self fulfillment and none have any factual evidence to support any supernatural claims.

Science has explored the creationism claims but it is hard to prove a negative there is no evidence to support it.

Until you can prove your claim that there is a God and you have empirical evidence to support your claim then everything else is just hyperbole.

I spoke with a man 2 weeks ago who claimed that the earth is 6500 years old, that dinosaurs are a fraud, and that there is no evidence to support evolution.

The truth is that there is no «evidence» «logic» or «fact» to support either claim — both require equal amounts of faith (regardless of which God you believe in).

Scientism claims that the natural world is all there is, that supernatural explanations of the world are irrational, that everything can be reduced to physical causes, and that the only things we can know as true are those which Science reveals — supported by evidence, submitted to experimentation, and reviewed by peers.