Sentences with phrase «talked about evidence»

Much is talked about evidence based practice in primary health care.

He listens to Bill Nye talk about evidence.

My church has an «Apologetics Weekend» with a number of speakers talking about evidence for the existence of God and why we know the Scriptures are reliable.

and for all the talk about evidence based medicine??

Wow, talk about evidence based!

Assistant Principal Murray Cronin joined me on the line from Tasmania to talk about the evidence base for the model and what each of the four stages involves.

And rather than «unfounded positiveness in matters of opinion», we're talking about evidence based scientific viewpoints in matters of physics.

«scientists should be talking about evidence, rather than consensus.»

One objection against consensus messaging is that scientists should be talking about evidence, rather than consensus.

Moreover, they are talking about the evidence for a hypothesis, not the evidence supporting the occurrence of an event, whatever that might mean.

«The mediator came into our room and he began talking about the evidence that we have and our expert report and [started] making some negative comments about the expertise of our expert and some other things that our expert did,» Joseph recalls.

One sure way to get on a TV judge's bad side is to try to talk about evidence that isn't there.

Daya acknowledged that this is not the story for everyone but said health professionals who talk about evidence - based treatments should recognise they don't work for everyone.

Not exact matches

At that point in November 2006, it appears, it was simply talk; no evidence has emerged that Piëch knew about it.

In his 1994 study on securities lawbreaking for the Justice Department, Schlegel found that while officials were talking tough about locking up insider traders, there was little evidence to suggest that the punishments imposed — either the incarceration rates or the sentences themselves — were more severe.

Social psychologist Amy Cuddy struck a chord in the business world at TEDGlobal 2012 when she gave a talk about the scientific evidence behind power posing.

If Graham had more evidence showing he's trying to solve these problems, and not just talk about them, it might be easier to explain away a gaffe... or two.

Asked what evidence he was talking about, Pence said, «The campaign is working on bringing that information out.»

He is descending to the level of Trump imaginary conspiracy level talk when he goes on about «fake disputes», without presenting any evidence.

There's also evidence that you would lower the cost of capital, but that's not what we're talking about is it?

if we talk about science i can provide you with some evidence but religion is the opposite... you just believe.

You have no idea what you are talking about with your fairy tale illusion of what you THINK salvation is all about... it's a ridiculous concept based on flawed foundations right from the get go... here is my EVIDENCE... The record in Samuel tells us that it was the Lord who tempted David to do the numbering; that in Chronicles says it was Satan.

Provide a citation for what you are talking about please and I will provide plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.

You talk about what you think you know but have no evidence against that which you do not know.

= > this is a negative confirmation as science can only observe the natural thus even with all the talk about someday we will know the evidence confirms the observation that day never has come.

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.

If we were talking about unicorns wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that the lack of evidence suggests that they're imaginary, and not just really good at hiding?

They laugh at Christians with scorn for our «hope» and «faith» and talk about how no one needs a savior because we're all basically good... also based on no evidence.

Any attempt to discuss is treated as really not worth talking about because, like debating flat earth, all the evidence is there so why bother.

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.

So the biblical experts say there is not enough evidence to make a determination, yet you, who has never seen the fragment, declares that it is talking about the church.

Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved» Now religion is USING the discoveries of science to CLAIM IT IS EVIDENCE to support their unevidenced claims... talk about fraud and hypocrisy.

All verses like this and Matthew 5:28 (where Jesus talks about adultery in a similarly harsh manner, are meant to do is point us straight to verses of Paul's such as Romans 3:23 and Ephesians 2:8 - 9: it's the evidence Jesus provides that, no matter what, even if we never murder a single person or in any way commit adultery, we're nothing without Him... and, oh, yeah, it's the meter that shows us who we are and why we need Him, and only Him (John 14:6), to get to heaven.

And I am not talking about the god of the gaps kind of evidence.

I am not speaking to «attacking all views of God» I was actually talking about your assumed philosophy of science which you think doesn't provide enough evidence for God.

@Timothy, I'm not sure what definition of «Creationism» you are using, but the article is mainly talking about Young Earth Creationism, which is inconsistent with the scientific evidence available.

The chances are very very very low, but when you apply the vast amounts of matter in the universe over the entire history of it all, and apply the fact that we have seen organic materials in comets and Saturns moons, not to mention the undeniable evidence that we are here talking about it, those numbers become very likely.

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.

Jewish scholars are able to give very strong evidence that these passages are not talking about the future messiah but about the nation of Israel, referred in the singular as, «Israel» or «Jacob».

You seem to have bought into Richard Dawkins» view of faith, that it should only be talked about when there is no evidence, however it is flawed.

For now, it sounds cliche but the evidence for god really is about the same as that for santa claus — that evidence is that many people believe it and they talk and write about it a lot.

Hearing stupid atheists respond to my posts is the best evidence that i'm right... you get all these angry morons that don't have a clue what they're talking about trying to attack my argument, «BUT THOSE PEOPLE WHO MURDERED MILLIONS THEY WERE N'T DRIVEN BY ATHEISM TO KILL»....

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

The strongest evidence on that point appears on the first page of her book, where «Bill,» a member of Grace, talks about his identity as a Christian and an American and about his volunteer work, through the church, at a local shelter for disadvantaged teens.

Talking to people in this mindset about evidence is similar to speaking two different languages.

I'm talking about real proof; archeological evidence, state records and primary sources.

If you were listening to NPR last week, you may have heard my friend Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, talking to Barbara Bradley Hagerty about genomic evidence that calls into question the literal existence of Adam and Eve.

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.

At this point, and we are talking about 2,000 years of no evidence, I say either produce your silly god or be quiet.

If god has a plan he is all powerful and perfectly able to come and talk to me about it and provide a well docu mented business plan with evidence that meets the quality we expect in the courts.