Sentences with phrase «there convincing evidence»

To demonstrate that, this question was posted on ResearchGate: «Is there convincing evidence of AGW?»

«Is there convincing evidence for AGW?»

Is there any convincing evidence or analysis you see that says this is in any way about climate, particular, as distinct from the noted issues with mercury in rice and high smog levels and the like?

Nor is there convincing evidence that minority teachers are less effective at teaching minority students.

Not exact matches

At the time, schools generally punished the accused only if there was abundant clear and convincing evidence.

The company's studies, the FDA said, showed that even if any of the engineered proteins were transmitted to people «there was no convincing evidence» it would be toxic or trigger an allergic reaction.

Judge Barbara Houser ruled that there was «clear and convincing evidence» Sam Wyly committed tax fraud, rejecting his arguments that he relied on professional advisers to vet the offshore system.

In order to wiretap Cohen, federal investigators would have to have convincing evidence that there is a possibility of an ongoing crime; wiretaps additionally all require approval from a federal judge.

You obviously can not have a new bull market begin until the prior bear market ends, and until those new highs get made, there is a lack of convincing evidence.

In short, there is no convincing evidence that the U.S. economy, or the global one, has hit bottom.

While the high (and rising) U.S. debt / GDP ratio does lead to some concern, there is little convincing evidence that this alone will cause U.S. yields to rise.

Suffice it to say that the improvement in new unemployment claims strikes me as a legitimately hopeful development, but there is too much short - term noise, and inconsistency with other economic evidence (reliable leading indicators, falling tax withholdings) to draw a convincing signal.

Are you absolutely convinced that there is no God, or have you just never found evidence of him?

I said it to hotair already, but I will expand it a bit for you: what is evidence for some is not accepted by everyone; just as in a court case, some jurors are convinced with very little evidence while some people can not be convinced of something no matter how much evidence there is... much of this comes from how you were raised and your own personal world view, for many people God does not fit into their world view so whatever evidence there is they close their eyes and say, «No, I don't believe that!»

The Missouri Supreme Court denied permission because there was no «clear and convincing, inherently reliable evidence» that the patient would have wished such a fate for herself.

They are convinced that he is a secret follower of Cardinal Kasper, and that he is determined to offer communion to the divorced and remarried — no matter what evidence there is to the contrary.

«As a magistrate, I have to act on the evidence before me and quite simply, I believe that there is not sufficient evidence to convince me that placing a child in the care of a same - sex couple can be as holistically beneficial to a child as placing them with a mum and dad as God and nature intended.

Please note, * I * am not asking for any evidence or proof of your imaginary friends and tribal myths — I am 100 % convinced there is none.

When there is no evidence that would be convincing, the truth doesn't matter.

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.

For example, there are people in all religions who use it to convince themselves they have evidence their religious beliefs are correct, even when their beliefs conflict with those of other religions, whose followers also claim they have evidence their beliefs are correct.

There is not enough evidence in the entire Bible to convince me of that.

Look, if you are still denying evolution, there is no amount of evidence that will convince you to question your core religious beliefs.

It needs to be emphasised that there is convincing evidence for God in nature (Romans 1:19).

This would not by itself be convincing evidence that there is sentience present.

Still, as is clear from the avalanche of sometimes outraged postings on all the relevant Internet sites, there is simply no way to convince conspiracy theorists that the evidence for their position is too thin to be convincing and that the evidence for a traditional view is thoroughly persuasive.

The time I will start believing such a god, is when there is credible, convincing, verifiable evidence.

Those who would only believe should there be evidence, would there be any that will be satisfying / convincing (like doubting Thomas, which has stated his specific criteria, before believing)?

whoa there buddy... you're in a Belief Blog... there's no room for credible, convincing, verifiable evidence around here.

I have much more respect for someone who owns up to that rather than trying to convince me and everyone else that there is evidence for creation, geologic evidence of a worldwide flood, scientists are part of a conspiracy, evolution is a faith etc. etc. etc..

There is no convincing evidence that He was called «God» in the first century, and indisputable evidence that He was not generally called by that name; but it is clear that He was thought of as being related to God as no other man could be.

Not only do you have no evidence anything you said is true, you ignore the fact that there are followers of hundreds of religions who are every bit as convinced what they believe is true as you are convince what you believe is true.

1 word By «faith» don't you mean that there is no evidence possible that would convince you that you are wrong in believing God exists?

He called them evidence of God's «alien work,» which brought Luther the human being to his limits; he believed that only there, in experiencing those limits, could he be convinced to throw himself into the arms of the One he otherwise refused to trust.

The deposit of revelation is said to be finished or fixed, but this can be a salvific teaching only if it means that there is sufficient evidence in our past history to convince us that we live within the horizon of a promise which by its nature always looks to the future for fulfillment.

However, when he investigated the historicity of Christ's resurrection, Brown came away convinced that the evidence he had hoped for wasn't there (an issue we debated at some length during our conversation).

Now, how many of you believers out there are open - minded enough to say that they could be convinced that God doesn't exist given enough evidence, or the right argument?

It is common for people to say that there is much about the resurrection of Jesus that they do not profess to understand, but that the evidence makes it clear that something of a unique and miraculous order occurred, which had the effect of leaving the tomb of Jesus empty, and of convincing the disciples that Jesus was alive in some real sense.

Since Christians were proclaiming that Jesus was risen from the dead, what better way of confounding them could there be than to open the tomb of Jesus, produce the dead body and show with convincing evidence that he had not risen?

If I were convinced there was no evidence for God I would certainly not pretend to believe in him because I hold some fidestic intuition that I have labeled «faith.»

Although Simon the Zealot (so called to distinguish him from Simon Peter) was one of the disciples (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), he does not figure prominently in the Gospel narrative, and there is no convincing evidence that Jesus had anything to do with the Zealot movement.

There is a good deal of evidence, still continuing in the later and more developed narratives, which suggests that the Easter faith did not come to birth within the disciples as a result of one, sudden, epoch - making and fully convincing disclosure.

Religious people refuse to admit that any quantum of evidence would convince them that there is no god.

There is some quantum of evidence that would convince me of the existence of god or gods, although it would have to be a lot, I would always suspect that there was an advanced civilization behind the evidThere is some quantum of evidence that would convince me of the existence of god or gods, although it would have to be a lot, I would always suspect that there was an advanced civilization behind the evidthere was an advanced civilization behind the evidence.

Let me ask you a question, hypothetically, would there or could there EVER be enough evidence provided to you to convince you that a god does not exist?

There is no convincing evidence to show that petitionary prayers are «answered», i.e., that imploring the Deity for things that we wish will of itself hasten their coming.

There is, incidentally, little convincing evidence that either supports or refutes these arguments.

My conclusion from my work with sexual and domestic violence is that porn is a serious danger to public safety, akin to shouting «Fire» in a crowded theater; but given legal rules of evidence, there may be little hope of convincing courts of this analogy.

For instance, judge Richard Posner in Sex and Reason (1991) argues that there is no convincing evidence, other things being equal, that outside of their procreative functions fathers are necessary for the well - being of their children.

There is nothing I can say to people of this dense intellect, as they have already made up their mind what they will accept as «truth» and no amount of scientific evidence will convince them.