Sentences with phrase «what verifiable evidence»

When we make a settlement demand, we will explain in detail what injuries you have, what verifiable evidence there is to corroborate your pain and suffering, and how the injury impacts your daily life.

The reason for this is the codification what the verifiable evidence already suggests, viz. that people who receive an apology at the time are far less likely to sue later on.

Not exact matches

I happen to care that what I believe can be substantiated with verifiable evidence, you on the other hand accept things based off of a 2000 + year old book that can be and has been debunked numerous times over.

Now, hypothetically, if you personally maintained belief in a supreme being (one in which you had no verifiable proof of its existence, but yet what you considered ample evidence to place your faith in) and that being had communicated morality in absolute terms, would you define that morality as subjective or objective?

I might agree to that if you can provide verifiable evidence of such a god, the amount of said god's knowledge, and what science will know 6,000 years from now.

While evidence and peer review of evidence has helped to modify and enhance evolution since its original proposition as a HYPOTEHSIS (look it up; it's the scientific term for what others call «just a theory») and mature it to a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, no sound, reasonable, VERIFIABLE alternative has ever survived the merciless review of the scientific method.

What factual, objective, verifiable and independent evidence do you, or any other believer, have to definitively and conclusively proof that a first cause is a god as portrayed in The Babble?

Topher, Re: «hard questions» here's an easy one you have never been able to answer: «What factual, independent, verifiable and objective evidence is there for any god?»

What is intellectually dishonest is making claims of «fact» in your post without verifiable supporting evidence.

It is because many of the terms lack meaning that squares with verifiable human experience (must be verifiable to others, as well, for purposes of proof; but inverse this requirement, as I did with language, and you end up with the following: if something can't be evidenced to others, there is a good likelihood that it is not what the individual thinks it is).

Unless you have conclusive, independent, verifiable, objective evidence that proves a who was involved, then you don't really know — you believe what most non-believers believe — we don't know.

Rather than telling me what I think how about you providing some factual, independent, verifiable and objective evidence for your beliefs, or admit that you are mentally ill or a liar?

«What they (Catholic priests) do is filthy» «We should create law based on verifiable evidence and rational thought.»

Do you have even the SLIGHTEST tidbit of verifiable evidence for what you are saying, 50/50?

Perhaps you can provide verifiable evidence that proves you know what I believe more than I do?

What are your hypotheses and how will you test for verifiable evidence and what will that evidence look like and how will it definitively prove both a «design» and a «designer?&raWhat are your hypotheses and how will you test for verifiable evidence and what will that evidence look like and how will it definitively prove both a «design» and a «designer?&rawhat will that evidence look like and how will it definitively prove both a «design» and a «designer?»

Heuer also suggested that scientists who engage with the public emphasize what principles they are for, such as striving for verifiable evidence, rather than what they are against.

What you now need is verifiable, testable scientific evidence.

What could possibly have been «hidden» that would magically disprove the abundant and trivially verifiable evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming.