Sentences with phrase «with such evidence»

It is essential therefore that your CV provides them with such evidence.

On the other hand, the issues with such evidence did not make it a matter for judicial notice, either.

In order to qualify for R&D tax credits for manufacturing, you must be able to show your innovative processes, and supply HMRC with such evidence as they require.

When faced with such evidence, the case for legal empowerment of young people through public legal education (PLE), begins to make itself.

With such evidence, the impact of my report enabled the Defendant to avoid prosecution for the unsafe food offence.

He's no fan of eco-alarmism, but he is a skeptic in the true sense of the term — someone who demands convincing evidence but is willing, when presented with such evidence to change their views.

Squadron said that faced with such evidence, GENDA opponents can only continue pressing public safety alarms by being «willfully ignorant.»

Not exact matches

It took being «beaten over the head» with such offers — providing undeniable evidence of «product - market fit» — but by October 2012, she had founded her second company.

The fact that trust is crucial in markets is evidenced by the fact that businesses have come up with such a dizzying array of mechanisms designed to generate trust — everything from brands (which carry reputations) through to warranties, return policies, endorsements and third - party guarantors.

As evidenced by a number of recent rebranding strategies that failed miserably, even large companies with the staff and resources to implement such an effort sometimes fail to get it right.

In this case, the black - and - white evidence against the cartel was revealed in the form of damaging email communications which included statements such as «with a bit of talking and cooperation between us, we all win!»

The group cited «sufficient evidence» linking processed meat — such as bacon and sausage — to colorectal cancer, and noted associations with stomach, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.

Second, the October 2014 U.S. Treasury Bond Flash Crash is history's oldest major flash crash with such great causal uncertainty: strong evidence has been put forth to explain the earlier, major flash crashes on May 6, 2010 [12, 13] and April 23, 2013 [14].

The reason Keynesianism got such a boost post-crisis was not for any real - world examples of its success — the list of its failures, by contrast, is lengthy — but because of the assertion, accepted far too quickly with far too little evidence, that monetary policy, at the fabled Zero Lower Bound (interest rates of near zero) had lost its effectiveness.

It's important to take Riot's filings and associated reports with a massive grain of salt, as CNBC found major red flags during a recorded news investigation in February (e.g., annual meetings scheduled at a resort, but the hotel having no evidence of any such reservations).

However, given the weakness in the bargaining power of so many in the workforce, along with some anxiety about price pressures from wage - push inflation, such evidence must be scrutinized.

as to Shares deliverable on the exercise of Options or Stock Appreciation Rights, or in settlement of Performance Units or Restricted Stock Units, until the delivery (as evidenced by the appropriate entry on the books of Walmart of a duly authorized transfer agent of Walmart) of such Shares, give the Recipient the right to vote, or receive dividends on, or exercise any other rights as a stockholder with respect to such Shares, notwithstanding the exercise (in the case of Options or Stock Appreciation Rights) of the related Plan Award;

At this point, there's no evidence the PBoC plans to follow such a route, but the possibility is there, with huge implications for gold.

Kent Mason, a partner with Davis & Harman in Washington, a law firm serving banks and large corporations, says that while the administration's goal «is to require advisors to act in the best interest of their customers, the industry has no concerns with such a requirement, as evidenced by the industry's longstanding support» for an SEC best - interest standard.

His investment approach, as applied to funds such as Hussman Strategic Growth (HSGFX), is to «align our investment position with the prevailing Market Climate and shift that position when sufficient evidence of a Climate shift emerges.»

But does real - world evidence support your contention when applied to advanced countries with large unused productive capacities and that issue their own currencies, such as Japan or Canada?

When combined with healthy, cash - generating operating results, share repurchases can result in huge long - term rises in earnings per share, as evidenced by companies such as Coca - Cola and The Washington Post.

Accordingly, a year - over-year increase in new claims of about 20 % (which would currently equate to a level of about 340,000 weekly new claims) would create a significant concern of a new recession in progress, particularly if coupled with other evidence such as equity market weakness and slowing growth in real personal income.

As such, we think the size of GFI's board, combined with the inclusion of one staff member and two members of a closely related organization, overall provide a small amount of evidence against their effectiveness as an organization.

Though some analysts cite evidence that indictments from the ICTY deterred war crimes in Yugoslavia, such claims are vastly overshadowed by the Serb massacre of some eight thousand Bosnian Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica in July 1995, with the Hague sulking in the north.

If ever someone does bring forth such evidence, they will be heralded and awarded with a Nobel Prize for shattering one of the most well supported theories in science and we will all benefit for having advanced our understanding of our world.

Please prove it with evidence (not by blind faith, such as don't say it says in the Bible).

However, this does not imply some of the more ridiculous tenets of creationism (such as man walking with dinosaurs or the world being 6000 years old) should be objectively viewed as truth when all evidence points to evolution as fact.

While I don't care about Will Wilkinson as such, I will agree with Pete that he is representative of a trend among sophisticated young people: A kind of individualism that might be more evidence still of the victory of....

[2] Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, such as the anthropic principle along with multiple universes.

i am religious however i can not disregard scientici evidence such as evolution and even this theory that with gravity everything is possible.

You hit the nail squarely on the head for indeed so, biblical truths are «written on our heart» by way of the Presence of Christ's Indwelt Spirit Who is ever faithful to «guide you into all truth» and «show (us) things to come» (John 16:13) but the problem is (as is woefully evident with this Article \ s Author), too many people (believers) choose to eschew or disregard «sound doctrine» (2 Timothy 4:3) promulgating John 14:17 ignorance of the Doctrine of The Holy Spirit whose inevitable product is a darkened understanding (such as is evidenced by the Article's Author --RRB-.

Such statutes have existed for centuries, precisely because memories fade, evidence degrades, and circumstances become clouded with time.

@flash Millions of people over thousands of years give witness to the Truth!I'll go with the numbers, thank you, sufficient evidence or proof for all but you, and a few additional self deluded.You have no position and no authority, in short the facts remain you have lied to yourself and are trying to drag civilization down with you.You are exposed as a fraud and a liar and will stand before God as such unless you change.God bless

Although the scientific community is constantly proving the veracity of the Bible, bear in mind that science is extremely handicapped in dealing with certain issues (such as cosmogony), and to deal with those types of issues, one has no recourse but to take that which is subjective as his only evidence.

«By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, — that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible, do miracles become, — that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, — that the Gospels can not be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events, — that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitness; — by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.

And by the way, for the intelligent design crowd, how, exactly, do you DARE to disbelieve tbe evidence that was «obviously» «crafted» with such care to make the universe look like it's 13 billion years old?

:... still we have a ton of physical evidence that God is real...» One point of view: Most, if not all, Atheists would disagree with this statement and ask for solid scientific evidence to support such a claim.

Remember, neither of you has a shred of external, verifiable evidence to back up anything you claim, so faced with conflicting beliefs supposedly backed by «personal experiences» or some such thing I haven't experienced, why should I take either of you seriously?

Sorry my delusional friend, but if 40 years of that wasn't enough to come up with any evidence or for Jesus to «touch» me or some such thing then obviously God doesn't care if I believe in him or not, so why should I care?

The religions of today are more sophisticated, more carefully constructed in such a way that they have managed to survive the increased knowledge we have of the world, but they are just as much fairytales as the stories of Thor or Zeus, and with no more evidence to support them.

When faced with a multitude of questions — such as why is there no evidence God exists?

Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small - scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger - scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature.

Also, it is fairly easy to conceive of any number of gods that have no interest in the universe, earth, or humanity, and thus neither interact with the world nor leave evidence of their own presence - how would you test for the presence or absence of such gods?

In order to calculate the probability of a specific miracle claim with mathematical integrity, other factors such as the evidence supporting the claimed event must also be taken into account.

I have read statements from his peers in the past saying that there is inconclusive evidence in regards to age old mysteries, and I respect him for standing firm with what he believes, but I would expect someone with such a scientific background to have more than conjecture to back their claims.

The pope's shortsighted views on gay marriage as being such a terrible scourge are more evidence that the Catholic Church is completely out of step with the events of the world.

But with the resurrection of Jesus, while we have witnesses and the documents they wrote, it is not so much what they say that convinces us of the historical fact of the resurrection, but the simple fact that such witnesses and documents actually exist which provides the greatest evidence for the resurrection.

In other words, the very fact that such a large proportion of the Yale ministers had worked with a substantial number of alcoholics is ipso facto evidence that they were doing an effective job with them.

As such, their statements regarding Jews and Isreal need not e congruent with either the documented nor undocumented evidence.