Sentences with phrase «written evidence about»

The conclusion the primary judge reached did not begin from the impermissible premise that written evidence about a subject is inherently better or more reliable than oral testimony on the same subject.

Announced this afternoon, the committee, chaired by Neil Carmichael, wants written evidence about the role of the eight RSCs in the autumn, including about what impact they have had in their first year and whether there are enough to fulfil their «expanding role».

Not exact matches

I told her about some evidence that if you write down three moments of joy every day it can elevate your mood.

Further evidence comes from the interesting fact that the parchment version of the Declaration of Independence that is on display and kept in the United States National Archives wasn't actually written until July 19th; this being a copy of the approved text that was announced to the world on July 4th, with about 150 - 200 copies being made on paper and distributed on that date (26 of which are still around today, thus pre-dating what is now generally thought of as the «original»).

«There is evidence that we have been pursuing less complex systems with about the same or less risk since 2009,» Kendall writes.

The report's author, Professor Sir John Beddington, wrote that «commonly held negative perceptions surrounding HFT are not supported by the available evidence» but said that «policymakers are justified in being concerned about the possible effects of HFT on instability in financial markets.»

«The US government acted as police force (identifying the foreign government's crime), prosecutor (making the legal arguments), jury (ruling on the evidence), and judge (sentencing the foreigner to US retaliatory punishment),» Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the pro-free trade Peterson Institute for International Economics, wrote in a memo about Section 301's history earlier in August.

«We wrote to Facebook on 21 March to ask it to provide evidence to support its allegations about Dr Kogan.

You can look around and find evidence of froth if you look hard enough — I wrote about Silicon Valley last week — but as far as bubbles go, this is junior varsity stuff.

Senior fellow Monica de Bolle and research fellow Martin Chorzempa write that the Venezuelan government's proposal «combines serious misunderstandings with wishful thinking about the benefits of blockchain technology, along with evidence that the government is either trying to fool its populace or that it does not understand the basics of cryptocurrencies, or both.»

«Nor is there anything «secret» about the [president's] motive specific to the issuance of the executive order: Rudolph Giuliani explained on television how the executive order came to be,» Judge Derrick Watson wrote last March, citing Giuliani's remarks as evidence of the order's anti-Muslim bias.

In terms of Jesus you really must look at the evidence, nothing was written about jesus contemporary to his times.

And then all the rest of the «massive» evidence that Christians say they have for their god is either the earliest fragments of these same man - written stories, or the later musings and writings of other people in their cult about the original writings.

historical Jesus, lmfao... show me any historical evidence of jesus... let's start with his remains... they don't exist - your explanation, he rose to the heavens... historical evidence - no remains, no proof of existence (not a disproof either, just not a proof)... then let's start with other historians writing about the life of Jesus around his time or shortly after, as outside neutral observers... that doesn't exist either (not a disproof again, just not a proof)... we can go on and on... the fact is, there is not a single proving evidence of Jesus's life in an historical context... there is no existence of Jesus in a scientific context either (virgin birth... riiiiiight)... it is just written in a book, and stuck in your head... you have a right to believe in what you must... just don't base it on history or science... you believe because you do... it is your right... but try not to put reason into your faith; that's when you start sounding unreasonable, borderline crazy...

But the Word of God, written at about the same time, recording the events of an obscure Jewish man and Jewish girl, has survived through time to give evidence to God's hand at work in the lives of His people.

Of course, the evidence of Paul, at first hand, and of many others which we know about primarily through Paul (his letter to the Corinthians is considerably older and closer to the events than the earliest of the written Gospels), is open to the objection that we have no guarantee that the appearances were not hallucinations.

A story about a magical character written decades after he supposedly died is not historical evidence of a non magical person existing.

I wrote in the New York Times about the overwhelming evidence of design.

It is a myth, a common theme for men to write about is their fear... this story simply grew until it was a world wide event, but we know from not only the total lack of evidence to support it, but the evidence that clearly shows it never happened.

if you can lie to yourself with immunity, you might be an atheist if you think the indifferent support your side, you might be an atheist if you don't think at all, you might be an atheist if you are drawn to religious discussions thinking someone wants to hear your opinion, you might be an atheist if you copy paste every piece of crap theory you find, you might be an atheist if you think you are right no matter what the evidence shows, you might be an atheist if you can't hold your water when you think about science, you might be an atheist if you can't write the word God, with proper capitalization, you might be an atheist if you think your view has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you think The View has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you live in a tar paper shack, writing manifestos, you might be an atheist if you think you're basically a good person, and your own final authority you might be an atheist if you think your great aunt Tillie was a simian, you might be an atheist if you own an autographed copy of Origin Of The Species, you might be an atheist if you think that when you die you're worm food, you might be an atheist if you think the sun rises and sets for you alone, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is Charles Darwin when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is you when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if you attend a church but palm the offering plate when it passes, you might be an atheist If think this exhausts all the possibilities of definition, you might be an atheist.

I've written about it before in this column, which is evidence of residual pain.

The internal evidence of the book of Daniel and what he knows and writes about has been shown to be accurate and could not have been known to anyone unless they were living in Babylon at the time of it's empire.

After going into some of the theories of how the evidence about Jesus could have been «tampered» with along the way, he then shows how each theory does not have the evidence to support it, and in the following chapters, goes «link by link» through the chain of custody to show how the Gospel records we have today are an accurate reflection of what was originally written down, and are also an accurate account of what actually happened during the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It is true that both the gospels and the speeches of Peter and Paul in Acts give important testimony as to what the apostles taught about the Christian life and proclaimed about the meaning of Jesus» own life, death, and resurrection; yet both the gospels and Acts were written, not by apostles, but by later disciples, and their evidence on particular points stands in need of confirmation, if possible, from the apostles themselves.

Victor Lowe, who has written more about this issue than anyone else, insisted from the beginning that a very high standard of evidence ought to be adopted in investigating this question of historical influence.

Also outstanding in the trash department have been long articles by David Remnick, who had earlier written a fine book about the collapse of Soviet Communism in which he evidenced great insight and respect for Jews and Judaism.

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.

We have pretty good evidence that something happened about 2000 ago about which people wrote.

Now, you can argue if you like that what they wrote about him is inaccurate or flawed in some way, but I think there's ample evidence that a man named Jesus lived.

Friendly Atheist: On Tuesday I wrote a post for Relevant Online about Christianity and evolution that generated a lively discussion, particularly over at Friendly Atheist, where Hemant Mehta argues that it's not enough to say that the evidence supports evolution; one must concede that the evidence rules God out completely.

Stories about a magical man who supposedly died decades before the stories were written, are NOT evidence of a non magical person existing.

As far as evidence goes, he was written about in multiple biblical sources, which obviously you won't take into account because you believe the bible to be fantasy, but when you think about how all biblical books were written at different times, in different places, by different people, you can at least say there is a decent chance he lived.

The task of a non-Muslim scholar writing about Islam is that of constructing an exposition that will do justice to the Western academic tradition, by growing directly out of the objective evidence and by being rationally coherent both within itself and with all other knowledge, and at the same time will do justice to the faith in men's hearts by commanding their assent once it is formulated.

It's quite sad and says more about the state of the heart of those writing rather than any evidence against the existence of God.

The objective evidence for the claim of probable increase in the influence of Whitehead lies in the increased volume of published work about his thought and the growing number of dissertations being written about him.

Tell him the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.

I would add to the mix those who are critical, often based on no evidence or hearsay, of for example the Toronto blessing and the current Todd Bentley Lakeland outpouring I have written quite a lot about this, and have been amazed by the negativity of so many of the comments I have received.

As I've heard other bloggers attest to, sometimes the hardest part about putting together a blog post is actually sitting down and writing it (as evidenced by the fact that I initially spelled that as righting — whoops).

«I believe in my god, I will not back down even when shown evidence... I will refuse to acknowledge that evidence and write articles about lack of evidence to support my ignorance.»

Raza wrote a report about Nestle in Pakistan that provided evidence of their malpractice.

I wrote a an entire page for a response and will post the link here when it is published on their website, but for now I will just share with you a portion of what I wrote in reply...» This statement about breastfeeding is not only incorrect with absolutely no evidenced based research to back it up, but can be harmful t to a mum's breastmilk supply and her baby.

She obviously thinks she know enough science to write a book promoting the safety of homebirth, run a website promoting the safety of homebirth, write articles in magazines and on websites like The Daily Beast promoting the safety of homebirth, but she doesn't think you know enough to debate the scientific evidence about the safety of homebirth?

Dr. Fischbein has made it his goal to teach, speak and write about the normalcy of birth choices, the ethics of respecting a woman's autonomy in decision making and reasonable, evidence supported options of selected VBAC, breech and twin vaginal birth.

I've written about the «obstetricians ignore the scientific evidence» mantra, which doesn't make sense if you think about it for any length of time.

When I last wrote for this blog about Brexit and the Article 50 process, shortly after giving evidence to the House of Lords EU Select Committee, I was writing about something that might happen.

He was pushed over the edge by their write - up of Jerome Corsi's latest paranoid fantasy (Obama - run concentration camps, no doubt intended for conservative «patriots»), but Jon's great sin was encouraging skeptical and critical thought about a series of beliefs that some have come to see as true despite all evidence to the contrary.

Read more about the BHA's position on assisted dying, including links to our written and oral evidence to the Commission on Assisted Dying.

It's more evidence of the three - cornered nature of the Coalition that I wrote about this morning.

Ragusa «submitted evidence showing that [he] was elected chairman of the Queens County Republican Party at a Queens County Republican Party meeting held on or about Oct. 3, 2009, and that the statewide Republican Party subsequently recognized Ragusa as chairman of the Queens County Republican Party,» the appellate judges wrote in their decision Tuesday against Berney.

Much has already been written about the different options for selecting citizens to serve on a convention so that it is representative of all parts of the UK, and of gender, age, socio - economic background, ethnic minorities, disabled people etc (see Alan Renwick's pamphlet and the Electoral Reform Society evidence).