Sentences with phrase «anyone claiming their point»

Albert Einstein Anyone claiming their point of view represents science, is a charlatan and a fraud.

Not exact matches

A few times during the session Kogan made a point of arguing that data audits are essentially useless for catching bad actors — claiming that anyone who wants to misuse data can simply put a copy on a hard drive and «store it under the mattress».

Given that people can be deluded or more often, allow their desire to believe something destroy their objectivity to the point their conclusions aren't reliable, your claims about private, personal experiences no one outside your head can verify simply aren't enough for anyone but you.

I have yet to meet anyone who claims to have been convinced that what the Bible says is true, or who claims to have been convinced about the correctness of a particular interpretation of any Biblical passage by someone who wanted to argue those points.

That is not a claim anyone would even want to try to verify, but it does point up extraordinary interest.

How can anyone say they believe in God who created male and female above; and that God said that they should be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth — and claim that the same God has created them with a sexual orientation that makes it impossible for them to reproduce — ensuring no fruitfulness and multiplication which God commanded at point of creation?

Bethke risks appearing supremely arrogant by claiming to love Jesus and hate religion — an arrogance of which, I must point out, I am as guilty as anyone.

The point its that anyone who claims to know the will of god is ether insane or stupid.

I doubt anyone is buying your claim that you posted hostile things from names like Larry and Shawn to prove a point about message boards.

Lest anyone claim that this only has to do with salvation of believers, let me point out the terms «saved» and «perish» (1Cor.

I think you miss the point of the ad completely... 1) Nobody is insulting anyone 2) this doesn't represent atheists, it is an ad from the particular organization 3) the «we» you speak of should be restricted to «I», since I don't think you can claim to speak for anyone else

If there was any other book claiming to be the authority on everything that you kept having to make excuses for like «Well, that part is ment as an allegory» or «God years are different than man years» or «Well, its says to not eat shelfish or pork in the hebrew scriptures, but apparently God changed his mind later, but that part about ga y's stays» I don't think anyone would have given it a second look had it not been at the point of a sword.

He claims he tried to buy Suarez, well anyone that seriously wants to buy a player doesn't make the point of adding a pound to a silly figure that was already rejected.

I don't think anyone would blame the Arsenal players and Arsene Wenger for having gone out on the lash last night, when they got back to London in a great mood after claiming all three points with a terrific battling performance against Man City.

So, in essence, the NTP is a treaty where the countries who have nukes work together to prevent anyone else to get them, which is perfectly logical from a strategical point of view, but has no right to claim any moral high ground.

«Anyone that claims that these products are not explicitly targeting kids is clearly blowing smoke,» he said, pointing to several flavored e-cigarette products he brought to the hearing, including cotton candy, gummy bear and rocket pop.

Nor did Klein or anyone else ever claim himself as the sole data point for the power good teachers and schools can have on kids» lives.

But may I point out the fact that outside of VW's extremely controlled test track that it won't allow anyone else to use (CvK has offered large sums of money to VW in order to prove his Koenigsegg's to have a higher maximum velocity than any of the VeryGoneWrong's) nary a Veyron private or corporate has even come close to the top speeds claimed by VW - Audi - Bugatti anywhere else on planet earth

So here, for the umpteenth time and in the service of any animals whose very life might depend on the decisions made by anyone who might be misled by Clifton and Young's errors of fact, judgment, and ethics, is a point by point refutation of each of their erroneous claims.

Earlier this month, Atlus warned streamers to not broadcast beyond an early point in the game, seemingly threatening content claims and strikes for anyone who defied their wishes.

I do not think anyone, has claimed that they can tell the world's temperature anomolies from just 2 data points by one particularly warm or cool month.

Anyone who points to the claims of «an ice age beginning» back in the 70's as an excuse to dismiss the science of today is being very disingenuous, unethical and misleading, because the climate was undeniably cooling during the 70's although it was not understood at the time.

But that is still missing the point... telling Steve Mc or anyone else years ago that they could not have the data due to an agreement with an individual national weather organization was the basis of the question... Jones dodged the question and claimed that all of these countries denied publication of their data but forgot to mention that those responses were to his recent letter to them and had nothing to do with the question.

He cites unscientific rubbish (e.g. papers in Energy & Environment), uses outdated data, makes unsubstantiated and often demonstrably incorrect claims (e.g. about volcanoes producing more C02 than humans), uses various talking points that have been debunked long ago e.g. no warming for 10 years, NASA now claims the 30's were hotter — stuff that should be obviously wrong to anyone with a bit of scientific literacy.

Anyone who claims that the river modeler has failed because the model did not predict the path of a leaf has completely missed the point.

[Response: Isaac, I don't think anyone is claiming that SSTs alone are determinant (since as you correctly point out, tropospheric temperatures and the stability of the atmospheric profile are obviously important).

If you're interested in seeing what playing the player instead of the ball looks like, check out the alarmist site Only In It For the Gold, where Michael Tobis unleashes endless vicious ad hominem against any skeptics who raise their voice (his most recent was a long diatribe against Freeman Dyson, whom he apparently considers a geriatric buffoon), and opens threads on what names one should call «denialists», regularly bans commenters who argue a point too vociferously, or anyone claiming scientific credentials but arguing against «the consensus».

You make it so easy to point out your hyperbolic extremism, which should be an embarrassment to anyone who claims you to be an ally in any way.

Before anyone mentions the glaciers and the 2035 date, I'll point out the generally overlooked points: 1) The original source actually stated 2350; 2) The Indian government website stated 2035; 3) From there it went viral as 2035, it seems; 4) When it eventually wound up in the IPCC report, at least one editor objected to it in Draft 2 — Deltoid aka Tim Lambert has the details on his blogsite; 5) The IPCC editors violated their own rules on citation in that they did not trace the claim of 2035 back to the original, peer reviewed, source.

The offending party is always going to be ready to point the finger at the injured party because if it's determined that the accident was the injured party's fault, then he / she has no claim against anyone else for damages.

Under the terms of the MIT licence, you can claim copyright on your work but you are required to grant a licence to anyone and everyone on the same terms as the MIT licence so there is little point to doing so.

At this point, people who follow cinema know to manage their expectations when anyone prominent claims they're leaving the film industry.

In fact, it reached a point where reports started coming in claiming that Google was ready to refund anyone who was affected by the problem and can't wait until March or April for the problem to be fixed.

Where there appears to be no desire on the part of the applicant (or anyone else) to proceed with the claim and no real prospect of the claim proceeding any further, there is no point in actively managing the claim towards a determination.