Sentences with phrase «arguements on»

Trust me I have heard phycists make strong arguements on both sides of this question.

You do contribute comic relief and very often great entry points for counter arguements on dumb pseudoscientific arguements.

I followed VS's time / temperatue arguements on Bart Verheggen's blog this past March and posted on RealClimate the Opportunity Lost Cost paradigm.

Im speaking for me but i honestly do nt think too many people want to read arguements on a store blog.

Buy a theology dictionary not an English one for arguements on religion.

Secondly, if you are going to base your arguement on it, God only acted that way after hundreds of years of the Isrealites engaging in Baal worship that involved the blood sacrifices and canabalism of their children (and lots of other unmentionable perverted stuff).

But first of all, as an atheist, you have probably said the Bible is just a book of myths and lies and fairytales in the first place, so why are you basing your arguement on it?»

Someone to come here and mount a coherent arguement on RE and r2, on the possible justifications for cherry picking data, on the justification for claiming that the Bristlecone and Foxtail pines are temperature proxies, amongst many issues.

chris price CHCH NZ — this is exactly right — the arguement on CO2 is irrelevent in regard to Global Warming — it is getting cooler — plants are the best indicators of temperature we have — and yet we have the Professor Snow Barlow (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/vineyards-count-days-to-change-in-flavours-20110724-1hvei.html) saying grape growing areas will be forced to move because it's getting hotter??

Not exact matches

BTW, read Jeff Saut's recent post on Minyanville, where he endorses CalDive's margin expansion, «platform» company arguement.

It seems to me that people on both sides of this arguement have it wrong.

Like I said before chad, if you're going to quote someone who is supporting your arguement, they become your words and its on you to defend them and not slink back to the ad populem fallacy of saying smarter people than you have discussed it so it must be true.

Chad, I can now only as.sume that if you can't look at the arguements you're making against me and apply them to yourself then you're either a much bigger idiot than I could have ever thought, the most intellectually dishonest person on the planet or you're a troll.

You climb on me for throwing back the same arguement that Marcel makes for homosexuality that he used to try and make his point.

Fishion... I assume that you believe lesbianism / homosexuality are immoral becuz the Bible says so and, more importantly, what you believe the Bible to be.But can you on other grounds provide a compelling arguement to support the charge of immorality?Nobody really needs the Bible to believe that murder, stealing and lying are wrong, but there are situations that lying and stealing wd be permissable under a moral law, maybe not murder, but at least the taking of another life in war or self - defense, etc..

You are attacking governements that you have labeled athesist and have really made no valid arguement or offered no proof on how those nations fates were related to atheism.

Even our politicians would rather get elected on arguements over these issues rather than proving themselves to be compassionate human beings concerned about their fellow humans.

Your arguements have gone on long enough, its childish.Time to disengage, ok?

This is the mandate of the apologists on this blog and the best you can hope for is a circuar arguement that always ends up with it is «Gods truth».

Arguements based on any religious text will not be persuasive to someone who is not of that faith and, as he pointed out, those who are of that faith will likely already agree with the arguement.

So, FiF, based on your arguement for non-violence --- what is your take on Obama having armed body guards who will kill in an instant to save his life?

Creationists arguement is many times this (as it seems to be the point you're driving at): Evolutionists only have theories on how life started, but creationists have PROOF (the bible)!!

Oh, I speck you picked up on the fact that I get a little sarcastic — that may be because I'm not smart enought to make a good arguement!!!!

ok, ok, ok, i get it both sides think they are telling the truth there are no lyers here on this blogs only misinform people talking about two separate subjects yet thinking they are talking about the same thing the existence of god... one side believe the other doesn't what's wrong with that... sooner or later they'll changed their minds and one side will believe and the other won't so the arguement will forever be the same about two separate aguement on the same blog... but its definitely entertaining to read the comebacks... keep up the good work you all... its just as fun to read what the believer have to say as to what the nonebeliever have to say... after all it keeps all getting to know eachother better on what we believe right???

infact i would like to see an arguement with two sides that go like this, one is for hitler as for as his skill speaking and the other side argue for Cicero, both gave hour + long speeches that drove people to act on things they normally wouldn't have.

I expect that many of the arguements center on what «things» the family money should go towards.

Harpur's arguements for the confabulation of Jesus» existance are interesting and worth - noting, but the evidence for his position does not convince me or many other's, and needs to be weighed and compared against evidence for Jesus» existance, and a decision can be made (provisionally) based on the evidence which we currently have.

do nt bother bringing up an arguement w KS, he cant answer fact and only resorts to name calling, we are on to him,

We had good arguements for keeping Hayward on the wasatch, but when you're heart is somewhere else, there isn't much that is going to change that.

Whether our topping the table will be for real depends on what arguement Leicester City will put forward on Tuesday night.

But on what premise do you assmue Schneidlin would be on the bench?this is a hollow arguement, with no evidence or proof

i know im not the only one who suspected this whole relationship going public was a work for the shows on E! The constant arguement made against that was something to the extent of «what does john gain from that» and thats a fair point when you take physical attraction out of it.

with your question come many ifs on both sides of the arguement..

My husband and I have had several arguements over this, he thinks as long as you aren't driving the cart crazy and running all over the baby is fine on top of the cart, just as you said, because it «clicks.»

«Radical» Parents as superior and the guilt arguement Being accused of feeling superior to others is something breastfeeders, unschoolers, attachment parents and the like get confronted with almost on a daily basis.

For what its worth I agree that Labour are focusing too much on the cost of living arguement, but your statement I commented on clearly contradicted the point you were making.

Regardless of where you fall on those arguements, one fact remains true throughout; it was an interesting attempt.

btw don't bring up Bluray for last gen, it doesn't help your arguement, some huge games like Skyrim and alot other games did just fine on 360.

There are compelling arguements to convince the most skeptical, but fervent believers on both sides are not likely to change their views easily.

My first reaction was to think that you would be more effective if you simply presented clearly data and arguments that prove that the Robinson et al. arguments are riddled with important errors and based on bias rather than scientific arguement, without blatantly ridiculing of the people who wrote the article.

Every day, whether on the tv news programs, the newspapers, or online reports, the main topic is pro and con statements and arguements about what can be done, or needs to be done by usually someone else.

This leads to a more utilitarian arguement that, at what point is it better (economically for the state) for the state to enable people to live more prosperous, productive lives rather than leave them to rely on the state for subsistence?

I know I may have went out on a tangent somewhat, but I was just trying to reach to both ends of the spectrum on this global warming arguement.

The effect of CO2 is zero on temperature — and the sink — source arguement of FE & MattyB to justify CAGW is wrong.

I myself am of the opinion that both these individuals just wear their AGW belief - stance on their sleeves to preserve the AGW arguement and hence their blogs.

On this one website there are 56 arguements against Global Warming, and all 56 arguements have either no or a very weak rebuttal.

A new power plant in New Mexico could be halted by the courts based on arguements that it will hurt (now «endangered») polar bears in the North Pole!

if you went to a cardiologist and there were no engineers, the cardiologist would tell you of an irregular heartbeat and say sorry there is nothing we can do.really an absurd arguement... keep talking about the money and remember: «The US Government has spent more than $ 79 billion of taxpayers» money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, blah blah blah and you know where this came from so i leave out the note peace, rich

unless this case goes to SCC it will be of no value to the rest of canada - a newsreel media story on Ivan Henrysaid «the judge intentionally labelled Henry vexatious so he would not have a chance to appeal to SCC - the SCC automatically reject the vexatious» i am trying to figure out how this is done - in my case the ns attorney general defence lawyer had been on my case for years then one week before i sent in my SCC appeal books she wrote me and said she had moved to the SCC office where my books would be ariving!!!!!!! i reported this to the SCC but my complaint was ignored - so did the NSAG lawyer get ahold of my books and change them so SCC judges never seen my arguements - thats how bad they do nt want SLR's to use the courts!!!!!!

Thus, if there is impared visibility or slippery road condtitions an arguement can be made that the truck should not even be on the road.