Sentences with phrase «more explanation as»

Standard Batman plot with more explanation as to how he became Batman and how he obtained his futuristic weapons.

That last name mentioned bears a bit more explanation as well.

Not exact matches

For starters, here's an overly simplified explanation of Bitcoin: It's a digital currency (there are more than 800 now) that isn't controlled by a central authority such as a government or bank.

An explanation for this may be that people value consistency and predictability in fair treatment as much or more than fair treatment itself, according to Brent Scott, co-author of the paper.

The more plausible explanation for the stock market's success this year has less to do with Trump, and more to do with the woman he just declined to reappoint as chair of the Federal Reserve, Janet Yellen.

If you're looking for a more in - depth explanation of blockchain tech, I might be so bold as to recommend Fortune's «Blockchain Mania!»

As part of the explanation as to why Europe gives proportionately more ODA, Gunzburg noted that countries with bigger welfare states — like those for which the Scandinavian nations are famed — tend to pay higher taxes, leading to more government revenue that can be spent on aiAs part of the explanation as to why Europe gives proportionately more ODA, Gunzburg noted that countries with bigger welfare states — like those for which the Scandinavian nations are famed — tend to pay higher taxes, leading to more government revenue that can be spent on aias to why Europe gives proportionately more ODA, Gunzburg noted that countries with bigger welfare states — like those for which the Scandinavian nations are famed — tend to pay higher taxes, leading to more government revenue that can be spent on aid.

What matters, in these cases, is that someone on your team is brave enough, vulnerable enough, to use a sentence that starts with, «The story I'm making up right now is...» The idea is to reach the truth as quickly possible, instead of wandering around with your made - up explanation, which more than likely consists of your own shame triggers, and has little relation to reality.

«Our company employs more females, African Americans and Hispanics than most tech companies do,» one participant offered as an explanation for awarding their employer a passing grade on diversity.

In the most detailed explanation of the 2016 payment made to the actress, Stephanie Clifford, Mr. Cohen, who worked as a counsel to the Trump Organization for more than a decade, said he was not reimbursed by the Trump Organization or the campaign for the payment.

The short explanation: As long as a parent is the account custodian, the child's financial aid will decrease by no more than 5.6 % of the account valueAs long as a parent is the account custodian, the child's financial aid will decrease by no more than 5.6 % of the account valueas a parent is the account custodian, the child's financial aid will decrease by no more than 5.6 % of the account value.2

There are many that matter; but in Canada's case, as research at the Bank of Canada has shown for more than 20 years, the dominant explanation is global commodity prices.

As such we felt it deserved more explanation.

As it is, the book is basically more like a «check list» with explanations than a real «investing book».

However, it is abundantly clear that the human race is as it is (this is no more than mere tautology), and so we can see that what may originally seem improbable is in fact the best explanation of a given circu.mstance.

Taken as a whole they've made a very compelling argument that the explanations of the universe provided by both science and religion are incomplete and always evolving, and that one perspective is no more or less valid than another.

'' Thomas Jefferson omitted it (Revelation) along with most of the Biblical canon, from the Jefferson Bible, and wrote that at one time, he considered it (Revelation) as «merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.»

No, a far, far more reasonable explanation is that it is all baloney and that the accounts were interpreted and altered with the intent to show them as evidence for the resurrection.

Over the course of time as we learn more about the world around us scientific explanations have displaced many supernatural explanations.

One also plays directly into the hands of those who would dismiss them as quasi-scientific explanations of things for which we now have more sophisticated explanations.

[30] Thomas Jefferson omitted it along with most of the Biblical canon, from the Jefferson Bible, and wrote that at one time, he «considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.»

Instead it has more plausibility as a metaphysical than as a scientific instrument of explanation.

Pew reports that «in their social and political views, young adults are clearly more accepting than older Americans of homosexuality, more inclined to see evolution as the best explanation of human life and less prone to see Hollywood as threatening their moral values.

As such, this explanation of how a loving, in - control God can be reconciled with suffering is more nearly an affirmation of belief than it is an explanation of anything.

The more definitely the written law became established as canonical and regarded as infallibly inspired, the more surely could the explanation of the sacrifices be transferred from the realm of animistic superstition, where they really started, to the realm of sacred observance ordained by God and for that reason faithfully to be maintained.

I would like to hear Mikee's explanation as to why the more secular G20 countries have lower crime and murder rates than the US, why atheists have lower incarceration rates than religitards, and why the red states have higher crime, divorce and teen pregnancy rates than the blues states.

But, on the other hand, it is quite unjustified for theists to hold that we must tolerate or swallow the paradoxes or explain them away (by feats of ingenuity so subtle, and verbal methods so remote from intuitive insight or definite logical structures, that only deity could know with any assurance what was taking place), giving as justification the claim that the alternative position of atheism is even more paradoxical (lacking, it may be urged, any principle of cosmic explanation at all).

You follow this sentence (the rest of the paragraph) with the same statement 3 more times, with no explanation as to why you feel this way.

Nor is God an unnecessary ornament added as a beautiful but superfluous extra onto the complete and subtle explanations offered by science, any more than Shakespeare is a superfluity to the play Hamlet.

Russ, you said, «while it is a «huge leap» (as you say) to claim the specificity of the Judeo - Christian God in this particular finding, how is it not * equally * (if not more so) a leap to filter out the concept of transcendence (which you call a «self - contained oxymoron»), without any alternate explanation for the paradoxical «something out of nothing» origins of our universe?»

while it is a «huge leap» (as you say) to claim the specificity of the Judeo - Christian God in this particular finding, how is it not * equally * (if not more so) a leap to filter out the concept of transcendence (which you call a «self - contained oxymoron»), without any alternate explanation for the paradoxical «something out of nothing» origins of our universe?

Well, while more explanation of why something is evidence might be helpful, we don't have an established set of criteria as to what constitutes «evidence».

Yglesias was writing in defense of a candidate whose favorability rating had gone underwater (more people rated her unfavorably than favorably) largely as a result of an email scandal in which her explanations of her email policies as Secretary of State had repeatedly collapsed.

Keillor has a keen ear for parody, and makes use of it in unlikely ways, as in the marvelous «Your Wedding and You» with its explanation of the «alternative wedding» (only Garry Trudeau's «Doonesbury» has caught this «60s and «70s language as accurately), and in his more recent homage to punk rock in «Don: The True Story of a Young Person.»

If you can't understand my explanation above and see that as an attempt at discrediting, without pointing out where exactly it's wrong, then there isn't much more I can do, other than hope one day you'll learn something.

Thomas Jefferson omitted it (Revelation) along with most of the Biblical canon, from the Jefferson Bible, and wrote that at one time, he «considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.»

The revealed account of creation mentions only the «dust of the earth» as material cause; there is no certain scientific doctrine to the contrary; therefore there is no reason to abandon a «literal» interpretation of Genesis, all the more so as the history of the theory of evolution shows that this tends to be regarded in a radically materialistic way as a complete explanation of man's origin, and so involves theses which are certainly heretical.

I have a hunch that one explanation accounts for the silence of evangelical biblical scholars more than any other: the basic fear that their findings, as they deal with the text of Scripture, will conflict with the popular understanding of what inerrancy entails.

In a way, every new scientific discovery is a proof that we're headed towards a time when we don't need God as an explanation any more.

I take it as established that, for Bergson, calculus is more than just a handy metaphor or analogy, but rather, he indeed aimed at framing an approach to the organicist world hypothesis that employs the calculus as its actual method of discovery (i.e., differentiation) and explanation (i.e., integration), and that every discovery is the inverse of an explanation and every explanation the derivative of a discovery.

[30] Thomas Jefferson omitted it along with most of the Biblical canon, from the Jefferson Bible, and wrote that at one time, he «considered it as merely the ravings of a ma - niac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the inc - oherences of our own nightly dreams.»

If you are really able to do more than «chip away» at cosmology and evolution, then provide a superior explanation of «divine orchestration» in at least same the level of detail as natural processes you are calling inadequate.

The atheist / agnostic can not in good faith dismiss this desire as irrelevant, for it is what motivates his own investigations and is satisfied when he achieves a more adequate explanation of whatever particular problem he is investigating.

Toward my belief system, religion is a personal belief and should not be a sociable consideration... Anyone's beliefs upon religious conjuring séances should be held personally and not be centered by any socialism of the religiously clairvoyant which tends to conjure their weekly seminary séances upon the weakly enamored folks ever forsaking the doctrines oaths... Emotionalisms are where religious circles are deemed rented and the renters pay steeply for a yarn's worth... Therefore keeps one's faith separated from religious teamsters who take and never give their folded flocks any causally rational explanations as to why there are reportedly many more of God's many sons then what Christendom so portends there to be...

The Christian explanation of who we are as free persons might make more sense that Rousseau's account of human freedom as an inexplicable cosmic accident.

Toward my belief system, religion is a personal belief and should not be a sociable consideration... Anyone's beliefs upon religious conjuring séances should be held personally and not be centered by any socialism of the religiously clairvoyant which tends to conjure their weekly seminary séances upon the weakly enamored folks ever forsaking the doctrines oaths... Emotionalisms are where religious circles are deemed rented and the renters pay steeply for a yarn's worth... Therefore keep one's faith separated from religious teamsters who take and never give their folded flocks any causally rational explanations as to why there are reportedly many more of God's many sons then what Christendom so potentially claims there to be...

Throughout these categories we find the descriptions of the various types of entity becoming more definite as the categories build to more complex explanations which involve the previous ones.

A more likely explanation was first put forward by Wellhausen, 15 and it has been widely adopted.16 This states that the story of the discovery of the empty tomb ends with these strange words in order to explain to readers why, as late as the mid-first century, they had never heard of this story before.

If this is all that is said, an explanation is given (in the sense of course in which metaphysical statements aim at «explaining» anything) of the aspect in which the act is more, but not how the act founded and sustained in that way, is not only the act of the finite being because it is received in it, as Aquinas puts it, but also because it is posited by it as a cause.

This is true, not because it contains, as it does, more exalted religious ideas than any other book, or expresses them better (this would be an explanation of the Bible's superiority, not of its uniqueness), but because it stands in a unique relation to some unique and supremely significant events.