Sentences with phrase «old arguments like»

They will no doubt spout the same old arguments like: «I remember when global cooling was all anyone would talk about.»

Not exact matches

Jeez Fred — even fundiot nutter sites like AIG tell their minions not to use the tired old 2LoT argument.

The old routine of finding a verse that you like and using it in any given instance to validate your argument.

Like an old chinese saying that states: «In order to have power in an argument, you must first not violate any laws yourself»

Indeed, an argument could be made that at no time since the First Great Awakening have so many churches of disparate denominational, theological and stylistic approaches been so united in terms of their music: one can now walk into old - line Pentecostal churches, small - town evangelical congregations, mall - like suburban megachurches, and many a mainline Protestant sanctuary across the country on any given Sunday morning and hear the same hymns and choruses done in approximately the same musical styles, with similar settings and instrumentation.

Jeremy i am surprised you never countered my argument Up till now the above view has been my understanding however things change when the holy spirit speaks.He amazes me because its always new never old and it reveals why we often misunderstand scripture in the case of the woman caught in adultery.We see how she was condemned to die and by the grace of God Jesus came to her rescue that seems familar to all of us then when they were alone he said to her Go and sin no more.This is the point we misunderstand prior to there meeting it was all about her death when she encountered Jesus something incredible happened he turned a death situation into life situation so from our background as sinners we still in our thinking and understanding dwell in the darkness our minds are closed to the truth.In effect what Jesus was saying to her and us is chose life and do nt look back that is what he meant and that is the walk we need to live for him.That to me was a revelation it was always there but hidden.Does it change that we need discipline in the church that we need rules and guidelines for our actions no we still need those things.But does it change how we view non believers and even ourselves definitely its not about sin but its all about choosing life and living.He also revealed some other interesting things on salvation so i might mention those on the once saved always saved discussion.Jeremy just want to say i really appreciate your website because i have not really discussed issues like this and it really is making me press in to the Lord for answers to some of those really difficult questions.regards brentnz

That tiered old argument has been shown to be ignorant again and again, and yet Christians still love to use it like it hold any kind of weight.

Sounds like plain old argument from ignorance there, MikeB.

Those who are willing to base their argument permitting abortions entirely on the plurality - of - views doctrine should ask themselves questions like the following: Suppose some people thought it permissible for mothers to kill their disobedient five - year - olds (cf. Deut.

Other indications of evolution are too numerous to actually list in full, but a few might be the clear genetic distinction between Neanderthals and modern man; the overlapping features of hominid and pre-hominid fossil forms; the progressive order of the fossil record (that is, first fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then birds; contradicting the Genesis order and all flood models); the phylogenetic relationships between extant and extinct species (including distributions of parasitic genetic elements like Endogenous Retroviruses); the real time observations of speciation in the lab and in the wild; the real time observations of novel functionality in the lab and wild (both genetic, Lenski's E. coli, and organsimal, the Pod Mrcaru lizards); the observation of convergent evolution defeating arguments of common component creationism (new world v. old world vultures for instance); and... well... I guess you get the picture.

It's like building all your arguments based on old blog posts you really liked, «Well HeavenSent posted that it was sunny outside, so regardless of the evidence, that of darkness beyond my windows, I believe it's sunny outside, and you should too.»

As for the ones I don't respect (as in the ones who can only call names like a 5 year old but never have a substantive argument), I'd rather that they didn't..

These evidences remain very important; but, whether we like it or deplore it, the older type of argument for Christianity based upon the documents and traditions and heroism of the age of the Apostolic Fathers has no longer the evidential power of former days.

That advocacy was the hallmark of Frank Wolf's lengthy congressional career, which, like my old friend Henry Hyde's, is a powerful argument against term limits.

Nothing like a good old «conspiracy theory» — with no concrete facts to back it up — to bolster an argument.

@blastgunner the silence from my part is not due to a lack of arguments but to the simple fact that i, m tired of trying to explain how unfounded, weak... your comments are the same way i, m, tired of reading the same old invalid arguments being used, rehashed, borrowed from some sites like caughtoffside or some lazy pundits who love to use the same old cliches without anything to back it up!!

i agree andy but its not just the 4 years of hard work that should be taken into account, firstly the fai hav missed out on millions at a time where money is already tight, and more importantly the fact that given, kilbane, o shea, dunne, duff, whelan and keane may be too old when the next one comes around and for a professional footballer to hav a chance to represent his country on the biggest stage of all taken away in this manner is cruel, there can be no argument against technology when there is so much at stake as for henry being labelled a cheat i do not agree as it came at him so quick and although he in fact handled it twice i do not believe it was pre-meditated like maradonnas effort or that disgusting dive by anelka at 0 - 1... can any1 who watched the game live please tell me how lass diarra stayed on the pitch let alone avoided a yellow??

another argument could be that wenger did the same stupid stuff when he stuck players like eduardo and arshavin on the wing; the dude is pretty old to be learning new stuff (did i just age discriminate?).

Now, we could make the argument that people like to vote for old white men because that is human nature.

Another argument is that mayoral control makes it more feasible to carry out large - scale changes or initiatives like Mr. de Blasio's expansion of prekindergarten and «3 - K for All,» his plan to offer free preschool to all 3 - year - olds.

The mayor and the governor illustrated two arguments about the most effective way to spend the finite supply of state cash on an older, cash - strapped city like Syracuse.

A new argument is hurtling up the Skeptic Leaderboard, leaving old stalwarts like mid-century cooling and water vapor in its wake.

The «same old, same old» argument gets crushed here, because like Part 1, Part 2 departs from formula.

It's unclear HOW they became friends, WHY nothing ever happened (beyond the truly weak argument of lack of physical attraction), HOW they maintain their old married couple ease, and WHY he doesn't bend over backward like this for any other woman.

Initiatives like Reading First might have helped our youngsters to decode, goes the argument, but that's not enough to create strong readers, especially as kids get older.

Before I start this morning, I would simply like to point out these five old articles of mine, because they will be relevant to my argument: The Rules, Part XXXVIII (There is probably money to be m...

Before I start this morning, I would simply like to point out these five old articles of mine, because they will be relevant to my argument:

Setting aside Potter's curious view of events for the moment, though, I find his core argument truly bizarre: the bobwhite need to be protected from cats so that they can be killed (preferably «25 in a day,» just like in the good old days Potter describes in the Courier News article) by hunters.

The claim that Toads wear hats is just not well substantiated, especially given that a large part of the argument hinges on the canonical legitimacy of an old TV show that featured live - action guest stars like Magic Johnson and Rowdy Roddy Piper.

I have read a lot of arguments from people who do not understand why someone like myself may still want to play games that are a decade old or older, when there are so many more games released today I have note played yet.

Rounds are very fast and will cause delightful arguments between friends, just like the good old Goldeneye days.

That said, you can make the argument that she merely wanted to seem like a cool mom to younger players, in the hope that they tune in to the revival of the Roseanne show, which (shameless plug) airs March 27 at 8PM ET on ABC; we love that old episode where DJ gets the Super Nintendo, by the way.

She added that China is moving away from the old argument that it has no responsibility to act on emissions yet because, like India and other large emerging industrial powers, it still has per - capita emissions many times lower than those in wealthy countries.

Imagine if you will, someone like me arguing evidence for AGW coming to CFACT and citing an article from, not a top - tier journal, nor even a second - tier, but more like a third - tier journal like the Asia - Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences (which people generally publish in when they can't pass the more rigorous peer review of the more reputable journals), and if that paper were written by a person who's work has had to be corrected by others, not once, not twice, but FOUR times to my knowledge, and every correction takes it back in the opposite direction of what that person was arguing, and if the paper I was citing was this guy making the same old tired argument he's been corrected on before, and if this paper already had evidence of data tampering to get it's conclusions... just imagine the uproar from the usual crowd here.

My feelings about Biddle's arguments are sort of like the old beer commercial — «I feel strongly both ways.»

And through conversations with others in the growing climate justice movement, I began to see all kinds of ways that climate change could become a catalyzing force for positive change — how it could be the best argument progressives have ever had to demand the rebuilding and reviving of local economies; to reclaim our democracies from corrosive corporate influence; to block harmful new free trade deals and rewrite old ones; to invest in starving public infrastructure like mass transit and affordable housing; to take back ownership of essential services like energy and water; to remake our sick agricultural system into something much healthier; to open borders to migrants whose displacement is linked to climate impacts; to finally respect Indigenous land rights — all of which would help to end grotesque levels of inequality within our nations and between them.

So paper thin are the AGW movement's arguments that pretty much the only defences left to them are desperate techniques like the appeal to authority («the Royal Society believes in AGW and the Royal Society is, like, really old and distinguished, so AGW must be true») and cheap slurs.

The tired old alarmist argument goes something like this: CO2 levels increase, which in turn increases temperature, which in turn means more evaporation, which in turn creates more clouds trapping the heat allowing less heat to be radiated off into space.

Old arguments regarding variable energy resources, like renewable energy, appear to be falling flat.

Mostly the article simply repeats old nonsense, but there is one new deceptive argument typical of those like Jacoby who know nothing and whose stock in trade is bluster about everything including climate change.

Lindzen's arguments felt really tired to me, it actually felt like he was not at all up to date on what's going on and was going off of really old data.

But COP23 largely ends in a quandary, with the developed and developing nations in an argument as old as the Kyoto Protocol, as they continue to squabble like shipwrecked passengers in a sinking lifeboat over who should bail and how much — even as the little boat rapidly takes on water.

It might help you if you had a few concepds in mind too when considering this subject, like «space» is the big energy «sink» with old sol (and the internal heat generating processes (including nuclear) of the earth) as sources... any mechanism that results in a delay of energy leaving earth, such as a «bounce - back» or a re-rad of energy (like back radiation) certainly is going to increase the «energy flux» in the system, and this in any way you want to frame the argument translates to a «higher» energy state, and a higher so - called temperature» (movement in matter, velocity of air molecules or oscillations in certain «resonant molecules) as well.

A new argument is hurtling up the Skeptic Leaderboard, leaving old stalwarts like mid-century cooling and water vapor in its wake.

This kind of cross-examination looks more like an argument between 3 - year - old children:

The article sounds like the same old argument that considering any factor except «pure» legal ability (+ temperament + judgment) undermines the merit principle.

Dealing with mental health issues like depression, stress and anxiety is fraught with age - old taboos, stigmas and obstacles to openness — and none of it gets any easier when your job is to be the calm voice of logic and reason in an argument.

Yet the old arguments remain: we like the touch, odour and aura of books and libraries; books are pleasant to own and collect; reading a book seems easier and less prone to error than viewing on screen; and it is convenient to have many books open at once.

That's why many times it feels like you're stuck in the same, tired old argument.

Most couples tell me that they want to feel connected with their partner again; to stop the «same old arguments» from cycling over and over; to stop living like roommates; to end the painful silences; to feel heard and understood; and to feel hopeful, and happy again.»