Sentences with phrase «only backs up the argument»

Not exact matches

You called me out as being disingenuous when I said «that as time goes on however, I'm finding things that are helping to disprove things previously held as fact among Christians», so I have provided you an example that not only wasn't it a disingenuous statement, but that I've done my homework, on both sides of the argument, and came up with something that no one has been able to give me a response with even either the slightest chance of being possible, or falling back to the old status qua of «mysterious ways» and «having faith».

To many, it has seemed an unedifying sight that those who defend theism on cosmological grounds have time after time given up their arguments only to come back with new ones which in turn are later surrendered.

We need to invent a new word for people willing to believe the writings of unknown authors, of unknown origin, of an unknown but ancient time, which is badly worded, internally AND externally (with modern science) inconsistent, full of statements with no actual arguments to back them up, with the only decently educated people to back it all up are theologians who twist the meaning of words and commit logical fallacies and still only try to prove that SOMETHING must exist, not that christianity is the truth.

She makes the common sense argument that failing to pay for more healthful meals up front will only result in higher health care costs on the back end, and she considers a variety of ways to pay for universal lunch, such as a tax on soda or soda advertising, an increase in the capital gains tax, or by reducing income guarantees and price supports to producers of corn and soy.

In fact, his attorneys don't plan to call any witnesses at all, but instead will present only documents to back up their arguments.

I wasn't aggressive, I wasn't a fanboy, and I actually used factual arguments to back up my claims, so why the disagree, unfortunately, I may not answer, as I can only post once more after to this, but I will read it, so come on, tell me what you disagreed with in my post.

It pretty much backs up your argument that anthropogenic contribution could only have commenced after 1950.

I asked you about any evidence to back up your arguments, but you only cite some references which do not support your questions.