Sentences with phrase «only proved the point»

Excellent article, Mr Miller, and all the sniping comments by religion - haters only proves your point even more.

Meanwhile, I was trying to remember Cardinal Tagle's talk, which hadn't helped at all in my moment with my daughter and her Holy Spirit shield; that moment only proved his point.

It only proves my point that this skirt is going to be super versatile.

And the claim that traditional public schools can't get rid of perpetually out - of - control students who ruin the educational experience for everyone else only proves the point that Duffy is trying to refute, namely that charters provide a healthier learning environment.

when mainstream authors say indies in general are unprofessional, you're only proving their point.

The series» comparatively lackluster sales and consistent critical lukewarmth (or, in the case of the many who panned it constantly, subzero temp) only proves my point all the more.

wont bother with you that much, you only prove my points further by your childish actions.

Artist Dread Scott argues that the controversy over his art installation only proves his point about «America's abuses of power.»

And if you're reading this thinking, «I don't seek anything out on social media... heck I don't even have an account or knowingly let my picture get posted on friends» accounts», it probably only proves the point.

Our maximum reading of 43.1 decibels at full load only proved the point.

The rising number of transactions in the network only proves the point.

Not exact matches

«You'll only know when success proves the point.»

With massive and increasing structural deficits; exploding debt in all sectors; hostile demographics; social and political fracturing and disintegration; grotesque wealth inequality; extraordinary global trade competition; a complete collapse of respect for vital government organizations such as the Justice Department and FBI, which the people now realize have gone rogue; an extremely complex and corrosive global geopolitical environment; the real prospect of war, potentially nuclear and worldwide; not to mention numerous additional factors, we can only point to few other times in history more dangerous to the people's financial welfare, and therefore more overall bullish for gold, one of the only financial sanctuaries proven to work in times of dislocation.

But you do continue to prove my point, that the only reason your religion of Atheism exist is to because my religious belief in God.

You can not use mythology to prove a point, you can only use facts and logical deductions therefrom.

The only point they proved is that they have never read a book from outside a christian book store.

All of this is beside the point, however, because the default position in any belief is evidence — meaning, something exists if there is evidence for it, otherwise the default position is to believe only what has been proven to exist.

I also don't think I need to point out to you that using only part of a definition fundamentally changes the word and definition itself, so to take only parts out to prove what atheism does do as «religious» is flawed and destroys your argument.

ZEKE — this is only to you — taking a part of a sentence to prove a point contrary to the point of the sentence is a fun game, get better.

Because of his philosophical starting point (science goes from simple to complex), Dawkins does not regard the existence of the staircase as something whose existence needs to be proved, but rather as a logical necessity that only needs to be illustrated.

My point here is that your ability to offer explanations as you have done here only proves one thing, that you are well versed on what's in your web.

So since everybody cherry - picks verses from the Bible, the only time you will ever get accused of cherry - picking is when they don't like the verses you picked to prove your point, because the verses they cherry - picked prove a different point.

Am I the only one noticing that even the half - apologies and criticisms of Julie or of this forum generally are tending to prove the point and provide additional evidence about what was going on and the character of those involved?

From your statement I see you actually can't prove anyone is born gay but only point, by the means of research that still can't PROVE a person is born gay, to the possibility that they could be bornprove anyone is born gay but only point, by the means of research that still can't PROVE a person is born gay, to the possibility that they could be bornPROVE a person is born gay, to the possibility that they could be born gay.

Pointing to a church's non-business features — its sheep's clothing — as proof that no wolf hides beneath ONLY proves that sheep's clothing is present.

As Jeremy points out, someone being willing to die for a cause does not simply prove it to be true, but only that those were willing to die for the cause believed it to be true.

Those who think God can not mean well toward us because he «sends» us suffering can prove their point only by showing that there is a way to run the universe, compatible with the existence of other real powers than just the supreme power, which would be more fully in accord with the totality of interests, or by showing that God sends us the suffering while himself remaining simply outside it, in the enjoyment of sheer bliss.

I don't know why you thought it was necessary to illustrate your point by detailing how to empty a pocket, but that only proves we are not using THE SAME CONTEXT.

My only point is that «you can't prove a negative» is not strictly true.

@hawaiiguest I believe I made my original point that the evolutionist are the more close minded of the two camps because they only trust what they can see or has been proven by «scientist» Scientist or the progressives of their age once thought the earth was flat.

I can not point to studies as to why Atheists / agnostics commit less crime, etc; I can only point to many studies that prove that is the case.

To prove a point, God thought it was alright to kill not only people, but animals as well.

If you rely only on the bible to make a point, that point is considered worthless because we've already proved the bible worthless as source material.

Let's recall that the point of scientific inquiry is to prove hypotheses to be true, so your initial stance is incorrect... we should not use scientific methods of inquiry to DISPROVE things... only to PROVE prove hypotheses to be true, so your initial stance is incorrect... we should not use scientific methods of inquiry to DISPROVE things... only to PROVE PROVE them.

So the only way for either of us to prove our point is for you enact a taxation on the Church.

The passion of God not only motivates us to eliminate whatever suffering can be eliminated; it also empowers us to accompany our brothers and sisters into regions of darkness where suffering can no longer be eliminated; it enables and invites us to share suffering where efforts to overcome it prove futile; it frees us to continue a ministry of compassion and shared grief at the point where those who are guided by criteria of utitlity and success cease their efforts.

To such people, Darwinism seems so logically appealing that only a modest amount of confirming evidence is needed to prove the whole system, and so they point to the peppered - moth example as virtually conclusive.

In answer tothey not him.There is no place in the book, the Bible, that says the planet is only 6000 years old, it is the word of God, just because the Bible has been misinterpreted by men and women over the years does not make it (the Bible) a work of fiction.The Bible has been proven to be more accurate and unchanged than any other text of antiquity.Case in point Kedorlaomer.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt early on, even though every single person I have encountered, who is of the Reformed persuasion, has proven to be extremely capable of pointing out to everyone else where everyone else is wrong, and can do it in such a way as to give you the impression that, not only do they want to correct your erroneous beliefs, but also want to make sure you feel very, very bad about being completely wrong.

It's one thing to choose not to believe in God or not consider Jesus Christ being the only way to heaven, but to insult and attack His teachings or His followers in any way only makes the Bible prove its point.

I think, in a way, those attempts only prove what he is saying and we can't rest until he sees my point of view.

Ogden points out not only that I have not proved the truth of my hypotheses but also that my formulations of my theory are slippery.

Peteyroo, whereas I am confident you will never make a good argument, because you have proven over and over again that your points are only made with contempt, sarcasm and outright lies.

Simply foolish pride and arrogance to think we can... again, if one point is proven not possible than the only other alternative has to be correct, one which can not be proven to not be true.

It makes me think that you're only in this to prove your point and win an argument.

By only attacking the GOP prove their point.

So you pointing out that non-believers act righteously only proves moral values exist and God exists.

Investigate the evidence yourself, there is nothing at all that truly suggests that the Big Bang happened, the only thing they have used in order to come up with the theory is that in their observances, the Universe appears to be expanding from a central point, it doesn't prove that a Big bang occurred, we know so little about the universe, that we don't even know everything about our own world, and you really believe that our science has figured out the riddle to the beginning of the Universe?

If it means that much to you and you're not only hanging it because you want to prove a point, hang it on the INSIDE of the door frame entering your house.

The mathematics prove the point: the researchers found that a piece of land that could produce 100 g of plant - based protein would be capable of producing far less animal - based protein — the same plot used for laying hens, chickens to eat, dairy products, pork and beef would respectively produce only 60 g, 50 g, 25 g and 4 g of protein.