Not exact matches
I still
see the
logic of buy - and - forget for certain kinds of portfolios, particularly if you want to be a stock picker for whatever reason and yet you
only have limited time, interest, or application.
You cant debate God... you cant use
logic to explain God... You cant use your small finite mind to try and explain away an infinite God... Man is flesh and blood but man has a spirit and some things can
only be received and revealed thru spirit... And what you do nt
see is actually more real than what you can observe with your five senses... And BTW I did nt say religion i said God... Religion is man made tradition... God is real... develop a personal relationship with the one who created you and gave you life... God has a purpose for your life...
The
only problem I
see is that you lack
logic.
You
see, your
logic and proof
only applies to earth, its not universal..
You
only see abortion as wrong because your religious belief system has persuaded you to preclude
logic with fairy tales.
Since you supposedly
see beauty in god's creations and not in these animals I can
only imagine the twisted
logic you have for how these animals fit into your creation scheme.
The coherence of the argument (not a closed one, like a system of
logic, but open, like a method or key to progressive research) is such that I believe
only solid, positive reasons can lead to its rejection; and for my part I can
see none that is adequate.
As a biological anthropology major I've read Richard Dawkins (who I admire as an intellectual and work as a biologist) but the difference is I know
see the natural world and life itself with a different lenses, not denying anything that science, reason and
logic has to offer but
only enhancing it with a different purpose.
In this purified
Logic (Henry Adams would have
seen it as another sign of the triumph of the Dynamo over the Virgin), one
sees that fear of loss of rational control over the sensible universe that led the seventeenth - century rationalist Fontenelle to tolerate poetry
only as a social amusement.
Royce did not live to
see the fulfillment of his high hopes and the development of this
logic by some logicians not
only into an instrument for the elimination of metaphysics but into a formalism and conventionalism in which truth in Royce's sense no longer figured.
The season before last 14 15 we did better with the points than last season even though we came second from last season we know we conceded many goals from set pieces and were very short on goal scoring the
logic of this season was to fix the defensive department and the offensive department by introducing a defender to reduce the amount of goals conceded unless holding is to be the man we havent us of yet fixed the problem on the offensive department we all know the
only offensive player is chuba apkom well else we have not addressed the problem so in reality I do not except Arsenal to finish the season with more than 70 points and personally think minimum point required to win the premier league is 85 points have we got that in our squad it will remain to be
seen if chuba and holding are enough for a key to unlock the season we will soon find out but I think MR wenger is gambling with the introduction of new manageress which lives us with Liverpool and Leicester and who will take the points off united chelsea and city the next 6 games should give us the indication to what may happen to the long run for the new year
Only certain professors
see the
logic.
So I'm struggling to
see the
logic in Dabo giving up a national championship (a second straight one at that), a title without Deshaun Watson (which would help mitigate the «oh, Clemson and Dabo
only won because they had Watson» crap), 3 years of a 5 - star NC - winning - caliber QB in order to....
The
only logic i
see from wenger is that he feels chambers is strictly a c.bk cover & bellerin / coquelin are r.bk and c.dm cover.
First Point: I do not
see the
logic in substituting your
only striker in a match you intend to win.
The
only reason the PM's score isn't higher is because his failure to answer the question and the sloppy, inane
logic of his arguments were so plain for all to
see.
ACEP's contention that Ghana does not need the second KARPOWER barge, is is not
only wrong in
logic, we
see it as a well calculated error committed by the energy think - tank to inject a message of hopelessness and apprehension among the Ghanaian populace, as far as electricity distribution is concerned.
The
only transmission available is the Xtronic CVT which supposedly has a new shift
logic that creates a «more responsive acceleration feel», although this remains to be
seen in the real world.
The viewer
sees, from the other side, a highly sophisticated craftsman conveying to the viewer a natural ordering, even if energetic and chaotic, of color and surface which in its deep inherent
logic, again far from any but Tsao to decipher, offers not
only outward, startling beauty but the beauty of the complexity of natural formation.
(2) I don't understand the
logic of saying, «I don't
see what technology will save us, so therefore the
only solution is to let everyone continue to use the atmosphere as a free sewer for greenhouse gases.»
This leads back to the importance of Chief Constable Hall's admonition about securing files and computer operations as well as can be done — and the basic
logic of putting something in an e-mail message on a matter of public import
only if you wouldn't mind
seeing it revealed in public.
Now our dumping X % of CO2 via fossil fuels and
seeing.5 X % in the atmosphere, would lead to a logical assumption that
only the X we are dumping is causing.5 X, but there may be a complication with obvious
logic in a non-linear world.
While I can
see the
logic of suggesting that it
only takes one person to disprove a theory, the chances of that occurring now have got to be very small given the level of independent corroboration between scientists / joint statements on the fundamentals.
That
logic, not verbalized earlier, helped me
see that Climategate emails and documents released in Nov 2009 were
only the latest in a five decade effort to obscure quantitative information on the composition, origin, and source of energy of the Earth - Sun system.
As to not getting something as simple as that algebra, one need
only look as far as this pretzel
logic to
see the contortionist efforts that are made to convince oneself that somehow B > 0.
The «direct» tax proposals under consideration — taxing emissions at the source, a gas tax, etc. — have a certain
logic and efficiency to them and avoid the muddle of derivatives (the dangers of which we can all now
see only too well).
If you will take the trouble to go over what has been written on this thread, and sort out my posts, I think you will
see that I have demonstrated, by simple science and
logic, that if there is a rational discussion of what is happening to Antarctic sea ice at the same time as Arctic sea ic is discussed, the
only conclusion one can come to is that whatever is happening in the Arctic this year, it is purely a regional effect.