Sentences with phrase «prove a point from»

The authors even have anecdotal evidence to prove their point from places like Seattle and San Diego.

My guess is that a more artful mathematician than myself could prove the point from first principles but the existence and direction of the effect seems self - evident.)

Sometimes it is easier to prove a point from other examples.

Not exact matches

These regulations will likely prove to be a point of controversy, even if they're simply meant to protect investors from fraudulent activity.

Its diapers, for example, proved vulnerable to higher - end offerings from Japanese competitors; P&G's market share has fallen nearly five percentage points since 2010, to 37 %, according to Euromonitor & Citi Research.

This, Klosterman argues, is how it has always been (for a while we were certain the Earth was flat until that was proven incorrect), and from that starting point, he attempts to explore which ideas or truths we believe today may be seen as woefully incorrect 100 years in the future.

After you have created your element of surprise - anything from a discovery, an experiment, research or an opinion — you must dissolve your findings gradually with facts, data, figures, charts and reference links that prove your point.

Attracting new projects to NREC usually means proving that they can be made commercially viable, The Verge's report points out, since projects normally come to the department from external clients - like commercial companies, NASA and the military.

Perth - based exploration junior Alkane Exploration NL is on the point of proving up the marketability of product from its 100 per cent held Dubbo Zirconia project, located twenty kilometres south of Dubbo and 400 km north - west of Sydney.

Pollster Frank Graves of Ekos Research points out that Jean Chrétien's 1993 win wasn't followed by any «post-election swoon,» while Paul Martin after 2004 and Stephen Harper after 2011 suffered declines which, far from being short - term slumps, proved irreversible.

Sundt (left) defined «crisis alpha» as the ability to generate returns at a time of crisis, and cited 20 years worth of data from his firm's Altegris 40 index of top commodity trading advisors (CTAs) to prove the point.

Well, to sum up today's call, we obviously had a good quarter, and we're optimistic about our second quarter as the reasons for our restored sell - through and momentum are simple: One, we've removed Session from our lineup and restored our proven HERO form factor, now with touch displays, to the $ 199, $ 299, $ 399 price points that GoPro's brand was built upon.

This proves an interesting point when correlated to the fact that many American venture capitalists (VCs) are serial entrepreneurs, while their Canadian counterparts generally come from financial, not entrepreneurial backgrounds.

That would be an increase of about 100 basis points (1.0 %) from where we are right now, if the MBA forecast proves accurate.

We try to prove our point and stray from the place where the discussion began.

To prove their point, these Islam - is - the - problem critics tend to link specific acts of jihadi groups to a string of references from Islamic scripture, traditions, legal texts, and Muslim scholarly opinions.

If I can't prove my point using scripture from the Bible i so love and cherish, how can I prove my point?

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

Now, i can quote from LOTR all day long, about what Sauron did to who, and when, and how Frodo saved the day, etc, etc, etc. i can give you hundred of pages of quotes, and put it all together in a logically consistent package to establish some point I want to prove about Aragorn.

As much as christians spew on about how the mormons are not real christians, they fail to understand that the Book of Mormon still takes on its roots from the same bible they foolishly believe in... nothing like hypocrites to enlighten the mind and prove our point further.

As an aside, the irony might be lost on you that, despite the fact that so many atheists here are so quick to note that believers do not have a monopoly on morals, you are essentially proving the point of believers that, from a historical perspective, atheists far more than believers have lacked morals vis - a-vis war and death.

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.

In 1864, Louis Pasteur proved that point in one case, showing that spontaneous generation (that life could originate from nonliving matter, also called abiogenesis), though accepted by some in the scientific community (such as Belgian chemist Jan Baptist van Helmont about 200 years earlier, who also believed that the basic elements of the universe was just air and water), was untrue.

But though I will argue for this teleological view of nature and human nature from empirical premises and from reason, my purpose here is not to debate or attempt to prove this point, but rather to illustrate how some teleological understanding of nature and human nature is a necessary premise for the idea of environmental stewardship.

When someone is accused of «cherry - picking» verses from the Bible, it means that they have a particular doctrine or idea they want to teach to others, and rather than considering «the whole counsel of God,» they pick a choose a few select verses from various books of the Bible which seems to prove their point or present their case in the strongest possible way.

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.

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.

Experimental groups have proved the point, at least to their own satisfaction — witness poet Gary Snyder, whose writing reflects a vision gained in part from participation in such groups.

Every single one of them told me that the Mother Teresa presented by the Canadian researchers was unrecognizable from the one they encountered, and to prove it, provided point by point rebuttals to their accusations.

So in regard to values, while it is true that they are by definition relative because arising from relationships, there may in point of fact prove to be values which are the same or nearly the same from person to person or time to time.

If you compared my writing from ten years ago with the writing I do today, I use different terminology, different approaches to proving my point, different vocabulary, and I even have different theological beliefs, supported by reading passages of Scripture in different ways, all to accomplish different goals in the minds and hearts of those who read.

The parson quoted from a book to prove his point, citing that, after all, God is love.

You call it with or from, you decipher it the way you like, the point that was proven is that no water = no life.

If I were to guess — and that is all any outsider can do at this point — I would say that the language of intrinsic value still in the Charter, granting nature some immunity from human need, language which, as noted, the Earth Charter Commission regards as essential and nonnegotiable, will prove the final stumbling block to official acceptance.

Colin... Your entire diatribe proves my satirical and sarcastic point that I made earlier... «because a dog's coat gets thicker in the winter, therefore we came from a one - celled amoeba».

i agre with Dave and then some - christians (and other folks who are serious in their beliefs too) are comical, believing and praying to someone who can't be seen, can't be proven... (this is from the point of view of an empiricist, who is able to measure things) Christians (well, me for sure) are hypocrits - believing in fantastic ideals and guaranteed to continualy fall short - that is a fairly comical notion, but nonetheless, one I enjoy to continue to strive for - setting high ideals and striving towards them.

To re-make our «God - of - the - gaps» point, as the first modern philosopher of science, Francis Bacon, prophetically warned, holistic levels safe from science's influence will prove to be chimeras, andleave us all reductionists.

That would be like me making quotes from Moby Dick to prove my point.

So the point of this is, atheists, is that if you're claiming someone is a lune for having God intereacting with them, it's similar to saying they're a lune for receiving a phone call from someone they know, because phone calls are selective too, they can consume someone's senses, and there's no guarantee that the person calling, will contact everyone over the planet... just to prove themself to someone that isn't a friend... or someone that doesn't love God.

I doubt anyone is buying your claim that you posted hostile things from names like Larry and Shawn to prove a point about message boards.

«You can't prove God doesn't exist» is not a convincing argument to us, or even a relevant point, because an inability to disprove something is a far cry from it being true.

We are expected to prove God's existence by pointing to the natural world and inferring from it, without the possibility of error, the presence in the background of a supernatural Coefficient; or rather, Efficient.

And again, I can be excused from proving technically that the transcendentalist reasonings fail to make religion universal, for I can point to the plain fact that a majority of scholars, even religiously disposed ones, stubbornly refuse to treat them as convincing.

From a judicial point of view, the Scotch verdict «not proven» surely seems appropriate — as it would be for very many other major items in current science.

You speak from the point of nothing more than, colloquially put, «book - knowledge» that has never been proven in your real life.

The moment he begins to stretch the facts to prove a point or to tell a good story from his imagination, at that moment he becomes a propagandist or perhaps a historical novelist, but he ceases to be a true historian.

If the question is your point then I can just say prove that they are not from God.

Our faith that these unintelligible objects actually exist proves thus to be a full equivalent in praktischer Hinsicht, as Kant calls it, or from the point of view of our action, for a knowledge of what they might be, in case we were permitted positively to conceive them.

What I find interesting — and this is something Fred Clarke has frequently pointed out over at Slacktivist — is that while some Christians love to harp on the parable of the sheep and goats and how it proves how God will separate us, they completely ignore the criteria Jesus uses in that parable for what separates the sheep from the goats.

We've pointed out over and over again you are using reports from well known hate groups that the experts in this country have proven are false.