Sentences with phrase «same flawed reasoning»

Based on the same flawed reasoning to conclude an absence of a trend from the non-detectability of a trend in the limited data sample from 1997 to the end of 1994, I could claim a «global warming stop» or «pause» for that 16 - year period.

The same flawed reasoning led the authors of Dabru Emet to obscure the central theological differences between the two faiths, by asserting that Jews and Christians «worship the same God» and find religious authority «in the same book.»

Not exact matches

As such, and since the God of Islam is the same God of Christianity and Judaism (according to the Quran that just been certified), Christianity and Judaism are true religions of God with text that has been corrupted (another reason you find contradictions with science because ordinary humans changed the word of God so you can see the flaws in it).

Your reasoning is still flawed, in that I can understand a woman and man using contraception to avoid disease but at the same time you brought up trust and then went on a male bashing spree.

The evidence here is so overwhelming that creationists are required to invoke facially - flawed mechanisms to account for this order (for example, «hydrodynamic sorting» which fails in light of similar density organisms not found in the same strata, like ostriches and ornithomimids; «ecozonation» which fails in light of similar niched organisms not found in the same strata, like dolphins and plesiosaurs; and «floating biomes» for the same reasons as the previous two creationist «models»).

For the same reasons Jesus can't be held accountable for the sins of man or be able to pay the price for them either.Substi.tutional atonement is a flaw and a moral injustice.

We got the Unconditional love is out there and we should all aim to find someone who loves us for those same reasons we love ourselves, and that includes our flaws

Ultimately, «Dredd» succeeds, despite its flaws, for the same reason that «The Avengers» did earlier this year: trust between the creatives and the producers.

- Sailing is rather boring and uneventful - most of the puzzles either involve block - pushing or timers, so they're not terribly exciting - My last gripe is about the controls - The bow and arrow is hard to aim - That's just stupid - Oceanhorn might be a flawed, blatant rip - off of Zelda, but it's worth playing - it might not deliver finely tuned mechanics quite the way Zelda does, but it's still fun for all the same reasons

In the end, charter advocates couldn't marshal a parent army for the same reason that has undone one ambitious #edreform vision after another: their logic model was flawed.

Peer reviews, the usual alternative touted by traditionalists, are also flawed in practice for the same reasons.

I don't have an opinion either way on this matter, as I'm fairly sure there is a bit of corporate asshatness on both sides, but to say Jay's reasoning is flawed in the same paragraph as suggesting that publishers don't care about readers is illogical to an extraordinary degree.

Every pronouncement about e-book adoption is flawed for the same reason.

The problems arise however, when people promote selectively - reasoned arguments such as those we've seen in this thread, and indeed, almost everywhere where these issues are discussed (over and over and over in the same flawed manner).

Sadly, because the method of selecting start and end points has the appearance of being deliberately selected by CMS to find the figures that most confirmed the prior reasoning, than any valid method — we've had this discussion here at CE, years ago, when Girma was pulling the same stunts — it is of course going to be the outcome that valid methods find this flaw in the endpoints CMS proposed.

The main flaw in your reasoning (and in the GCM's) is that the same sensitivity for the same change in forcing is applied, but that is far from sure.

While I have read of accounts by skeptical scientists of how they are selectively funneled out of the funding process, the level of coordination it would take to virtually eliminate any funding for good research scientists who might reach findings that diverge with what we are calling «consensus» here seems far too complicated logistically to be doable — particularly when you consider those very same scientists are frequently characterized by the the folks who make such claims about inequities in research funding as being so incompetent they are unable to see «obvious» flaws in their scientific reasoning.

As part of its justification, the administration cites this deficient fossil fuel - funded study as a reason for the CPP rollback — the same study whose flaws are pointed out below.

This is a design flaw, a situation that happens over and over for the same reasons, and for which there is a recognized remedy.

Although Judge Easterbrook was referring to the flawed reasoning of the lower court, the same principles apply to attack adverse cases.

We explore the reasons for these modest results, including the fundamental flaw in aid - effectiveness discourse and activity of a too polite, if not naïve or even cynical assumption that donors and developing country governments are speaking the same political language.

This is so because failing to give reasons might be considered a paradigm case of a legal flaw in the making of a decision that «makes no difference» to the outcome, thus making it entirely possible to conclude that it is «highly likely» that the outcome for the claimant would have been the same even if the «conduct complained of» — that is, the failure to give reasons — had not occurred.