Sentences with phrase «statement is our answer to the question»

«That statement is our answer to the question of whether there should be a ban» on any further research, said David Baltimore, a Nobel Prize - winning biologist who chaired the committee.

Not exact matches

When it became public that his name was in the records of a Capitol Hill escort agency, Vitter put out a written statement of contrition, went into a week of seclusion, emerged and, with his wife (who happens to be a prosecutor), made a brief public apology, then refused to answer questions.

Tag questions are statements that appear to be questions, but don't allow for any kind of answer except for agreement.

You should make sure that your LinkedIn profile holds a relevant mission statement that answers all their questions because that is the first place most candidates will head to order to get to know you better.

In a statement to Brian Stelter later on Tuesday, Facebook said it's looking forward to answering questions about the process.

«Mr Schroepfer, Mark Zuckerberg's right hand man whom we were assured could represent his views, today failed to answer many specific and detailed questions about Facebook's business practices,» said Collins in a statement after the hearing.

A spokeswoman declined to answer a series of direct questions from CNBC about his case, instead providing a statement from Acting Assistant Attorney General Caroline D. Ciraolo of the Justice Department's Tax Division: «Bradley Birkenfeld was afforded due process of law and sentenced by a federal district court after full consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, including his admission that he advised wealthy UBS clients on how to conceal their assets from the U.S. government,» she said.

However, the answer to the above question can not be relegated to just a simple yes or no statement.

You seem to believe that you are aware of what everyone is thinking, as this is the second time you have made a sweeping blanket statement... but to answer your question: I can assure you if that woman did see an angel telling her to kill her children, it certainly would have been a fallen angel, or demon if you prefer and not from God... If you had even a basic understanding of angels and fallen angels and the protection of God, this would be a moot point... but it appears that you want to play the game of how ridiculous can I be...

It has offered nothing to each of the discussions I have seen it post in, and has NEVER answered the question asked every time, «How has it been proven» nor addressed the statement, «It has actually been proven to not work».

It wasn't the summer that brought an end to my doubt, but it was the summer I encountered a different Jesus, a Jesus who requires more from me than intellectual assent and emotional allegiance; a Jesus who associated with sinners and infuriated the religious; a Jesus who broke the rules and refused to cast the first stone; a Jesus who gravitated toward sick people and crazy people, homeless people and hopeless people; a Jesus who preferred story to exposition and metaphor to syllogism; a Jesus who answered questions with more questions, and demands for proof with demands for faith... a Jesus who healed each person differently and saved each person differently; a Jesus who had no list of beliefs to check off, no doctrinal statements to sign, no surefire way to tell who was «in» and who was «out»; a Jesus who loved after being betrayed, healed after being hurt, and forgave while being nailed to a tree; a Jesus who asked his disciples to do the same...

While I definitely agree that his response is great in many circumstances and (without knowing the context of that conversation) may have been the perfect thing to say at that moment, I think calling this statement «a template that can be used to respond to questions concerning sexuality, gender and other important issues» reduces a very complex issue down to a very simple response that doesn't really answer any questions for anyone.

It is a strange picture that we are given of Jesus during these first days in the temple: arguing freely with Sadducees, scribes, and Pharisees; parrying more or less subtle attempts to lure him into statements that could be used against him; answering sincere questions and approving good answers to his own questions; pronouncing fiery invectives against influential teachers who opposed him; lamenting the failure of Jerusalem to respond to his challenge; and then calmly pointing out to his disciples the tiny but sacrificial offering of a poor widow.

A school's commitment to a particular theological tradition, sometimes symbolized by required subscription to a confessional statement, might be taken to mean a commitment to specifiable boundaries to what questions may be explored and what range of answers to those questions may be critically examined.

(Not that God is assumed to be an individual in this sense, but that it is not assumed that he is not, in the statement of the classification, whose purpose is to state, not to answer, controversial questions.)

To Eric.G, to answer your question, It is my point of view that Jesus (PBUH) is the Son of God based on the simple statement that reads «god made man in his own image»To Eric.G, to answer your question, It is my point of view that Jesus (PBUH) is the Son of God based on the simple statement that reads «god made man in his own image»to answer your question, It is my point of view that Jesus (PBUH) is the Son of God based on the simple statement that reads «god made man in his own image».

The notion of God, especially, requires metaphysics, because there are no «floating statements,» but only answers to questions.

Hartshorne, I think, can not answer such questions and admits as much in a statement, which, though parenthetical to the prior statements I have cited, indicates just how far we are from an analytically clear understanding of divine knowledge: «If this [knowing fear without being afraid] is a paradox so is any idea of adequate knowledge» (CSPM 263).

If you don't know the answer to that question, then it's time to go into your bank statements and pull up the last three to four months of income.

Seth, Ask TWW to answer your question — since that's where the statement exists.

By actual count, less than one third of the people who attended the postservice discussion were able to make a clear statement of the sermon's central question and the «answer» that it offered.

This answer is not implied in the statement of the question, as it might seem to be, for God's relation to man as the eternal Thou which never becomes an It does not make any the less real the «silence» or «eclipse» of God when He appears to hide Himself and we cut ourselves off from relation with Him.

That would seem to be a more appropriate question for you to answer, seeing as how you're the one making the statement clearly in defense of gays in Uganda by way of alleging FMC support.

We kept walking from the statement to the question to the answer and now we are living within the freedom of Christ.

I interpret your question to mean that Hawking's statement that there is no aferlife is empirically falsifiable... my answer... absolutely.

Might it be a certain failure to answer these questions which makes this statement seem a worrying anachronism: «The number constantly swells of the people who raise the most basic questions or recognise them with a new sharpness» (10).

His great statement, just quoted, is not an answer to the question, «Who was Jesus?»

I would say that it is a statement that is formulated as a question but that is not supposed to be answered.

This speaking of God may ultimately only point to the question which is man himself and thus hint at God's mystery in silence, the result may be less adequate than any statement on another subject, the answer, aimed at God's bright «heaven», may ever again fall back into the dark sphere of man or may consist in inexorably upholding the question that transcends any definition, formula or phenomenon.

Before answering the question, Robertson acknowledged the statement was controversial by saying, «I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this.»

The inherently necessary borders of science could best be protected in the future if all scientists were to agree to draw a clear, careful, and inviolable line between scientific and philosophical / religious truth - that is, if they would conscientiously seek to avoid making purportedly scientific statements concerning questions whose answers lie beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.

In a statement, they wrote: «Our beloved Tim was a seeker, a fragile artistic soul searching for answers to existential questions.

And to BOB — Paul gives an example of my question / statement:::: «Why are so many people afraid of the answer?»

Perhaps we should be looking not for detailed answers to our many questions but the authoritative statement of the principles which govern life beneath the ebb and flow of human circumstance.

Many statements have been made and several questions asks, so I will try and answer and not become to wordy.

For those who look to eternal verities for directly applicable political solutions, he observes: «The deposit of wisdom in the Bible and in the classic books does not contain a systematic and comprehensive statement of moral principles from which it is possible to deduce with clarity and certainty specific answers to concrete questions.»

In the absence of adequate answers to such questions, it is difficult to accept the statement of A.M. Mundadan that» tradition is unanimous in asserting that the prelates of St. Thomas Christians came from Babylon (Persia) for many centuries before the arrival of the Portuguese in India.»

Each describes a seemingly simple answer to the question of the meaning of life and then negates this answer with statements that typify confusion, mystery, openness, searching: «he does not know real answers,» «you don't know where you're going,» «we find ourselves never getting anywhere,» «what are the real answers,» «knowledge does not contain answers,» «there are no answers in power,» and so forth.

I called Rice Dream, which is part of Hain Celestial, which owns so many brands that they have customer service reps who sit there all day and read statements from their computers to answer consumers» questions.

Time for some brutal honesty... this team, as it stands, is in no better position to compete next season than they were 12 months ago, minus the fact that some fans have been easily snowed by the acquisition of Lacazette, the free transfer LB and the release of Sanogo... if you look at the facts carefully you will see a team that still has far more questions than answers... to better show what I mean by this statement I will briefly discuss the current state of affairs on a position - by - position basis... in goal we have 4 potential candidates, but in reality we have only 1 option with any real future and somehow he's the only one we have actively tried to get rid of for years because he and his father were a little too involved on social media and he got caught smoking (funny how people still defend Wiltshire under the same and far worse circumstances)... you would think we would want to keep any goaltender that Juventus had interest in, as they seem to have a pretty good history when it comes to that position... as far as the defenders on our current roster there are only a few individuals whom have the skill and / or youth worthy of our time and / or investment, as such we should get rid of anyone who doesn't meet those simple requirements, which means we should get rid of DeBouchy, Gibbs, Gabriel, Mertz and loan out Chambers to see if last seasons foray with Middlesborough was an anomaly or a prediction of things to come... some fans have lamented wildly about the return of Mertz to the starting lineup due to his FA Cup performance but these sort of pie in the sky meanderings are indicative of what's wrong with this club and it's wishy - washy fan - base... in addition to these moves the club should aggressively pursue the acquisition of dominant and mobile CB to stabilize an all too fragile defensive group that has self - destructed on numerous occasions over the past 5 seasons... moving forward and building on our need to re-establish our once dominant presence throughout the middle of the park we need to target a CDM then do whatever it takes to get that player into the fold without any of the usual nickel and diming we have become famous for (this kind of ruthless haggling has cost us numerous special players and certainly can't help make the player in question feel good about the way their future potential employer feels about them)... in order for us to become dominant again we need to be strong up the middle again from Goalkeeper to CB to DM to ACM to striker, like we did in our most glorious years before and during Wenger's reign... with this in mind, if we want Ozil to be that dominant attacking midfielder we can't keep leaving him exposed to constant ridicule about his lack of defensive prowess and provide him with the proper players in the final third... he was never a good defensive player in Real or with the German National squad and they certainly didn't suffer as a result of his presence on the pitch... as for the rest of the midfield the blame falls squarely in the hands of Wenger and Gazidis, the fact that Ramsey, Ox, Sanchez and even Ozil were allowed to regularly start when none of the aforementioned had more than a year left under contract is criminal for a club of this size and financial might... the fact that we could find money for Walcott and Xhaka, who weren't even guaranteed starters, means that our whole business model needs a complete overhaul... for me it's time to get rid of some serious deadweight, even if it means selling them below what you believe their market value is just to simply right this ship and change the stagnant culture that currently exists... this means saying goodbye to Wiltshire, Elneny, Carzola, Walcott and Ramsey... everyone, minus Elneny, have spent just as much time on the training table as on the field of play, which would be manageable if they weren't so inconsistent from a performance standpoint (excluding Carzola, who is like the recent version of Rosicky — too bad, both will be deeply missed)... in their places we need to bring in some proven performers with no history of injuries... up front, although I do like the possibilities that a player like Lacazette presents, the fact that we had to wait so many years to acquire some true quality at the striker position falls once again squarely at the feet of Wenger... this issue highlights the ultimate scam being perpetrated by this club since the arrival of Kroenke: pretend your a small market club when it comes to making purchases but milk your fans like a big market club when it comes to ticket prices and merchandising... I believe the reason why Wenger hasn't pursued someone of Henry's quality, minus a fairly inexpensive RVP, was that he knew that they would demand players of a similar ilk to be brought on board and that wasn't possible when the business model was that of a «selling» club... does it really make sense that we could only make a cheeky bid for Suarez, or that we couldn't get Higuain over the line when he was being offered up for half the price he eventually went to Juve for, or that we've only paid any interest to strikers who were clearly not going to press their current teams to let them go to Arsenal like Benzema or Cavani... just part of the facade that finally came crashing down when Sanchez finally called their bluff... the fact remains that no one wants to win more than Sanchez, including Wenger, and although I don't agree with everything that he has done off the field, I would much rather have Alexis front and center than a manager who has clearly bought into the Kroenke model in large part due to the fact that his enormous ego suggests that only he could accomplish great things without breaking the bank... unfortunately that isn't possible anymore as the game has changed quite dramatically in the last 15 years, which has left a largely complacent and complicit Wenger on the outside looking in... so don't blame those players who demanded more and were left wanting... don't blame those fans who have tried desperately to raise awareness for several years when cracks began to appear... place the blame at the feet of those who were well aware all along of the potential pitfalls of just such a plan but continued to follow it even when it was no longer a financial necessity, like it ever really was...

-1: although the claims within might be true, this answer adds nothing comparing to the statements within the question itself.

«We've made this process as transparent as possible and worked with Syracuse Behavioral Health and County departments to answer every question and concern that has been raised,» Lupardo said in a statement.

«This raises additional questions that need to be answered by an independent select committee that is free of partisan politics to get all of the facts regarding the Trump administration and Russia,» Gillibrand said in a statement.

But, going with the current assumption that it is tentamount to accepting advertising from foreign sources, the question (of whether accepting payments to make statements is legal) is a question which is not answered by the FEC page.

This seems to be a statement that you don't know what procedure will be used if Trump and Pence die before the electoral college, rather than an actual answer to the question.

«Members of the Republican Senate have indicated that, despite those prior statements, they continue to be questioned by the public and want to answer definitively that we are aware of the concerns and will act responsibly.

He began with an opening statement and then answered questions on topics which included the Independence Party (whose ballot line Cuomo is on), the protest at the rally and Cuomo's efforts on passing the DREAM Act, a recent report that 34,000 people have been designated under the SAFE Act as ineligible to own guns and the prospect of Ebola - related restrictions on commercial flights.

After the debate, we asked her several questions, including: how she viewed her debate performance, what she expects the remaining three weeks of the campaign to focus on, for a more detailed discussion of her unexpected answer that she doesn't see herself as prepared to be mayor and for more about her statement that she's thought about running for Public Advocate for the past 20 years.

Following his own statement and statements from several supporters, Espaillat answered questions from the press, including whether he believes that Charles Rangel has willfully neglected small business owners, how does he reconcile his criticisms with the reality that many local residents decried the lack of shopping and services before this «big - box» mall existed, whether his «40/40/20» housing formula, in place of the common «80/20», is a state or federal issue and his view of Congressman Rangel's argument that Rangel's experience allows him to more productively represent the district.

Mangano lawyer Kevin Keating of Garden City declined on Saturday to answer questions but said in a prepared statement: «Mr. Mangano is merely a fact witness in the Skelos matter and if called to testify he will provide truthful testimony, even though Mr. Mangano has engaged in no wrongdoing.