Sentences with phrase «then claim a point»

It was hardly the sort of thing to increase the pressure on our London rivals Chelsea who sit one place above us in the league table and for some time it looked as though the Blues would stroll to victory themselves, but despite and early goal and plenty more chances, they allowed West Ham to gain a foothold and then claim a point through a Javier Hernandez strike.

Not exact matches

At one point, Trump even singled Tur out during a rally, falsely claiming she didn't accurately depict the then - candidate's crowd sizes.

The right thing to do when confronted with a mistake is to own up to it, not to make a series of bizarre claims in defense then insult the profession of the people who correctly pointed out the error.

Then the company's HR chief quit abruptly — because, Donovan claims, she felt it was time to cease operations and let employees go at that point, while Donovan and her cofounders wanted to try to secure more funding over the weekend.

Since then, additional sources and reports continue to point to the same conclusion: that hundreds, not dozens, of people died from the storm, despite claims by President Trump and Puerto Rican officials that the count is 62 or fewer.

My point was that if you propose that, as a society, we teach children that there is no God, then you are doing what you claim to oppose: indoctrinating children with what is your personal belief.

A better strategy would be to point out how one doesn't need religion to be a moral person, and then demonstrate how some of the people that claim to be a beacon for religious zealots (the GOP) practice an existence devoid of morality.

If as you say you have talked to others who claim to be Atheist the way you describe it then they are IDIOTS who also don't understand Atheism and yes at that point since they are claiming «no God» to be true, then by all means call their point of view a «religion».

Yes, they must always apend «credible» and then they get to decide who is credible, just like they point fingers at each other and claim «he's not a True Christian.»

And then the evidence of history pointed toward Jesus having lived, having made these extraordinary claims and then backing that up by returning from the dead.

Christians are then left pointing to sociological maladies to vindicate our claims or appealing to the authority of a «pure science» which doesn't exist; or in the case of «same sex marriage,» we're reduced to pleading for private exemptions from public «justice.»

MyMainMan, one other point I'd like to make: If you're going to support Sagan's claim that athiests must presume to have much more knowledge than the rest of us, then the exact same must apply to Theists (those who believe in God).

When we add the obvious point that the term itself is very frequently to be found in the synoptic tradition and comparatively infrequently outside it, then it becomes clear that we are fully entitled to claim that the real and significant differences between the use within the synoptic tradition and outside it call for an explanation.

you posted this earlier, and as i pointed out then you are just as guilty of sweeping statements, with the «majority of democrats» claim, that you are moaning about.

For those of you who are interested in reading the arch of a sad, sad bitter life, crusie through the remarks by «the son a Piper man» aka Tom Tom, Stands for nothing, hates everything, curses when left with nothing to say, then hysterically claims victory for hurting someone's feelings, and stands for nothing, but will gladly point out your poor syntax, grammar and spelling errors like a weary retired 3rd grade teacher.

And your «unless you're open to the slightest possibility that you are indeed a space alien born a millisecond ago from another universe, then you are claiming something to be an absolute truth» I think the point was the likelihood — why do you not believe the space alien without proof yet believe in gods and angels without proof?

It is written in the book of Dawkins 2:28 - 34 «Then shall the bearers of false witness claiming supernatural phenomenon and worshipers of deitys fall upon the righteous with their knives and swords, tearing my people apart who did nothing but point out that their God's did not exist.

Certainly, the Intelligent Design advocates have a point: if natural laws can be shown to be inherently unable to explain complexity, then one may legitimately claim for the entity in question an irreducible complexity.

- All the evidence points to people constructing religion... and then claimed it came from god.

You can not point a gun and someone and then claim you did not intend because you believed he gun to be unload.

as Keller pointed out: if one claims to live in an existence that is — from inception — meaningless, then ALL of life is meaningless.

but thats not what i'm talking about... i am discussing the god you claim to worship... even if you believe jesus was god on earth it doesn't matter for if you take what he had to say as law then you should take with equal fervor words and commands given from god itself... it stands as logical to do this and i am confused since most only do what jesus said... the dude was only here for 30 years and god has been here for the whole time — he has added, taken away, and revised everything he has set previous to jesus and after his death... thru the prophets — i base my argument on the book itself, so if you have a counter argument i believe you haven't a full understanding of the book — and that would be my overall point... belief without full understanding of or consideration to real life or consequences for the hereafter is equal to a childs belief in santa which is why we atheists feel it is an equal comparision... and santa is clearly a bs story... based on real events from a real historical person but not a magical being by any means!

I agree with Bill Maher, but then again I'm a lifelong atheist... I have never believed for one minute that the god as portrayed in the bible or koran has any possibility of being real to everyone, otherwise that god would make itself obvious and not hide behind man made lies and cultural practices that self perpetuate thanks fo fear... otherwise there would not be several thousand man made religions trying to claim that god as their own... yes, it is an opinion, only valid to the opinion holder and no one else... Bill, thanks for so strongly making that point, not that it makes any difference to god fearing people... they will hold on to their opinion as strongly as they hold on to their shotgun, thinking that each provides them with some form of security... to intelligent people, neither is secure and neither leads to true freedom of the mind...

If a finely - tuned robot could mimic all human behaviors (including reporting what would be pain if it were human), then the mechanical naturalists would have proved their point that the brain is nothing more than computerized flesh» or so they claim.

Then again, I can claim whatever the heck I want to prove my point on one of these boards and claim I have the proof too.

I don't care what you believe — I have a lot of friends with a lot of different beliefs — but when you claim your belief is fact, then I will point out that you are mistaken.

If love has a history then here is the point at which that history is shaped by a new understanding which claims to have its source in the history of Jesus.

In a world where the religious spend a signficant amount of time pointing out the sins of others while claiming that they are in relationship with the One who has set the moral standards... and then a significant number of them commit one of the most heinous of crimes against children and have leaders spend significant effort at covering it up...

Judge Noonan points out that the employee was not required to participate in or even listen to the services; he then recounts the historical record of free exercise claims under the Court's «compelling state interest» standard:

If we claim that He «showed up» at a certain point of our story, are we saying that He was absent until then?

But the Romantics then miss the point of their legitimate insight when they claim that Milton would have been content to let that sympathy work its effects outside of the economy of salvation.

If we who claim Christ can not, then what the hell is the point?

If we lose this weekend we could drop down to fourth place in the table and possibly nine points behind Premier League leaders Chelsea, and if we really want to stamp our claim for this season's big trophy, then we should be going all out for the win.

Then we can look at this last window when Gazidis got Sven to find targets, Gazidis was still trying to penny pinch on the Auba deal, the deal where Wenger was part off... Yet people like you claim it was Wenger penny pinching all these years and I was pointing at Gazidis.

That would actually be useful discourse if we want to claim how rich Arsenal are and then we can actually pin point the issue of where our club is financially and, in turn, our transfer approach with some real firepower.

The Boro team did rally a bit and scored a goal but then a terrible error from Victor Valdes gifted them a third which saw a very grateful Jose Mourinho and his Man United players claim all three points and go above Arsenal in the table.

Arsenal, unfortunately, have an injury crisis to overcome, before they can then shift their focus to claiming all 3 points against Hull City.

its rubbish that we can survive or more outrageously as claimed by said Ozil today, win anything without these players coming in Don't boast of a 100» 000 war chest and then quibble over pennies for a player we don't at this point know anything about and as I've stated before may or may not be a great player in the next three or four seasons, (makes you think is beilik an investment for resale to make more money?)

The worrying fact is that Arsenal only mustered one shot in target during the whole game and that would not normally be enough to have taken a point and if we play in a similar sort of way on Wednesday then I reckon that PSG will take advantage and claim the important top spot in our Champions League group.

The headline says SU is 4.5 point favorite Then the opening says SU is at home Then the article claims homefield adds about 3 points,

No matter how good a football team is, and after shipping three goals to Leicester City despite claiming all three points on Friday I am not sure we can say that Arsenal are all that good just yet, the Premier League is one of the toughest trophies in the world to win and if there are teams and squads better than you then it is almost certain you will not win it.

If Arsenal needed any more encouragement to keep pushing then we did not have to wait long, as Crystal Palace did to Liverpool what they did to us recently and claimed all three points.

If Palace had gone on to claim a point against their London neighbours, then it would not have an injustice to either side — but as it turned out, the hosts picked up the win.

I think if I'm right about those two claims, then it's not a big step to conclude that (not for the first time) Wenger's game management was puzzling and poor, and could well have cost us crucial points.

Had David Moyes had Mikel Arteta at his disposal then Everton may well of have had genuine claims for all three points, what with Man City having yet to master the art of scoring goals - a-plenty at Eastlands.

For once a referee's poor decision - making did not cost us three points and if the winner was controversial because of an alleged handball by Sam Vokes, then it was no more than Burnley deserved on the night, having peppered the Leicester goal with 24 shots, had 60 % of the possession, and had a nailed on penalty claim (maybe two) ignored in the first half, Mike Dean showing again that with him it is pot luck whether or not any team is awarded a penalty.

Again, if the email claims to be from Chase, and the link in the email points to anything other than Chase.com, then do NOT click it.

Former NCB True Believer, if the claim in question is «breastfeeding lowers the rate of allergies,» then the data points sleuther and I presentd aren't particularly relevant.

It doesn't point to a specific claim, and then asks whether all such claims use or ignore wireless access.

Those claims are then tested in the TV festivals to the point where leading advocates and the viewers get submerged in incomprehensible figures.