Sentences with phrase «well by the conclusion»

Team Massel still has a chance at claiming the top seed as well by the conclusion of the Season..

Not exact matches

The study was funded by EnCana, the drilling company whose wells the EPA had initially blamed for the contamination.Though the role of fracking remains contested, the advising scientists recommend that the EPA should qualify its conclusions about the risks posed by acknowledging gaps in the existing data and concerning cases like Pavillion.

By harnessing the power of larger and more diverse sets of data in creative ways, Dstillery is able to provide more accurate conclusions that better serve the customer, and the brand.

By the time he's done, it's hard to dispute his conclusion, based on hard facts, that «America's kids will live far better than their parents did.»

Built upon market information compiled and analyzed by Phil Froats, our sagacious data manager, this package offers insights on items like the best managed, fastest - growing and best value stocks — with ample evidence to back our conclusions.

By the end of the day, Perrigo had basically reached the same conclusion: Just after U.S. markets closed at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, Perrigo announced that its board of directors unanimously rejected Mylan's bid, saying it «substantially undervalues» the company and is not in its shareholders» best interests.

Typically, a conversation would start with a CSR and, if the conclusion of the conversation would be, «You need to use our API,» or, «You should probably add our SDK,» it'll then get informed by a CSE as well.

The special committee, which was formed to independently assess what the best option for Dell shareholders is, came to that conclusion based on its meetings with investors as well as concerns over a key upcoming recommendation by investment advisory firm ISS, the person said.

The authors» conclusion — Entrepreneurs think they are better than their resumes show and realize they can make more money by going it alone.

The relationship between monetary policy and financial stability may depend on the specific economic conditions in which we find ourselves.6 Moreover, the processes resulting in financial cycles, with periods of unsustainable debt buildup, occasional crises and periods of deleveraging, are not well captured by standard models.7 We have more work to do before we can be fully confident about our conclusions.

On the contrary, a growing number of experts in the industry as well as academia have come to the conclusion that excessive speculation by traders and investors, aided by ultra-low interest rates and easy money, is severely distorting the market.

My column this week on the positive aspects of the CRTC's usage based billing decision has generated some sharp disagreement, with some arguing that the pricing set by the Commission is faulty and virtually guaranteed to increase consumer prices (Search Engine covers the issue and arrives at the same conclusion, Peter Nowak does as well).

Before any of you doth protest too much about this conclusion, let me explain the rationale for my inclusion of diversification strategy among the other much better known systemically fraudulent practices regularly engaged in by big commercial brokerage firms and banks.

Though the US dollar has remained the strongest fiat currency in a pool of rapidly devaluing fiat currencies over the past two years, if one calculates the declining purchasing power of the US dollar in the past couple of decades when using real rates of inflation inside the US (versus the bogus rates produced by federal entities), then one can easily reach the conclusion that the US dollar has crashed as well.

The combination of low levels of ES funds and the cash rate remaining close to its target suggests a couple of conclusions: first, the market players involved with RTGS have adapted well to operating in the new environment; and second, participants have reasonable confidence about the availability of cash near the interest rate announced by the Reserve Bank as its policy target.

«Such social doctrine provides directions but, with few exceptions (for instance, the defense of innocent human life), does not provide directives of immediate applicability to policy questions on which people of good faith, guided by reason and conscience, can come to different conclusions.»

The question is ridiculous, since yes, the religious leaders (Jews) had a hand in killing Jesus, but the conclusion that modern Jews are responsible is also ridiculous, as well as the insistence on retracting the question by the ADL, whose whole point is to prevent people from blaming modern Jews, not whether the answer is true or not.

There has been much spurious research and false conclusions drawn by those known as «anti-Mormons» to lead people to a bad impression of a man who was about as good a man who ever lived - save Jesus, of course.

In various passages within his oeuvre (e.g. see the conclusion of the last editorial of this magazine) he alludes to the grounds, well articulated by Cardinal Newman, by which one can discern whether the synthesis made between the doctrines of Catholicism and the state of modern learning is authentic or a blind alley.

The thing that's so insidious is that this «poisons the well» on another person by innuendo or outright labeling, especially if someone's behavior under stress * seems * to support the conclusion pronounced against them.

Anyway, we have come to the conclusion that YES, God is God and he can do whatever HE wants, but He can never act outside of HIs character, and when we understand God's character is good and loving and compassionate and so on, then we are not threatened by Him doing what he wills, because we know His will is always good.

In the encyclical Aeterni Patris Leo XIII wrote that «a fruitful causeof the evils which now afflict, as well as of those which threaten us, lies in this: that false conclusions concerning divine and human things, which originated in the schools of philosophy, have crept into all the orders of the State, and have been accepted by the common consent of the masses.»

Eriugena's themes are still relevant, and even if he himself does not always arrive at the best conclusions, his speculations, as explained by Gavin, are, nonetheless, stimulating and worth reading.

Here the thinker is led to the conclusion that the only adequate explanatory principle of the creation is an energy which is patient, tender, participant, ceaselessly at work in the world, enhanced by that world's happenings as they provide new ranges of possible ways of adjustment, and moving always towards greater good in every nook and cranny.

Whether you agree or disagree with the evangelicals» conclusions or the validility of their premises (I am sure that there are people who either completely agree or vehemently disagree with your underlying premise), it would be better if all parties would recognize that rationality and morality are not wholly owned by one side or the other.

Yet, I would feel better about the conclusions reached by Scaperlanda if he could quote from statistics that were less than a decade or more old.

You may disagree with the premises of religion as much as you want, buddy, but the reasoning and conclusion leading to religious doctrine, especially catholic doctrine, are among the best works in logic in the history of mankind, made by men a lot more skilled in it than most who live today, I dare say.

Their political, moral and religious ideas are not mere by - products of economics, but the values are remarkably well adapted to the arrangements that have sustained their power and increased their wealth, and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that if the arrangements had been different, the beliefs would have been different, too.

Therefore the tradition has spoken insistently of judgment — or to use perhaps a better word, appraisal — both moment by moment and at the conclusion of every human life, with a further appraisal made when the entire created order is evaluated in its contribution or failure to contribute to the advancement of the divine purpose in the world.

These are not questions with fixed answers, and while I don't agree with (or necessarily understand) all of the authors» conclusions, it is a welcome chance to step outside the paths that have been well trodden by a multitude of «science vs religion» books.

The finished work is reviewed by Moses and the conclusion of the matter is set in language strongly reminiscent of the account of Creation, where «God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good» (Gen. 1:31).

[Conclusion of the astute synopsis by Mr. Entel, followed by his even more astute questions:] Plato, Hancock contends, enacts this yoke between being and knowing by seemingly affirming the simple superiority of theory to practice, thus suppressing the question of the relation between the good of....

I don't want to rewrite this article in english, but basically, I came to the following conclusions 1 - that Scriptures ought to be used in close interaction with daily reality (not out the blue, in abstraction, or in academic ivory tower) 2 - it ought to be interpreted by what we could call «crucified» christians 3 - and that «crucified» christian should interpret in the context of a «crucified» community / church (because being in a close knit church is a very good way to actually be «crucified» and sanctified, and because I need insight from others in my interpretations.

These are better understood as conclusions about Christ reached by disciples than his assertions about himself.

Plain men and philosophers have sought for a valid concept of the good, have been perplexed by the search, and have arrived at many different conclusions.

The implications of this conclusion are many and far - reaching, for my own work as a theologian as well as for what I understand by the related, but nonetheless distinct, tasks of philosophy and metaphysics.

This claim that the future calls for corporate, interdisciplinary theological inquiry leads to the conclusion that futuristic research institutes and «think - tanks» are needed by the religious community as well as by secular agencies as we approach the twenty - first century.

At least adults (except for mentally ill) can usually come to this conclusion: «Gee, if I want to be treated well by others, then I suppose I had better treat them nicely in the first place.»

Our society hardly knows any clearer contradiction of good sense than that of a speaker, assuming a conclusion that is his by hard work or inheritance but nonetheless his alone, and on the basis of that conclusion, filling the air with «must», «ought», and «should», thinking thereby to produce sincerity, kindness, love, repentance, faith, and finally enthusiasm for the next gathering for more of the same.

Despite the limping conclusion (he is writing for Commonweal, after all), Steinfels has nailed the mindlessness of a progressive insouciance that thinks it a good thing that, in the words of one author, younger Catholics «place a higher priority on being good Christians than they do on being good Catholics,» when «good Christian» is indistinguishable from the cultural liberalism promoted by, for instance, the National Catholic Reporter.

Although that might appear to be a conclusion of mere practical reason, first reached by the so - called Enlightenment, there is also a case to be made for it in terms of biblical Christianity as well as «natural law» or secular utilitarianism.

Enns skillfully dismantles some of the common responses to these passages — that the Canaanites were super-duper evil and therefore deserved to be exterminated, that war with the Canaanites was inevitable, that God's bloodthirsty portrait in Joshua is balanced out by more flattering portraits elsewhere in Scripture, that questioning biblical accounts of God - ordained genocide is sinful because God can do whatever God wants to do, etc — before offering his own controversial, yet well - argued, conclusion: «God never told the Israelites to kill the Canaanites.

Whereas for Pannenberg the meaning of the resurrection is inseparable from the kind of claim it makes and the language which is appropriate to that claim, as well as inextricably rooted in the texts of the New Testament and in the Jewish world of the early first century, for Polkinghorne the resurrection is a conclusion that is required by logic and enabled by a theory of physical matter.

Your conclusion is wrong by your own admission or at best unsupported.

Well, it comes from a 2000 year old book, contradicted by other 2000 year old books, no updates, can be interpreted in so many different ways depending on how the reader perceives his world (and how science has progressed... I'm sure if you were alive before galileo told you the earth did not revolve around the sun and had only the bible as your reference you would come to the same conclusion as the Vatican who said the sun revolved around the earth....

«Whoso turns his attention to the bitter strifes of these days and seeks a reason for the troubles that vex public and private life must come to the conclusion that a fruitful cause of the evils which now afflict, as well as those which threaten, us lies in this: that false conclusions concerning divine and human things, which originated in the schoolsof philosophy, have now crept into all the orders of the State, and have been accepted by the common consent of the masses.»

This analysis also gives reasons, by extension, for the conclusion Whitehead anticipated earlier: that there is a single best pattern for realistic and effective teaching and learning, and that we can specify what the stages and sequence of that pattern are.

By following your logic, one would arrive at the conclusion that slavery is ok as long as you «treat» your slave well...

I am baffled by his thought process, which seems to begin with a conclusion (ie there is a just and fairminded God who looks out for the well being of human beings) and then attempts to shape the data (random suffering, pain, hatred, cruelty) to arrive at the initial conclusion (ie there is a just and fairminded God who looks out for the well being of human beings).

One may well believe this conclusion to be right, and nothing is to be gained by scoffing at their assurance.