Sentences with phrase «what kind of arguments»

What kind of arguments and data support the assertion that ocean circulation can't be responsible for warming on a timescale of decades, and that some sustained forcing (e.g. solar or GHGs) must be causing a long - lived energy imbalance?

No matter what kind of arguments / disagreements / quasi-flame battles I get in with other posters here, I mean nothing personally by it, and I make no character judgements in the long run.

What kind of arguments and data support the assertion that ocean circulation can't be responsible for warming on a timescale of decades, and that some sustained forcing (e.g. solar or GHGs) must be causing a long - lived energy imbalance?

What kind of argument is that?

What kinds of arguments, if any, could we formulate that would call them to account for their behavior, and even to see the error of their ways?

What kind of an argument is that?

What kind of argument is this!

Do you know what kind of argument this is called.

What kind of argument are we making?

Not exact matches

You don't know what theories are in a scientific context, you make an argument equivalent to «people can't take strides greater than ten feet, therefore it's impossible to run a marathon,» and you think that the lack of a full understanding about a particular hypothetical explanation is some kind of demonstration that science is an abject failure.

By contrast the second kind of argument mounted under the banner of process hermeneutics supports a claim that such - and - such a tenet of process theology is «Biblical theology» in the sense of being compatible with what some Biblical texts say on a theological topic.

In this way the ontological argument, by drawing out the presupposition of metaphysical understanding, indicates that the choice before us is between holding that there is a God and that «reality» makes sense in some metaphysical manner, whether or not we can ever grasp what that sense is, and holding that there is no God and that any apparent metaphysical understanding of reality can only be an illusion which does not significantly correspond to the ultimate nature of things — unless this «nihilism» be regarded as a kind of metaphysical understanding instead of its blank negation.

This kind of argument seems to me to manifest what might be called the fallacy of misplaced location.

Is this suppose to be some kind of an argument to what rongoodman said?

WHAT kind os testimony is it to preach eternal life of seeing a man half dead???? verysilly is your argument...

- since there is no way to tell, it is moronic IMO to think that an argument based on this logic holds any water. - no what kind of christian you are.

what the heck kind of argument is that?

If we accept Jamison's argument that the greater community might derive an evolutionary benefit from containing a number of mentally ill people, since such an illness is often accompanied by unusual creative talents, what does this say about the kind of Creator who guides the evolutionary process?

Hey guess what, people who don't believe in your bible are not going to accept «the bible is true because it says it is» as any kind of an argument.

One hates to make old arguments, but if this education teaches (as other sections of the report make clear that is must) the familiar doctrines about how very wrong it is to impose any kind of normative standard on the many forms that peoples» desires can take, on what basis does it exclude pornography or the sexualization of young girls as legitimate forms of the varied human sexual appetite?

The arguments against evolution have been so explicitly and thoroughly expounded in the Catholic theology of the last eighty years, that it is not to be expected that later on they will become even more evident, in relation to the Church's awareness of what she believes, than they are now, and so become capable of providing new and certain grounds for rejecting the theory of evolution of a kind that have been declared to be not yet at present available.

7Using a similar kind of argument Bernard Loomer argued that what is distinctive about process thought is not its substitution of «process» for «being,» for if this were it, then «in many respects we really would not need process thought to get on with things.»

What's so stupid about this argument is straight couples have the same kind of sex.

What kind of stupid argument is it to cast aspersions onto the scientific method because YOU can't put up any demonstrable proof for the philosophy that you claim is more than mere philosophy?

If the argument here is what kind of manager rather that what manager I would need to see a manager with guts with anger with emotion with firing tactics not some one watching a girly flick with popcorn MR wenger is too gentleman like and very cool I like MR wenger I like what he has done to the club Arsenal is a top club at the top four all seasons for the past 20 years Is there a fiery manager out there that can win us the league year in year out for the next 20 years?????

In my opinion what has happened in this area is that a kind of social ideology is now embedded within the medical paradigm, to the extent that that social judgments are masquerading as scientific judgments making the science a pseudo science, as a relatively small number of people have been placed in a position wherein they can choose what relevant lines of evidence (and what counter arguments) are acceptable and which are not, as deemed by themselves.

What annoys me very much about the «whatabout» argument is it is completly devoid of any kind of contextual content whatsoever.

Britain needs to take more seriously the underlying German argument, which is that the kind of budget, debt and wage discipline it has practised with such impressive results over the last decade, and now seeks for the whole eurozone, is precisely what Europe needs.

What emerges in Kind of Blue is Ken's enjoyment of robust debate in itself and as a way of refining arguments and seeking a decision.

He added that Nigerian politicians had generally failed to understand what democracy entails, stressing that arguments, debates and disagreements should be encouraged in the kind of political system that obtains in Nigeria.

But in doing it... We need some rational discussion of the issues and not, I'm afraid, what we often see in certain pages of some newspapers, which is hysterical untruths being peddled over and over again and it's not very productive for any kind of rational argument.

He has won the arguments already, people are highly sceptical about charging off to bomb children, and that is the kind of language we need to use to show these people up for what they are, Hilary Benn included.

«Of recent, there have been arguments on who has power to do what,» he said, adding that Nigeria had a lot of people who knew how to go to court to get all kinds of judgmentOf recent, there have been arguments on who has power to do what,» he said, adding that Nigeria had a lot of people who knew how to go to court to get all kinds of judgmentof people who knew how to go to court to get all kinds of judgmentof judgments.

He told Progress magazine: «Let's be clear: We don't think that Ukip's right, not on immigration and not on Europe - so the first thing you've got to be really careful of doing is... saying things that suggest that they're kind of justified in their policy because what you're actually going to do is validate their argument when in fact you don't believe in it.»

What would it mean to apply in our daily lives, just for argument, the kind of reductions called for in the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse - gas emissions?

I like to listen to both sides of an argument, look at the facts (not theories) from both sides and especially look at our evolutionary history to see what kinds of foods people all over the world have eaten for thousands, and hundreds of thousands, of years that sustain optimal health.

«Of course ultimately, we believe that what we're looking at is an argument for a different kind of dating interface altogether, one where people can connect over personality and humor in the first place instead of just mindlessly swiping through photos of potential matches.&raquOf course ultimately, we believe that what we're looking at is an argument for a different kind of dating interface altogether, one where people can connect over personality and humor in the first place instead of just mindlessly swiping through photos of potential matches.&raquof dating interface altogether, one where people can connect over personality and humor in the first place instead of just mindlessly swiping through photos of potential matches.&raquof just mindlessly swiping through photos of potential matches.&raquof potential matches.»

Then we come to a deleted scenes reel (9:47), which starts with flashy alternate opening titles and proceeds to include an extended Stephen and Lana argument, a teenaged Stephen breaking into his father's house, adult Stephen opening up to what sounds like a therapist but ends up being a kinky lover, getting whipped by another lady we can assume is a prostitute, and boxing in some kind of dreamlike bit.

During the arguments, justices lamented the lengthiness of the case, which started in 2010, and questioned what kind of remedy they could offer to help failing students while still preserving the education being offered to the ones that succeed.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in January over what kind of services must be provided to a Colorado student with autism.

Hard to believe there are arguments over what kind of DRM to use when we don't even know if it's a good investment.

Then again, the oft - repeated argument against DRM and anti-piracy measures applies here as well as it does to purchased e-books: piracy is going to happen no matter what kind of DRM publishers use, and the same risk of piracy exists with physical books.

What's the point of these kinds of arguments?

As an argument for what kind of power the current generation of game consoles boasts, The Order makes the best case yet.

So for this line of argument it is important to consider what kind of game you consider Planetary Annihilation.

Viveros - Fauné writes: «An argument can be made that Neel reserved her best, most perceptive nose for difference for her less known sitters... These pictures and others are not only unmarred by agendas of any kind, they appear instead to have been created out of a profound need to understand what lies beyond their sitters» social standing and self - presentations.

One may put up all kinds of arguments to discredit this obvious scientific fact of life in 2018 ongoing, and get lost in distractions about mathematical trend lines extracting out la nina and el ninos, but that is entirely IRRELEVANT to what I have written, and am addressing here, in my own way.

But I'm seriously concerned that the kind of arguments used in the Keystone debate don't bode well for the prospect of a well - informed US electorate on what will be required to keep CO2 below about 450 ppm.

There's still no simple bright line determining what kind of hearing is, or isn't justified, which means that if you're undertaking research with government support, it's hard to find a legitimate argument for resisting a call to Capitol Hill, no matter who's holding the gavel.

There's a whole separate argument about what kind of insurance, and how much, we need to buy to limit long - term climate hazards.