The exact same data that you accepted as *valid* to *prove* geocentrism also *proves* the age of the universe as being far older than the biblical age.

*source: Reddit*show context

It's *valid* to *prove* the negation false and conclude the original statement is true, but you still have to argue that the negation is false.

*source: Reddit*show context

Have you ever waited two hours in line, just to be told that the letter from the utility company confirming that they've turned on your service at your address in your name is not *valid* to *prove* your address, that you need a bill instead?

*source: Reddit*show context

Proofs are all based on axioms and no set of axioms is *valid* to *prove* more than the most very basic aspects of any number theory.

*source: Reddit*show context

Proofs are all based on axioms and no set of axioms is *valid* to *prove* more than the most very basic aspects of any number theory.

*source: Reddit*show context

Their point of not being able to *prove* if damage was there before or not is also *valid*.

*source: Reddit*show context

The suggestions must *prove* to be *valid* and able to fall under the context and definition of marriage.

*source: Reddit*show context

That's true, but my point is still technically *valid*: they'd rather do what they did than make EVEN MORE money, just because it would *prove* the point that pirates have been making for years.

*source: Reddit*show context

Now it's entirely possible that atheism still means what you claim its etymology *proves*, but there's no *valid* reason to believe that's the case.

*source: Reddit*show context

As a trivial one, simply by changing "Jesus and god are one" to "Muhammed is a prophet of Allah, thus Allah exists" to *prove* Islam to be *valid*, and I'm pretty sure we could do the same for many others - heck, Zoroastrianism would do.

*source: Reddit*show context

First you'd have to *prove* why this is a *valid* way to add numbers.

*source: Reddit*

Saying "oh he was just buying chips from me for cash" is not a *valid* excuse from their point of view because I'm pretty sure that isn't something they allow and even if they did, the burden is on the players to *prove* that they weren't acting maliciously.

*source: Reddit*show context

I won the discussion about skin colour last time and i hope this *proves* *valid* excuse for my choice.

*source: Reddit*show context

Next, let's assume that DC has a *valid* mark and can *prove* secondary meaning or distinctiveness, etc.

*source: Reddit*show context

Your whole "you can't *prove* me wrong" argument is not a *valid* one.

*source: Reddit*show context

Obviously he had a *valid* case of defamation, which is about the most difficult thing to *prove* in court.

*source: Reddit*show context

It attempts to *prove* that Lenin's writings on imperialism remain *valid* in the modern world (of 1983) and generally explain things better than the "dependency" theory of Samir Amin, the "world-systems" theory of Immanuel Wallerstein, and others.

*source: Reddit*show context

Prepare for a bunch of random people out to *prove* you're probably *valid* point wrong.

*source: Reddit*show context

All I know is that you are 1) required to retain receipts and 2) if you don't and can't *prove* that the expense was a *valid* FSA expense the card will be frozen until you reimburse the card.

*source: Reddit*show context

The question is, if I am a non-saudi resident in the GCC does a *valid* iqama, passport and exit/re-entry visa *prove* sufficient for a visa to the UAE.

*source: Reddit*show context

Drawing these conclusions based on observing someone who will do anything to *prove* their point when it is perfectly *valid* shouldn't cause these evaluations.

*source: Reddit*show context

This research has some good and *valid* points but it does not *prove* anything that cannot be - or even better - has not been fixed already.

*source: Reddit*show context

My hope is that 2015 will be the year LENR energy *proves* *valid* beyond dispute.

*source: Reddit*show context

He'd argue his interpretation is more *valid* than yours, and there is a good chance he has more objective data from the source material to *prove* it than you do.

*source: Reddit*show context

ZF without Infinity is a perfectly *valid* axiom system (probably), but it is much less interesting and *proves* much less than ZF.

*source: Reddit*show context

All the commenters here have different but *valid* points to *prove* it fake lol

*source: Reddit*show context

Don't try to shift the blame, the cartoons were *valid* criticism and this attack *proves* that.

*source: Reddit*show context

I REALLY believe that being the median and BELOW average of the included statistical population *proves* that the observation is *valid* since is congruent with the CLT.

*source: Reddit*show context

get everything you need to *prove* that person has a *valid* license and present your evidence during the court date or arrange it with the dmv beforehand.

*source: Reddit*show context

So while this is a tangent and your point is 100% *valid*, what this *proves* to me is that LoL prize pool is clearly way way way too low.

*source: Reddit*show context

If you talk in absolutes, they only need to find a single *valid* counter-example to *prove* you wrong (e.g.

*source: Reddit*show context

And i'd go as far as to say you don't even have any *valid* methodology to *prove* that God, you being a theist in all.

*source: Reddit*show context

Which *proves* the complaint that Cat in particular hasn't been developed is a *valid* complaint.

*source: Reddit*show context

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to *prove* you wrong, I'm just stating what I know, and it might be *valid*, and it can certainly be invalid.

*source: Reddit*show context

It's a fix it ticket, where you can go in and show your *valid* ID to *prove* you found it or replaced it.

*source: Reddit*show context

This means they have to *prove* certain things for the ticket to be *valid*, including that you actually committed the offense and that you received proper notification of the fact that you were charged with a crime.

*source: Reddit*show context

After you *prove* one, *prove* they're too far apart, using a *valid* tool for measuring.

*source: Reddit*show context

Even though I have the data to *prove* the theory and idea is *valid*.

*source: Reddit*show context

In order for your argument to be *valid*, you'd have to *prove* that the distribution of users for TB's channel mimics the distribution of people that want to watch videogame content.

*source: Reddit*show context

Do you have a *valid* counter-example to my original point, or are you using exceptions that *prove* the rule, and thus, my original point?

*source: Reddit*show context

For a *valid* diagnosis the psych has to be able to *prove* that ADHD affects you in two or more areas of your life.

*source: Reddit*show context

It is necessary to be able to *prove* that we exercise a profession which requires a weapon, a medical certificate of less than a month giving evidence that the physical and psychic health of the applicant is not incompatible with the detention of weapons, a proof of detention of a safe and identity papers in rule(*valid* ?

*source: Reddit*show context

When their public key is the IP address you go to, just by being able to get a *valid* response to the encrypted traffic you sent *proves* that you're talking to the owner of the associated private key.

*source: Reddit*show context

You talking about the new balance of sleep would only help you *prove* your point that sleep is a *valid* mechanic - at least more now then before.

*source: Reddit*show context

Circular logic starts kicking into gear: Non-white-male shoots back that because white male populations are a problem, white males have no *valid* argument when they try to *prove* otherwise by virtue of their whiteness and maleness.

*source: Reddit*show context

Insulting someone about time played or XP (especially when you don't actually know these things) *proves* nothing other than how unintelligent you are and discredits any of your *valid* points.

*source: Reddit*show context

If someone were refused service strictly because they were gay and could *prove* it they would more than likely win the case since there is no *valid* reason to refuse someone service based on sexual orientation.

*source: Reddit*show context

Pi is a natural constant, so there are ways to *prove* that values are correct and incorrect, by looking at the algorithm used to find the value and determining whether that would be *valid* or not.

*source: Reddit*show context

over SSL, Google sends you their security certificate which allows you to validate that the certificate is *valid* (not expired, issued by someone you trust, and essentially to *prove* that you are actually transacting with Google authentically).

*source: Reddit*show context