A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: dene on 2 Aug 2010 14:23 "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message news:MPG.26bfbd93c85a419c98a197(a)news.giganews.com... > In article <5kqb56diek5m92djb6v60r1ilcpl82im5u(a)4ax.com>, donsno2 > @charter.net says... > > > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:58:09 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> > > wrote: > > > > >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:56:46 -0400, William Clark > > ><wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > > >>Oh, and it is not necessary to be an atheist to believe in evolution. > > >>That's just another creationist crock. > > > > >The big objection isn't in evolution - some evolution was obvious long > > >before Darwin. > > > > >The objection is in natural selection, as long as "natural" means "not > > >done by God or by Man". And of course, the idea that humans evolved > > >from something else. > > > > It's easier to find physical evidence that mankind (and every other > > living thing) evolved from gobs of protoplasm than it is to find > > evidence that there is a creative mind behind it all. It's in the > > DNA. > > Where did the DNA come from? > > I am not a propoent of intelligent design, never have been and never > will be. But, someone is going to have to come up with an explanation of > what caused the Big Bang. Chaos theory can be used to describe DNA > oringination on Earth but, if we start finding DNA in other parts of he > Solar systme, Galaxy or Universe there will have to be some re-Sciencing > going on. I think there is a bigger question at hand. Matter, left on it's own, decays from complex to simple. The big question is how matter was formed out of nothing, collided, then sparked life, then became increasingly organized and complex. From where I sit, intelligent design is the only rational answer. -Greg
From: Moderate on 2 Aug 2010 14:20 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-978D8D.13490702082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <8bo8psFmj5U2(a)mid.individual.net>, > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> He used Sherrod to make a point about the NAACP. > > Excuse me, he deliberately misrepresented what Sherrod said to try to > discredit the NAACP. Big difference. If you watch the video you can see the NAACP members reaction to Sherrod's description of her comments about the white rancher. This occurs well before Sherrod makes her point. At this portion of Ms. Sherrod's presentation the NAACP doesn't know the end of the story. They simply show their support for the racist behavior she had just described. I would not defend any mischaracterization of Ms. Sherrod, but the video clearly shows the NAACP members supporting what has been presented as racist at this point in the presentation.
From: dene on 2 Aug 2010 14:24 "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:wclark2-B8DAC2.21294701082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <MPG.26bfbd93c85a419c98a197(a)news.giganews.com>, > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > In article <5kqb56diek5m92djb6v60r1ilcpl82im5u(a)4ax.com>, donsno2 > > @charter.net says... > > > > > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:58:09 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:56:46 -0400, William Clark > > > ><wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > > >>Oh, and it is not necessary to be an atheist to believe in evolution. > > > >>That's just another creationist crock. > > > > > > >The big objection isn't in evolution - some evolution was obvious long > > > >before Darwin. > > > > > > >The objection is in natural selection, as long as "natural" means "not > > > >done by God or by Man". And of course, the idea that humans evolved > > > >from something else. > > > > > > It's easier to find physical evidence that mankind (and every other > > > living thing) evolved from gobs of protoplasm than it is to find > > > evidence that there is a creative mind behind it all. It's in the > > > DNA. > > > > Where did the DNA come from? > > > > I am not a propoent of intelligent design, never have been and never > > will be. But, someone is going to have to come up with an explanation of > > what caused the Big Bang. Chaos theory can be used to describe DNA > > oringination on Earth but, if we start finding DNA in other parts of he > > Solar systme, Galaxy or Universe there will have to be some re-Sciencing > > going on. > > The explanations are all out there for the big bang. Problem is, it is > not simple enough for those of your ilk, and requires some stretching of > the mind that is clearly out of your reach. You know, special > relativity, and all that. That is a stupid answer, professor. Hopefully my 18 year old will not run into your ilk on the university level. -Greg
From: dene on 2 Aug 2010 14:25 "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:0af2d814-8cda-4648-8668-ce202b254cf7(a)n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com... On Jul 31, 9:01 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:wclark2-DBCC9B.17523931072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > In article <8bj66lFm2...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > "BAR" <sc...(a)you.com> wrote in message > > >news:MPG.26be08094943135398a15f(a)news.giganews.com... > > > > > And, superstition is more widely believed and adhered to around the > > > > world than science. > > > > Ask any baseball player. Golfers too. > > > > -Greg > > > No, their superstition does not contribute to their ability at the game, > > just to how they calm their nerves. > > It's belief. I didn't claim there was in validity. It's a shot in the > dark, like atheistic evolution. > > -Greg Are you a creationist? -------------------------------------------------------------- Yes. An old earth, old universe creationist. -Greg
From: MNMikeW on 2 Aug 2010 14:29
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-B6E70C.09060602082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > In article <8bo3ajFkiaU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message >> news:alangbaker-51149A.13460030072010(a)news.shawcable.com... >> > In article <8bgrk7FbjU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message >> >> news:alangbaker-5220E0.13145830072010(a)news.shawcable.com... >> >> > In article <8bgpp7FlhfU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> >> > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message >> >> >> news:3db65615cpe39s1qjhqr94pvjppkrdpn6n(a)4ax.com... >> >> >> > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:46:15 -0500, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >><bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:cs96565pcht63vii7n6ufcncmpdil3l6k4(a)4ax.com... >> >> >> >>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:21:37 -0500, "MNMikeW" >> >> >> >>> <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> >> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>> The White House has apologized. Breitbart, who started the >> >> >> >>>>> mess, >> >> >> >>>>> hasn't. He's an idiot. >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >> >>>>Breitbarts target was the NAACP, not Sherrod. She made the >> >> >> >>>>statements. >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>> Try to watch this without your mind being closed and see where >> >> >> >>> the >> >> >> >>> origins of the problem were. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> http://www.google.com/search?q=shirley+sherrod&hl=en&safe=off&client >> >> >> >>> =sa >> >> >> >>> far >> >> >> >>> i&rls=en&prmd=nuvo&source=univ&tbs=nws:1&tbo=u&ei=mlBITJDrMIS8lQeUlZ >> >> >> >>> yiC >> >> >> >>> w&s >> >> >> >>> a=X&oi=news_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQsQQwAA >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> BK >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Did you see the video posted on Breitbarts site? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Not on his site, but on news sites. Obviously Sherrod saw them >> >> >> > too >> >> >> > or >> >> >> > she wouldn't even think about suing him. >> >> >> > >> >> >> Well if you saw what Breitbart had posted, you would have seen that >> >> >> it >> >> >> included the part where she said she had the revelation that it >> >> >> wasn't >> >> >> about >> >> >> black and white. She has no case. >> >> > >> >> > That makes it worse, doesn't it? >> >> > >> >> What? The leftys have their thongs in a bunch over how Breitbart >> >> supposedly >> >> edited out the part about Sherrod and her "revelation". He didn't. >> > >> > And making accusations about her racism aren't worse when you know they >> > aren't true? >> > >> They are just fine and dandy when the left does it. > > Failure to answer the question, Mike... > Why don't you go to Brietbarts site and get the info yourself. |