A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: BAR on 2 Aug 2010 19:12 In article <clark-0C276F.09250002082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > In article <MPG.26bff64e39b56e0198a19f(a)news.giganews.com>, > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > In article <wclark2-585A0F.21243801082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > > > In article <MPG.26bf877e7e67eee698a185(a)news.giganews.com>, > > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <wclark2-B74F08.12584701082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > > > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Evolution is a theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct. I'd say at this point it is a theory that is a close to > > > > > > > proven > > > > > > > as any theory can ever be, but it is still a theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, it is neither atheistic nor theistic. > > > > > > > > > > > > According to Science a theory cannot never become a certanty. > > > > > > > > > > > > The F word always comes into play when it comes down to the nunts and > > > > > > bolts. > > > > > > > > > > There is only one "F" word for nutters like you. Tell you what, why > > > > > don't you let us all in on the evidence for the faith-based origins of > > > > > human life? > > > > > > > > Where did the Big Bang originate? > > > > > > From a singularity in the general theory of relativity, which led to an > > > infinitely dense and hot Universe that then expanded. > > > > > > Not with and old man with a long white beard. > > > > "Not with and old man?" It appears that you have pissed on yourself > > again by throwing stones at glass houses. > > Not really, it's just that I am so bored with answering your dumbassed > posts that lose concentration. > > After all, it is not as if they require any intellectual input to > respond to. "that lose concentration?" great grammar.
From: dene on 2 Aug 2010 19:28 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4c574338$0$4964$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:14:24 -0700, dene wrote: > > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in > > message > > news:clark-50F88F.09230702082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > >> In article <8bmuc6F11gU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "dene" > >> <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > >>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > >>> news:alangbaker-27495F.05365101082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > >>>> In article <MPG.26bf2ff0ab24ec6798a174(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR > >>>> <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Evolution is a theory. > >>>> > >>>> Correct. I'd say at this point it is a theory that is a close to > >>>> proven as any theory can ever be, but it is still a theory. > >>>> > >>>> However, it is neither atheistic nor theistic. > >>> > >>> There are those who believe in God and evolution. > >> > >> Which entirely proves Alan's point. Duh. > > > > I used the words atheistic evolution vs. deistic evolution, to > > illustrate that the former requires more faith than those who believe > > in pig guts and astrology. Duh. > > > > Deistic evolution is a more reasoned approach to the origin and > > development of life. > > Or not. To me non-magical explanations are inherently more reasonable. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Something from nothing, randomly colliding into life, surviving, and then becoming more complex sans design, is more magical thinking than a supreme creative being. Why 10 fingers instead of 8? Why do we have hair? Why not eyes in the back of our heads? If survival is the basis for evolutionary change, then it would seem we should have the eyesight of a fly. Thousands of design questions but no answers within the laboratory or the fossil record. Just theory with a lot of magical assumptions. -Greg
From: dene on 2 Aug 2010 19:38 "Don Kirkman" <donsno2(a)charter.net> wrote in message news:piie56d6tqub7o073in4vu2bj587t5qmv5(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:17:43 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> > wrote: > > >"Don Kirkman" <donsno2(a)charter.net> wrote in message > >news:5kqb56diek5m92djb6v60r1ilcpl82im5u(a)4ax.com... > >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:58:09 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> > >> wrote: > > >> >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. > > >It is not easy to find physical evidence. The transcending mutatations > >fossils between species should far outweigh the fossils for existing or > >extinct species. Yet there is virtually nothing in the fossil record. > >There is evolution within species....the evidence....but not from one > >species to another. > > You've got several assumptions packed into your point. First, there > may be a quantum downward jump between the numbers of *failed* > mutations and the numbers of successful ones. (Think genetic > diseases, hardly an unqualified success. And there were the saurians, > a huge success until the conditions changed faster than they could > adapt.) Is there a record of any successful mutations, alive and able to reproduce today? > Second, there were arguably (I'd even venture "almost certainly") > more species that vanished leaving no fossil remains or whose fossil > remains have yet to be discovered than the number of fossilized > species we know of. The fossil record is a series of instantaneous > snapshots, not a full length movie. But isn't it amazing that each > new find seems to fit somewhere in the range of what we knew > already--based on DNA and physical characteristics? > > DNA and physical morphology both point pretty strongly to humans > evolving from the same type/group of ancestrals that the rest of the > primates did. Man didn't come from a monkey, but man came from the > same roots as his companions on the primate tree. > The fossils, of course, are sorted out into species and groups by the > academics, but the evidence is strong that newer species are usually > modifications of older ones. Modifications within a species. I have no problem accepting this. It's what primates (and other established species) were prior that I question. Mathemetically, there should be an abundant fossil record for the surviving mutuations that transitioned from one species to another. > And astrophysicists are making truly astounding discoveries about the > events of the last 13.75 �0.17 billion years, ranging from the > unimaginably small to the biggest bang of them all. I have no problem accepting the idea of an ancient earth and even more ancient universe. Perhaps, by design, it was born out of an explosion. -Greg
From: William Clark on 2 Aug 2010 20:25 In article <i371of$nvp$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > news:clark-59B516.13475602082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <8bo518Fv2bU2(a)mid.individual.net>, > > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> > >> Carbons lap dog speaks! Woof! > > > > In future, "think twice, type once", might be a useful mantra for you. > > Thinking once would be an immense step forward for you. Woof! Right on cue - little Sir Echo pipes in.\ Chirp, chirp.
From: William Clark on 2 Aug 2010 20:26
In article <i37291$olf$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "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. No you can't - you are simply extrapolating from what you would LIKE to see. > > 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. BS. |