A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: Howard Brazee on 3 Aug 2010 07:52 On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 16:28:49 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: >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. Natural selection results in "good enough". On the other hand, creationism results in "exactly what god wanted". Obviously "good enough" could be improved. That's why we have physicians and eye glasses. But "exactly what god wanted" implies our design is perfect and eyes on the back of our heads would be less perfect. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Howard Brazee on 3 Aug 2010 07:54 On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:23:10 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: >I think there is a bigger question at hand. Matter, left on it's own, >decays from complex to simple. We see lots of exceptions, even without life. >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. It doesn't answer anything, all it does is move the question back a generation. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: William Clark on 3 Aug 2010 08:45 In article <786954724302492438.333868nospam-nomail.com(a)news.suddenlink.net>, Moderate <nospam(a)nomail.com> wrote: > William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > 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. > > I am seeing what anyone who is mildly observant would see. Indeed, so it is entirely your subjective (and extremely biased) spin. Not really much of a contribution to the discussion.
From: William Clark on 3 Aug 2010 08:46 In article <392314540302492570.563861nospam-nomail.com(a)news.suddenlink.net>, Moderate <nospam(a)nomail.com> wrote: > William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > In article <MPG.26c113b367f2394c98a1aa(a)news.giganews.com>, > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > >> In article <clark-745AEB.09212902082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > >> state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > >>>>> Indeed, "the people" pay to have roads built. A communal, > > > > > > socialistic, > >>>>> decision (developers don;t build interstates, must as you would > > > > > > wish > >>>>> it). Nice snip of the relevant accusation, though. Saves you > > > > > > another > >>>>> red > >>>>> face. > >>>> > >>>> It sucks when you can't say that the Government builds the roads. > > > > > The > >>>> government is just the middle man handling the money. > >>> > >>> And the "money" is the sole reason roads get built. No tickee, no > >>> shirtee. > >>> > >> > >> Nice job racist Billy. Does OSU know of your racist views. > > > > Good - you have now deflected so far off topic that you clearly have > > surrendered. About time. > > > > OSU would laugh you out of court. It is, of course, run entirely by > > ultra-left communists and pinkos. > > That explains alot. Whoosh.
From: William Clark on 3 Aug 2010 08:48
In article <8bpenuFbl1U1(a)mid.individual.net>, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > news:wclark2-754AFF.20465802082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <8bog0sF559U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > In article > <alangbaker-15E2AB.23062231072010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > > > > > > > alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In article <8bjv3hFufjU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > > > > > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in > message > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > news:wclark2-DBCC9B.17523931072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > > > > > > > > In article <8bj66lFm27U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > > > > > > > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "BAR" <screw(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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Evolution is not atheistic or theistic, Greg. It simply is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > -Greg > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Why and how? You are clearly defining a belief in God as necessitating > > adherence to "intelligent" design. That's just BS. > > > > You are trying the usual "you don't understand" platitude of the > > creationists when science knocks them on their rear. > > > > > > Deistic evolution is a more reasoned approach to the origin and > development > > > of life. > > > > Why and how? Especially given that it has zero scientific basis to > > support it. > > I'll discuss my opinion with sincere grownup. Go waste somebody else's > time.....or better yet, leave my country, pompous prick. > > -Greg The question is quite sincere, and very germane. You just can't answer it, so you go back to xenophobia and name calling. OK, you concede - we win. Again. |