OGTEleven

Our kids are too busy putting condoms on cucumbers to bother with either religion or math.

...or one accepts the current version of evolution as fully informed. It's nice that you have decided what should go on in science class. Other people disagree and they also pay taxes. Maybe if schools weren't run by the government, we wouldn't have to have so many arguments, and we could all decide which school we would like our kids to attend. I agree. Especially with the bold part. This will always be true. This from the chief PPP advocate of "Cucumber condom 101"?

Thanks for a well thought out reply. My issue with the "religious" and "scientific" crowds is in the one area where they agree. They both seem to think that their beliefs/theories are mutually exclusive. They may give lip service to some level of compatiblity, but it is clear that both sides believe the other to be worthless. This has nothing to do with the search for truth that both science and religion are supposed to be about. God could not have created a world/universe where things evolve? Give me a break. A proof of evolution would mean there is no God? Common man! If evolution is real, we are progressing and improving the species constantly right? In other words we are becoming more God like (at a snail's pace, but hey.). Isn't that what the religious folks want? My question was meant to point out that some (IMO many) on the "scientific" side want evolution to disprove God. This in itself goes against the very method of science they espouse as the answer. There should be no desire involved, only fact. The "religious" side counters by attempting to drown out evolution by piling on with myriad alternate "theories". This goes against religion being a search for truth because such a search would not fear evolution. IMO, the whole thing is a big joke. The scientists have an agenda to mock believers because they fear a God. They are trying to use the school systems to do it. That is why evolution is so prominent in curriculums even though it has not met the standards to which other scientific theories are held. The believers have an agenda to drown out scientists because they have weak faith. They doubt whether their beliefs will hold up against science and feel compelled to refute every facet of evolution including the existence of dinosaurs. Both camps claim to be in search of the truth. Hardy har har.

This guy should apply: Kabul airport my @$$!

How does evolution meet this definition? I can give it the benefit of the doubt to some extent on "explaining how things happen" but it is still replete with missing links in its theories (pun intended). With that said what does it do to predict future events? Physics class teaches a lot there as does chemistry, but evolution? "Continued adaptation to one's environment" is a little vague, no? Disclaimer: This post is not meant to contrast evolution with ID or creationism (I think there will always have to be faith to believe in God, and I think God made it that way on purpose.) The post is meant to measure evolution as meeting the definition of science.

I bet you never saw pass interference called on a Hail Mary. I bet you never saw defensive holding called on a field goal attempt. I bet you never saw a Hall of Fame player be judged to be in "control of the puck before it leaves the crease" even though he had to look around for it before shooting it into the net to win the Stanley cup while out of shape 50 year olds in my beer league can kick it to their stick and shoot it without looking. I bet you never saw back to back inside the park home runs in a major league game (I did, in person).

Claiming racism is very easy. If it was the hispanic woman's husband getting the death penalty instead of Peterson, I'm sure you'd be on here whining about only minorities getting the death penalty while the white guy (Peterson) doesn't. You can spin it any way you want. The Peterson case has nothing to do with the other case. Do you think Peterson got what he deserved?

I could only listen to yesterday's game but I have a guess about something. They did a direct snap play to Freddie Smith. For anyone who saw the play, did it look at all like it ciould be a setup for later in the year where he throws a pass from the same set?

I think next week will be a big test. I have believed for a long time now that we can win games with DB but I am still skeptical that we can be a true winning team. Mistakes like he made early in yesterday's game can, at times, dig us a hole from which we can't climb out. When defenses put together a smart game plan against Drew (we haven't seen one of those in a few weeks, but we will this week), we either hang on for dear life while Willis begins to wear them down or Drew blows it and the game gets ugly. It seems to me that we still aren't all that patient with our running game yet. Another reason we've done well is Lee Evans. He has made some big catches early in games before we are in "Willis mode". Without those, things could be different. I think the Bills are right now one of about 4-5 teams in the league that could beat anyone or get beat by (just about) anyone based on a few plays early in games that set a tone.

The question was "why would he have more backing", not "why would he make a better coach".

When did Weis QB ND to an undefeated season?

In his best Dr. Evil voice: Is it too much to ask for a frickin flamethrower that works in frickin space?

After all that work Finding Nemo, that's sure to lose him again.

Although she was attractive, some of the pictures from the 80s clearly show her cavorting with dolphins. This disqualifies her.

You should change your moniker to Mr. Sunshine.

That would give SD four first rounders as they already have the Giants firster. If they could only figure out a way to get the other 28.

There used to be a great race mare named Sabin. I wonder if they're related.

Who's R. Rich and how do I dig up his posts? P.S. I already tried Google.

It is so heartening to know that to some people the ability to have an abortion is the single most important component to a good government. How stupid of the founding fathers not to put it in the bill of rights. It is also unlikely that gays would be hung in the streets. Most of the red state voters are in suburbira and "exburbia" now. The streets in these areas do not have lamp posts, telephone poles and such. Most of the wires are underground. There is an occasional tree for decoration but it would not be practical to overuse these trees. On a serious note, if you believe the stevestojan that you type, you ought to try observing the real world a little more closely. Classifying half of the population as murderous thugs is not only ignorant, it is irresponsible. Grow up.

I thought, therefore I was copycatting.

Bills chances at winning out (estimated): Cle 90% * Cin 45% * SF 80% * Pit 60%= 19.44% 19.44% * 56% = 10.89% chance of playoffs. That's better than I would have thought at 0-4.

I was right with you until the Pittsford part.

I bet the "under" on that one.

None of it is shocking to me. I even agree with some of your premises. It does seem to me that a parent signing a blank (in terms of when) consent form is a little Schultzish. I don't want my kid to have sex, so maybe if the school doesn't tell me when they're handing out condoms I won't know, so I can go along assuming nothing is happening. I'm not saying the parent would stop the encounter. But a purposeful lack of information about your child's well being is not a good thing. You may end up having a knock down drag out screaming match with your kid. At the end of it the kid may have sex anyway. That doesn't mean the knock down drag out was useless. It may help in the future as your kids experiences start matching up with what you had warned. Without the argument, there would not be such a vivid point of reference.

It sounds like the Sgt. Schultz approach to parenting.