finknottle

If you don't believe that the Bills will go 16-0 and win the superbowl this year, do you KNOW that they won't? Are you being arrogent by not believing? So what do you call someone who doesn't believe in God, but admits to himself that he simply doesn't know for sure? Or are there no such people?

There may be plenty of scientists who believe God is a myth, but I don't know of any who argue that because of what they have figured out about the universe that they KNOW God is a myth. That seems tantamount to believing they can prove it, something I find hard reconcile with rigorous and legitimate science. Can you give an example, just one, of such a scientist? Frankly, sounds more like a religious pronouncement to me.

The way science is taught also leaves students with the impression that my missing dog didn't create life either, even though evolution itself makes no such claim. I'd be suprised if "you" were concerned about fixing this particular bit of faulty teaching.

Some fans are uncomfortable with the conflict arising from rooting for players who do not fit their subconscious fantasy of the perfect man.

My pet peeve it this: ID research, as best as I can determine, is dedicated to identifying gaps in how well evolution matches the fossil record. This does nothing to advance its own explanation, but what the heck... the real problem to me is that they advance several arguments that seem to make sense to the scientific non-expert, but which are clearly wrong to the expert. The classic example is their argument that the universe hasn't been around long enough to try all of the experiments which lead to man, therefore someone has been directing it. Even though this argument is easily disposed of, and its fallacy recognized by the academic IDers, it is consistently repeated in new textbooks. A real science which recognizes its own occasional error tries to discourage the misconception, not willfully propogate it.

What if, after you remove anti-God overtones, people who learn about evolution still decide against God? I assume you would be ok with people deciding such matters based on what their life experience? What if, even without biases, people found evolution a personally convincing circumstantial argument against God? It reminds me of when a political party, lagging in the poles, complains that the topics covered in the news is to blame for people leaving for the other party.

It is a thought-provoking coincidence that as we enter an age in which even the brightest among us can no longer fully understand the physics of the myriad everyday devices that surround us - a television, wireless communications, refrigeration, an operating system, catscans, modern medicines - that american society is increasingly turning to religion.

My missing dog is the semi-intelligent designer; he created life in the premordial soup by passing wind in it 4 billion years ago. I've detected hints in some posters who seem to believe that this chap God exists and is the IDer, or he doesn't exist and there is no IDer. I find this exclusion of my theory arrogent, and until you guys can prove me wrong you have no greater authority in your arguments than I do.

It is ironic that conservatives frequently embrace this view while at the same time decrying liberal relativism. It would be interesting to see what they would defend as scientific fact, since by applying only logic, nothing about the real world is actually a provable fact.

One of the commonest misconceptions about natural selection and evolution is that it is directional. Each new generation of a species introduces variations. The vast majority of changes disappear within a generation or two, but some of these variations help the members better fit certain ecological niches, and those members thrive and potentially pass the change on to their descendents. The point is that the ability to fill new niches does not negate the viability of the old niche. Think of a car company. It has a bunch of models, broadly defined by the basic parts and production line that produces it. Every year it tinkers his way and that with each model - some turn out better, some turn out worse, and some are so bad that they bring about the end of that model line! But every once in a while the item seems so different - like the SUV, say - that they have effectively wandered into a new niche where an entire new line will flourish. But that does not mean the end of the market for the ancestral lines, 4 door sedans or whatever. So maybe once upon a time a bunch of chimps, born with a bit more brains and an easier gait, discovered they could make a living on the ground hunting. The ones that stayed in the trees couldn't care less, they would do fine following their own future in the trees.

Big deal. Consumption is expected to outstrip maximum production in something like 15 years - how much accessible oil we pull out now, whether in Iraq or in Alaska, only moves that date up slightly. Improving the rate of production and processing of the accessible reserves doesn't change the fact that over the next 50 years we will run out of oil for everyday use (ie transportation). Over the past 20 years we've gotten pretty good at understanding geology, and are increasingly unlikely to find we have missed any meaningfull reserves.

Yeah, I hope you get a lot of pleasure over that. Stats mean nothing. A great defense comes up with the big plays to win the game. IMO crunch-time play was what was missing for us last year, and we've had better defenses in the past with worse numbers. The Ravens D is SOLID, and I can only cross my fingers that age will trip them up, next year if not sooner.

They didn't say he was bad, but that he was inconsistent. They said (according to the paraphrase) some good, some bad, but you don't win consistently by playing streaky. You can debate the importance, but you can't deny the fact that he started off 3/3, and then went 3/8 the rest of the way. At the end of the day he was 6/11. I didn't see the game, but those sound like iffy numbers to me.

Just reading what they said, sounds like they say it all: "I saw the Green Bay scrimmage. JP Losman looked real "iffy" out there. The Bills have other pieces in place - good D, 3 WRs, RB, but QB is weak link. JP will make some good throws, but will several bad throws in a row. you cant have a bad quarter in a game & win consistently in the NFL." It sure seems like a lot of people are upset that the media has not annointed us superbowl champs yet and want to jump all over the messengers. Give it a break, people. We havn't even had a preseason game yet!

Outrageous. Everybody knows based on last season that we are better SD!

Why would we want to send that message? Wouldn't we want teams to think we are in rebuilding mode with a rookie qb running a vanilla offense?

Promising, but I'm not holding my breath that they'll be demolishing the soldier's parents home anytime soon like they normally do.

So what would you, a non-jerk presumably, have said to the press when they asked you about when Lewis will show up?

I don't understand how you are supposed to determine who are the bad guys if you don't let them talk to the media. Should we take Putin's word for everything?

Thanks from all us bills fans in MD!

I think these predate capitalism.

Wouldn't execution be a more effective deterence with regular rapists?

I'm pro GWOT, but I find it very troubling that we don't want to even look at different struggles and decide for ourselves the merits... Just curious - how many people here feel the same way about the IRA?

Are you mocking Russian constitutional rights or pointing out the obvious?

They are not AQ offshoots, and the distinction is telling. Their troubles started long ago and their rebellion against the Russians was more nationalistic than Islamic in character. But after a decade or so largely on their own all the moderates there are now dead, radicalized, or have thrown in their lot with the Russians. The Jihadists found this very fertile ground, and have turned it into their struggle. The same thing almost happened in Bosnia. When the muslim (and croat) areas were being cleansed, foreign jihadists came to the country to join the muslim army (croats also had volunteers, from the west); help that the muslims desperately needed even if they had no interest in Wahabism. The difference was that in Bosnia the US brought peace and worked hard to ensure that the fighters that remained did not undermine or intimidate the nascent government. The point is that these are not AQ offshoots. Rather, AQ seeks out areas of struggle and by joining hijacks the agenda.