mike1011

Pretty close to what Bungee said. They take the wrong role models, don't compete in the American workplace like they should, some have a reputation for coasting because of affirmative action, and yes whether I like it or not they are taking the wrong perspective on how to form a movement which is cohesive to make them better. Does that mean all of them? Nope, but it means a sizeable enough portion to where people have shared universal experiences where they have lost trust. If they attempted to live as proper role models that image would evaporate, and the ones that do live as proper role models are put down for not "keepin' it real".

It's amazing how a good O-line can appear with a smart QB who gets rid of the ball.

Warner would've been good if his thumb didn't break so many times. Warner didn't lose it, he lost his physical ability, his spiral, and his confidence.

Sure Losman has the most athletic ability, but he shows the least mental prowess. When I think of a good QB I think of Marc Bulger. Not great, not bad, but does the job most of the time great head on his shoulders. That's how I see Romo but with more athletic ability (as someone mentioned Garcia, but I think he's got better touch). Rivers I like, but I'm not sold on yet. I think he'll probably be the best. Sure LT is great, but he has no receivers and a great TE to throw to. Maybe LT bails him out with dump-off I don't know because I don't see their games. Anyone care to comment on the dump-off? Romo looks the best. Great touch, movement, and accuracy. He had 3 or 4 drops from what I saw and was close to 22-27 making his accuracy almost perfect. I watched him for 2 pre-seasons (because I don't like Bledsoe) and I thought he was the real deal. Well he's good, probably as good as anyone not named Peyton Manning. He may have good receivers, but an aging Glenn, and no running game makes me give him more credit than the other 2.

Let's start with some clarifications of words and terms: Scire in latin means to know, the word science comes from the latin word for knowledge. Science means true knowledge according to principles of thought. Perennially science means just thought: true and certain knowledge based on principles. Experimental sciences have true and certain knowledge of specifics, but their application is in the realm of theory. Experimental sciences are based on methodology and experimentation based on hypothesii and theorems. I use science in the classic terminology. The etymological meaning of science backs up the traditional use. Modernity usurped the word science into a quagmire of meanings. Induction is the use of logic whereby someone looks at specifics and comes to universal conclusions such as looking at silver, brass, etc. and coming up with the universal idea of metal. Deduction is taking the universal and applying it to the specific, like discovering titanium and deductively determining it's a metal. If you don't have the time to look up all this fun stuff take this at face knowledge because I used to teach philosophy (but discovered the lucrative nature of real estate LOL). In Scholasticism what is last is the most important, so rather than think it's least important it's most important. So proof #5 he finds, and so do I, very solid logic proof of God. Modernity has differing views on what it is, the conclusion though is the same, namely, all things are made with the intelligence which is universal in scope and is called God. The neo-scholastic revival in Louvain, Belgium developed Deistic evolution; it is most commonly understood in Protestant terms today whereby the world is made in 6 days etc. but that is very narrow of examining ID. Scotus believed very much in teleological principles. He does make his proofs of God based on reason, and I never said he believed in ID as much as he believed in the final cause (analogous in application to ID) which is God which is demonstrative. Here's Stanford University's overview of Scotus in case you want a refresher. I don't have time to write his works: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/duns-scotus/ Let me say that what is commonly labeled ID has a myriad of possibilities, and the most common today is the fundamentalist "God made the world in 6 days" thing. In such a case yes you are right. But I don't think it can span such a narrow road. Msgr. Charles Glenn wrote on ID back in the 40's using Greeks and Scholastics as his argumentation (his book is called Apologetics), and so did Garrigou-Lagrange in the 50's. Let's start on what we think ID is and go from there. I'm actually enjoying this conversation.

You know it's funny how you point to Catholics as hypocrites, and yet you don't mind proclaiming how people who push their views on others are so wrong, yet you somehow find that mental loophole where you are exempt. You won't look at all the evidence because somehow you have all the answers and push your views on others. Just admit your hypocrisy and how it burns up inside you then make an intelligent comment.

First off I didn't know you were serious. Unlike some I feel like a bone-head, but seeing Darin's ignorant response I thought it was a hypothetical question so I apologize. Gay people aren't born that way. There is no evidence to assert this. You have random hypothesii for their belief, but it is contrary to all evidence. Homosexuality is growing in the culture, which shows it's not genetic but a social issue. Many heterosexual people become homosexual (obviously not a large portion, but a large # of homosexuals were formally heterosexual), and some homosexuals who go through therapy with an open-mind can be helped back to understanding their true sexuality. Little Richard is a perfect example of someone who was once a homosexual who became heterosexual, yet there are thousands of such examples and receive no publicity. A group called NARTH does a lot to work with homosexuals and help them. They have an entire page of articles to deal with the "born that way" legend: http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html Homosexuals also exhibit more social problems such as incredibly high levels of promiscuity, disease, mental disorders, etc.. This is truly a liberal issue that is blacklisted from most media sources just as Jesse Dirkhising's murder and rape was never a public issue, but gay beating is. http://www.newsnet14.com/?p=24&print=1 I'm sorry if I had offended you on my mistaken belief that you were being facetious. If you want the facts you certainly won't get them ordinarily through traditional means.

Inductive logic which leads to a principle of thought is science. If you define science as a method of experimentation, which is a modern definition, than you have a point. Sadly, that is not the perennial definition of a science. Science is any body of learning based on principles as is the classical definition. Math, for example, is considered a science as it's genus. Inductive logic is scientific according to the perennial definition. Next, you stated that Aquinas did not believe in ID and went so far as to say I was incorrect. It is not anachronistic to state he was. An anachronism is placing something in the wrong time frame. St. Thomas believed in ID, hence his doctrine of ID is immutable and time has nothing to do with it. You are 2/3rd right. Ochham denied teliological principles and went to nominalism. I agree that Anselm went to a priori knowledge, something Albert and Aquinas dismissed. Scotus on the other hand did believe in them. Teleology is a study of ends and causes and here Scotus did agree with some of the proofs. I don't see how this changes anything because no one considers Ockham or Anselm a Scholastic. Anselm was pre-Scholastic, the last of the patristics, and Ockham was never considered a scholastic because he denied scholasticism. You are incorrect because it was based on scientific principles. The difference being I chose the perennial definition you chose a very modern definition which does not preclude the perennial definition is wrong. You are being myopic if you think scientific theory makes science. ID is the belief the world is intelligent and comes from a design. I quoted Aquinas sufficiently to know that he did teach that the world is designed and comes from God. Read the above quote as sufficient evidence.

And it WILL change? Not anytime soon or in our lifetime. Do you really think black America is trying to compete with white America on getting corporate jobs that pay well? I just don't see most of black America making that effort at this stage of the country. They are so busy calling their own Uncle Tom when they succeed they lose their own focus. If you think I relish that fact I don't, it's their own racism against their own. Latinos are a bigger minority figure in the country and I don't see them having the same amount of friction with racism than blacks. The reason is simple they don't yell racism every 5 seconds and just try to make it. Irish and Italians were discriminated in this country, especially in NYS, for years. They didn't scream racism when they were segregated in schools, couldn't get jobs in cities, but they moved on. Playing the race card makes it's own problems. I don't imagine that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, who wore a suit and tie most of the time, could imagine that his "freedoms" would entail wearing pants down to their knees, rap music blaring from vehicles, etc.. He imagined Bill Cosby, Condolezza Rice, Gen. Powell, etc. who act respectably.

Science in the scholastic age was deductive and inductive. Science, according to the perennial definition had it's peak in theology and philosophy. Aquinas's doctrine on motion to the First Mover is inductive, Aquinas's doctrine on the plenitude of being is inductive, and Aquinas's doctrine on final cause is inductive. The only one's that are deductive is matter and contingent being (proofs 2 & 3 as they are commonly known). His causal argument from from matter was not design, but from final cause it most certainly was, which shows you to be in error when you say I was inaccurate that the scholastics did not believe in ID: -Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#2 Article #3 And as St. Thomas would respond: And thus is the reply to the rest of your argument. St. Thomas Aquinas was not the only scholastic or the father on the scholastic age, there are many other writings, but having 5 minutes to reply and knowing his writings very well I know where to find it online. St. Albert the Great, Scotus, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bonaventure, et al. used inductive and deductive logic on the proofs of God.

With the moral liberals such as Darin, Bungee and yourself it's no wonder decent conversation degrades itself to sarcasm. Did it ever occur to you that people who believe in ID believe that homosexuality isn't created as a genetic disposition, just like murderers. Do you guys even think things through or does watching insane amounts of TV warp the intellectual process? Bear in mind ID does not equal anti-evolution, the world was made in 6 days, etc.. It doesn't mean any of that. -Aristotle who believed in ID and he believed the world always existed -Protestant fundamentalists who believe ID believe the world was created in 6 days, -Catholic Scholastic Age IDs believed in the beginning of the world without definition of the literal understanding of a 6 day creation -Some of the Neo-Scholastics of the 20th century believed in ID and evolution only on the reasonable conclusion that the lesser which evolved into something greater must come from a pull from above (God) rather than a push from below (naturalistic evolution). This is called Deistic evolution. None of the following is contradictory, yet they run in certain contraries as to the specifics.

Actually it demonstrates your lack of knowledge. The word science, in it's essential and perennial definion (not the nominal Merriam Webster meaning), is knowledge of laws and principles. It comes from the word scire in Latin, and it commonly called scientia. Evolution has no principle, it is a hypothesis that has developed into theory with micro-evolution as the horse it uses to change it from an hypothesis to a theory. Since you want to tell me how intelligent design proponents argue why not use the actual argument first and then analyze it. Intelligent Design isn't based on theory, but on the principles of causality: material, formal, final, etc.. You are totally incorrect. There is inductive and deductive logic. Intelligent design comes from inductive, not deductive logic. You're argumentation starts from deduction, where as intelligent design starts at induction and works together in theodicy through deduction. Why don't you learn this stuff before you fulfill the statement of Lincoln who tells us that those who open their mouths dispel all doubt they are a fool. Rigorous science? Hardly: no proof of macroevolution, not one missing link that is verifiable, etc.. Yet Darwin states that if enough missing links are not found his belief is false. You should read Darwin. Read how Darwin says all his hypothesii are incorrect without enough verification of changing of species. Oh please, you haven't a clue between the logical application of induction and deduction and you are going to own someone? Intelligent design is very simple (although this is an over-simplification): For every design there is a Designer There is a design in the world with definite intelligence The cause cannot go to infinite regression because of the finiteness of matter, and matter has not of itself neither intelligence nor design by itself Hence the Designer must be without matter for all matter is in contigent existence There are other ones that maybe might help you: All motion requires something something to move it and give it an impetus There cannot be an infinite regression in motion for nothing in the material universe can be both the mover and the one moved Hence there must be an unmoved Mover to create motion It's teliological principles based on induction, whereas evolution has no proof to be valid, still remains without necessary evidence to prove anything close to conclusive, and lacks transitory species (even presently there are no species in transition). It's funny how so many liberals deny Intelligent Design, then tell us how the environment is destroyed when men fool around with the design of the environment with pollution, and mass hunting of animals which cause ecological disasters. Why not the survival of the fittest? Darwin said we would just adapt and evolve so bring it on ecological disasters, bring it on evolution, we'll just grow into angels. Many ID deniers also live for evolution yet cannot find the reason for homosexuals who seem to be increasing in number which add nothing to the species surviving. Can someone explain that to me?

He was in 3 games. The Texans were 2-14, and he had no real effect in that game except one sack. The Texans rushed for 95 yards and Carr had 3 interceptions and 70 yards passing so I wouldn't use that as a moral victory. Game 2 against Tampa we were eaten up by a rookie. TKO had little effect on the game. TB rushed for nearly 200 yards. TB exposed what the Texans were sniffing at, namely our run D was trash. Game 3 Atlanta ran for 200 yards. He was hurt close to half-time so don't pretend he wasn't in the game. They were getting torched that year with and without him in the game. Pat Williams was our run stuffer and make the LBs effective. We need great DTs before we start to look to replace TKO.

Pre-injury last year... how was our run defense with TKO? Garbage!!! The difference: Pat Williams, not TKO

Yah, because the receivers throw accurately to themselves and can be blamed.

Isn't this what the Giants did?

I certainly wouldn't say horrible. There was no running game to speak of and he had some great passes to help the team occasionally until the end. RJ's performance that day was incredible, considering it was the best D in the league with no running game. I doubt Flutie would have done anything different, and I know JP would've gotten 20 yards that game. Let me say now that I am not impressed until I see JP throw 200 yards on Jax. I'm happy for him, but I don't see him throwing 2 83 yard passes against a better D.

The list to adopt newborn babies is longer than the abortions in the US. Babies who aren't newborns were put in foster care are not the same as newborns. I know that kills one of you talking points you love bringing up. Go do some research before you look like a buffoon. I love your pithy statement that anyone who tries to push their beliefs on other people is a nut. Your anti-Catholic agenda is simply your own way of telling us that anyone other than you is insane. Well pray tell, what does that make you while you call Catholics hypocrites? A hypocrite naturally. You're probably not man enough to realize your own inconsistencies. God help those Catholics when people like you have your own repetitive agenda you seek relevance for.

My point is if he showed anything he wouldn't be inactive every week. That's not a good sign. The coaches see him everyday and even if he missed a lot of practice he still would be better than guys who "suck".

If Thomas and Greer suck what does that make Youbouty? Sucktacular?

I don't think outstanding plays by special teams setting up scores is great success. We need to win as well. Even when we win if I see a glaring weakness on the team I know the next team is going to exploit it so I don't get all giddy when we win a game which could have gone either way if I don't see improvements either by the coaching staff, or by the players.

We don't know how another QB would do. A Romo compared to a Bledsoe is proof enough to me that without seeing you never know. When people here don't believe JP is a 3rd year pro because he was hurt we have to realize this is reality. Everywhere JP gets older. He's 25 and next year 26 before we realize if he's worth anything? A man peaks for 3 years, usually between 26-29. I don't think he's going to peak into a great QB. I just don't see it, but I do all the excuses in the world.

Evolution is a theory of experimental science. Creationism if the extraction of metaphysical principles from a branch called Ontology then to Natural Theology. Some forms of creationism comes from fundamental Protestantism, but it is not convertible with fundies as it is as old as the ancient Greek philosophers. Funny thing is creationism is far more easily demonstrative than evolution as it rests with the principles of thought, not lacking missing links. Religion is taught in every school. Religion by definition, and here I take the perennial definition of religion, is any thought or belief which affects the way in which society should be governed. The question is what is their belief in religion: secular, Protestant, Catholic, amorphous blend of several, etc..

Who benefits from bashing a 2 year removed senator other than Billary?

You're hunch is wrong moron. I pay more taxes than you without knowing what you do for a living. I own and operate 2 real-estate investment companies with 12 employees. I pay 7 1/2% on each dollar for Social Security on top of my own money. They won't even see that money, some Mexican is sniffing it up their nose. Funny you say that because I was looking at opening offices in TX because the taxes were great (keep my offices here as well), but guess what? All of my friends in south Texas told me the real-estate market in TX is poor with no appreciation to speak of because of the influx of illegals.