Mickey

Don't worry, we can rebuild him, make him stronger, faster, we have the technology.

Those numbers can be easily skewed with one or two long runs. If he runs 10 times for 3.0 yards to the left and runs 10 times to the right gaining 3.0 yards for 9 of those carries but gets 20 on the tenth carry the averages would read 3.0 yards per carry on the left and 4.7 yards per carry to the right. Would that mean that the guys on the right are blocking better than the guys on the right or that we just happened to catch our opponent in the wrong defense for a play?

No doubt these are mirror images of the won/loss record of our opponents in those months.

Okay, lest assume you are correct that some schools somewhere could teach evolution better than they are now. Did those schools unleash squads of pimpled atheists who were choirboys and girls before they were exposed to this terrible class? I don't think the belief in God is at all imperiled by science class.

This is what he said: "Scientists are narrowly focused guys who do things because they can, not because they should." Show me where he limited the reference to "scientists"? Did you take him to mean one scientist? Two? Three? Or did you take him to mean "most scientists" as I did? Your really splitting hairs here.

An atheist isn't arrogant for believing what he believes, nor is a true believer arrogant for believing what he believes. The difference is that one pushes that belief on others (evangelism) and is willing to punish those who refuse to adopt those beliefs (stoning, burning at the stake, etc.). That is arrogance. If you can show me an atheist who has knocked on your door or screamed at you from a street corner then fine, I would consider him to be an arrogant atheist. In my experience, the arrogance is mostly on the side of the faithful.

Actually, I think it is an excellent analogy. Mass is a great place to discuss religion, science class isn't. I have no problem keeping them apart. If you don't think religion is no threat to science, you are apparently ignorant of the history between church and science for the last 10 centuries or so. Shall we compare the number of scientists killed through history by priests to the number of priests killed by rabid atheist poindexters? Funny, I was unaware that teaching evolution leaves children with the impression that God is a myth. That would come as quite a surprise to the majority of science teachers and scientists themselves who see evolution as a perfectly valid theory and believe in God as well. What "way" is evolution being taught that leaves this impression? Are children being converted to atheism in droves after having attended science classes? What study shows that the "way" science is being taught in thousands and thousands of school districts across the country is leaving this impression that God is myth? Are all school districts teaching evolution in this "way" that concerns you or just some? How many? Where are they? How long have they been doing it? Is teaching religion in science class the way to fix this?

If you are referring to those who want to teach creationsim in a science class which are the people I have been complaining about, it is not a generalization. Let me help you understand the difference my son: "All scientists..." a general, unlimited reference "People who want to teach religion in science class" a specific, limited reference

I think the people who think they are "all powerful" are not the secular humanists of the world, quite the contrary. When was the last time you had a scientist ring your door bell and hand you a pamphlet pushing atheism? The arrogance, the certainty of being right is with the righteous. Again, scientists aren't trying to teach evolution in Sunday school but the pious and the righteous sure want to teach their religion in science class and to festoon public buildings and spaces with their symbols. Along the way, if they can pirate the public purse to finance their piety, so much the better.

The difference is that scientists aren't demanding to be allowed to teach evolution during mass but pastors want their faith taught in science class. This isn't an argument about the existence of a higher power, it is far more simple than that. It is just an argument about whether we will teach science in science class.

I think that is a really broad generalization.

Their argument essentially is, "your theory isn't perfect therefore, mine must be right."

Polio was a wrong, we righted it.

When did you become such an expert in atheists and their beliefs as they age? Care to link to the source of the wealth of information supporting your assertions about what all atheists, "with very few exceptions, historically" do when they age? I can't wait to see the factual support for your declaration that atheists "universally" say this or that on their death bed. Even if your bald assertions, which are likely more the product of your own imaginings rather than actual facts, were true, would that prove that God must exist or that atheists, after being so indoctrinated for so many years by fevered believers tend to finally give in as their body and mind weakens towards death? My own research shows that, with very few exceptions, historically and today, true believers tend to universally make up lies and attack anyone who dares to disagree with them because they find the very idea that all their ceremony and pomp might be about as valid as the worship of coconuts by certain primitive tribes to be so frightening that they must immediately silence all dissent. Pity that the day where you could just stone the heretics of the world have gone by the by, eh?

So....all that can't be proven not to exist exists? Hmmm....I think if your reasoning above is accurate, than those who believe that an actual tooth fairy exists who can't be seen are on the same intellectual ground as those who do not believe in the existence of a tooth fairy. I think that a person who "believes" that a thing does not exist based on the utter lack of objective evidence of its existence is probably on firmer ground than one who believes in the existence of a thing which leaves no objective trace of its existence. By objective trace I am excluding the "I see God in the twinkle of a child's eye, in the beauty of the desert and in the love of a friend" kind of thing. That doesn't mean that the "non-believers" are ultimately right but I think it does mean that maybe they are on, from an intellectual standpoint, much firmer ground the "believers."

All you need to satisfy these folks is to present a film using time lapse photography covering 4.6 Billion years of the Earth and life on Earth evolving step by step with actual footage of a monkey, we'll call him "Sam", actually transforming cell by cell from a tree dwelling omnivore living off of insects and fruit to a cubicle dwelling, underpaid, overworked programmer in Burbank living off of Pop Tarts and Beer. Then and only then will they stop calling it a "theory".

I thought we were talking about evolution. How the first spark of life developed and how that spark became guys named Bib posting messages are two different things.

You don't mean to imply that not all ancient apes became humans do you? Are you trying to say that some ape species evolved eventually into humans while other ape species evolved into modern apes? That is just crazy talk. Hyuk, hyuk,....duh...uh..uh how could that be? Me no understand. Take it back, you and your blasphemy, your accursed "facts" are threatening my belief structure.

If we can get him for a decent price or even a little more than a decent price, I hope TD finds a way to get it done. This guy is a talent, that is why he has been franchised. He is a DT who can get to the quarterback. Is he a jerk? Yeah, probably but some of the best players we have ever had were, on a personal level, pretty jerky. In fact, some of the best players ever were idiots off the field. Dexter Manley, Lawrence Taylor...etc. You add Corey Simon to that defense and it goes from "solid" to scary. Here is all you need to know about Simon: 32 sacks and 8 forced fumbles in 5 years. That is not a typo, 32 sacks from a tackle. By contrast, Sam Adams has 39 sacks in 11 years and only 6 forced fumbles.

I was at the morning practice and the one thing I noticed with regard to the QB's was the speed of the ball, JP's passes come firing out of his hand with more visible velocity than the rest of the other QB's. To be able to see a difference from up in the stands is something. I don't know if that kind of velocity is a good thing or a bad thing but for what it is worth, he has all the arm strength we could ever want. Accuracy and judgment will be his challenges. I saw him hit Gates on a screen during the 11 on 11 drill that was executed perfectly. I got a good pic of it and when I looked it over at home, you could see that there wasn't a defender anywhere near Gates who had two blockers right in front of him. JP drew the defense in to him as he drifted to the opposite side of the field from Gates. The WR's went deep and to the side where JP was. On the other side, Gates was a lonely guy. JP let it go at the right time and hit him with an easy to catch pass that let Gates immediately start running without being thrown off balance trying to haul in a pass that was a little off. That was the best play I saw from JP all day. It was against the second or third string defense (LaWaylon Brown, Sape, Leger, Greer, Osunde and Ritzman to name a few). As for Willis, he better learn to pass block, I don't want to be telegraphing our intentions every time we pass by having to pull Willis to the sidelines. There will be times we will be in max protect and Willis will need to be able to block. With his size and athletecism, there is no reason for him to not be able to block on occasion.

....

Anybody get it before it was pulled?

Please find a post by me where I used the term "iffy" or "deer-in-headlights"?? When you look and don't find it, please have the decency to apologize for lumping me in with those who are being overly critical of JP's performance. What I said about him was that he did some good things and some bad and I presented specific examples of both without using any soupy crap like "presence". He looked off the defense allowing Moulds to get wide open and then hit him in the numbers but later he stared at a reciever right from the snap and it would have resulted in a pick for six the other way if the guy hadn't dropped it. Some good, some bad.

I don't think either of us knows why the call was not made. I do think the referee has the option of not calling PI when, in his judgment the pass was not catchable. That may have changed but last I knew, they can do that. I think that to assume JP would have thrown a TD had it not been for the interference, you would have to assume that the pass was on target and we don't know that it was. You also have to assume that Lee would make the catch and that he would not have been tackled. That pick was a pick if the guy hadn't dropped it when it was right in his hands. So I think he screwed up there no matter how you slice it. Believe me, in the film room I don't think the coaches are going to run that play and say "way to make him drop it JP". He made a mistake, he knows it, the coaches know it, the announcers know it, the team knows it, we all know it. I don't think it was that big a deal but you seem to find it necessary to excuse it or minimize it somehow. For my part, I am not faulting him at all or even downgrading him because of the result of the play with Evans. On the other hand, there is just no question in my mind that on that near pick, he was staring at the receiver right from the snap and because he did, the pass was read big time by the defender. He threw the ball anyway meaning he failed to see the defender right there and failed to realize that he had been staring at the guy tipping the play to begin with. It isn't the end of the world or anything, it is just a fact that he blew that play about as bad as it can be blown. It is a legitimate criticsm of his performance in that scrimmage. He definitely did some good things, no doubt, and you are right that for anyone to get too negative is just crazy but at the same time, he made some mistakes and that near pick was simply an awful play. I am prepared to see him make quite a few more of those as he develops.

I wouldn't give him credit for "making no mistakes that hurt the team" based on a defender dropping an easy pick that would have been six points the other way.