knapplc

I did not say that I was correct in my personal beliefs. I did not say others were wrong in their personal beliefs. I did not comdemn anyone else to hell, New Jersey, or any other foul place. I am trying to follow scientific methodology... but am stuck at #4. 1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent. I'm trying to figure out why you quoted my statements and responded with this. In no way was that directed at you, and in no way does what you posted have anything to do with what I wrote.

Wait a second. You're expecting me to believe that Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on his opinions at various times throughout his political career in an effort to appease the electorate he stands in front of at the time? How dare you, sir.

For current pre-universe existence theories, look up string theory and branes. It's fun reading.

We can quibble over the choice of words I used if you want. "Evaluate talent" wasn't maybe the best phrase. I based that off of this paragraph: However you want to verbalize that, the intent is to better understand who they're recruiting, and how they can help the team.

Whether we "need" it or not isn't relevant. We're going to get it. There was a whisper campaign recently by some Republican insiders asking whether they shouldn't have yet another new entry into the race at this late stage, since none of the current candidates are electable. Just astounding.

Also, in the absence of a present and readily perceivable god, that's all we ever will have. The discussion of "proof" simply cannot advance in a meaningful way while god remains hidden. We already have the Bible, and it is a finished product, unable to be added to, because there is no more Jesus, no more burning bush, no more overt acts by God to influence mankind, and we know this because the Bible tells us that Jesus is the final covenant, and there will be no more. It is an exceedingly convenient situation for the Church, because they can continue to point to the Bible and demand that it be accepted wholly on faith, without any proof. It's just that the world is, more and more, unwilling to rely on such explanations.

The single greatest influence on Spring Game attendance is whether or not we win the bowl game. If we lose, attendance will be down because people are generally in a funk or just down on the program. If we win everyone is happy and in the mood to party. I think the vast majority of people realize it's just a glorified scrimmage, and an excuse to get out in the sun after a long winter and have a party. People just don't feel like partying when the mood around the program is down.

Take it to the Shed.

You could take it that way, and that is what he said, but isn't it far more likely that what he intended to convey was a firm conviction in his beliefs, and those words weren't the most politick?

It's just getting ridiculous at this point, Mills. I don't see anybody here asking for proof, or even saying that people can't believe what they want. I've spent this entire thread trying to show the futility and utter arrogance in putting supreme confidence behind one's own beliefs. Yet, no matter what I say, they continue to provide "proof", necessitate their ability to provide proof and defend their narrow viewpoints because it's "faith." I don't know how many times I can say that people can believe whatever they want, just understand that they could be wrong and others have different view points. You must remember that also!! By the way as science tries to disprove the bible they have actually found some stories may be true (E. G. Sodom and Gomorrah). EVERYONE must remember that. It's OK to have your belief. It's OK for me to have mine. But when we start ridiculing each other for our beliefs, that's when our points of view lose merit. I'm going to disagree with you and you're going to disagree with me (the generic all-encompassing "you" and "me" BTW), but as long as the discussion is civil and respectful of the beliefs of others, the discussion has merit. Simply bickering back and forth, denegrating others for believing other than you believe, etc. is fruitless and, in fact, counterproductive.

Some more on this "discovery" of Noah's Ark: LINK LINK

Who is forcing anything? I'm on here giving evidence that Christianity is correct in its teachings and that the Bible, even though it has been tampered with over time and may not have 100% accurate translations, still has a lot of validity and truth. Take this for example: Noah's Ark was found in the mountains in Turkey almost 13,000 feet up on Mount Ararat. The length matches the exact descriptions about how big the ark was, as well as where the Bible said that it came to rest. It is slightly distorted because an earthquake occurred a couple of decades ago and uncovered it. This is what it looked like before the earthquake. Perfect in shape but almost completely covered by the earth. Scientific testing has showed that the structure is composed of decayed wood and metal rivets and fasteners, and carbon dating has estimated that it is about 4,800 years old. I don't mean to be a nuisance, just trying to get my point across. This isn't Noah's Ark. This has been debunked quite thoroughly, actually. You really should check this stuff before you post it.

Cliff's Notes version: Pelini recognized something wasn't working with recruiting so he has hired an outside firm to help evaluate talent and to teach the coaching staff how to more effectively recruit. More details in the article. =)

It's important to note that this is just one guy's opinion. While nice, it's certainly not binding. Prevailing wisdom was that Prince Amukamara was a top-ten pick. He fell to the 20s or something. The draft is a crapshoot.

I'd be mean spirited too if my job was to talk about these yahoos running for president. He's right far more than he's wrong IMO. Bill knows his stuff. Stephen Colbert does it, and he's not mean. I think you'd be more like Stephen, not Bill.

And I have shown that it's not representative of the intent or coverage of Tebow, but you're welcome to your opinion and I do not grudge you your perspective.

I don't care how spot-on Maher is. He's a terribly mean-spirited person. I have watched very little of his show and every time I do I feel the need to disinfect myself. Ick.

I do treat your posts as per your point of view. That doesn't mean that when you say something odd like that, that you should expect to remain free from questions about your stance. It's no different than you asking anyone else to clarify their stance on anything. I rather thought that was self-evident, as the reason for a forum to exist.

Why kill the mouse? What would we do then? There's always another mouse.

Oops. Carl just lost the thread. Or the point. Or whatever. By playing the "I won't answer you until you answer me" game you've given in to his demands, thus you have lost. It's a bizarre form of entertainment, but it's entertaining, apparently.

It's also transparent as hell. And funny, in a sad way.

It is the story of his birth. His mother's doctor recommended an abortion because statistically speaking her life was in grat danger. She had Tim anyway, and the anti-abortion crowd had run with this as a case as to why abortion was bad. Right, but that doesn't translate to "any time Tebow is seen praying, he is serving as a billboard for their cause." At best this is a gross exaggeration. To the best of my (limited) knowledge of Tim Tebow, he doesn't equate his praying with anti-abortion stances, nor does the overwhelming majority of the press, sports journalism, or folks discussing sports/Tim Tebow online. One group somewhere may have made this connection, but I think we're delving into hyperbolic areas with this description of Tebow's religion.

Where do you see this? I'll admit to being woefully uneducated in the ways of Tebowmania, but I do not recall ever seeing him linked to anti-abortion causes, let alone "any time."

Pagan.