JUGGERNAUT

Hmm, so since you are taking it literally does that mean you are full of s***? Context is more important than the literal meaning of the word. if you are talking about any expansion relating to water & associate that expansion to Heaven (which no matter how you look at it clearly implies that which is above the Earth) then it is clear you are referring to rain. Or do I have to explain how rain is created as well?

Copermicus' great work, "De Revolutionibus orblure coelestium", was dedicated by permission to Pope Paul III so that it would be protected from attacks by mathematicians & philosophers because it contradicted what was evident to both the prevailing common sense & our physical sense at the time. There was never an objection on a scriptural ground until the Protestants came on the scene. For nearly 75 yrs no challenge emerged from the Catholic side. This was due in part because Copernicus provided a reasonable interpretation of the creation story in Genesis that fit his model. What these debates indicate is the difference in our education. To remain faithful to both science & religion you must become a student of history, philosophy, mathematics, metaphysics, & science. Whereas if you are simply faithful to science you 3 of the 5 are not essential. Furthermore being faithful to religion forces the student to understand how the 5 relate to one another. Now it's fairly obvious that a student faithful to both religion & science is tasked with having to develop a better understanding of both than a student who is just faithful to science. This explains why one appears as ignorant to the other.

Wrong again. I'm not surprised the left is so ignorant of the most widely read & studied book in the history of mankind. The most important Biblical references as they pertain to the origin of man: From dust we came & dust we shall return. If you interpret it right, Genesis got the order right. The key is to always refer to the Heavens as the universe of stars, or the sky. Essentially that which is greater than the Earth & surrounds the Earth. 1) Heavens (Universe, stars) 2) Earth (formed from the bombardment of space debris in the blackness of space. 3) Oceans (oxygen producing life forms caused the iron in the oceans to oxidize & fall to the ocean floor). 4) Ozone 5) Atmosphere 6) Sunlight (physics) - Obviously the light source is coming from the Heavens. 7) creation of night & day - Obviously the Earth is rotating on an axis & that causes a pt on the Earth to turn away from the light source. 8) reference to firmament (expansion) - the best way to interpret this is rain from the sky vs water in the ocean. We know that at the early creation of the atmosphere it rained upon the Earth in Biblical proportions (much greater than the 40 days & 40 nights). 9) Heaven is always interepreted as the sky or the Universe. Essentially that which is bigger than the Earth & that which surrounds it. 10) Drying out process - formation of land masses 11) Plants 12) day from night, seasons, years - this is just further explanation of 7) supporting that the Earth is revolving around the light source. 16) greater light to light the day, lesser light to light the night - this is a direct reference to another object revolving around the Earth (moon). 17) moving creatures, flying creatures, large creatures of the sea 18) cattle, beasts, creeping thing 19) man & then woman from a rib of man The only thing contradictory in the story of Genesis is the time line. But that is easy to reconcile given that God is omnipresent & we know now it is theoretically possible to curve space & time. The idea that he could fold many 100's of millions of years into the span of a day is not inconceivable any more.

First off it's inevitable that asian culture will become the most dominant culture in America because of both immigration & the fact that the worlds strongest economic power will be China & that power is already being heavily influenced by Japan. Secondly, Japan is already overcrowded so even though it is a better society it's not welcome to foreigners taking up residency there. Thirdly, you obviously know nothing about Japanese culture or you would not have made reference to their woman. They have a higher % of female elected officials than we do & a large % of the sales of media that portray their women as you are suggesting are coming from the women! But the difference is they are a far more reserved society than we & they would prefer to keep such things private in their lives. They don't posture for acceptance of their behavior. Are you the product of public school education in America? I'm just wondering because I'd like to know the roots that teach that posturing for acceptance of one's behavior has anything remotely to do with personal freedom.

Please share with us your infinite widsom of Bible passages that literally state the Sun revolves around the Earth. The free exercise clause & establishment clause interpreted the correct way do not require all religions to be taught in a class. It simply requires that a class be created to teach a religion if the demand is sufficient enough to make it reasonable. When we are free of the left-wing ideology it will be correctly interpreted. We seem to be leaning in that direction. But that has little to do with the discussion. No one is suggesting creationism or any specific religion be taught in context of ENS. All that is being suggested is that an intro to quantum physics & how it relates to metaphysical arguments about the origin of the universe & our our own existence be taught either in conjunction with ENS or prior to ENS. Those metaphysical arguments have nothing to do with a specific religion & everything to do with the belief that science leans towards the direction that their is a greater existence in the universe than our owns & essentially is the root of our existence. Now if a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, etc. wishes to map their own religious beliefs to that argument they are certainly welcome to do so but it is best that mapping be left to the household than the school. With an average cost of $10K a yr for each student as it is we don't need to increase that cost by including specialized religious instruction. With respect to the free exercise clause & the establishment clause only a left-wing nut job would interpret that as meaning a public school can not teach philosophy or metaphysics in the most general sense or that some how any discussion of spiritual existence should be banned from such courses.

And this is what separates us. Your thinking is based solely on your personal beliefs where as mine are supported by the probability function. I simply look at the number of spiritual households in America & the impact the neoDarwinian context has on both the child & the household. It is not an environment that fosters good feelings about science. Now I suspect someone on the board will weigh in with "blame the parents" again but that simply states the left-wing ideology for everything: "we are right, you are wrong, & don't expect a compromise of any kind". In my other thread I was criticizing the current Biology course taught in high school. I asked myself a simple question: which is more likely to get children interested in the subject? Two semesters focusing on cells & evolution or physiology of plants & animals? After two semesters of Biology I had experience in dissecting all sorts of creatures & detailed study of plants. After two semesters of Biology my kid will not have even picked up a scalpel. Her labs will have been mundane exercises such as DNA testing using electrosynthesis & some weird evolution experiment involving cotton balls & spoons. Of course I'm sure the left-wing will cry "blame the parents" for lack of interest as well. I wonder if they are ever capable of blaming themselves. The true compromise in my opinion (which you won't like) is to de-emphasize the biological sciences in favor of emphasizing the mathemathical ones. Yes it's entirely possible that a new brilliant mind can emerge in the field that shifts the paradigm from the Divine Agent to something else. But if that should happen it will happen with far less stigmatism than the NeoDarwinist have caused because the basis has to be objectively based in mathematical formulation & computation. That's a much harder basis to weaken than a subjective one that holds no greater evidence than any other. Simply put we have a much greater need & shortage in America for math related sciences than biological ones.

I think we should preface this by saying "in general". If Kong is slumping & Thome is hitting the ball better than Mak then I think Ozzie will consider using Thome at 1B for the NL park games. But I don't see Thome getting much action at 1B in AL parks if Kong & Mak are healthy. The risk of Thome's back problems resurfacing from extended play at 1B is too great.

I'm not surprised that most of you would not understand the meaning of the word obsession. Go look it up. The meaning is clear. In general you do not find any "obsessive" attitude any where close to what you do in America in the rest of the world. Only a left-wing nut job would suggest obsessive behavior = personal freedom. The rest of us rightly view it as a lack of dignity, decency, discipline, & self control.

Let us not forget the closest cousin to a physicist: a mathematician. There are actually more spiritualists in that realm than there are in physics. It's really the mathematicians who have directed the physicists to the Divine Agent by immersing themselves into probability theories. Behind the question of whether the NeoDawinian context of ENS is reasonable or not there are much larger questions: 1) Has the NeoDarwinian context led to declining interest in science in America? Recent studies show that are high tech mind wealth is eroding even faster than our buying power.

As usual you are wrong. But I'm not surprised since your capacity to reason in science seems limited to Biology. Any good student of science knows that which is unexplainable in Biology falls to the realm of Physics. Why? Because Biology is for the more part void of mathematical reasoning to explain that which it can not test. We have covered this topic before & I have provided you the links on prevailing theories relating to quantum physics & how they gravitate to a Divine Agent explanation. Let me try to summarize it again: "An unobserved quantum entity is said to exist in a "coherent superposition" of all the possible "states" permitted by its "wave function." But as soon as an observer makes a measurement capable of distinguishing between these states the wave function "collapses", and the entity is forced into a single state." The prevailing theory is that a universal observer must exist (metaphysical origin). What is most surprising about this theory is that though it is new to most of us born in the 20th century it is not new in terms of history. It turns out well before quantum physics experiments came into being that a philosopher had worked out a similar explanation (1734) that predates Darwin's work. http://thenewphilosophyonline.org/philosop...x.php?page=1001 So that begs to ask the question is it reasonable for a Biology teacher to teach ENS with NeoDarwinian context in light of the universal observer theory presented from QP? The answer is obviously no because physics is more capable of explaining that which leans towards a metaphysical origin.

The fact that Evolution by Natural Selection is being taught in American high schools is a good thing. The context in which it's being taught is not. What's happened in America is that it developed a cultural separation of Church & state that goes way beyond the free exercise & establishment clause defined in the US Constitution. Such a cultural separation does not exist in many of the other G8's. It's that cultural separation that led to the context in which ENS is taught in America. If you don't believe that man's roots lie in his spiritual origin than it's easy for you to make use of evidence that does exist to conclude that man is the result of random events coinciding with natural selection. When that is the context in which ENS is taught you are suppressing a child's beliefs in their spiritual existence. I recently discusses this over a chat with a Japanese father & he says that doesn't exist in Japan. He said that they include a parallel of Buddhist teachings to relate ENS to reincarnation. He said the idea here is that the child grows up with those teachings prior to being taught ENS so by co-relating the two ideas it makes it easier for the child to remember & understand ENS. He believes similar methods are used in China & S Korea as well. In other words Japan has no cultural separation of religion or spirtual thinking & secular teachings. If we were like Japan then teachers would mention those aspects of Christian literature (the Bible & letters of St Francis, Thomas Aquanis) that actually support the ideas of ENS. It's a fundamental precept of learning that people understand something best if you draw a relation to something they already know. There is no final definitive word as to whether man's origins are spiritual or the consequence of random events. You can build a convincing argument on both sides of that question. It's a travesty that only one side of it is presented in American public schools. When it comes to cultural separations between Church & state America might be the most decisive & oppressive. Even in China where it's becoming more & more open to religious teachings (as long as they don't oppose the state's political system) both private & parochial schools are given greater freedom to incorporate spiritualism in everyday teachings. Hopefully as America evolves to being more asian & more hispanic the liberal idealism that creates such a rift in our society will fade away. Teachers will be free to teach the way they think works best. Understanding ENS may or may not land someone a job. But not understanding ENS removes some opportunities. If making spiritual references helps more children understand it then that's better for the nation.

You lost me at ... Iran is supposed to open the first oil market in the world where the currency is NOT dependant on oil. WTF does that mean? Are you aware that there are spots of oil reserves present in just about every industrialized nation in the world today? This guys a crackpot. The only oil supply sold for American $'s is that which comes from us & other nations that DESIRE American $'s. Why do they DESIRE American $'s? Because it still represents the safest currency investment on the planet. The socialism in Europe still makes the Euro a riskier currency than the US $. Beyond that it's also the most convertible currency on the planet & Iran's oil supply represents no more than a pencil dot on a pc of white paper has having any impact on that. Is WW3 inevitable? It depends. WW3 has been pushed aside for now because of eldest nations in the G8 have choosen to give up buying power in exchange for greater economic cohesion & harmony. But eventually old farts in the G8 like ourselves will reach a point we can't give any more. Then it will be up to China (the new top dog) to start giving it up. If they refuse WW3 is inevitable.

If Thome goes down my guess is Mak would become the starting 1B while Kenny tries to work a trade. I think Borchy will prove Gload expendable in ST. The worst part of Thome going down is the $22M. That will hurt like the famous $20M deal for that old cubs pitcher. It represented JR's longest contract for a pitcher since FA.

if Frank had been the highest paid player in the game during his career with the White Sox do you think he would have attracted all that bad publicity? I don't. I think it stems not from his being selfish but rather being so full of himself (pride). Like I said earlier the HOF has plenty of guys just like him in that regards. The fact remains that Franks production vs cost during his time with the White Sox was probably the best of any player that played in the game during that time. That's why I have a hard time calling Frank selfish. Yes, he did b**** & moan a lot but in the end he signed reasonable contracts that helped the team more than it hurt it.

Gload is redundant if Borchy can play. With Mak you don't need Gload for 1B & everyone will take Borchy over Gload in the OF. So Gload's only purpose on the time is a LH bat off the bench that can hit. But if Borchy proves to be that there's no reason for Gload. If Borchy has a great ST (as I expect Ozzie will got him plenty of opps from both sides of the plate) Gload won't make the roster. They will either go with Owens for more speed or an extra arm in the pen. Of course there's always a chance a non-roster invitee could impress us all & bump even Borchy out.

The world is a very big place with many different cultural sects. The more you explore it the more you will learn that the liberal ideology in America is nothing more than bulls*** with some semblance of truth found buried deep inside it. Do you know why that is? Because things that are controversial or abnormal in the rest of the world are accepted as such. The rest of the world is comfortable with the belief that there are things in this world that science can't explain & will never explain. They don't try to build a foundation of acceptance for such things by distorting science. They tolerate it's existence, do some research, & move on. Obsession with acceptance of one's existence is strictly an American thing.

Oddly enough this is one area where the global economy benefits the world. No where was this more prevalent that recent Ethanol sales. While the USA plays tag with OPEC, Ven, & other oil producing nations the rest of the world said F this s***. We'll move to Ethanol. Just like that Brazil signed a mulit-billion deal to supply Ethanol to Taiwan. That was just one of the many deals. As for the USA well Ethanol has been downplayed because American's like to drive big cars & don't like to drive 55 so it burns to quickly. Needless to say American farmers were not happy about the missed opportunities. I believe some policy changes are in the works with respect to future Ethanol production in the US.

I meant it in terms of past history. When someone says they are straight it simply means they've never engaged in sexual behavior with a member of the same sex. The mental constructs that exist in their mind will predict whether that will hold for the rest of their life.

Speaking from personal experience drop dead gorgeous tranny's will make your head spin. When I was single & adult I visited Japan while working for a tech company. I have many peers & some friends there. There are drop dead gorgeous tranny's that live there. HBO even covered the tranny's in the South Pacific. Gorgeous. Love at first sight might not exist but lust at first sight is something of a law. Religion was the only thing strong enough to create a mental block preventing the lust from going forward. That's even after a peer of mine told me it was a guy. Why? Because she/he/it was drop dead gorgeous featuring all the characteristics that straight males are drawn too: nice tits, sexy legs, great ass, & cute as all hell can be. If you have a chance & have digital cable check out the HBO offering. Be true in your answers & just ask yourself questions of what you felt while watching the tranny's. You'll realize yourself what a myth orientation is. I'm a 100% straight MWC male to the point where I've been called a homophobe. But when I go to Japan even though I now know how to spot a tran from a real girl my head still spins.

What makes a girl a lesbian? Cuteness, or the desire to be a man. Cuteness: the girl still desires to be a woman but finds men aren't cute enough to make her tick. More often than not lesbians who are drawn mostly to cuteness will cross over for ultra-cute guys who look like girls. Desire to be a man: dick girls - These are tranny's of the female gender who desire to be men but can't afford to make that change ($, family, job) or can have their sexual needs met with the use of dildo's. What makes a guy gay? Roughness, or the desire to be a woman. Roughness: the man still desires to be a man but finds woman are too cute to make them click. More often than not gays who are drawn mostly to roughness will cross over for tomboys who look like cute guys. Desire to be a woman: Classic tranny of the male gender who desire to be women but can't afford to make that change ($, family, job). They are essentially men who share the same behavioral characteristics as lesbians drawn to cuteness. Every male tranny in some sense is in love with themselves on that level. What further weakens the concept of sexual orientation is the belief that all gays are born to love sodomy. That couldn't be further from the truth. It's estimated that out of the entire population: gays, bi's, lessies, & straights only 10% actually derive pleasure from it. That's surprising since it's been estimated that nearly 50% explore it. It turns out unless you fall into a rare class of specifications for that part of your design you won't derive pleasure from it. What's the difference between sodomy & foreplay in that area? Foreplay would be liken to what a girl does during masturbation with herself without the use of dildo's or anything capable of that degree of penetration. A much larger degree of the 50% that explore sodomy find pleasure in the foreplay aspect of it. So yes there are female & male trannys who love the foreplay but don't much care for the actual sodomy. Now if Kinsey had a clue as to what it means to be a real scientist he would have suggested physiological studies of those who participated in the surveys. Given that they were already volunteering & that most of his volunteers came from prison inmates, ex-convicts, & college students sharing a strong interest in the subject I would think that would have been entirely possible. Perhaps he didn't want a real scientiifc basis infecting his agenda. That's why any esitimation that gays are close to 10% is a complete crock of BS. It's not only not supported by surveys but it's not supported by any aspect of purchasing either. Most tranny's are exhibitionists by nature so they make their presence known. When you subtract the tranny's who really desire to be members of the opposite sex the gay population falls to about 2%. Again if Kinsey was true to science & not his own agenda he would have started his research with tranny's instead of pedophiles who kidnap, torture, & sexually abuse young boys & girls so that they can tabulate data for Kinsey's book. Why do I loathe the liberal's that control America's public schools? Because they base their agendas off of Monster's like Kinsey. The notion that a man of that degree of intelligence can be blind or nieve to the horrors that his work fostered is ridiculous. Kinsey wasn't just a monster. He was a director of many monsters.

What is straight, bi, & gay? Straight : Males that are atttractive to persons looking like attractive females. They like tits, ass, & pussy. Females that are attractive to persons looking like attractive males. They are attracted to broad chest & shoulders, nice buns, & cocks. Bi: a hybrid of a straight male & female. Gay: A female who ACTS like a straight male & a male who ACTS like a straight female. The point? It's the characterisitcs & NOT the gender that a person is attracted too. That's why there is no such thing as sexual orientation. Best example tranny's. See next post.

The issue is real, it is serious, it is near future. It could have wide ramifications on the human race, & it has next to no relation to spidey. That being said it's low on my list of priorities. What did he say about the pitifiul growth in GDP experienced for Jan? That's a lot higher on my list. But since that's what you want to talk about it comes down to this: Should mankind be investing in technology that increases our lifespan by using genetic manipulation to make it possible to create animals as a source of spare parts for humans? It's the idea that compatibility can be obtained by specifically designing the animal to be created for that sole purpose. Obviously donor DNA plays a major role in that creation. In my opinion this is a non-issue for Americans because every president since Nixon has basically been trading America's buying power for peace in the world. Kind of ironic given all of our military action in that time but I guess you can argue things might be worse if we hadn't. Whatever the reasons the result is the same: if the world wants this technology it will flourish as an industry with or without the USA. I prefer my President & those paid by my tax dollars to concentrate on the biggest problem facing America today: our rapid loss of buying power. What part of an even faster growing gap between rich & poor do they not understand? What part of a DJIA that has not been able to stay above 11000 for 10 yrs now do they not understand? What part of America's dismal savings rate do they not understand? Per capita it is the lowest rate since we grew to a pop of 200 mil. With illegals we are well over 300 mil now. We still hold the biggest trump card: faith & confidence in our banking institutions American's have the highest rate of what you might call floating money. Our money is tranformed into lending power which spurs investment, mortgages, & growth. We are not only #1 but their is a vast separation between us & the rest of the nations in the world. When you travel around the world & establish friendships with peers and such you realize just how unique America is. I was surprised to find that both in Argentina & Japan it was common for people to take their savings & store them in safety deposit boxes at mail-stations & what not. That's dead money for an economy. But we can't sustain the trump card forever. Forget the national debt. That's some boogeyman concept the Dems invented to scare everyone into accepting the need to raise taxes. The non-boogeyman debt is real. It's the yearly debt we a mass through our mortgages, loans, & what we buy on credit. When that yearly figure surpasses that which we earn, invest, & save it's game over. That represents the point of no return in our political system. We are not capable of fast change that requires severe cutbacks, protectionism or anything else that can quickly right that balance. The world has seen this model time & again. Argentina was just the latest. Their solution? Raise import taxes & make other changes to bolster their local economy at the expense of the world. They basically gave the IMF the finger, said we'll pay you when we pay you, keep your money you're an idiot. America will never collapse like that. It's two powerful & too large & too much of an economic inovator to produce a losing season. But it is in serious threat of dropping to #3 behind both China & the EU if change does not occur soon. I don't know about Bush, Clinton, Nader, or any of you but I rather like being #1 & I would prefer we fight tooth & nail to stay there.

Wins say much more about the team a pitcher plays for than the pitcher himself. Maddux was blessed with the Braves. If he had remained a Cub for his whole career there's no way he gets to 300. Close wins; however, do say something about a pitcher's competitiveness. The White Sox had a ton last year which I think makes them the favorites to repeat. With respect to Vazquez it's his rise back to 17 dominant wins that probably has Cooper going gaga over him. How many pitchers in 2005 had a 70% increase in dominant wins?

I emphatically disagree & here's why: He is still comparing the MLB marketplace with what it was back in the mid 80's & early 90's when the WGN superstation became a national cable phenom. We don't live in that world any more. Hawk & DJ are bigger than any pair of personalities the Cubs can muster. We live in a world today where ALL the attention goes to the winners. Losers are afterthoughts. He says it will take a generation or several World Championships to change it. Who's he crapping? How quickly did attention shift right back to the White Sox after the Bears run fizzled out? How does one of the worst Hockey teams in the NHL, & a team that is still struggling for the 8th seed in the East conference impact the White Sox? They don't. All the attention goes to the winners. I don't even think it will take another World Series championship next year to drop the Cubs below 3 million in 2007. It just takes another below .500 season by the Cubs & some post-season victories by the White Sox. Just enough to keep the dream alive in a city with depressed dreams. The other thing Morrissey completely ignores is that 2006 will see more fans at the Cell than at any time since it's inception. Does he really believe feedback on that experience is going to be ho hum or like it was in the mid 90's? He's cracked in the skull if it does. I think the vast majority of the new fans in attendance next year are going to have a great time & want to come back. There is so much to take in, watch, & explore at the Cell. Far more than there is at Wrigley. If the White Sox are smart they will continue to feature something new (no matter how small) as an added attraction each year. Something to get the casual fan to talk about outside of the game of baseball. It's no longer the home to the White Sox. It's home to the World Champion White Sox. No one can ever take away the fact that the White Sox won a World Series in their most recent ball park. Perhaps the real curse of the Cubs is Wrigley itself. It's an unpredictable place to play & even worse of a place to pitch. Perhaps the curse is rooted in that under the lights, the pressure of the fans, & the wind blowing out no one can pitch a team to a World Series in that ball park. I'll make a bold prediction that even Morrissey can understand. If Cubs finish with a losing record & the White Sox make the post season agin the White Sox will beat the Cubs in TV ratings. Everyone says thats' what put the Cubs on top in Chicago so if that logic holds true a changing of the guard is on the horizon.

I compiled this thread a while back: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=45103 2002 JavVaz Dominant:17, Just Quality:9, Just Winnable:4, Poor:5 2003 JavVaz Dominant:14,Just Quality:12,Just Winnable:6, Poor:2 2004 JavVaz Dominant:10, Just Quality:11,Just Winnable:5, Poor:9 2005 JavVaz Dominant:17, Just Quality:3, Just Winnable:3, Poor:10 It's the 17 dominant starts that Kenny was looking at. Whether Javier becomes our best pitcher will depend on whether an improved defense + AJ + Coop can cut his poor starts in 1/2. That's just a 5 game differential over 33 starts. Obviously his ERA & HR's given up were greatly impacted by the 10 poor starts.