timwakefield

Red Sox were down 0-2 in '99 vs Indians, in '03 vs A's, and down 0-3 last year vs NY. We won all those series. Grafanino's error was in the 5th not the 9th, and you really have to fault Wells for serving up a meatball as well. BoSox also made a lot of loud outs late...

If Ortiz had landed in the NL, I'm sure he'd be an everyday first baseman. Also, the Royals are way worse than the Devil Rays, or anybody else for that matter. Blue Jays were nearly .500, and Orioles were hot for 3 months. AL central is easier than AL east......and if the Red Sox were in the NL, they'd have a totally different team!!!! Obviously they have an AL style team.

Great breakdown there. I didn't realize that 14-2 meant one team scored 14 and the other scored 2. Now I get it. White Sox won a division in which they played Detroit and Kansas City 19 times each. If the White Sox were in the AL east, I'm doubtful they woulda made the playoffs.

So GT, you made the call, and your opponent had...........KK I'm guessing. If you assume your opponent's hand is made up only of aces and kings (and it's quite likely that it is), then you are against AK 57% of the time IF your opponent's hand is random. It's not, because even though AK is a more likely to be dealt than AA and KK put together, it is also more likely that your opponent makes that play with AA or KK than that he makes it with big slick. If you had 1500 chips on him, call. SInce he has you covered though, it's a tough question. If you fold you lose less than 1/4 of your c

Go piss up a rope.

I started a new thread for the MVP discussion, complete with a poll.

Who is the American League MVP?

I'm sure he does too, because Ortiz plays DH. Duh. Doesn't change the fact that A-rod ain't anything special defending third base.

A-rod is not even an above average third baseman defensively. He is maybe the best OFFENSIVE third baseman around, but you're saying he is better than Ortiz because he plays the field. This might be true if he was stellar defensively, but he is not. A-rod's fielding % at 3B this season is .971, for his career at 3B it's .968. This is very far from stellar. Ortiz doesn't play 1B everyday because he doesn't have to, but his lifetime fielding % is .990. This season he is .976 in 82 chances, last season he was .986 in 278 chances. He has 18 career errors in 1774 chances. This says nothing

Prove it- cannot be done. There is no proof, and the proof you might find will have a thousand other ideas behind it, meaning they have no clue. Misguided? Hardly. I refuse to put my thought process behind a system that is admittedly so inaccurate. That in and of itself as a choice would be moronic. How often do science book change? Every year? I think I will stick with something a little less volatile.Science is not "admittedly so innacurate" as you suggest. YOU admitted that it was inaccurate. Although it was more of an accusation than an admission.Certain theoretical ideas in science

Um, I think I do get it. My only point was that there's no ground for a discussion. I didn't deny anybody's faith.

I know that God is the creator of all things- Did he create the car? No, but he created the mechanism which created the car so he is the author of all things- if evolution happens, then I know that God being the creator is behind it, and that it is part of the overall plan that he has- so, it would not be evolution at all, nothing random about it- just part of Gods plan. Sorry, Tim, you cannot win in this arena- only one of me and you are waaaayyyyy outgunned.You made my point. Your only grounds for belief is that you 'know it.' Clearly there is no room for a discussion And I'm not sure I u

The possibility of God's role in evolution is pointless to discuss. All the "scientific" evidence for it is bullsh*t. There is no actual evidence. The discussion of evolution and the discussion of creation are mutually exclusive. There is no common ground, they are separate discussions.

One last thing and then I'll shut up. "... rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable." --John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences

The reason that this discussion is going nowhere is simple: religion just does not have a place in discussions on biology and evolution. This is not to deny God's existence or His role in Creation. But evolution is a scientific idea, and God's role in Creation is a religious one. The two can hardly be reconciled.Here's an example. Imagine my friend says to me that the Red Sox won the World Series because God smiled upon them. I argue that God did not intervene, that there is NO EVIDENCE that He did. My friend says that he is nonetheless certain that God caused the Sox to win. Clearly th

Belief in "a god" has absolutely nothing to do with whether evolution is valid or not. Lots (and lots, and lots) of people believe in various gods and also realize that evolution has occurred. Glad we could clear up yet another of your misconceptions. Actually, it has everything to do with it. God tells you in the bible he created man,and woman, and tells you he created animals. How hard is that for you to get- to deny these things is to deny god, period.Um, last time I checked, man wrote the bible, not God. I don't really see how it's any longer possible to take every word of the Bible as l

Wake up buddy. Read what I said. All I said is evolution will come to be accepted, as did a heliocentric solar system. I never said evolution will become accepted 1) because it will be proven, or 2)because it is similar in nature to theories on planetary motion. I only said one happened, and the other will happen. Their similarity is that they are both theories about the universe which are widely accepted among scientists, but rejected by Christianity. :wall: :wall: :wall: um...are you saying that christians don't believe in a heliocentric solar system? last time i checked i'm pretty s

Do you believe that the earth revolves around the sun? I'm sure you're aware that the Church made Galileo recant his beliefs on planetary motion under threat of execution. Slowly though, it became accepted as fact. The same will happen with evolution. I'm sill laughing at your reasoning why Evolution will be proven. What lunacy. That's like saying that I will win a million dolars because my brother did.Wake up buddy. Read what I said. All I said is evolution will come to be accepted, as did a heliocentric solar system. I never said evolution will become accepted 1) because it will be pr

Do you believe that the earth revolves around the sun? I'm sure you're aware that the Church made Galileo recant his beliefs on planetary motion under threat of execution. Slowly though, it became accepted as fact. The same will happen with evolution.

Good old fashioned joints. With a little tobacco to make it burn well.

Yeah we already know how you feel. What are your beliefs on gravity and the motion of the planets?

You are nitpicking. You may call it an unproven theory simply because it is a process which has taken billions of years. Obviously we weren't around to witness the beginnings of life, but scientists may theorize based on what evidence they have. And the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming. Look at the fossil records. Look at genetic histories. To answer your question about apes: an orangutan did not one day give birth to a human and thus start the human race. Man "came from apes" in the same sense that man came from fish, and yet we still have fish. Modern apes are our close

Two things to note about Hawking's quote - one, there's a whole lot of "if"s in his statement, it's clear he's speculating (and, IMHO, giving us a view into his personal opinions on faith) rather than presenting a fully formed idea. Second, the quote is almost 20 years old, there are more modern alternatives to the theory he raises. Lots of things exist that aren't necessary, and that "perhaps" is fairly important. AFAIK, more modern takes on cosmology - such as the "what we observe is actually a side effect" ideas from string theory - make the universe a much weirder place than Hawking's well

Yes Neal, the other explanation being that God created all life? Adam and Eve? Or that God created evolution? Why don't you tell us what you think, instead of telling me to find "the truth," because I have read extensively about it, and I haven't found any rational argument against evolution. Darwin didn't come up with natural selection out of thin air, and then try to find a scientific basis for it. It happened the other way. Evolution isn't something scientists made up because they are atheists; it is what they have discovered, through scientific method, to be the way of the world.

There is a lot of information out there that is contrast to evolution, however I find it unlikely you'll take my word for it. The point of me telling you to go find this was that maybe you could take some initiative about what you believe.Go find the truth, not polarizing empty dogma.-NealNeal - re-read that quote from Darwin. He says that these amazingly complex features of the eye make the idea that it was formed by natural selection SEEM absurd. Why don't you give us the next sentence. I'm sure it starts with the word 'But.' In other words it seems absurd, but there is no other explanat