Seahawks

Better check your feathers, birdbrain. I just took a big chicken dump on your head. COCK A DOODLE DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Had Rhode Island red rooster once, Decided to come after me, Took a 2x4 to him, he was chicken ass after that. Just like you, big talk and no action.

Not suprised. A fucking cat would eat a Rodent. Hell I've seen chickens tear a rodent apart and eat it.

Anyone who would type with a chicken attatched shows his dumb ass intelligence. Do you Realize chickens scratch and eat right out of there own shit??? You probably do too.

This CPA will never doing my taxes. hard to pay taxes on two nickles.

This CPA will never doing my taxes. See lol read what you wrote??? "will never doing" Can you write?

Yawn. Personal attacks but nothing concrete.

At least I can handle simple english tenses and the proper use of 'your' verses 'you're'. This doesn't exactly boost your scientific credibility. As for your author, perhaps he was debating the Los Alamos janitorial staff. LOL becuase I don't have a spell checker on here and I type fast. Big deal, funny how people miss spell on here all the time but I disagree or have a different opinion and I get attacked becuase of this. Conviently skipping what was written. That fine, but its to bad that people are so close minded and brainwashed themselves that they can't even read it objectivly. Hell I've taken Geology in college. I have a college degree. So don't try to act like I'm some dumb ass. Did you pass the CPA exam???? Like to see your intelligent ass do it. the more you try . the deeper you sink in the quicksand of your moronicity.!! now i feel sad, i think there is no hope! Well I feel Sad for you and your foolishness.

What he needs to be scared of you??? lol what an idiot.

At least I can handle simple english tenses and the proper use of 'your' verses 'you're'. This doesn't exactly boost your scientific credibility. As for your author, perhaps he was debating the Los Alamos janitorial staff. LOL becuase I don't have a spell checker on here and I type fast. Big deal, funny how people miss spell on here all the time but I disagree or have a different opinion and I get attacked becuase of this. Conviently skipping what was written. That fine, but its to bad that people are so close minded and brainwashed themselves that they can't even read it objectivly. Hell I've taken Geology in college. I have a college degree. So don't try to act like I'm some dumb ass. Did you pass the CPA exam???? Like to see your intelligent ass do it.

nice display of your skills of critical thinking in your rebuttal, V7 i 'll rebutt his ass if he formulates something from his own fucking pea brain!!! Like you don't get all your info out of someone elses text book also. Kettle calling the pot black. idiot. here your making a blind assumption based solely on how YOU operate. Regardless what I put up above was very well written and scientific and it pissed you off. do you think i am gonna read something that YOU would quote.I DONT HAVE TO 'CAUSE I KNOW ITS GONNA BE FUCKED UP 'CAUSE you're brainwashed! Brainwashed LOL look at you. You argue stuff that scientifically can't be upheld. I'd argue really your the one brainwashed. But since neither you or me were alive (and nobody else) nobody can prove shit.

. Funny how you think your smarter than a person who debating Los Alamos National Laboratory employees. Who has more degrees in this than you can ever get. But hey if you think your smarter great. Legend in your own mind.

nice display of your skills of critical thinking in your rebuttal, V7 i 'll rebutt his ass if he formulates something from his own fucking pea brain!!! Like you don't get all your info out of someone elses text book also. Kettle calling the pot black. idiot. here your making a blind assumption based solely on how YOU operate. Regardless what I put up above was very well written and scientific and it pissed you off.

exactly.

nice display of your skills of critical thinking in your rebuttal, V7 i 'll rebutt his ass if he formulates something from his own fucking pea brain!!! Like you don't get all your info out of someone elses text book also. Kettle calling the pot black. idiot.

That's all you got after reading that???? idiot. THINK mother mocker THINK!!! cut and paste long shit dont mean shit!!!!! Little pissed becuase everything you thought in life isn't true?? Or the only way you have to defend your position? Louder and more annoying?

That's all you got after reading that???? idiot.

As I've already clearly stated, my prediction that we will someday be able to create life from scratch, which, being a prediction, is not conveyed with 100% certainty, is just that. No dictionary in the world would equate that with religious faith, or absolute, certain belief in something without observable evidence, and, after all, we are bound to argue in our native tongue. I would suggest you look up the the definition of 'faith', in a religious sense (yes, it has other non religious definitions which are not equivalent). I don't really feel the need to hold your hand on this one. There is no magic spark. It is a continuum. Simple, self replicating entities are nothing more than micromachines (look at them under a microscope, and you'll see what I mean). If you assemble the machine, it works. No divine 'jump start' or 'spark' required. It doesn't matter whether man or nature does the assembly. The object in question doesn't care. A virus is a relatively simple molecular package with a shape that fits with certain cellular membranes that allows it to inject its relatively simple genetic material into the cell to coopt the cell's more complex reproductive machinery to manufacture more viruses. Assemble the virus, and it works, because whatever energy is required for it to function is embodied in its molecular bonds; the same kinds of molecular bonds found in rocks, ice, and other inanimate materials. Is a virus alive? Kind of, but not really. It's organic, but it doesn't respirate, eat, or metabolize. It's nothing more than a crystal which, unlike 'more alive' organisms, could lie dormant under the right conditions pretty much indefinitely without any inputs, (just like a rock) and become viable again once exposed to the proper host. It's more inert Lego building block than organism. And there are simpler self replicating organic systems than viruses. More complex organisms, such as cells, operate using the same kinds of molecular bonds; aborbing, releasing energy to fabricate or destroy more molecules. What 'spark' are we talking about, exactly? If and when man makes life, that in itself will prove, by definition, that this 'low probability' event has a probability greater than zero. I do believe that, except that we aren't necessarily stepping stones to anything; it is much more likely (given the finite histories of past species) that we are just another evolutionary dead end, slated for extinction. You may find this depressing, but I find it keeps my ego in check. Also, I tend to focus more on the time scale of my own life, rather than what will occur millions of years from now. Unless we migrate to other star systems, a formidable task in the extreme, our final end is a certainty. Just to wrankle some feathers, I don't think you will be creating it from scratch. Can Random Molecular Interactions Create Life? Many evolutionists are persuaded that the 15 billion years they assume for the age of the cosmos is an abundance of time for random interactions of atoms and molecules to generate life. A simple arithmetic lesson reveals this to be no more than an irrational fantasy. This arithmetic lesson is similar to calculating the odds of winning the lottery. The number of possible lottery combinations corresponds to the total number of protein structures (of an appropriate size range) that are possible to assemble from standard building blocks. The winning tickets correspond to the tiny sets of such proteins with the correct special properties from which a living organism, say a simple bacterium, can be successfully built. The maximum number of lottery tickets a person can buy corresponds to the maximum number of protein molecules that could have ever existed in the history of the cosmos. Let us first establish a reasonable upper limit on the number of molecules that could ever have been formed anywhere in the universe during its entire history. Taking 1080 as a generous estimate for the total number of atoms in the cosmos [2], 1012 for a generous upper bound for the average number of interatomic interactions per second per atom, and 1018 seconds (roughly 30 billion years) as an upper bound for the age of the universe, we get 10110 as a very generous upper limit on the total number of interatomic interactions which could have ever occurred during the long cosmic history the evolutionist imagines. Now if we make the extremely generous assumption that each interatomic interaction always produces a unique molecule, then we conclude that no more than 10110 unique molecules could have ever existed in the universe during its entire history. Now let us contemplate what is involved in demanding that a purely random process find a minimal set of about one thousand protein molecules needed for the most primitive form of life. To simplify the problem dramatically, suppose somehow we already have found 999 of the 1000 different proteins required and we need only to search for that final magic sequence of amino acids which gives us that last special protein. Let us restrict our consideration to the specific set of 20 amino acids found in living systems and ignore the hundred or so that are not. Let us also ignore the fact that only those with left-handed symmetry appear in life proteins. Let us also ignore the incredibly unfavorable chemical reaction kinetics involved in forming long peptide chains in any sort of plausible non-living chemical environment. Let us merely focus on the task of obtaining a suitable sequence of amino acids that yields a 3D protein structure with some minimal degree of essential functionality. Various theoretical and experimental evidence indicates that in some average sense about half of the amino acid sites must be specified exactly [3]. For a relatively short protein consisting of a chain of 200 amino acids, the number of random trials needed for a reasonable likelihood of hitting a useful sequence is then on the order of 20100 (100 amino acid sites with 20 possible candidates at each site), or about 10130 trials. This is a hundred billion billion times the upper bound we computed for the total number of molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos!! No random process could ever hope to find even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1000 needed in the simplest forms of life. It is therefore sheer irrationality for a person to believe random chemical interactions could ever identify a viable set of functional proteins out of the truly staggering number of candidate possibilities. In the face of such stunningly unfavorable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we observe in living systems? To do so, with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion represents a serious breach of scientific integrity. This line of argument applies, of course, not only to the issue of biogenesis but also to the issue of how a new gene/protein might arise in any sort of macroevolution process. One retired Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow, a chemist, wanted to quibble that this argument was flawed because I did not account for details of chemical reaction kinetics. My intention was deliberately to choose a reaction rate so gigantic (one million million reactions per atom per second on average) that all such considerations would become utterly irrelevant. How could a reasonable person trained in chemistry or physics imagine there could be a way to assemble polypeptides on the order of hundreds of amino acid units in length, to allow them to fold into their three-dimensional structures, and then to express their unique properties, all within a small fraction of one picosecond!? Prior metaphysical commitments forced him to such irrationality. Another scientist, a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, asserted that I had misapplied the rules of probability in my analysis. If my example were correct, he suggested, it "would turn the scientific world upside down." I responded that the science community has been confronted with this basic argument in the past but has simply engaged in mass denial. Fred Hoyle, the eminent British cosmologist, published similar calculations two decades ago [4]. Most scientists just put their hands over their ears and refused to listen. In reality this analysis is so simple and direct it does not require any special intelligence, ingenuity, or advanced science education to understand or even originate. In my case, all I did was to estimate a generous upper bound on the maximum number of chemical reactions -- of any kind -- that could have ever occurred in the entire history of the cosmos and then compare this number with the number of trials needed to find a single life protein with a minimal level of functionality from among the possible candidates. I showed the latter number was orders and orders larger than the former. I assumed only that the candidates were equally likely. My argument was just that plain. I did not misapply the laws of probability. I applied them as physicists normally do in their every day work. Why could this physicist not grasp such trivial logic? I strongly believe it was because of his tenacious commitment to atheism that he was willing to be dishonest in his science. At the time of this editorial exchange, he was also leading a campaign before the state legislature to attempt to force this fraud on every public school student in our state.

That might make everyones day here.

Well I thought they played a good game and had 3 shots at the end to win it. Hope next year we can get more healthy and get home field advantage. Marcus Tubbs would been nice to have last 8 games. We need a fricken safety in free agency. Sick seeing long passes for TD's.

I highly doubt it would matter if I could. I've been in these debates before. You have a belief system built up that doesn't permit alteration. Thus, even when presented with evidence to the contrary, you'd deny it. At least a scientist, when presented with actual credible evidence of a supernatural being, would say 'Hey, look at that!' and try to study it and learn more. You seem happy wallowing in your medieval pig sty of ignorance. Okay then go back to page 4 the paper I put on there and debunk it. You cna't prove a thing and I can't. You have your atheist religion and I have mine. Don't try to tell me yours is the truth and I will not tell you mine is. Your so blinded by yours that you say its 100% right when it not. At least I can say neither can be proved. Who is more closed minded? The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy — also known as the second law of thermodynamics — stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity. This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems — in fact, in all systems, without exception. No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found — not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18 The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists — that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this. Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw? Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19 This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed. The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms. Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present. From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

Ah, anger, denial, and lack of evidence. You are in serious need of a science class. Preferably one with a book that wasn't around during the Inquisition. Like to see you prove your side. It can't. The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man. The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism — the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21 Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.

Yawn. You really need to get out more. I can't believe I'm reading the 'missing link' argument in 2007. You can observe evolution directly in the lab using any population that breeds fast enough and in large enough numbers within a short enough time scale. Like bacteria, yo. Your talking hours or days to observe evolution in action. It's also been observed directly in the field in larger creatures populating new environments, such as the anoles lizard in the Caribbean. DNA analysis provides the generation roadmap for tracking. Duh. It's been done a bazillion times. No fossils required. Your on crack. Your claim of evolution being seen in a lab is a fucking lie. First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and — apparently — unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution. Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind." A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that: . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1 The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

Wasn't that great, but my money is on hawks driving down after that and scoring field goal to win.

Do Seahawks have a chance??? Here to Seahawks having one game this year that totally kicks ass!!!

LOL your name says "Lover" That comment is trouble.