Comments Posted By superhawk
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 85 Comments
Maybe you should lighten up and not be such a total asshole.
Please see Ambrose, "Citizen Soldier" as well as Lidell Hart"History of the Second World War" as well as Stokesbury "A Short History of World War II" in which all three histories refer to the message and the fact that the "soldier" Eisenhower wanted to make a statement worthy of the ages but because of he and his staff's exhausted condition, failed.
Next time, make sure of your facts before you make a total fool of yourself again, idiot.
Comment Posted By superhawk On 8.05.2005 @ 19:19
ATTACK OF THE KILLER POTATO HEADS
Sue:
Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
As for peer reviewed ID theories, well...if you can show me an article in
"Nature" or some other recognized journal and not whatever standards used by Cambridge Press to publish the book you linked to, I'll gladly change that statement.And I'm afraid your argument that ID doesn't necessarily mention God so it's not faith but scientific inquiry doesn't fly very far. Who or what is the "I" in Intelligent Design but a Supreme Being? Simply not mentioning God isn't good enough.
Now your Gould quote is interesting and provacative...but I think Stephen was trying to say there's just so much we don't know about origins yet that anything is possible.
I might add that a similar debate occurred Rutherford first began to unlock the secrets of atomic structure. At that time, we didn't know about the existence of neutrons so it was difficult to extend the atomic model beyond hydrogen and helium. Once our knowledge increased, the theory was proven all over again.
That's part of the attraction of evolution as a theory. So much of what we learn lines up and verifies that theory that the bits and pieces we can't yet give a home within the theory are open to differing interpretations, one of which are evolutionary processes currently unknown to us.
My own belief is that we should look to the micro-biologists for the next breakthroughs in evolutionary science. Only by examining the very small will we be able to decipher the very big changes that happen to species.
Comment Posted By superhawk On 8.05.2005 @ 16:32
First of all...for someone as gorgeous and intelligent as you, you can come and rant against me anytime!
Second, I have to take issue with a few of your points.
1. There has been no serious peer review of any article or theory published by an ID scientist. Not one article in any recognized, respected scientific journal. The reason is simple:
There's no way to evaluate a theory that posits the notion that ID and ID ONLY is responsible for evolutionary changes. There's just no way to evaluate evidence based on faith.
Having said that, a survey I saw showed that something like 75% of biologists who support evolutionary theory believe in God. They may believe in ID as a matter of FAITH...but evolution as a matter of science.
There's no need to teach ID in schools any more than it's necessary to teach that the Steady State theory instead of the Big Bang is responsible for the birth of the Cosmos.
I've had this argument with Cao and her dad and have stopped trying to explain because there's just no way you can "prove" that a supreme being is behind anything...the reason is there are alternative explanations for everything the Id'ers believe. And theories with alternative explanations based on faith are as useless as the Hindu belief that the world is flat and rests on the backs of elephants.
(Also shutting up before 'cat's claws make an appearance!)
Comment Posted By superhawk On 7.05.2005 @ 10:59
I'm gonna have to start putting "Satire" up in great big letters so that people know this isn't serious.
Comment Posted By superhawk On 5.05.2005 @ 12:19
I was ripped a new one by commenters here for suggesting the exact same thing about 6 weeks ago. But IT MAKES SENSE!
WHO ELSE would have the transponder code for the football so Marwan could find it in the desert?
WHO ELSE would have access to all those American mercs that have been helping Marwan?
You already mentioned the connection with Paul. Who else would've known that the Secretary would be at his son's house that day he was kidnapped?
For all these reasons (and because the show loves killer surprises) I'll go out there with you on that limb and say that...
AUDREY IS THE MOLE!
Comment Posted By superhawk On 4.05.2005 @ 12:29
The terrorist pilot was indeed announced as being shot down but...
As someone pointed out in a comment, the pilot's last conversation with Marwan included the assurance that the young man would be able to disappear forever. The plane may have been shot down but was Opie still in it?
Comment Posted By superhawk On 4.05.2005 @ 07:57
Sue: Great comment! I too am curious what they can do to top this season and I like the idea of Jack as Jason (the book) although it may be that the show will have a different hero next year if it does come back.
Re; Bourne. Why the hell couldn't they at least have tried to follow some of the story line, among the most compelling in the genre.
Comment Posted By superhawk On 3.05.2005 @ 10:54
1. C'mon! Doesn't poor Jack have enough trouble? You are really mean!
Comment Posted By superhawk On 3.05.2005 @ 09:06
2. Wouldn't it be a bitch if it turned out Heller was the mastermind? Every time I think he's involved I remember he and Audrey were kidnapped. Be a stretch to think he's a terrorist because of that.
3. No time for that kind of resolution but expect smiles and a heartfelt kiss.
What makes you think you can't comment or Trackback? Where does it say that?
Read first - then make a comment. It says you can tb on any subject. Do you know what a tb is? And the post says nothing about comments which are always open.
Comment Posted By superhawk On 3.05.2005 @ 03:12
SGRENA'S LIES WILL NOW COST LIVES
I resent the "inbred" remark. It's never been proven conclusively that brothers and sisters having children together causes any kind of cognitive disabilities in their offspring.
Although in your case, perhaps they should re examine the data.
Comment Posted By superhawk On 3.05.2005 @ 21:22
