kumquatq3

I guess, I mean, no ring, right? I tell you what though, that Trent Dilfer was something special. You only see a winner like that a few times in ones lifetime and he has the ring to prove it. Who is the best QB in these three head to heads (the answer can't be Grossman or Ditka): Payton v. Brady Payton v. Favre Payton v. Marino

annnnnnnnnnd this threads done:

How do you check? Does anyone know? If anyone can figure it out, Steve Irwin is up there checking right now. "Crikey! It's a...."

I don't feel ANYTHING we do on this board is constructive. At least this stuff has a side benefit of helping to get other people view points from around the world

and 11th hour I think the haunted house in Bloodlines and the Dark Farm + Lightning part of RE4 were pretty jittery.

Wait, we still talking about games? Did I miss something?

Dan Mario was ok...I guess

because it's slightly less pointless than posting what we like about Fallout for the 1000th time or wondering when the K2 restoration mod will be out, etc what's the point of post anything with that view.....minus a live action lego movie

And everybody else here is bitter because their preconceptions aren't being met. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> .....IN THEIR PANTS! :ph34r:

At least I got to be a fair weather hockey fan for the pre-season

Actually, there is a real debate about whether or not the "virgin" birth is due to a mistranslation from older texts. It is about a word that mean "young women" being translated into "virgin". The word that means "young women" could also mean virgin, but not explicitly, and a different word that means virgin could have been used if intended in the original.

I knew you'd say that. Crappy team or not, 6 performances out of 7 like that agaisnt NFL caliber players and there is something to be said. Maybe he isn't Montana, but he isn't Kyle Orton (I Orton) either where the team carriers him. Ok, let's see. If he performs well during the Bears upcoming 3 road game stretch (in a row), then will you humbly beg for forgiveness from Sexy Rexy? Next week Miami at home, then: @NY Giants @NY Jets @NE Patriots Minnesota at home OK, Shania

I read those book reports, the first one is ok but horribly short, the second is rubbish. I'll look later.

I'm diggin the weather add-on they added. Good stuff.

France? WTF?

Long time no..um...see

You keep talking about the individual, which is fine (people see things in lots of ways), it just makes me think I'm not getting my point across tho. Not because you don't agree, but because your not addressing my point. It doesn't destroy "self", it does but thats not the point, it helps ensure that the gene lives on and survives via another replicator (host). The gene, by the mother nursing her child, has helped insure it's future survival in the gene pool. and talking about people complicates it as well, as I've noted. Here are two book reviews, I barely glanced at them, but they should do a more complete job than I can right now: http://educ.queensu.ca/~science/main/profd...ooks/PDBRCT.htm http://users.bigpond.net.au/marshan/book7.htm

Sorry about them Rams Not anymore Colts>Denver Denver>Pats Pats>Colts AFC rock, paper, scissors

No, your right, as I said I'm realllly rushing (note the drastic increase in spelling and grammer errors, I mean, more than normal). Dawkins arguement is that humans are the lone being to over come their genetic coding. Intelligence and all that. Again, rushing, "unnatural" is the wrong term. However, if the genes have programmed her to be "altruistic" to the child so that the genes may continue on...is that "unselfish"? On the surface that's how it appears, the act however, is driven by her gene's selfish motivations.

Sure, I was providing some non-intelligent (in any sense that humans are aware of) organism that DOES act in an altruistic manner. So it is perfectly possible for altruism to spontaneously occur in nature. Is this evidence of the hand of god? Or just another permutation out of the infinite variety of survivability traits available? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Only on the surface. Remember, the books called the "Selfish Gene" From article: Aka their DNA and such continue on, even when the "host replicator" dies off. I'm going to just quit for now, because I am obviously not getting my point across in these rushed burst. I just want to say that Dawkins is part of a group who argues evolution on a genetic level, not on the individual or group level. It's about the gene's survival. EDIT: Altruism, if evolution was on the individual level, would poss serious problems to theory of evolution. After all, if the "best" of a species kills itself for a weak one that violates what evolution is about. Then you get evolution for the group and that fails to....and I'm going to be soooo late with these papers...**** me.....

You could, but that wouldn't prove that humans are always naturally self-interested. If we accept that premise, when the lifeguard sees a drowning child, his desire is not to save the child, but to avoid a guilty conscience, or get a thrill out of risking his own life. That's counterintuitive. Of course the lifeguard's goal in saving the child is to save the child. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Again, looking at it from the individual level. This will have to wait to tues, as I'm trying to finish two papers for a midnight deadline tonight + class all day tomorrow, however: You could argue that, but that wouldn't prove that humans arn't always naturally self-interested (Remember, Dawkins argues that human intelligence may be able to overcome such gene self-interest). It may be argued that it is counter-intuitive that the life guard risk his own life to safe that of another's (he is being paid btw). So, if that is counter-intuitive, what drives him to do it? Hint: Think genes! Aka Dawkins argue that altruism isn't natural, is cultural. Hence the term "meme". as I said, it's deep, and me rushing through it isn't doing it justice at all.

Dawkins is not credible as a thinker then, if he would argue that there are no altruistic facts. He might have many necessary arguments for his viewpoint, but he would not have sufficient counterpoints against the well-established arguments that altruism, in fact, exists. We went over this with Rand some time ago in the gaming forum. I knew I shouldn't have brought it up, as I'm not about to write an essay to defend it, nor did I state it perfectly, I'm sure. However, just because you decided something in a gaming forum doesn't make it so. I do believe you're looking at altruism from a individual level, which is not where Dawkins makes his argument for both evolution and the "selfish gene". The book is called the "Selfish Gene", here is one of those nibblet thingys, not his words: AHumans, via being super dupper smart, can be altruist in theory. Just as we can do alot of things contrary to our instincts because of our intelligence.

3 gods violates the 1 god principle

LOL, small problem tho Since he is all powerful, technically he can hide something from himself, but then....if he didn't know where he hid it or what it is he hid, he no longer knows everything. This means he violate Omni-potent status and the universe implodes or something.

3 TD passes at the half, 18/22 passing at the half, 202 passing at the half, 9.2 yards per pass I post the half stats, because at 41 points at the half, he will get pulled pretty soon. O, 41 points at the half = new franchise record...and no defensive points Did he get a free ride today? " That's 6/7 games played by Rex with MVP numbers. please keep your humble apology brief :cool: