500 feels so good. I'm back to coin toss status as I went 4 and 3 last week, bringing my season total to 21-21-1. Of course, my Bacon Special got fried (get it, bacon, fried, oh forget it). Actually the Giants were favored by 2 but only won by 1, so it really was a clouded loss against the spread.
I feel my groove coming on. I'm not stabbing blindly here, I know what I'm doing.
The Giants by 2 over Washington. Washington needs some air taken out of their tires. The Giants are good at home and Eli is getting better with time.
Houston by 2 over Cleveland. Hooston is 0 and 6, but bookies still insist you have to give points if you want to bet them. Something is fishy in Houston, and it isn't a New Orleans hooker.
Kansas City getting 6 points against San Diego. I have no respect for the conservative Schottenheimer. In fact I've always hated the way he coaches against the bettors. He doesn't have to be conservative, he has the guns.
Arizona getting 9 and a half against Dallas. I smell an upset. Parcells is the second most conservative coach in the league. The losses to Dallas and San Diego were strictly due to conservative coaching. Conservative coaches don't blow out teams usually.
Buffalo plus 9 against New England. I think the champs will win, but the Bills will make it closer than 9.
Denver by 3 and a half against Philly. Denver is a great home team, Philly doesn't look right to me. Denver will win the game, but they might win by only a field goal, that extra half point is tough to give, but what the heck.
And now my Bacon Special. *********WARNING BACON SPECIALS ARE PATHETIC SO FAR THIS YEAR (1-6-1)************* Forget the disclaimer and take Detroit by 3 points against Da Bears. I don't care if Garcia is gay or not, he is better than Harrington, and they are playing this game for first place in the wretched NFC North. Look for Kevin Jones, not Thomas Jones, to have a break out game and for Da Bears to come back to earth.
October 29, 2005
October 28, 2005
Oh C'mon Now, I'm an Atheist not Agnostic
You fit in with: Agnosticism Your ideals mostly resemble those of an Agnostic. You are fairly ambivalent towards any religion or spiritual connection. You lead a very busy life and find that religion and spirituality are unnecessary to your life. 60% scientific. 20% reason-oriented. | ||||
| ||||
Take this quiz at QuizGalaxy.com |
Oh yeah, I'm not very busy either.
DO WE ALL TRACE BACK TO ONE GUY?
I saw a documentary on the National Geographics Channel a few days ago "DNA MYSTERY: A SEARCH FOR ADAM." It was extremely interesting and, sort of disturbing in an enlightening type of way.
Basically the premise is that all "men" have a common ancestor who lived in South East Africa around 60,000 years ago. This was formulated by DNA testing, and apparently all "men" have a common gene that goes back to this one dude. I'm not a DNA expert at all, but it has something to do with our Y chromosone.
The guy who came up with this theory isn't denying evolution, as he knows other men coexisted with this "Adam" guy. He does believe that for some reason, the other guys lines were killed off in time unless their descendants crossed with an "Adam" descendant. He thinks that Adam was the first modern day thinker and had lots of kids, and Adams line became predominant.
The variation in the Y chromosone isn't found in man over approximately 60,000 years old. Interestingly, he traces modern female genes to a "female" who lived around 150,000 years ago, which means that "Adam" and his line didn't have to be so incestuous necessarily.
I'm thinking that the dates are probably correct, but I don't get why it had to be a gene change in one guy at one time. Again, I don't pretend to understand all this stuff. I was always under the premise that when an evolutionary change occurs within a species, it doesn't just happen to one individual but most individuals in a specific region. But I can also see how it might just be one man: it is possible.
It brings up interesting thoughts though. What happened to the other guys lines who coexisted at that time? Sure, they had children who had children, but in order for their line to survive, one of the women in their lineage had to have children crossed with a guy from "Adams" lineage eventually. Those who didn't cross are now extinct, because all men alive today has "Adams" common chromosone, which leads me to believe that according to this theory, that a disease may have wiped out everyone without "Adama" Y chromosone, or maybe a few series of diseases over time.
Heck, I still believe that it was a species change around 60,000 years ago. Maybe I'll learn more about it and change my mind. Unlike some people who have their head in the sand, I am open to changing my viewpoint based on new information.
Basically the premise is that all "men" have a common ancestor who lived in South East Africa around 60,000 years ago. This was formulated by DNA testing, and apparently all "men" have a common gene that goes back to this one dude. I'm not a DNA expert at all, but it has something to do with our Y chromosone.
The guy who came up with this theory isn't denying evolution, as he knows other men coexisted with this "Adam" guy. He does believe that for some reason, the other guys lines were killed off in time unless their descendants crossed with an "Adam" descendant. He thinks that Adam was the first modern day thinker and had lots of kids, and Adams line became predominant.
The variation in the Y chromosone isn't found in man over approximately 60,000 years old. Interestingly, he traces modern female genes to a "female" who lived around 150,000 years ago, which means that "Adam" and his line didn't have to be so incestuous necessarily.
I'm thinking that the dates are probably correct, but I don't get why it had to be a gene change in one guy at one time. Again, I don't pretend to understand all this stuff. I was always under the premise that when an evolutionary change occurs within a species, it doesn't just happen to one individual but most individuals in a specific region. But I can also see how it might just be one man: it is possible.
It brings up interesting thoughts though. What happened to the other guys lines who coexisted at that time? Sure, they had children who had children, but in order for their line to survive, one of the women in their lineage had to have children crossed with a guy from "Adams" lineage eventually. Those who didn't cross are now extinct, because all men alive today has "Adams" common chromosone, which leads me to believe that according to this theory, that a disease may have wiped out everyone without "Adama" Y chromosone, or maybe a few series of diseases over time.
Heck, I still believe that it was a species change around 60,000 years ago. Maybe I'll learn more about it and change my mind. Unlike some people who have their head in the sand, I am open to changing my viewpoint based on new information.
October 23, 2005
IT IS NFL TIME AGAIN
First off, I am completely embarrassed. I have CNN on most of the day, and I had absolutely no idea that the KC-Miami game was played Friday night until I saw the headlines of a sports site on Saturday morning. Damn you Ted Turner. Mind you I was going to bench Priest Holmes in my fantasy football league, and he came through with an above average game.
Last week, I went 3-2 and 1 tie. My first winning week this year. Now I am 17-18-1 with my Bacon Specials at 1-4-1. Oy vey.
Here we go, 7 games picked this week instead of six:
Minny at home getting 1 and a half points from Green Bay. Minny isn't as bad as they are playing, or maybe they are. Green Bay is as bad as they are playing though.
St. Louis by 3 against New Orleans. Even with Martin at QB and a sore bunch of receivers, and no head coach, St. Louis will cover. New Orleans has to adjust without McCallister, and Joe Horn is a no go again today.
Cincinatti will defeat Pittsburgh today as a Pick em. This will be an emotional game for Cinci especially. It will be too tough for Pittsburgh to overcome this. Plus Cincinatti might just be the better team.
San Diego plus 3 and a half points against Philly. Watch for San Diego to prevail or at least cover in a high scoring game.
Seattle by 4 against Dallas. This is Seattle's chance to show they are for real while they are waiting for their wide receivers to get healthy. Dallas hung on by their chinny chin chin last week, and I can't stand Bledsoe.
Oakland by at least 3 against Buffalo. An East coast team that is middle of the road usually gets destroyed when going to the West coast. Oakland will be up for this game today.
And my Bacon Special: The NEW YORK GIANTS by at least 2 against Denver today. Just watch and learn.
Last week, I went 3-2 and 1 tie. My first winning week this year. Now I am 17-18-1 with my Bacon Specials at 1-4-1. Oy vey.
Here we go, 7 games picked this week instead of six:
Minny at home getting 1 and a half points from Green Bay. Minny isn't as bad as they are playing, or maybe they are. Green Bay is as bad as they are playing though.
St. Louis by 3 against New Orleans. Even with Martin at QB and a sore bunch of receivers, and no head coach, St. Louis will cover. New Orleans has to adjust without McCallister, and Joe Horn is a no go again today.
Cincinatti will defeat Pittsburgh today as a Pick em. This will be an emotional game for Cinci especially. It will be too tough for Pittsburgh to overcome this. Plus Cincinatti might just be the better team.
San Diego plus 3 and a half points against Philly. Watch for San Diego to prevail or at least cover in a high scoring game.
Seattle by 4 against Dallas. This is Seattle's chance to show they are for real while they are waiting for their wide receivers to get healthy. Dallas hung on by their chinny chin chin last week, and I can't stand Bledsoe.
Oakland by at least 3 against Buffalo. An East coast team that is middle of the road usually gets destroyed when going to the West coast. Oakland will be up for this game today.
And my Bacon Special: The NEW YORK GIANTS by at least 2 against Denver today. Just watch and learn.
October 22, 2005
Bible Believers Don't Mind Incestuous Beginning
Going back to that survey that 45% of Americans believe in the bible literally, let me see if I have this straight:
Adam and Eve were created less than 10,000 years ago. They had kids who had kids who had kids until Noah came around. That is when God decided to wipe out everyone but Noah's family.
We do know that incest creates retarded children in many cases. Do Creationists have any problems that God let Adam and Eve's kids have sex and make babies? Was it OK for Adam and Eve's grandchildren to have sex with each other too?
And if it wasn't bad enough then, God started it all over again with Noahs family. Isn't incest a sin?
Now as for the racists who are bible thumpers as well. How do you dudes deal with the fact that if you take the bible literally; Jews, blacks, orientals, Mexicans, etc. all had to start off from Noah's family just like you????
I don't know about anyone else, but I feel a lot more comfortable knowing that many one celled animals were the foundations of life, not Noah or Adam.
Adam and Eve were created less than 10,000 years ago. They had kids who had kids who had kids until Noah came around. That is when God decided to wipe out everyone but Noah's family.
We do know that incest creates retarded children in many cases. Do Creationists have any problems that God let Adam and Eve's kids have sex and make babies? Was it OK for Adam and Eve's grandchildren to have sex with each other too?
And if it wasn't bad enough then, God started it all over again with Noahs family. Isn't incest a sin?
Now as for the racists who are bible thumpers as well. How do you dudes deal with the fact that if you take the bible literally; Jews, blacks, orientals, Mexicans, etc. all had to start off from Noah's family just like you????
I don't know about anyone else, but I feel a lot more comfortable knowing that many one celled animals were the foundations of life, not Noah or Adam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)