Mean Green 93-98

Agreed.

From that, it definitely sounds like Jones is leaving Hawaii. Whether he chooses to take on SMU is another question altogether.

For most of the NHL's history, the New York Rangers and Chicago Blackhawks were the league's southernmost teams. Kind of makes you wonder why they didn't try outdoor games back then.

Some of the best recruiting schools in the country don't have any 5-star players. http://rivals100.rivals.com/teamrank.asp?SID=880 I don't think anybody who gives recruiting an "A" is trying to put us in the same class with USC. It is obvious that we are lacking a cohesive standard to hand out grades, so you can argue about it until your face turns blue--won't do any good.

Is that in line with NCAA rules? To take a "medical redshirt" before one's redshirt freshman year?!

I have not heard anyone say it better!

Ask, and ye shall receive! 1. Dennis Francione (front runner) The obvious problem with Franchione is that SMU is a program with major baggage . . . do they really want to bring in a coach with major baggage? However, he should definitely make SMU a winning team within C-USA. SMU probably wants to win enough at this point to overlook his baggage. It would be a major demotion for Fran from high-profile jobs like A&M and Bama, but no high-profile HC gig is coming for him for a while. 2. Mike Singletary (Interested also in Atlanta Falcons HC job) I just don't see it. He had previously expressed interest in the Baylor job, and when he finally talked to them, he said he wasn't interested. What could SMU possibly offer him that his alma mater couldn't to lure him away from the NFL, which is obviously where he now wants to be? 3. Terry Bowden (Yes, he is looking for a Head-coaching job and would boost recruiting almost overnight) There is a pretty decent chance that he gets the WVU job--if not, I don't see him dropping from WVU to SMU to get a job. 4. Chan Gailey (not sure of his status) I don't think so, but you never know. 5. Darrell Dickey (Two-time SBC coach of the year, Four consecutive SBC-Conference titles and four consecutive Bowl appearances) One can only hope!

Well, Omar did everything in his power this last season to hand us a win. Hopefully our o-line will have their blitzes figured out before next year's game.

I don't think Illinois proved any such thing--there are maybe three teams in the country that could even have given this USC team that showed up a game.

Oklahoma DT DeMarcus Granger sent home after shoplifting arrest Former Kimball standout won't play for Sooners in Fiesta Bowl 02:10 PM CST on Monday, December 31, 2007 By BRANDON GEORGE / The Dallas Morning News Link GLENDALE, Ariz. – Oklahoma starting defensive tackle DeMarcus Granger won't play in the Fiesta Bowl on Wednesday after being sent home following an arrest for shoplifting. Granger, 21, was arrested in Tempe, Ariz., around 10:20 p.m. Saturday after he tried to steal a jacket from the Burlington Coat Factory inside Arizona Mills Mall, according to a Tempe Police Department report. "Mr. Granger removed an anti-theft device from a jacket and then concealed the jacket in a bag," Mike Horn, a spokesman for the Tempe Police Department, said in a statement. "He exited the store walking past the cash registers without paying for the jacket. Mr. Granger was stopped by store security who then contacted Tempe Police." According to Horn's statement, Granger "made admissions to the offense." Granger, a sophomore who played at Kimball High in Dallas, was booked into the Tempe City Jail for one count of shoplifting, a Class 1 misdemeanor. "Mr. Granger was cooperative during this contact and later bonded out of jail," Horn said in the statement. No. 3 Oklahoma (11-2) will now be without three defensive starters – Granger, cornerback Reggie Smith (injury) and defensive back Lendy Holmes (academically ineligible) of South Oak Cliff – when it plays No. 11 West Virginia (10-2) at Wednesday. West Virginia has the nation's fourth-ranked rushing offense, averaging almost 300 yards per game. OU coach Bob Stoops confirmed Monday morning during a media day at University of Phoenix Stadium that he had sent Granger home Sunday. "We'll deal with his situation when we get back," Stoops said. "If there's anything further, we'll see." Granger (6-2, 307) started off the season not in the best graces of OU coaches because he came into preseason practices overweight and out of shape. But Granger had played well late in the season after working his way into shape and had emerged as one of the Sooners' top defensive linemen. Granger, who had started 11 of 13 games, had 35 tackles – tied for the most among the Sooners' defensive linemen – and 3½ sacks and 8½ tackles for loss. He also led No. 3 OU with eight quarterback hurries. OU coaches said Monday that the Sooners would use a combination of senior Steven Coleman (Skyline), junior Cory Bennett and redshirt freshman Adrian Taylor (Mansfield) to fill the void left by Granger. OU defensive coordinator Brent Venables said Taylor would likely start against West Virginia. Taylor has eight tackles in 12 games this season with one sack and one interception. OU redshirt freshman Gerald McCoy, the Sooners' other starter at defensive tackle, said the team will miss Granger. "Granger is a big loss, but we've still got a lot of guys behind him who play well for us," McCoy said. "Adrian Taylor is a really good player. We'll be all right." Granger was ranked by Rivals.com as the nation’s No. 2 senior defensive tackle prospect out of high school. Granger was named SportsDay's Defensive Player of the Year in 2003 and 2004, becoming the first repeat MVP on either side of the ball since SportsDay began naming All-Area high school teams in 1983. When reached by phone Monday, Kimball football coach Darrell Jordan, who coached Granger in high school, said he was in New Mexico visiting family and was getting ready to leave for Arizona to watch the Fiesta Bowl. Jordan said he would now cancel his trip. Debra Granger, DeMarcus' mother, declined to comment about her son when reached Monday afternoon. Stoops downplayed the loss of Granger on Monday. "DeMarcus Granger only plays half the snaps anyway. You watch our rotation. Those other guys play as much as he does," Stoops said. "It's not a big deal." Venables thought otherwise. "He’s been playing better than anybody inside. DeMarcus was making some special plays," Venables said. "We're disappointed. It's a big loss. Three starters out, we've lost some good players. Guys have to step up."

5. We had three additional wins easily within our grasp this year, and next year we will hopefully at least have learned how to finish out. I really think this is a good "magic number," as 6 wins would be a very pleasant surprise, and less than 5 wins would be a big disappointment.

That's a sweet guitar. My brother-in-law has a Gretsch hollow body. I forget the model--I don't believe it's the same, but similar (unfortunately not in "Mean Green"). He loves it, and it has become his exclusive electric guitar.

Congratulations!

I don't know that Riley's being the son of the HC will scare away as many QB recruits as the simple fact of his being a top-flight recruit. State champion, proven leader, feet like lightning . . .

Rivals only has one of these guys ranked. Walter Moody is a 2-star (5.2).

Kudos to FFR and the rest of your crew. God bless for all you do.

Congratulations, Troy! Looking forward to seeing you in Green!

All I was saying is that you were foraying into an area with which I am not very familiar. I couldn't really comment one way or the other on what you had said. And what about the remainder of what I had to say? Again, I am no biologist, but is not science capable of determining criteria to evaluate whether an object shows evidence of purposeful design? Darwinian evolution is a means to explain nature by nature alone, i.e., without any supernatural intervention. If there has never been supernatural intervention, what could the god that evolution allows have done to make him God? Feel free to bow out at any time. To be honest, I've spent way more time making posts on this thread than I have to spend. However, I would appreciate it if you could at least address my question regarding a possible means of testing evidence for design.

Interesting point. I am not sure how you make the argument “testable.” To put it simply, the design argument is: Major premise: If the universe shows evidence of purposeful design, there must be a Designer. Minor premise: The universe shows evidence of purposeful design. Conclusion: There must be a Designer. This argument is obviously valid in its form. I assume you agree with the major premise. So to prove the argument true or false, one would need to prove or disprove the minor premise (I know, I know - in research/experimentation you do not prove or disprove – the evidence either supports or does not support the hypothesis. But since we are talking a logical argument here, I will say prove/disprove). The task for a researcher would be to come up with a tool to determine purposeful design. Maybe this has been done, but I honestly do not know. So I might agree with you that the argument is, at best, difficult to “test in a scientific way,” i.e., through experimentation. But I believe just as any right-thinking individual could know that the computer on which I am typing shows evidence of purposeful design, any right-thinking individual could likewise determine that the exponentially more advanced human body shows evidence of purposeful design. And, after all, science just means “knowledge.” I read (okay, I skimmed) the article you linked on the bacterium flagellum. I am going to have to read it closer, and find more than I saw, before I can agree with you; because I have read some fairly convincing material the other way. I cannot agree with you that evolution is neutral on religion. Darwin had a strong anti-religious bias, and atheists’ number one weapon against theism is evolution’s wide acceptance. If it is "neutral," as you say, would you be willing to say that as large a percentage of evolutionary biologists are religious (not counting secular humanism) as in the general population? You may not be familiar with what happens in debates. Although one side might clearly win, this does not mean that all adherents to the opposing view promptly drop it. I would encourage you to watch or read that debate—I think you would find it enlightening, as I did.

Uh, Flyer? If down an entire genealogical line of birds, none ever gave offspring to anything other than birds, would they not all remain birds? If so, where does the evolution under discussion take place? Please explain. And please use small words, as it is clear from your post that I am simply not on an intellectual par with you.

My point was not so necessarily that a bird become a bat (I was just using what you had said as an example), but that a bird lays eggs of something not a bird. This is certainly what evolution demands. As you note below, your theory demands that plants gave birth to animals. I would like those who have tried to straddle the fence of "theistic evolution" to take note of what Dr. Hughes states above. "A central part (i.e., that which the theory revolves around, essential) of the theory of evolution" is that man, worms, trees, and fungi share a common ancestor. There might be a theological system with which this might harmonize, but the Bible clearly presents God as creating plants, animals, and man "after their kind"; and to reproduce "after their kind." This is not an affirmative argument for intelligent design. This is a negative argument against evolution, an argument that has not really been refuted. The "refutations" made still fail to provide an explanation of how one person with an open circulatory system could give birth to someone with a closed circulatory system, etc. The design argument is prima facie. It requires nothing more than common sense. If I find a watch on the ground, I know that it was not produced by an explosion in a gold mine. I know that someone designed it and made it. But how much more intricate is the human body? Great minds have been attempting to design an artificial heart for years; yet we have nothing close to the human heart--yet you are going to say that, ultimately, an explosion or other freak accident of happenstance caused it to happen? In 1975, a debate took place on the UNT (then NTSU) campus. Thomas Warren, a Gospel preacher, debated Anthony Flew, the foremost atheist debator (who before his death acknowledged the unmistakable validity of the design argument). In that debate, Warren displayed a chart picturing a human hand and a prosthetic hand. Warren then asked Flew if one or both of the pictured hands came as a result of intelligent design. Of course, by his atheistic/evolutionistic viewpoint, Flew was forced to conclude that the vastly inferior prosthetic was created by design; while its archetype, the human hand, came by chance. So the hand with less dexterity, limited range of motion, inability to repair itself of cuts and burns, and a frail replica of the original is the only one with skilled design behind it? This was just one of the many arguments that led to a clear defeat for atheism/evolution at that debate.

The very thing I am saying is that man did not evolve from a monkey or anything else. So why call it "ridiculous" and "crazy"?

True--there has been no fossil evidence that links modern human beings to amphibians. Yet evolutionists, including Dr. Hughes I am sure, perhaps universally hold that humanity descends from something well outside anyone's broad definition of man.

I'd love to see him get it! Congratulations to Brian!

I am a little surprised that you are unfamiliar with out-of-sequence strata and misplaced fossils, not to mention polystrate fossils. The Heart Mountain Thrust in Wyoming and Matterhorn Mountain in Switzerland are two examples of the out-of-sequence strata. Human footprints have been found in Carboniferous strata (supposedly 250 million years old) throughout the interior U.S. (Albert G. Ingalls, Scientific American, Vol. 162 #1). William Meister found a fossil of a human footprint with trilobytes in it (Lammerts,Walter, ed. (1976), Why Not Creation? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), pp. 185-193. The geological timetable is hardly "rock-solid" reliable. As has been acknowledged, "The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning inthe use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hardheaded pragmatism . . . The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales" (O’Rourke, J.E.(1976), “Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, 276:51, January). That is not what I am asking, that is what Darwinian evolution demands. The very existence of DNA is a strong argument for a Designer. The very definition of "code" contradicts "random." But your explanation for the similarity of the DNA is not the only explanation, although a possible one. The nematode worm shares 75% DNA similarity. So are we in the same family tree? I don't assume that they always shared the exact same habitat and conditions. But I don't believe that different human beings have always shared the exact same habitat and conditions--yet they are all still human beings. There are so many countless variations in habitat and conditions, that if we evolved from chimpanzees, would there not be innumerable variations of chimpanzee-humans? Why one or the other? Yes sir, now that you mention it, I seem to recall something about that in a Research and Evaluation class I took. To be honest, I never did agree with that point, but I acknowledge your proper use of scientific nomenclature. That said, how has (intelligent) design been disproven? Absolutely right with those first two sentences. But neither am I convinced that any amount of time can cause that to happen, much less for rocks and dirt to turn into a cow. Of course, then you'd still have to explain the existence of rocks and dirt in harmony with the second law of thermodynamics.