text:
Chicago Fire at Toronto FC
BMO Field – Toronto, Ontario
MLS Regular Season
Saturday, August 23, 2014
Chicago Fire Head Coach and Director of Soccer Frank Yallop
Thoughts on the game
"Hard fought, coming back in any game always feels like you got something out of it as opposed to letting it slip. I'm really happy with the fight back and the spirit of the guys. Obviously, quality wise we weren't quite there yet but the fighting spirit was great."
On Robert Earnshaw's debut performance
"As TFC fans know, he knows where the net is. He hasn't played for a couple months now and he said he probably has 15 minutes in him and I said, "How does 30 sound?" He's dangerous and he creates the second goal with his forcefulness in the box and he is going to help us. I felt we were very dynamic once Ernie came on and it was nice to see."
On the playoff chase
"Every team I manage I want them to fight hard. We've been in almost every game but we just don't have quite enough quality in all our positions to really dominate and take games over. We do have the fighting spirit and once we add some pieces I think we'll be okay, so it's a building process but I'm happy with the overall commitment from everybody."
Chicago Fire forward Quincy Amarikwa
Thoughts on the game
"We didn't make it easy on ourselves but as a team we fought together and we got the draw."
On the goal
"We were trying to bring them into the middle and then get it out wide for some crosses."
On the addition of Robert Earnshaw
"That's what we expected out of him, just to come off the bench and bring some energy. He came on and scored right away and hopefully this leads to more goals in the future. Hopefully we can build a little partnership."
Chicago Fire forward Robert Earnshaw
On returning to Toronto
"It's like I haven't been away. Maybe just because it is a familiar ground and a place I am very fond of. I have been back and forth here, it's a great place that I like to come to. I'd like to thank everyone at Toronto as I never got a chance to really thank everyone here. From Ryan Nelsen to the whole organization, I just want to say thank you very much. The goal I scored was a welcome to Chicago, but also a thank you very much to Toronto."
On returning to Major League Soccer
"Yeah, I love to play. I enjoyed just coming in and getting the shirt on, getting a feel for the ball, felt great. I want to get better on a personal level. I've come here to give something extra, contribute and help each teammate to do better with my experience and quality."
Toronto FC Head Coach Ryan Nelsen
Thoughts on the match...
"Well I thought we were pretty comfortable in the first half. Obviously losing Steven (Caldwell) our captain was a little unsettling for us and we were in pretty good control until then. Then that kind of happened and although we had a lot of the ball, a lot of possession, the analytical guys will say we had all the possession, but we really didn't do much with it. It was pretty comfortable possession in front of their team and they sat back and we didn't really punish them. We had a couple of really good chances and we kind of left them in the game. Obviously we conceded a soft goal and again losing Justin (Morrow) disrupted us. We needed some energy and we needed something, a lift, someone to grab the game by the back of the neck. I thought when Luke (Moore) came on he looked really good and we got ourselves a goal and could have made it three. Then that second goal was horrendous to tell you the truth. We've got to have a desire when an opposition player gets down to the endline we've got to have midfielders right on top of our backline defending our box. We were spectators, we kind of watched it hoping that someone would make the play but in the end it was a deflection bicycle kick that fell unfortunately to them and they punished us. We weren't in the right spots and we had guys just watching in comfortable positions. When you put yourself out of the arena to affect the game, things like this happen."
On the injuries to Seven Caldwell and Justin Morrow…
"Steven (Caldwell) had a really good week of training and he just felt his same quad on one of the stretches that he made, which he probably made 50 times during this week, but unfortunately in the game he hit it. Luckily it wasn't as bad as the original one, it was just something that we had to pull him off because it was only going to get worse. With Justin (Morrow) it was his hamstring so we'll have to get that scanned. When we go down with injuries we seem to do it all at once."
Does it sting even more that the two goals were scored by former TFC players?
"No, not at all. We wish all the best for all our former players. When any player scores against us it stings. Any former player from TFC we wish them all the best."
Dwayne De Rosario was dropped from the 18, is it safe to say that you haven't got what you wanted out of him this season?
"No, not at all. We've got absolutely everything from Dwayne, he's been absolutely fantastic. He's been fantastic in the locker room and he's a great guy but I've got a premier league striker on the bench, I've got a Nigerian striker who would have been going to the World Cup on the bench. So it's a hard squad to make these days. This is a wee bit different and we've got to make tough decisions. Even Daniel Lovitz unfortunately didn't make it and Daniel has been absolutely brilliant for us. His (Dwayne) position is up for grabs now every time we play. They are under the microscope to play well because there are guys, Dwayne and Daniel being a couple of them, that really want to play."
Toronto FC defender Justin Morrow
What was the injury?
"I just turned it. I felt in on a longer run right at the beginning of the second half. I just kind of felt it."
Any idea of how long you might be out?
"I'm going to get it scanned on Monday and see how it is but I don't think it should be too bad. It's sore right now but it should be alright."
How gutted are you to see the team concede so late and throw away points?
"Yes its tough but we have to take a positive out of it in that it is a tie. We do expect more out of ourselves at home and we should get three points. So we are a little disappointed with that but we have a lot of games coming up, games that we should win."
Toronto FC forward Gilberto
How did you feel scoring in successive games?
"I'm very happy that I scored my first goal at home in my stadium in front of my fans. I feel the team is doing really good work right now but unfortunately we couldn't get the result. But I am really happy with the progress of the team."
Do you feel comfortable with Luke Moore upfront?
"If you look back Jermaine Defoe scored six or seven goals when we were playing together so it really has nothing to do with my comfort with Jermaine or Luke. I'm happy now, I wasn't scoring goals and now I am."
Toronto FC defender Mark Bloom
Overall thoughts of getting back into a full game?
"It was good for me to come off of injury and start my first time back. I felt like my fitness was good and I didn't focus about my knee at all. It didn't bother me at all so in my mind I'm back fully fit."
Tough to see Caldwell and Morrow going down to injury, did you feel some of the energy was deflated when they went out of the lineup?
"Those two guys are crucial to our team. I mean you take our captain and a guy that has played every single game, that is definitely hard. It takes away the heart of our defence but we have the players to cover them and I thought we did well. Unfortunately we gave up two goals."
Select shots from the Fire's 2-2 draw with Toronto FC.
Chicago Fire at Montreal Impact
MLS Regular Season
Stade Saputo – Montreal, QC
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Chicago Fire Head Coach and Director of Soccer Frank Yallop
Thoughts on the game
"We weren't very dangerous to be honest going to goal and basically when it comes to the crunch, we didn't get the job done. It's disappointing, but it's kind of where we are right now. It's hard because we lost 6-0 on Wednesday and now we had a chance to prove ourselves again and we lose."
What can be changed to get that winning goal?
"We have to be more positive going forward. We have to dig deep and get that extra run for that extra minute and make sure we get beyond people and not play in front of the players. So I think that's the difference we need to make. I think that after Wednesday's loss it was hard on the team to be motivated, but our spirits seemed to be up at the beginning of the game and then we couldn't get it done in both boxes, we couldn't defend and couldn't score."
On how tight the table is
"Of course, you never give up until it's over. It's been a tough season; we have 13 ties, which 6 we should have won. I think that we would have been in a better spot with those extra two points per game. We're not good enough to be higher up at this point and that's on us."
Chicago Fire goalkeeper Sean Johnson
On the team's performance
"It's a tough result for us. We've got to be better. It's disappointing. We were in a position where we can put ourselves in a good spot in the playoff race. We played decent in the first half and just didn't do enough to get the result."
On what needs to be done to get three points
"It just a matter of believing and going out there and doing it. We just got to get it done. It's up to us, we're the players on the pitch and we have to solve some problems ourselves out there sometimes. We got to find it in us to get those results."
Chicago Fire midfielder Matt Watson
On how the team can improve offensively
"We weren't clinical enough in the final third. We need to find a way to get goals, maybe support the strikers more. We let the field get spread. We were hitting long balls to the strikers and then they were kind of wrestling for it by themselves with no support coming. We need to do better moving forward as a team."
On his team's defensive play
"At times I think we were chasing, myself included. I think sometimes we run just for the sake of it, where we could kind of be a more of a compact unit. We need to stay in a tighter defensive block."
Montreal Impact head coach Frank Klopas
On getting a win?
"It feels good. It took us a while to feel like this. There`s a lot of games that we could have walked away with points but you need to move forward. Today was a good overall performance by the group, I think that at some point we lost a bit of the midfield but the subs we made gave us a lot of added energy at the right time."
What was your reactions to Chicago`s presence on the field tonight?
"We had possession very deep in our side of the field in the first 25 minutes, we wanted to open them up and move the ball quicker. We had opportunities and options to play out of the back. We knew it was going to be a big game, so we didn't underestimate them at all, after them losing at the open cup. We knew it was going to be a difficult match, we expected one and it was. In the end we gave out a quality performance which gave us a great victory."
On Maxim Tissot?
"He brings a lot of energy, every time he's been in for us good things happen. He makes good runs off the ball, has a lot of pace and can make those long runs. In all he's been giving us a good constant quality and becomes a really dangerous opponent whether he starts or comes out on the field later. It's good for me, because we have a lot of options. He's young but we're going to continue to work with him and build him up."
Montreal Impact forward Marco Di Vaio
Working with Piatti on the field…
"We tried to make a couple of combinations but it's not easy for him because he's arriving in a team that has a lot of confidence issues. For the past month and a half we've been playing better and taking the points we learnt and applying them on the field. So it's not easy for him to come in our team at this point so I think that with his arrival here it might help the team's confidence even more."
Are you thinking on ending your career soon?
"It's too far for me to think about this now. I don't even think about what will happen next week. This year was harder for me but I am only focusing on our games to come at this point, especially in the Champion's league games."
Montreal Impact goalkeeper Evan Bush
On Chicago's last offensive play?
"Those are the things that happen at the end of the game, when you're up a goal, you send a lot of guys forward on set pieces and I got knocked down. I didn't hear a whistle and he got a foot on it and I was there to take care of it."
Did the defense have a lot to do with not getting any goals in tonight?
"I think so, there weren't that many chances that we gave them and fought well for the ball. We had a good side to side movement and Wandrille and Matteo did a very good job to hold the back up."
Montreal Impact midfielder Ignacio Piatti
On the game…
"As my first game I think that I played well and that the team had a solid performance and played well together. I knew about the MLS beforehand and knew the style of play so there was no surprise for me, but I still will have to adapt my style of play to that of the MLS."
On Marco Di Vaio …
"Marco is a star player, when you play him the ball he'll return it quickly, so there's a good chemistry there and I am going to keep working on developing that team synergy. I asked Marco if there was a possibility for him to stay, but he says it's hard for him and his family, but he's still looking for a solution."
Select shots from the Fire's loss to Montreal presented by MiAllstate.
Chicago Fire midfielder Patrick Nyarko is lending his support to an Indiegogo campaign for the construction of a community sports facility in Keta, Ghana to help improve and develop soccer in Ghana.
"When I grew up, I played barefoot on gravel, and at the end of the game we would have cuts and bruises all over. But we would come back the next day and play again," said Nyarko. "That's what we had to deal with and we were never going to stop playing because it hurt us. We did not have access to soccer fields to help develop your game and take it to the next level."
Through the help of Sandlanders Football, a not-for-profit organization establishing community-owned soccer teams throughout Africa, and the Keta Municipality, the plan is to build a 6.5 acre Soccerhub in Keta to grow the sport of soccer in Ghana and to give the community a central location to host community events and showcase the local industry in Keta.
Nyarko, a native of Kumasi, joined the project because he believes it will contribute to the development of the children of the area, not just in terms of their soccer skills but also in terms of their character. Additionally, the facility will provide local children a safe haven in the community.
"When this opportunity presented itself, I did not hesitate and wanted to help contribute and help the youth back home," said Nyarko. "This place will not only give them a place to play soccer, but also a place to go to after school to hang out with friends and stay out of trouble. The last couple of World Cups, we have seen the tremendous amount of talent back in Ghana and to help the youth develop that way through the construction of soccer fields and facilities, it will only help them become great players and hopefully future role models in the community."
To support the Keta Soccerhub, go to www.GoKeta.com to find out ways to contribute.
Select shots from the Fire's win over the Red Bulls presented by MiAllstate.
Select shots from the Fire's draw with the Crew presented by MiAllstate
Select shots from the Fire's draw with Vancouver.


text:
33 comments:
- ringaround said...
Evolution, being a largely historical science, is faced with the same "problem of equifinality" as physical geography,
that different processes can lead to similar end-forms" and "their form may be an inadequate guide to their origin.
Therefore, to help counter this problem of equifinality, One should not be dogmatic as to the origins of ... natural phenomena and When conducting one's own ... investigations ... it is necessary to adopt the principal of multiple working hypotheses, seeking to formulate and test as many explanations as possible.
Evolution protects itself from falsification by inventing a "science vs. religion" false dichotomy and then marginalising
its opponents as "religion".
More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are: (1) It is guided by natural law; (2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; (3) It is testable against the empirical world; (4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word; and (5) It is falsifiable.
Evolutionists have themselves, on rare occasions, conceded that the theory of evolution does not meet their own scientific criterion of testability. For example, leading biology professors Birch and Ehrlich candidly admitted in Nature, one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals that, the "theory of evolution ...
cannot be refuted by any possible observations" since "Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it"
and "No one can think of ways in which to test it," making it "outside of empirical science" and "an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training"
The late Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist in the British Museum of Natural History, observed of modern evolutionary theory, which combines both "Darwinian evolution, by natural selection" and "Non-Darwinian ... evolution" by "genetic drift", that "When these two theories are combined, as a general explanation of evolutionary change, that general theory is no longer testable," because any "failures of selection theory are explained by genetic drift" and vice-versa.
Evolution itself cannot be falsified, at least in the minds of committed evolutionists. For example, "Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection provides a framework theory for biologists" It "encourages them to interpret their observations in a certain kind of way" It "suggests particular hypotheses to test".
These "subsidiary hypotheses may
or may not be right, but their disproof is not itself evidence that the framework theory is wrong". It merely tells us that the framework theory does not produce its effects in
quite the way we supposed".
Another of the special pleading demarcation criteria that evolutionists erect to disqualify competitors to evolution as even being science, is repeatability.
For example, leading evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma
asserts that "An observation is accepted as a scientific `fact' only if it can be repeated by other individuals who follow the same methods".
Similarly, Stansfield, in a book titled "The Science of Evolution," stated that "to have scientific validity the [scientist's] observations must be capable of
verification by others using the same observational techniques, i.e., they must stand the test of repeatability". But as Theodosius Dobzhansky, co-founder of the Neo-Darwinian modern synthesis
(the modern theory of evolution) conceded, evolution, in the macroevolutionary sense (which is the only sense that is disputed), is unrepeatable: "These [macro]evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. ... Experimental evolution deals of necessity with only the simplest levels of the evolutionary process, sometimes called microevolution".
The paleontologist Kitts cites as "another difficulty" for evolution that, "The temporal ordering of
biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation, which
necessarily presupposes the non-repeatability of organic events in geologic history.".
So again, on their own criterion by which they seek to eliminate competitors to evolution as
even being scientific, evolutionists, if they were consistent, would also eliminate evolution (except in a trivial micro- sense) as being scientific!
Evolutionists claim that their theory is scientific because it makes testable predictions, such that evolution would be falsified if the prediction failed, the prediction is tested and evolution then passes that test.
For example, Gould, responding to the creationist charge that "evolution generates no predictions, never exposes itself to test, and therefore stands as dogma rather than disprovable science" , claimed
that, "We make and test risky predictions all the time ... every time I collect fossils in Paleozoic rocks, I predict that I will not find fossil mammals-for mammals evolved in the subsequent
Triassic period ... If I find fossil mammals ... in Paleozoic strata, our evolutionary goose is cooked".
But ReMine points out that "evolution does not predict mammals ever. ... evolutionary
theory never predicted any particular organisms. Mammals happen to be here, and evolutionists merely
accommodate that fact. ... evolutionary theory is plastic and can accommodate dramatic changes in our knowledge of the fossil sequence".
ReMine continues, "For example, Eldredge ... uses Peripatus, (a ...wormlike creature that lives in rotting logs ...) as an
intermediate between two of the major phyla ... the segmented worms and the arthropods". But "Gould ... removes Peripatus from its status as an intermediate.". "Thus evolutionists have dramatically altered their conceptions of ancestry to accommodate new evidence from fossil sequence," and "this happens often, without anyone even raising an eyebrow. ... contrary to Gould, if mammals were found in Paleozoic strata it would not falsify evolution. ... evolutionists would merely change their story".
- June 20, 2007 at 3:33 PM
- roundabout said...
Way to go ringaround. Fight to good fight you're outasight!
Hey remember evolution? Bah Hah!
- June 20, 2007 at 3:40 PM
- Benny said...
It's not nice to copy/paste from a source without citing it or giving it some credit, as you did from this:
Stephen E. Jones' "Problems of Evolution" outline
I notice that earlier "roundabout" pasted a butchered version of the outline, with "ringaround" congratulating him. Now "ringaround" pastes the body of the text, with "roundabout" patting his back. A fun, if transparent, ruse.
I'll come back later when I have more time to address Jones' points.
- June 20, 2007 at 4:05 PM
- Calvinization said...
--It's not nice to copy/paste from a source without citing it or giving it some credit, as you did from this:--
You mean it is not ethical. Says who. Bah hah!
--I'll come back later when I have more time to address Jones' points.--
Hey good luck with that. Admit it you're in denial. Stop living in the past.
- June 20, 2007 at 4:35 PM
- Anonymous said...
I wish I had the expertise to go into a alot more detail but you seem to want evolution to be proven to you.
The Theory of Evolution is a thoery in the scientific sense. This is true for Germ Teory, The Theory fo Gravity and so on. That evolution happens is fact. Our understanding of evolution mechanisms prohibits it from not being called a Theory. Very few thing are not a theory in science.
You did not give the complete quote from Gould which is really important and completely changes the context you were creating to the point of falsifying what he said.
"Our creationist detractors charge that evolution is an unproved and unprovable charade-- a secular religion masquerading as science. They claim, above all, that evolution generates no predictions, never exposes itself to test, and therefore stands as dogma rather than disprovable science. This claim is nonsense. We make and test risky predictions all the time; our success is not dogma, but a highly probable indication of evolution's basic truth." [Stephen Jay Gould, Dinosaur in a Haystack]
I did not validate every quote nor do I have the time, but it makes your whole argument look very weak when this is done.
Here is a another quote from Gould.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered." [Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory Science and Creationism, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 118.]
While I could go on doing this I strongly recommend you do the appropriate research from people doing the field work.
You wouldn't trust a heart surgeon to do brain surgery why trust anyone but a biologist studying evolution to make statement regarding biology.
Below is a link to a list of specification events.
(I hate to copy and paste arguments but there is a lot of instances)
- June 20, 2007 at 4:46 PM
- inandout said...
Nice try bozo but you did little to refute any of our arguments. The evidence is in your post. Give it up buddy. Give it up.
Are you a biologist?
No, didn't think so buddy.
Anyway, I have to go worship God. Seeya.
- June 20, 2007 at 5:03 PM
- Benny said...
My response to the portions of Jones' outline cited by our creationist-of-many-pseudonyms,
Evolution, being a largely historical science, is faced with the same "problem of equifinality" as physical geography, that different processes can lead to similar end-forms" and "their form may be an inadequate guide to their origin.
Therefore, to help counter this problem of equifinality, One should not be dogmatic as to the origins of ... natural phenomena and When conducting one's own ... investigations ... it is necessary to adopt the principal of multiple working hypotheses, seeking to formulate and test as many explanations as possible.
In other words, creationism should be taken seriously as a scientific theory alongside evolution. Will do, just as soon as creationism satisfies the requirements of a scientific theory. Offering testable predictions and ways to falsify itself would be good places to start.
Evolution protects itself from falsification by inventing a "science vs. religion" false dichotomy and then marginalising its opponents as "religion".
The theory of evolution invented the science vs. religion dichotomy? That's gotta be news to a lot of people :) How did this protect evolution from falsification?
More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are: (1) It is guided by natural law; (2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; (3) It is testable against the empirical world; (4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word; and (5) It is falsifiable.
Good start, but I think the link I gave above gives a better list.
Evolutionists have themselves, on rare occasions, conceded that the theory of evolution does not meet their own scientific criterion of testability.
Evolution itself cannot be falsified, at least in the minds of committed evolutionists.
Actually, evolution makes numerous testable and falsifiable predictions.
Another of the special pleading demarcation criteria that evolutionists erect to disqualify competitors to evolution as even being science, is repeatability.
For example, leading evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma asserts that "An observation is accepted as a scientific `fact' only if it can be repeated by other individuals who follow the same methods".
Yes, and the observations that the theory of evolution is based on are quite replicable.
Evolutionists claim that their theory is scientific because it makes testable predictions, such that evolution would be falsified if the prediction failed, the prediction is tested and evolution then passes that test.
And this claim is backed up by practice, as demonstrated by the list of numerous predictions I linked above.
Creationist-of-many-pseudonyms, I think it's time for you to huddle up with yourself and come up with some better arguments. Better still, educate yourself about evolution and creationism. See for yourself why evolution is held up as a scientific theory, while creationism is derided as pseudo-science.
- June 20, 2007 at 8:32 PM
- Bill said...
Your concerns about evolution as a science is unmerited. I am a graduate student in atmospheric science. We pretty much know what controls phase changes in water, how clouds form, how storms form, etc. We know that CO2 absorbs and reradiates infrared electromagnetic radiation. We know enough about the atmosphere and wave mechanics to predict with relatively good success the weather 5 days out. But, if you told me to reconstruct how many hurricanes struck the east coast of the U.S. 35,000 years ago. Get out of here, it's impossible. You can't predict much in nature beyond very simple processes deterministically, it is all stochastic (statistical) in nature.
My guess (not being a biologist) is that genetic drift is similar to what an atmospherice scientist might call brownian motion. Molecular motions of gases or cloud droplets are pretty much randomn. But, a few droplets will grow faster than others, and they will take off to form the large drops that are able to fall from the sky.
In a similar sense random mutations of DNA should be useful in both drifting without true selective forcing, simply due to an uneven distribution of likewise healthy mutations. Also, such random drift in individuals and certain segments of the population may result in a broadening of genetic diversity. Now, I think stochastic nonlinear models can be tested, and if reality (the fossil record, etc) falls within the range of error of an ensemble of models, then there is reason to believe that evolution is responsible for what we see. The big problem though is after a short period of time (million years or so) such a nonlinear model would develop a spread that is useless to compare to reality.
So in essence, I don't there is any true way to verify the entire history of earth. But, that is not what a scientific theory is about. It can be shown to be a good model of how speciation occurs, and potential even major divisions, but like any historical reconstruction in any science you can't just remodel it perfectly. Like I don't think if you remodelled the universe out from the Big Bang would you see Earth form at all. It's extremely unlikely to predict a specific planet, but that doesn't invalidate the theory of gravity, and the theories of nuclear science important to understanding solar evolution. So nothing in science is very testable in a historic sense.
Within, margin certain events history can be understood wrong by evolutionary biologists and still be the product of evolution. But if you start seeing recent mammals dated to the time period of the first bacteria. Then, something is wrong. And evolution would be pretty much shown false. So, while evolution isn't falsifiable in an experimental sense from a deterministic historical perspective. It certainly can be falsified, if things were out of order from what evolution tells us. I know on the talk origin site, there are several ways discussed which the theory can be shown false, but there is no indication that such things will ever be shown.
- June 20, 2007 at 9:21 PM
- Bill said...
I apologize for the horrendous typos and grammatical errors. Hopefully I got my point across
- June 20, 2007 at 11:46 PM
- zilch said...
Most of the points here have already been well addressed by others, but I just want to comment on this one thing ringaround said:
"Evolution protects itself from falsification by inventing a "science vs. religion" false dichotomy and then marginalising its opponents as "religion"."
What many people don't realize is that the public debate about evolution vs. ID, whether it's cast as "science vs. religion" or not, has very little to do with science, and everything to do with PR and politics.
Working scientists, religious or not, do research, publish papers, discuss and argue with collegues, and thus little by little add bricks to the edifice of our knowledge of the world. The whole debate about ID (Creationism in a cheap tuxedo) and evolution takes place outside of this world, in the public forae of popular books, blogs, editorials, etc.
There is no serious debate in the scientific world about the fact of evolution. Sure, there are lots of disagreements about stuff we don't understand, for instance the amount of and role played by junk DNA. IDer's jump on uncertainties like this as though they were disproofs of the entire theory. They do this because they themselves have nothing positive to add: no peer-reviewed papers, no research, no data. All they can do is publish hundreds of pages of sciency unfalsifiable jargon (Behe's recent book comes to mind) and thus snow the public into believing that they are doing science. Unfortunately, lots of people swallow this.
And btw- I'm not a scientist, but I did a minor in Paleontology at UC Berkeley, and have tried to keep up in the field. Anyone who puts a little time and effort into learning about evolution will see that it presents a necessarily incomplete, but still overwhelmingly convincing, picture of how life developed. It is an amazing story, far more complex and wonderful to me than "goddidit". Not that there aren't many Christians who also accept evolution.
- June 21, 2007 at 4:31 AM
- insideout said...
Swill Bill said..
"Your concerns about evolution as a science is unmerited. I am a graduate student in atmospheric science. We pretty much know what controls phase changes in water, how clouds form, how storms form, etc. We know that CO2 absorbs and re radiates infrared electromagnetic radiation. We know enough about the atmosphere and wave mechanics to predict with relatively good success the weather 5 days out. But, if you told me to reconstruct how many hurricanes struck the east coast of the U.S. 35,000 years ago. Get out of here, it's impossible. You can't predict much in nature beyond very simple processes deterministically, it is all stochastic (statistical) in nature."
Your science is actually a way of measuring things that can be measured and testing things that can be tested. Your science is a tool and it in no way disproves the existence of the God.
However, evolution is not a science. It's biggest claims are actually guesses that become conceptual schemes of which evolutionists try and fit the outcomes of their experiments and research to. Evolution can not be tested, predicted nor repeated. In atmospheric science you can do these things. Also sciences usually produce results and information or facts and findings that can be useful. For instance your science has most likely produced results that can be applied to meteorology and predicting storms and weather.
Evolution has done no such thing. It is a historical science if it is a science at all.
zilch said...
"There is no serious debate in the scientific world about the fact of evolution."
Who are you kidding son?
There are serious debates happening in all areas of the scientific world. Your not a reasonable scientist if you don't question anything. Evolution is trying to become a science and has yet to become one because there is not enough evidence. Nothing that can be tested, predicted, and repeated. It is a historical science, another explanation that seems to cover more ground than the creation story.
Today scientist by investigating the CLAIMS of evolution are actually concluding that the theories of evolution are in adequate because they only bring us so far. Evolution as it is is not perfect. You admitted this but you will not accept the possibility that there was some other worldly interference. In that respect you he a narrow mind.
- June 21, 2007 at 7:53 AM
- outsidein said...
My dear benny...
Penny for your thoughts...
You're still in denial.
I looked at your links and macro evolution has already been discussed. Also your links confirmed what I said about conceptual schemes. Give it up.
I thought you'd have something better. Find a new web site to link to or something because the one you keep using is tired and out dated.
- June 21, 2007 at 8:00 AM
- Bert said...
Not only Genesis but the whole Bible credits everything to the living God, creating, making, acting, moving, and speaking. There is no room for evolution without a flat denial of divine revelation. One must be true, the other false.
People start from nothing. They begin in helplessness, ignorance and inexperience. All of their work, therefore, proceed on the principle of evolution. This principle is seen only in human affairs: from the hut to the palace; from the canoe to the ocean liner; from the spade and ploughshare to machines for drilling, reaping, and binding,&c. But the birds build their nests today as at the beginning. The moment we pass the boundary line, and enter the Divine sphere, no trace or vestige of evolution is seen. There is growth and development within, but no passing, change or evolution out from one into another. On the one hand, all God's works are perfect.
To insideout or outsidein whoever you may be or wherever you are in some state of whateverness ...
Evolution is only one of several theories invented to explain the phenomenon of created things. It is admitted by all scientists that no one of these theories covers all the ground; and the greatest claim made for evolution, or Darwinism, is that "it covers more ground than any of the others."
The word of God claims to cover all the ground (ha ha) and the only way in which this claim is met, is by a denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures, in order to weaken it. This is a special work undertaken by so-called "Higher Criticism', which bases its conclusions on human assumptions and reasoning, instead of on documentary evidence of manuscripts as Textual Criticism does.
- June 21, 2007 at 8:23 AM
- Adrian Miu said...
LOL, what a moronic statement. If evolution is a false theory it doesn't follow that we are the creation of Yehova. There is no connection outside the Bible that tells you Yehova did it. But according to the Quran Allah did it. And according to other hundreds myth other gods did it. Even if all the scientist will be proven as lyers about the evolution you are still left with the question: "Which God did it?". Or did the reptilians created us (www.truthism.com)?
And since this shows from your part a lack of intelectual honesty by jumping from "evolution is wrong" to "Yehova did it" than your arguments don't merit any attention. Too bad you didn't mentioned it from the start. I wouldn't have wasted my time reading your first post.
- June 21, 2007 at 9:22 AM
- Anonymous said...
Of course I believe in the bible. I'm a Christian.
Your whole life is a waste of time.
- June 21, 2007 at 9:38 AM
- Benny said...
Adrian, I think you were too harsh on Bert. But I do agree, the evolution/Christian creationism dichotomy is a false one. There's many other possible explanations for how life came about, both religious and secular. And I agree with Stomper's stance from the other thread: evolution and God are not mutually exclusive, they are orthogonal. Proving or disproving one has no bearing on the truthfulness of the other. Unless you're a fundamentalist clinging to a literal interpretation of the Bible, with all the problems that entails.
- June 21, 2007 at 9:59 AM
- Connie said...
"Scientific creationism" is hardly identical with biblical creationism. The creation texts represent a very different type of literature and concern from modern scientific discourse. To rush biblical statements into this arena, as though they were of the same order as Charles Darwin's Origin of Species or Stephen Jay Gould's The Panda's Thumb, or as though scientific conclusions could be drawn from them, is to be very confused about what it is the Genesis materials are teaching. One also plays directly into the hands of those who would dismiss them as quasi-scientific explanations of things for which we now have more sophisticated explanations.
Neither those who would set aside Genesis as primitive science nor those who would try to defend it as the true science of origins seem to grasp the differences between modern scientific and ancient cosmological literatures. What is more critical is that neither side seems to comprehend the relationship between biblical and other ancient cosmologies. The biblical teaching, after all, was not aimed at one or another of the various theories developed in the history of modern science but at the cosmological understandings of origins found among surrounding peoples. The question, then, is: In what senses was the Bible critiquing and rejecting these pagan cosmologies with which it had so immediately to do?
Ancient cosmologies were developed on the basis of phenomenal observations of the world -- that is, things as they appeared to everyday observation.
In the biblical texts the concern was to affirm the radical difference between a polytheistic and a monotheistic cosmology. All the surrounding cosmologies identified the major regions of the cosmos with their various gods and goddesses. Genesis, over against this viewpoint, affirms (1) that there is only one God; (2) that this God is not identified with or contained by any region of nature; (3) that the pagan gods and goddesses are not divinities at all but creatures, creations of the one true God; and (4) that the worship of any of these false divinities is idolatry. This is what is being taught and celebrated by the creation texts, not any particular cosmological picture that may then be placed in contention with existing or subsequent physical pictures of the cosmos.
What is often ignored in all this, however, is that the temporal as well as the spatial aspects of ancient cosmology were employed in the Bible: the physical progression from chaos to cosmos. This progression and its sequence were not a point of contention either. Most of the cosmologies in the ancient world began with a cosmic ocean, darkness and a generalized formlessness -- just as Genesis does: "And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep'' (1:2). Elements are introduced which give shape to the shapeless: light into darkness; a domed sky (firmament) dividing waters above from waters below; the earth with its vegetation separated from the waters; the sun, moon and stars to regulate the days, months and seasons. The specific order may vary, depending on which chaotic problem is resolved first, but the general pattern and progression is the same. It is a perfectly logical way of proceeding, though it is hardly identical with what we have come to call science or natural history. Its logic is cosmological, not geological or biological or astronomical.
The fundamental difference between the Genesis progression from chaos to cosmos and that of pagan cosmologies lies along the physical plane not in its chronological order but rather in its theological order. Here too the issue is religious: a radical contrast is made between a monotheistic creation and a polytheistic cosmogony ("birth of the cosmos"). The pagan myths commonly depicted the origins of natural phenomena in terms of the marriages and births of various gods and goddesses. In Babylonian myth the saltwater goddess (Tiamat) mated with the freshwater god (Apsu) and begat the gods and goddesses of silt and the horizon, which in turn begat heaven (Anu), who begat the earth (Enki). Genesis, on the other hand, portrays the One God who has created all that which surrounding people worship as the divinities of nature. The theological order, therefore, is a genealogy not of the gods (theogony) but of creator and creature: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The true opposite of creation, thus, cannot be any scientific model of origins, evolutionary or otherwise, but is this procreation model of polytheistic myth.
The creation accounts were not attempting to present a more cosmologically, let alone scientifically, correct way of representing physical relationships in space or time. Genesis is not offering or supporting a "creation model" that can be placed in competition with other physical models, any more than it is offering a "flat earth model" in competition with geological models or a "geocentric model" in competition with astronomical models. To put Genesis on the level of a physical discussion of the natural order is to secularize it -- while complaining loudly about secularism in modern culture!
The creationists think of themselves as staunch conservatives, engaged in a loyal defense of biblical teaching. To some extent they are, inasmuch as they are seeking to preserve a doctrine of creation vis-à-vis secularism and scientism. In other respects, however, they are themselves very influenced by secularism and scientism. They confuse what is being taught theologically with the cosmological garb in which the teaching is being presented. They are conserving the right things in the wrong ways. In so doing most of the attention gets focused on the physical issues of modern science -- which were not issues at all in the Bible. Endless forays must be made on all scientific fronts -- geology, biology, paleontology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, meteorology, genetics, sedimentology, radiometry and the like -- either to try to discredit evolution or to defend creation.
The terminology favored by the movement is itself indicative of the degree to which modern scientific questions and secular modes of thought dominate the discussion of creation: Bible science, creation science, scientific creationism, creation research, origins research. These terms not only dramatize the confusion between biblical theology and matters of physical cosmology, but their use becomes a species of secularism and modernism in itself. Many of the leaders of the movement are scientists and engineers, not theologians and biblical scholars. It seems almost unthinkable, apparently, to such people that these ancient Hebrew texts could have been written without a passionate interest in the physical relationships of space and time.
It also seems unthinkable that divine revelation would not be concerned with the kinds of issues that preoccupy modern minds. Surely God would not stoop to employ the lowly earthbound categories of ancient cosmologies or descend to the language of common appearances!
- June 21, 2007 at 10:09 AM
- Benny said...
At the end of my last comment to you, I suggested either finding better creationist arguments against evolution or taking the time to learn more about both evolution and creationism. I see you've decided to take a 3rd option, closing your eyes, waving your hands, and hoping that the boogey-man (in this case, the arguments against you) goes away! How droll.
You said you looked at my links. I somehow doubt that you have. If you did, then you wouldn't be saying that they confirm your charge that evolution makes no predictions but only conceptual schemes. Please go through the list of macroevolution predictions that I linked for you, and explain how each of them is not actually a prediction but rather a "conceptual scheme". Go ahead, give it your best shot.
Here's the link again, for your convenience: LINK
- June 21, 2007 at 10:21 AM
- zilch said...
insideout- you say:
"Evolution as it is is not perfect. You admitted this but you will not accept the possibility that there was some other worldly interference. In that respect you he a narrow mind."
No, I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that my ideas about evolution are wrong- for instance, that there is indeed a Designer who twiddled the hard bits and helped out around the sharp corners, say in putting together the motor for the bacterial flagellum. I can't prove that there isn't such a Designer, so it behooves me to be open-minded.
But as they say, it doesn't help to be so open-minded that your brains fall out. So far, I've seen no evidence for a Designer, no necessity to invoke one, and lots of evidence that people make up stories all the time and then believe in them despite all evidence to the contrary. The Bible, the Koran, Dianetics, and Cargo Cults are all such stories. And while I admire many things about the Bible, we've learned a thing or two about the world in the meantime. For my science I'll trust the stories the rocks tell, not the lovely but hopelessly muddled superstitions of our great-times-100 grandparents.
So until ID gets off its collective butt and actually does some real science, instead of just nattering on about gaps in our knowledge (which no scientists deny), I'll go along with Neodarwinism as the best explanation so far of how life evolves.
- June 21, 2007 at 11:21 AM
- nick said...
insideout said:
Evolution can not be tested, predicted nor repeated.
That is incorrect, there is an entire field of experimental evolution.
From the Wikipedia article on experimental evolution:
"Because of the large number of generations required for adaptation to occur, evolution experiments are typically carried out with microorganisms such as bacteria or viruses. However, laboratory studies with rodents have shown that notable adaptations can occur within as few as 10-20 generations (see below) and experiments with wild guppies have observed adaptations within comparable numbers of generations."
- June 21, 2007 at 11:34 AM
- Anonymous said...
Admitting that there are gaps in science is a far stretch from making claims that for a certainty there is no God.
- June 21, 2007 at 11:42 AM
- Benny said...
Atheism does not claim 100% certainty that there is no God, it's the absence of belief in God.
- June 21, 2007 at 11:55 AM
- Bill said...
insideout said,
Your science is actually a way of measuring things that can be measured and testing things that can be tested. Your science is a tool and it in no way disproves the existence of the God.
However, evolution is not a science. It's biggest claims are actually guesses that become conceptual schemes of which evolutionists try and fit the outcomes of their experiments and research to. Evolution can not be tested, predicted nor repeated. In atmospheric science you can do these things. Also sciences usually produce results and information or facts and findings that can be useful. For instance your science has most likely produced results that can be applied to meteorology and predicting storms and weather.
Evolution has done no such thing. It is a historical science if it is a science at all.
Please follow Benny's link for a great compilation of how evolution is approached as a science. In any case, I think evolution can be a beneficial science. I mean we can test the functions of other related animals to us to understand how to perform medical procedures and treat diseases. Also, heriditary diseases can be explored through an evolutionary standpoint as well.
As far as outright proving the evolution of species on Earth. It is still analogous to almost any science when put in a historical sense. You can only know the processes that govern change, but any dynamical system; be it the cosmos, the Earth's climate, or life on Earth cannot be successfully predicted. And macroevolution cannot be shown over a lifetime, but all the necessary processes do occur (mutation, selection, isolation). I'm pretty sure they even showed how a single celled organism developed into a mult-celled organism.
But atmospheric science isn't much different. We have ways of looking in the geologic record and recognizing what the character of the climate was at a certain time. But it would be exceptionally difficult to reproduce it in a model. We know the basic processes are sound principles. There is hardly anything different in the evolution of biology compared to that of climatology. In fact biology has a significant impact on how climate changes (and I'm not referring to human global warming). So you can scoff that something isn't a science because it isn't reproducable, but alot of things are not reproducable but are based of more basic reproducable phenomenon.
I tend to agree with you that atleast the originators of the creation stories used them not to necessarily explain the physical order of things, but truely the order of things in relation to their theological understanding. That being said I think the same preservationist mindset has been in place throughout all history once an idea is written in stone, so that challenges to biblical creation were likely rebuked very early.
That being said the philosophical idea of naturalism. Truely is a new way to see how the works compared to traditional understanding. People like Newton and other individuals who fostered modern scientific thinking, did see the world in a novel way. That is a world that operated according to a synthesized set of laws. In no way was this incompatible with a god, but it did come to clash with the traditional understand of God. And it paved the way for metaphysical naturalism. That is the natural order of things encompasses the entirety of the world. That anything can be explained through natural law and nothing supernatural need be invoked. So, in fairness the beginning of scientific thinking was a definite shift in the theologic viewpoint of society.
- June 21, 2007 at 12:03 PM
- upandover said...
My point was to show that evolution does not disprove the existence of God, that evolution is incapable of proving anything because the theories of evolution in their entirety, the biggest claims of evolution can not be proven so to use evolution to disprove the existence of God is absurd.
The benefits that bill mentions are not because of evolution they are because of biology. We know that mammals have similar biological systems not because evolution led us to that proof but because we have dissected them and made comparisons.
I have looked at you tired link benny, the conceptual shcemes and expectations are still there. If you deny this then you are the one closing your eyes and plugging your ears to the truth.
Science is always changing and as of now the change in science is begging to include a creator. People who believe in a creator are not seen as irrational anymore. Look at all of the work being done in physics and astronomy.
I'm sorry, but all of you are living in the past. You got stuck on some bogus information and it really excited you and then you got invloved in an anti_god crusade, and got to deep into it that when the very proofs you used against God began to be proofs for God well you ignored them and fell back to your out dated dogma and conceptual schemes. How can society or science ever progress with people like you how deny the evidence and refuse to change?
It's over. You guys just don't get it.
You do not beleive in God becasue there is no evidence for God. Well there is no evidence for anything along that way of reasoning. Give me evidence for the eviedence of the evidence that prooves there is a lack of evidnce. A LACK of evidence. What a cop out. According to your reasoning which back fires on you, we can know nothing and so everything we know we can't know only believe. Everything is about belief.
I believe.
- June 21, 2007 at 12:22 PM
- Bill said...
We take what we know to form our beliefs about the world. I think that is only appropriate. In saying we can't disprove God you're right. But, I have no experience that says there was an ultimate creator to the world, so it is difficult for me to come to that conclusion. I think relying on things fairly well shown false, like a 6000 year old world and a global flood to form beliefs is far more damaging than taking what we do know to form our beliefs. I'll grant to you that it is belief, but I think it's how we come to our beliefs that their validity rests on.
- June 21, 2007 at 1:17 PM
- zilch said...
To whatever your name is: I would agree that evolution does not disprove the existence of God. It also does not disprove the existence of leprechauns. But evolutionary science does show that the Genesis account of the Creation doesn't jibe with the facts, unless it is massaged into a pulp and reassembled (which is of course an art form in itself, pursued by apologists in many different flavors: old Earth, young Earth, no evolution above the species/genus/family level, birds are bats, etc.) The discovery that the Good Book is not infallible might lead, and has led, some believers to doubt the existence of God at all, or (like Michael Behe) to allocate Him the position of helping evolution around just those corners that are not yet understood. Btw- Behe believes in common descent. But as I said, many Christians have no problem with evolution. They have simply accepted evolution and let go of a literal interpretation of Genesis.
You mentioned astronomy and physics. It might interest you to know that Dr. David Heddle, devout Christian nuclear physicist who believes that "fine tuning" is evidence for a Designer, rejects ID. Check it out- I guarantee it's not old and tired.
People have many different ideas about what constitutes "proof". I would say that "proof" only makes sense in circumscribed systems of formal logic, such as mathematics, where something is absolutely true or not. There are no absolute proofs in science: only descriptions and laws with degrees of confidence and accuracy.
So while I can say with a fair degree of confidence that life evolved, and there is no God, and the Sun will rise tomorrow morning, I can prove none of these things. That's all right- I can and do live with the uncertainty.
- June 21, 2007 at 1:23 PM
- Benny said...
Bravo, Bill, zilch. I had a reply to our resident creationist in the works, but your responses are much better. No need for me to waste page space.
- June 21, 2007 at 1:28 PM
- aboveandbeyond said...
If God is God, then couldn't he create a 4.5 billion year old planet in six days? I'll do it in six seconds. #=Geo-what, status: planet, age: 4.5 billion years old.
Time it took to create: six seconds.
Of course I can not realize my planet the way God can.
Forget what you think you know.
Hey and no more of those conceptual schemes. I won't address any of the "proofs" or "evidences" you provide that are founded on them.
Yes we all have beliefs. Yet you say that my belief is false, well no you might say that my belief is more false than yours. Whatever, hey, that's fine, its your opinion. We have not had the same lives, the same experiences &c. Or maybe we have, well...
- June 21, 2007 at 6:13 PM
- John W. Loftus said...
If God is God, then couldn't he create a 4.5 billion year old planet in six days? I'll do it in six seconds. #=Geo-what, status: planet, age: 4.5 billion years old.
Time it took to create: six seconds.
Yes aboveandbeyond, and if God wants us to believe in him then he could make his creation so haphazard that we couldn't even begin to explain the origin of the species. They could be so far apart and distinct from each other that there would be no fitting the pieces together like scientists have done. In fact, the law of predeation among all creatures on earth is absolutely horrible way to create us. Something has to die for another animal to eat. With the existence of several species of vegetarians and the fact that human beings themselves could be vegetarians, I see no reason for creating meat eaters at all. In fact, I see no reason why God created animals at all, since they have no eternal purpose and their are no moral lessons that animals must learn.
- June 21, 2007 at 6:37 PM
- Anonymous said...
- This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
- June 22, 2007 at 5:48 PM
- richdurrant said...
I have a question John,
Why does creation have to be something we can't understand or learn how it was done?
- June 24, 2007 at 1:01 PM
- John W. Loftus said...
rich, if scientists couldn't figure it out then they would have to say God is behind it all. The more scientists can figure it out the less they need to punt to God as an explanation.
- June 24, 2007 at 1:27 PM
- richdurrant said...
I realize that, and I'm not even saying that we have to punt to God to explain something we don't understand. We are intelligent people and can figure out many things but that in and of itself doesn't remove God as being behind creation. It has never been said that we aren't able to understand the creative process, nor that it has to be this grand mysterious thing that no one can possibly figure out.
I have said this before, just because I believe God created the universe doesn't mean I don't want to know how.
I just think that saying we understand how a star is formed doesn't remove God from being the creator.
- June 25, 2007 at 6:33 AM

subset: commoncrawl


text:
A Dazzling Five-Star Retreat Among Boa Vista Hotels
Escape on an unforgettable all-inclusive family vacation at our Boa Vista hotel resort. When looking at this island's desert-like appearance, it's hard to imagine that this piece of dry land was once covered in luxuriant vegetation. Repeated dry spells and bad land management turned this land into an arid land. Its main attraction is a privileged coastline, with heavenly beaches, some with dunes and all with crystalline waters.
Taking a stroll round the austere interior, you will discover small oasis with palm trees that add a touch a green to a scorched landscape. Its largely undeveloped tourism infrastructure makes this place a calm beach paradise, light years away from the mass tourism of the larger destinations in Cape Verde.
Sparkling Turquoise Waters Surround Our Boa Vista Resort
Treat yourself to world-class services and superb amenities at our all-inclusive Boa Vista hotel. Constructed on the sea front of Praia de Chaves, this hotel will be ideal for family holidays with all the convenience of the "All Inclusive" system.


text:
|Deliberations continue
|Written by Lauren Ohnesorge
|Wednesday, 18 July 2007 20:00
The fourth day of deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of Jerry Anderson was even more uneventful than previous days.The jury reviewed audio recordings from victim Emily's cell phone. Jury selection in the case began May 14, and there is no end in sight. Should the trial end in a hung jury, it would be up to prosecutors whether or not to retry the case. Anderson is accused of fatally shooting his wife, Emily, and stuffing her body in the toolbox of her pickup truck. Due to the amount of media attention, the trial was moved from Caldwell County to Gastonia. If convicted, Anderson could face the death penalty.
|Share This Article:


text:
By Aldo Panessidi
Samsung just cranked up the level of excitement over the Samsung Galaxy S3 to a whole new level. They've finally, officially announced that their new flagship phone will be available in June from all the major U.S. carriers: AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless and U.S. Cellular.
Each carrier will be releasing their pricing in the coming weeks, and check the websites for pre-order plans. The phone will probably start at $199 (with contract) and may hit the stores as early as June 20th.
We've got the final specs for the U.S. version of the Galaxy S3:
- Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 1.5GHz dual-core S4 processor with integrated modem
- 4.8-inch HD Super AMOLED touchscreen display
- Gorilla Glass 2.0 protecting the display
- Android 4.0 with TouchWiz enhancements
The device weighs in at 133 grams and is 0.1mm thicker than the Samsung Galaxy S II, but due to its lack of the back chin, thickness is a lot more uniform. Moreover, its size (136.6 x 70.6 x 8.6 mm), the device offers an excellent grip and is rather pocket friendly. Protect your Galaxy S3 form the hustle and bustle of everyday life with the latest Samsung Galaxy S3 accessories.
The phone also has two unique features. The Galaxy S3 will run S Voice, which is a voice assistant reminiscent of the iPhone4S - Siri app, as well as a feature called Smart Stay, which optimizes the phone's settings by detecting whether a user is looking at it.
The Galaxy S3 will be available in 16GB and 32GB versions but also can be expanded with additional memory cards. It will be available in two colors, marble white and pebble blue.
Samsung has a reputation for being pretty slow with bringing its accessories online. Industry leading manufacturers continue to provide the greatest selection of top brand cell phone accessories from Bags and Sleeves, Batteries, Bluetooth Headsets and Bluetooth Car Kits, Car Holders, Cases and Skins, Data Cables, Earbuds and Headsets, Keyboard and Protectors, Memory Cards, Screen Protectors, Speakers and Docks as well as Stylus and Pens.
One surprise in the announcement: the U.S. version of the Galaxy S3 won't include the same quad core processor as the international phone. But Samsung explained the change: "The dual-core processor offers speed and performance comparable to leading quad-core processors without sacrificing valuable battery life." The dual core Snapdragon S4 processor with integrated modem will allow the device to operate on the fastest LTE and HSPA+ 42 networks.
As Dale Sohn, president of Samsung Telecommunications America, pronounced it: "The U.S. launch of the Galaxy S3 is the most anticipated launch of the year. As promised, we are delivering the 'next big thing' for U.S. customers and across all major carriers. Galaxy S3 introduces new technological innovation and takes sharing to the next level."


text:
Friday, 09 October 2015 07:11 am
Serving Central MN For More Than 100 Years
Sytek is backed by the Upsala Telephone Company. We are positioned to serve our customers as a turnkey solution for all business and residential communication needs. Sytek has been serving Central Minnesota for more than 100 years. We were originally developed to increase and diversify the services in our current market area. But since then our business has grown, providing us with a larger service area and therefore expanding the number of services we offer.
We still consider ourselves a local company and will always provide local service. We stand behind all that we do and offer, which includes:
• Directory Services
• Telephone Services
• Key System Services
• Internet Services
• Web Services
• Marketing Services
• And More!
Give us a call today for further details on any of the services we can provide for you and/or your business.
Home | Sytek Marketing | Directory | Key Systems | Internet | Web Services | Telephone | Contact Us |
Sytek Communications 117 Main Street - P.O. Box 277
Upsala, MN 56384
Copyright ©
Sytek Marketing and Design
Sytek is owned by Upsala Cooperative Telephone Association


text:
This course helps students develop superior investment ideas by conducting creative, value-added research. Students act as hedge fund analysts by working through an intense research process with the objective of developing strong conviction around their investment conclusions. A primary, in-the-trenches research approach is employed; strong grasp of Accounting/Finance is essencial. Each student will analyze one or two companies in-depth all semester. The professors and guest investment professionals discuss student ideas and share their investment philosophies.
The final exam is a presentation of student investment ideas to a panel of prominent hedge fund managers.


text:
Swimming in Auschwitz
One of the glaring omissions in the ongoing study of events of the Holocaust is the experience of women in the concentration camps. While subject to the same physical conditions as the men, and many of the same physical hardships, the ways in which women convey their memories is a stark contrast to most male testimonies. A strong focus on family and friendship, on faith and spirituality of all kinds become focal points. It is this experience that "Swimming in Auschwitz" captures.
Cast: Erika Jacoby, Lili Majzner, Renee Firestone
Produced by: Jon Kean
Directed by: Jon Kean
Written by: Jon Kean
Running time: 1hr 3min
Opens: May 02, 2008 Limited
|Theaters for Today
Pick a day
on this day.


text:
Welcome to Freeciv 1.13
This is release 1.13.0.
Thanks again to all our developers, who continue to work so hard.
This release includes lots of changes, outlined below. Those who
are interested in seeing the detailed changes should check the
ChangeLog file.
- Citizen Management Agent (CMA) allows you to automate workers
and specialists in cities.
- Sound support has been added.
- The new "isotrident" tileset has been made the default. The
"hires" and "engels" tilesets have been taken out of the
distribution but can be downloaded from the web page.
- New city dialog in the gtk client.
- Windows version of the client. It has improved connection
dialog and supports loading and saving from the client.
- GTK 2.0 version of the client.
- The client will try to suggest names for your cities that
correspond with what they mean.
- Improved players dialog shows sortable and colored information,
including the players' flags.
- Server no longer takes the --server command line option,
instead you can use the --info option to set the metaserver
announcement text to whatever you like. The -a option when given
to the client skips the connection dialog entirely.
- A "wall" server command added which gives message to all players.
- A new flexible timeout set through "timeoutinc" server option.
- Leftover research bulbs will carry over to next advance.
- Trade routes are more effective.
- Units attacking ships in cities double their firepower, while
defenders get only 1 firepower.
- Helicopters defending against air units get 50% penalty, and
have their firepower reduced to 1 against fighter units.
- You can build city walls even though you have Great Wall wonder.
- The Communism government's food cost in default ruleset has
been changed to 1, while it has been changed to 2 for the Civ2
- Stealth fighter and bomber now really are stealthy, and are
partially invisible just like subs. Also, stealth bombers have
increased their attack strength from 14 to 18.
- Civ2 ruleset now has Fundamentalism.
- Improved modpack abilities: The caravan ability has been split.
New ways to calculate technology costs. Better documentation.
Rulesets can specify starting techs. You can have more than one
bonus tech. Split settler abilities. Buildings ruleset syntax
has been significantly extended, but effects do not work yet.
- Server option "tinyisles" allow 1x1 size islands and
"separatepoles" allow continents connected to the poles
- "citymindist" specify minimum distance between cities, while
"notradesize" and "fulltradesize" regulate the trade generated
by smaller cities.
- You can turn on angry citizens with "angrycitizens" option.
- Fortresses may give you extended vision. See watchtower options.
- If you lose your palace, you get a new one for free in a
randomly chosen city. This behaviour can be turned off with the
server option "savepalace".
- Rulesets are now loaded from inside the server through the
"rulesetdir" command.
- The limit on the number of nations that can be included with
Freeciv has been removed.
- The format of the isometric tileset spec-files has changed.
- The map and ai code has been cleaned up significantly.
- Translations improved. Added better support for plural forms.
- Several bugs squished and a lot of work done under the hood.
- For an overview of the remaining bugs please visit doc/BUGS.


text:
Coca-Cola brews up a coffee business
A five-year odyssey of globe-trotting and brainstorming leads to a `café in a box'
Faced with stagnating demand for soft drinks and increased competition in bottled water, Coca-Cola Co. set out to enter the lucrative, fast-growing market for premium hot brews.
But how to do that turned into a five-year odyssey that took a team of Coca-Cola executives around the globe and led to creation of an innovative concept dubbed "the café in a box."
Instead of tackling the premium-coffee market head on with a string of Starbuck's-like coffee shops, as some observers had expected, Coca-Cola decided to leverage its existing relationships in pop, water and juice.
By creating an easy to operate and maintain "box," Coca-Cola says, anyone from the convenience-store operator to the fine-restaurant chef can offer customers a range of premium specialty coffees and teas at the press of a button.
Coca-Cola will also supply the coffees, teas and hot chocolate that go into the box, under the brand name Far Coast for the higher-end leisure market, and Chaqwa for the convenience market.


text:
Rank: 84
active 1 week, 6 days ago
Helping out in any way that I can. <3
Search the Street Team
Saleana's Badges
Saleana's Friends
I was born in Las vegas, Nevada. Moved to Pahrump, Nevada when I was 3. I have went to schools out here since pre-k. I really respect people who can be there self without caring what anyone else thinks. I have my ups and my lows but there is two people that I know I can always count on, My mom and God. I have been a christian for about four years now and it has completley changed my life. peta 2 is a huge part of my life and I thank god for it. (:
my life is to amazing to describe in a 140 characters
vegetarian girl with no friends.
i live and breathe music, get at me.
I'm a grad from MAHS. I'm nothing like you'd probably expect, because I am nothing like anyone else. I like to have adventures. I love my ipod. I like piercings & tattoos. I'm stubborn. Happily in a committed relationship. I have the right to dislike who ever I want. I've been through hell and back in my of twenty-one years of life and I'm ready for whatever comes my way.
"life is not about finding yourself, its about creating yourself. "
Hi! My name is Ariel. :) I have been vegetarian my entire life and recently became vegan. My parents didn't have to tell me a thing about what happened to the animals. I came into this world with a sense of awareness and my intuition told me that eating animals was bad. At just 4 years old I informed my mom that people ate cows! I am so lucky to have been born into a vegetarian/vegan family. <3 Other than being an animal rights activist I am a nature photographer (http://www.facebook.com/pages/ASP-Photography/173348909385062) and I would like to get into modeling. I am passionate about body art so I think Suicide Girls would be a good fit. I am also currently studying for the GED, then i'm off to cosmetology school, using only cruelty-free products of course!
Not much to say here. I went to warped tour and learned about peta-2. It totally changed my views <3
Born in Spain and raised in Cali. Vegan ever since making the connection between the love I have for my dog and the cut up animal flesh being served on my plate (only difference being that I know my dog personally).
It has been a struggle since I was born. I am a fighter with a big soft hart that can spread from here to all around the world. I'd like to make a difference in my life time. I wanna be something that hasn't been made before,a unique butterfly full of mystery and love.
Share This Profile
Powered by the McGrath Family Foundation


text:
Outdoor Research
Verglas Gaiters (Kid's) (out-of-stock)
Out of Stock Product Number: 29670
Outdoor Research's designers put the award-winning Crocodiles on a diet, shrunk 'em down for kiddos, and the Kids' Verglas Gaiters™ were the result. Designed to be lighter and easily packable, the Verglas Gaiters™ are built with durable Ventia Dry™ waterproof/breathable fabric while retaining the performance fit the famous Crocs.
* This product does not qualify for shipping to all countries.
- Ventia Dry™ Construction
- Waterproof Ventia™ leg
- Durable, abrasion-resistant Cordura® boot
- Boot section shaped for durability, ventilation
- Webbing and cam buckle top closure
- 1½"-wide hook/loop front closure
- Double-riveted boot lace hook
- Hypalon® instep strap Fabric: 100% nylon: 3-layer, 50D ripstop Ventia™ 100% nylon: Coated 500D Cordura®
Gender: Youth
Weight: 5.7 oz., 162 g
Material: 3L, 50D ripstop Ventia
Season: S12
Vendor ProductId: 61635
Review ProductId: 29670


text:
Drama, SciFi/Fantasy, Romance
For all its state-of-the-art special effects, Always is essentially a remake of the 1943 Spencer Tracy-Irene Dunne fantasy vehicle A Guy Named Joe--minus the wartime context. Richard Dreyfuss stars as a reckless fire-fighting pilot who is killed in what was to have been his final mission. Ascending to Heaven, Dreyfuss is introduced to businesslike angel Audrey Hepburn (playing the equivalent of the Lionel Barrymore role in A Guy Named Joe). Hepburn instructs the spectral Dreyfuss to pass on his aviation knowhow to his young successor, Brad Johnson. Our ghostly hero also smoothes the course of romance for his earthly girl friend Holly Hunter, who after several months' worth of grieving has fallen in love with Johnson. John Goodman injects a dose of comedy relief as Dreyfuss' faithful buddy.~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Cast: Audrey Hepburn, Richard Dreyfuss, Holly Hunter, John Goodman, Brad Johnson
Produced by:
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Written by: Dalton Trumbo, Jerry Belson
Running time: 2hr 2min
|Theaters for Today
Pick a day
on this day.


text:
Hey everyone. I am currently looking at wireless guitar systems, hoping to reduce some of the spaghetti on the floor at shows and alleviate the paranoia of pulling out of my amp. In the earlier days there was a big sacrifice in tone with wireless units. It seems like the newer versions have improved in that area. So far, Line6 and Shure appear to have the best reviews for their devices.
I know we have a lot of experienced musicians here. Who is using or has used wireless in live situations? Recommendations? Pros/Cons?
Thanks in advance for any feedback.


text:
Welcome to the 19th Annual Faculty + Alumni Fine Art Auction Online Catalog. View the works of some of the finest internationally known artists in San Francisco.
Browse 2014 Catalog
November 6–7
10 a.m.–6 p.m.
Reception & Live Auction
November 8
2 p.m. - Reception begins
3 p.m. - Live auction begins
Silent Auction
Ends approximately 30 minutes after close of live auction
AAU Galleries at The Cannery
2801 Leavenworth St
San Francisco, CA 94109
Benefitting Academy of Art University's Student Scholarship Fund.
Live Auction Registration Form
Absentee Form


text:
I am rarely, if ever, active here. But I do return from time to time to talk about a very special tea I've come across.
You can hear the music I compose here:
I have a chapter in this book of popular philosophy
I blog about cooking here https://dungeonsandkitchens.wordpress.com
I blog about composing music and gardening here
Houston, TX


text:
By JOHN SERFUSTINISun Advocate associate editor
Miss Carbon County Kristen Kulow has taken on an ambitious platform for her reign this year.
She told the County Commission Wednesday that she wants to embark on a program to build self-esteem in young girls across the county.
Kulow thinks the curriculum should begin as early as Kindergarten and then should adapt to different age groups. She's still working on the specifics of what the progam will entail. However, she's convinced it is something worth doing.
"I think that if we can bring up independent, confident young women, it will affect the boys as well," she told commissioners.


text:
Join Now ! - Our 164th Oracle Solaris Admin training starts Aug 26th.
Call 416-489-8946 (UWIN) or email at firstname.lastname@example.com. Visit www.uwinpro.com for more details
Beatriz Armendariz I am new to this forum. I'm looking forward to meeting new people and interacting a lot within the community. Really informative forum and I am thanking admin for allow me to post on this forum.
best regards,
Beatriz Armendariz
Forum Rules


text:
Main Content
This item ships within one business day.
$4.99 flat rate shipping. See other shipping options.
The OG Army jacket from LRG features an allover camo print, a contrast rib-knit drawstring hood, two front pockets and an LRG patch at the back hem. Also featuring adjustable cuffs and custom LRG buttons, this full button hooded jacket will definitely bring attention to your severe sense of style.
- 100% Cotton fabric
- Adjustable button cuffs
- Contrast rib-knit hood with drawstring
- Custom LRG buttons
- Full button jacket
- Imported
- LRG patch at back hem
- Two front pockets with button closure
Other Customers also liked:
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are received in our warehouse.
Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items are not available for international or expedited shipping.
Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.


text:
Soccer Time
Warwick's youth soccer programs both got their fall recreation seasons underway on Saturday. Warwick Soccer Association hosted a full day of games at Belmont Park while Warwick Fire Fighters Soccer was on the field at Winslow Park with games in several age groups. (Warwick Beacon photos by Leo van Dijk / rhodyphoto.com and Mike Zawistoski / MZ Sports Shots @ efotolab.com)
Post a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Click here to log in.