Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - coachsparky

Pages: 1 ... 369 370 [371] 372 373
5551
Coaching and Technique /
« on: February 04, 2009, 04:32:06 PM »
Quote from: "drmuscle"
Quote from: "coachsparky"
Quote from: "drmuscle"
What is the neutral positioning you like to see a wrestler work from, and why?
I coach my wrestlers to be prepared to have one offensive setup from every tie-up position and not to linger in a tie-up for longer than 5 seconds.  If your move is not there, clear out and start over.  Most start with the collar tie to a slide by.  If that is not there they move to the underhook.  My younger son prefers to go to the russian prior to an underhook.  I pefer my kids get comfortable with short offense and take those long offense guys out of their game by tying up.
Define short offence , and long please.
Short offense, working from contact.  Long offense shots from distance.

5552
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 04:30:40 PM »
Quote from: "ViseGrip"
The far Left's loonyists expose their hatred.




Note this guy's hat. He may be acadia's dad




Anarchists UNITE!




I thought the left was anti-war?
Umm actually those are all conservative, liberals do not support war.

5553
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 04:29:18 PM »
Quote from: "ViseGrip"
Quote from: "Intensity guru"
Sparky is a socialist libertarian remember?
Truly a party of one.
No, there are actually a lot of liberal libertians.

5554
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 04:28:32 PM »
Quote from: "Jimmy the Gent"
Quote from: "coachsparky"
Quote from: "ViseGrip"
Quote from: "Viratas"
Now thats not nice :D
WHATS not nice? :huh:

Mules have MANY fine qualities. And he IS a Democrat isnt he!
No, I am not a Democrat Tight_Waist, how many time do you have to be told I am an independent, never have and absolutely never will register for a political party.  I would rather slit my wrist then register for a political party.
there must be something wrong with your computer. we can see pictures.

p.s. what a laugh sparky an independent.  this is a  49-yr-old guy who has never voted for a republican for president yet insists on glossing himself an independent.  For whatever reasons that probably helps you sleep at night, but rest assured mister sparky, you are the dictionary-definition of a far-left liberal, off the reservation so to speak, if you ask me!
Oh absolutely a far left liberal and extremely proud of it, as I am carrying on the tradition of our founding fathers.  Patriots to the core.  I am not however, nor have I ever been a Democrat.

5555
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 03:59:56 PM »
Quote from: "Jimmy the Gent"
you need to get an avatar picture for yourself!  None is better than mine, but i'm sure you can come up with something halfway decent
Yours, just as mine shows up as a what square.  I guess they are pretty close to equal.

5556
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 03:59:04 PM »
Quote from: "ViseGrip"
Quote from: "Viratas"
Now thats not nice :D
WHATS not nice? :huh:

Mules have MANY fine qualities. And he IS a Democrat isnt he!
No, I am not a Democrat Tight_Waist, how many time do you have to be told I am an independent, never have and absolutely never will register for a political party.  I would rather slit my wrist then register for a political party.

5557
Coaching and Technique /
« on: February 04, 2009, 02:24:46 PM »
Quote from: "drmuscle"
What is the neutral positioning you like to see a wrestler work from, and why?
I coach my wrestlers to be prepared to have one offensive setup from every tie-up position and not to linger in a tie-up for longer than 5 seconds.  If your move is not there, clear out and start over.  Most start with the collar tie to a slide by.  If that is not there they move to the underhook.  My younger son prefers to go to the russian prior to an underhook.  I pefer my kids get comfortable with short offense and take those long offense guys out of their game by tying up.

5558
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 12:57:38 PM »
Quote from: "ctc"
Quote from: "Jimmy the Gent"
no shit.  if any of those giants were real, it would be on the cover of every magazine and leading every single news program.

it is hard to believe that there are people like CTC out there that are this unbelievably stupid
Hey Jimmy, check out the 2 links I provided.  Hopefully you are bright enough to research for yourself and to let the evidence speak for itself.
He did enough research to know that you are unbelievably stupid, so I think he knows well enough.

5559
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 12:45:52 PM »
Quote from: "Viratas"
Sparky do you like the avatar or do I need to change it?
All I see on the screen is a white square.  Same thing for Jimmy's avatar.

5560
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 12:39:33 PM »
Quote from: "ctc"
Well follow these facts

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgsAUgCZPBo
Woweee, someone has never heard of Photoshop!  The gullibility of the wannabees is amazing sometimes.

5561
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 11:57:52 AM »
Quote from: "ctc"
Quote from: "coachsparky"
Quote from: "ctc"
No there were not. Simple answer for a simple minded question.

sparky, you dope.  Where did all those giant (8 foot to 12 foot) human fossils come from?
From your imagination.  There is no such thing.  What a fool.  I love the laughs you give me with your act ctc.  Darrel and his other brother Darrel have nothing on you.
So you deny that those are human fossils.  You are quite the trip.   :lol:
No science does, I deny nothing, I just follow the facts.

5562
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 11:57:14 AM »
Quote from: "Jimmy the Gent"
Quote from: "drmuscle"
Funny you say that, being as the science community touted this work as epic, and only after the math was applied to to data to map the rate of change as non linear, and it was shown to support the creationist position, was it opposed.

Like I said tell me where the math is wrong.
PWND!!
See where I actually pwned him in my next post you fool.  Good to see you bring your ignorance over here.  Welcomed to the board.  Pretty soon all the ducks will come over so I can pluck them.  I am having great fun providing playing with you guys.  Ignorance can provide such entertainment for the more intelligent among us as long as we realize that you are harmless.  And trust me, I know you ignorant right wing religious whackos actually are no threat, because humans are becoming more intelligent, not dumber so you guys are an endangered species.

5563
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 11:53:37 AM »
Quote from: "ctc"
No there were not. Simple answer for a simple minded question.

sparky, you dope.  Where did all those giant (8 foot to 12 foot) human fossils come from?
From your imagination.  There is no such thing.  What a fool.  I love the laughs you give me with your act ctc.  Darrel and his other brother Darrel have nothing on you.

5564
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 11:51:59 AM »
Quote from: "drmuscle"
Funny you say that, being as the science community touted this work as epic, and only after the math was applied to to data to map the rate of change as non linear, and it was shown to support the creationist position, was it opposed.

Like I said tell me where the math is wrong.
Ask and you shall recieve:

The initial hint of trouble in Setterfield's work is found in his very first article, from which the quote above is extracted. In addition to Setterfield's reference to "an act of creation only 6-7000 years ago," he states that one of his goals is to reconcile "the observational problems of astronomy and Genesis creation ...". Setterfield's religious motivation is now clear, and if his revised figure for the age of the universe just happens to match the now-discredited chronology of Bishop Ussher (about 6,000 years), it would probably not be a coincidence.

As Setterfield states, "The basic postulate of this article is that light has slowed down exponentially since the time of creation," making it clear that he intends to show not only a decay in the value of c, but an exponential decay.

After supplying all of 41 selected data points representing measurements of c since 1675, Setterfield claims to have found the one and only curve that adequately fits these particular points and that must represent the behavior of the value of c. In Setterfield's precise words (words that will come back to haunt him), "There was only one curve tried which fitted the data points exactly and reproduced all of the observed features. Its general form is a log sine curve, with a logarithmic vertical axis...". Note Setterfield's insistence on a unique curve to explain the data, and the fact that this curve reproduced all of the "observed" features; these claims become of major import later.

With his "unique" solution for the curve-fitting problem in hand, Setterfield concludes that the date of origin equals that at which the value of c, as represented by the curve, goes to infinity. To no one's surprise, this date is given as "4040 B.C. +/- 20 years... the time of creation/fall." It is here that Setterfield's case descends into absurdities.

Realizing that a simple way to check his work would be to analyze the value of c during the last 20 or 30 years (when highly accurate values became available), Setterfield introduces "the cutoff date beyond which there is a zero rate of change," and confidently states that, "From these observations it would seem that beyond 1960 the speed of light had reached its minimum value and was constant thereafter," thereby denying anyone the chance to perform their own modern, more accurate measurements.

In order to justify such a convenient property for his unique curve, and knowing full well the objections such a claim would produce, Setterfield says, "This conclusion raises the obvious difficulty as to how one verifies a process which has occurred in the past but is not occurring in the present. To answer this, we would point out that the curve is solely dependent on actual observations ...," again emphasizing the dependence on observed values, and observed values alone.

The above rather questionable mathematical machinations are almost acceptable, in view of Setterfield's next unbelievable act. Having used some rather dubious analysis to determine the "unique" curve that must fit the data, Setterfield then describes the curve as "virtually asymptotic, but a very good estimate of the actual initial value is given by the curve at one to one and a half days from its origin."

What Setterfield has done here is to decide that the value of c does not follow his "virtually asymptotic" curve all the way back to infinity at the time of creation, but that it levels off at T-plus-one-day or so, for no apparent reason and in blatant violation of his insistence on "observed values." But Setterfield is not finished yet.

He then proposes that this value does not just remain constant from time zero for the first day and a half until it encounters his magic curve, but stays fixed for several days thereafter, extending past the curve. As justification for this proposal, Setterfield abandons science entirely and descends fully into Christian apologetics, stating, "I will assume that this value held from the time of creation until the time of the fall, as in my opinion the Creator would not have allowed it to decay during His initial work." Given Setterfield's hypothesis that the speed of light begins significantly below the curve, then extends beyond and above the curve, one wonders what the purpose of the curve is in the first place.

The question of why Setterfield is so anxious to mutilate his solution as described above is answered in the next paragraph, "Integration over the curve shows that the initial problem of light travelling millions of light years in only 6000 years, is solved ... The total distance travelled ... would be about 12 x 109 light years." Again in violation of his insistence on satisfying only the observed values, Setterfield now requires that the area under the curve represent an approximation to the commonly-accepted age of the universe, another contrived property that he will later use to reject alternate curves that fit his particular data at least as well as his own solution.

5565
Off-Topic /
« on: February 04, 2009, 11:27:47 AM »
Quote from: "ctc"
Quote from: "ctc"
Quote from: "AKHvywght"
Quote from: "ctc"
There were many different factors involved.  Less desease, less gene mutations, more oxygen, less radiation, greater magnetic field.  We have fossils today of dragonflies 3 feet accross wingspan and human skeltons 12 feet tall.  Things were definately different then.

I hope you aren't a teacher....
Are you doubting my above claim?  Just address the facts, we can talk about your favorite cartoons on a different thread.
Well, were there giants or not?

<a href='http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm[/url]
No there were not.  Simple answer for a simple minded question.

Pages: 1 ... 369 370 [371] 372 373