School Not Allowing a Woman Official

[Bearfanmike20]

Originally Posted by fullor30

You need to talk to other officials, there are some great guys and terrific officials in that group.

Sounds like sour grapes from someone.

I'm glad to hear a different opinion.

That is the reason I didn't elaborate on the name.. cause my info was second hand.

The individual (s) that I go the info from were once members and said they quit because they recomended an official and were told that this ref was not allowd due to ethnicity.

As I said it was many years ago too..

Its posible it could have been true, and things have changed since then as well.

I hold no grudge against said Organization. I like to form my opinions on my own.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Bearfanmike20

They were really cross dressing priests??...

Most priests do wear a cross. What's your point?

[Bearfanmike20]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Most priests do wear a cross. What's your point?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

As I suspected, your statement is a gross over-simplification of a very rudimentary summary of a quite complicated theory that is just beginning to be posited.

References??? Please????

[loners4me]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I got news for everybody. All Americans, of all colors, are African Americans. In fact every Homo Sapien on Earth is of African descent. The oldest human fossils on Earth come from what is now known as the rift region of eastern Africa, centered around what is now known as Kenya.

Even more astonding, every single human on Earth has descended from one female, that lived around 150-250 thousand years ago. Unlike the regular DNA in our body cells that comes from both of our parents, mitochondrial DNA only comes from the mother. By studing mitochondrial DNA, scientists have determined that all humans have decended from a one female that lived in what is now Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago.

As a Roman Catholic , I disagree with this entire statement. This is someones opinion, not FACT

[Bearfanmike20]

Originally Posted by loners4me

As a Roman Catholic , I disagree with this entire statement. This is someones opinion, not FACT

Technically speaking if you want to be consistent then both of you are expressing opinion. NOT FACT.

I mean after all you cant have it both ways.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by loners4me

As a Roman Catholic , I disagree with this entire statement. This is someones opinion, not FACT

Which part or parts does the RC Church dispute? As far as I know the Vatican is quite happy with leaving science to the scientists, which was a big lesson learned for them out of the Galileo dust-up.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

As I suspected, your statement is a gross over-simplification of a very rudimentary summary of a quite complicated theory that is just beginning to be posited. Not the sort of thing that should be quoted as established fact.

Juulie:

I don't know, the articles in the website that Billy Mac referenced sounded like a concise explaination to me. Afterall the theory of evolution is an accepted scientific fact, just like the theories of gravity, special relativity, and general relativity to name a few.

MTD, Sr.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Juulie:

I don't know, the articles in the website that Billy Mac referenced sounded like a concise explaination to me. Afterall the theory of evolution is an accepted scientific fact, just like the theories of gravity, special relativity, and general relativity to name a few.

MTD, Sr.

The theories of evolution are myriad, some conflicting. There are angles, aspects, exceptions, complications, and other varieties. The whole area of mitochondrial DNA and female lineage is wide-ranging and very open ended right now. Billy Mac's "summary" is just quite over-simplified.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

The theories of evolution are myriad, some conflicting. There are angles, aspects, exceptions, complications, and other varieties. The whole area of mitochondrial DNA and female lineage is wide-ranging and very open ended right now. Billy Mac's "summary" is just quite over-simplified.

First, let me say that I am astounded that you missed Billy's mispelling in his post.

Secondly, I continue to be astounded by the lengths some people will go to discredit the ideas of what we commonly call evolution. That we evolved over time from some other physical form is a widely accepted theory based on overwhelming evidence. For you to say evolution is in dispute is like saying the theory of gravity is in dispute. In fact both theories still advance and both are subject to refinements. It is those refinements that may or may not be open to argument.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

First, let me say that I am astounded that you missed Billy's mispelling in his post.

Secondly, I continue to be astounded by the lengths some people will go to discredit the ideas of what we commonly call evolution. That we evolved over time from some other physical form is a widely accepted theory based on overwhelming evidence. For you to say evolution is in dispute is like saying the theory of gravity is in dispute. In fact both theories still advance and both are subject to refinements. It is those refinements that may or may not be open to argument.

Where did I say that I thought the theories of evolution were in question?

[ref2coach]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

That we evolved over time from some other physical form is a widely accepted theory based on overwhelming evidence. For you to say evolution is in dispute is like saying the theory of gravity is in dispute.

Dan, you need to go back to your research. There is factual evidence for Intra-species evolution, ie a dog evolving to be a better runner etc. BUT their is NO "evidence" of Inter-species evolution, an amoeba becoming fish becoming a reptile becoming a mammal becoming a human. The "missing links" have never been found. The commonly accepted "Theory of evolution", Inter-species evolution, is a hypothesis with NO proof. Gravity on the other hand has no troublesome "floating (missing link) rocks".

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Afterall the theory of evolution is an accepted scientific fact.

Thanks for your support, but it's not a fact. Evolution may be a fact, but the process of evolution, or as you stated "the theory of evolution", is a theory.

The way science works is that scientists come up with a hypothesis, or an "educated guess", or what some non scienctists would call opinions, and then subject the hypothesis to several steps called the scientific method, which uses research, experiments, analysis of data, replication, etc. to prove, or disprove the hypothesis.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentor...c_method.shtml

Depending on the results of the scientific method, scientists can either disprove the hypothesis, or prove the hypothesis, and if proven, two results are possible, scientific theories, or scientific laws. Theories are genearlly accepted by most scientists, but for some reason, like not having a time machine, are open to change. Laws are accepted by almost all scientists, but like theories, can also be changed when access to new technologies brings new inforamtion to the table.

Evolution is generally accepted as a law. It's been proven, fossil evidence, evolution in viruses, bactera, plant, and animal breeding, etc. The proces of evolution, like natural selection, is a theory, and is open to further scientific study. But don't underestimate the power of a theory, a very large majority of scientists agree with most of the implications of natural selection.

By the way, I'm a devout Roman Catholic, who recently got a cross tattooed on my upper arm. I like to think of my mitochondrial female ancestor as "Eve".

Also, "I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night".