K-9

SCHWING! Gotta love this kid and how he plays the game. GO SABRES!!!

It isn't the network exec that decides it. It's the advertisers that decide it for him. Like it or not skating, like gymnastics, generates the highest ratings via the large female audience those events generate. GO BILLS!!!

You speak as though humans are some external force on "mother nature." As if we are on the outside of nature looking in. We, like every other thing in it, are part of the process. It's really no more complicated than that.

This had me rolling. Thanks for the guffaw, fellas. GO SABRES!!!

Indeed, it's the reality. That's what I'm suggesting needs to be changed. I don't buy the competitive balance argument that some leagues may profer. As stated previously, we're talking a very finite number of players here to begin with. If losing a few Grigorenkos to the the AHL alters the balance of any league, that league has far bigger issues than allowing teens to play in the AHL. GO SABRES!!!

Toys or tools? GO SABRES!!!

That's the truth. It's also beside the point. Every available developmental league should be made available to every prospect at any given time. Prospects will sink or swim as their talents allow. Why this is a rule for players in one junior league and not others just underscores the absurdity of it. GO SABRES!!!

He's just trolling. That and he's pissed that his favorite goalie can't even make an Olympic team, let alone be named MVP in an Olympic tournament. GO SABRES!!!

Nobody should get screwed. Especially when there's no reason for anyone to get screwed. GO SABRES!!!

I'd certainly welcome that as a start but kids still shouldn't be limited by a quota. If their talent has outgrown their current level of competition, they should have further developmental options available. GO SABRES!!!

If AHL vets lose their jobs to teenagers, it's just a matter of time anyway. Better to develop the younger guys than prolong the inevitable. Bottom line is the rule does nothing to serve the interests of developing players when they've outgrown juniors. GO SABRES!!!

Gotta be one of the worst and most hypocritical rules in all of sports. GO SABRES!!!

Sweet sassy molassy!

Very weak on his twizzles, though.

Thanks for taking the time to do that. Pretty sure that's the guy I was thinking about. Amazing how close he was. I think there was a famous Muslim mathematician in the middle ages that got it even closer, IIRC.

I acknowledge the existence of God. I don't for a second accept the Book of Genesis as literal fact. And I see absolutely no contradiction. Quite the opposite in fact.

Natural science has plenty of answers when it comes to refuting Creationist dogma already. That is not trashing anybody. That is just accepting the facts. While science is far far far from having even most of the answers (every answer begs a new question), when it comes to establishing the age of the earth, fossil records, and evolution, science pretty much nails it so far in terms of refuting the Creationist argument. Again, that is not a rejection of God nor a judgement of somebody's philosophy. It's merely not accepting being told it's raining when somebody seeks to pee on the back of my leg.

Then we've come full circle because there is no debate. Which is why Nye never should have agreed to meet Ham in the first place. He inadvertently legitimizes the Creationist viewpoint as science merely by stepping into the arena. Accepting Creationism from the King James bible as literal fact, is embracing ignorance in the purest form. It puts us back in the dark ages, before enlightenment. Then there's the question of who's version of creationism should be taught in the first place. Judeo-Christian versions are merely a drop in the bucket. But that's another discussion for another time.

Is this a personal belief of yours or has there been a shift in paradigm? That's not a knock, it's a legitimate request for additional information on when this became accepted in scientific circles.

He was a reliable tank crew member, though. I mean, we may actually be better without him so I have that concern moving forward. What happens if both Weber and Leino should both go down? What then? Who's gonna man the turret? GO SABRES!!!

Leaniss, we hardly knew ya! GO SABRES!!!

Facts can only be established through the scientific method and all that it entails. That's why I can't buy the concept of "religious science." Knowledge can be gained in many ways, including the study of religion.

Regarding the bold text, with all due respect, I just don't buy that. I literally can't buy that. As to your question, I don't mind at all that you ask it. Here's my belief on that: I think it would be really cool to have the ultimate, definitive answer. But I don't think it would do one damn thing to change human nature. We just aren't emotionally evolved enough. Besides, I don't think knowing where we came from is nearly as important as where we're going. In the meantime, I find it comforting that the universe and everything we have observed of it so far, is made up of the same stuff as all of us. That's a very unifying concept to me. And I thank God for that.

This idea that scientists once thought the earth was flat is based on the myth attributed to Columbus and his crew. Thousands of years before Columbus, ancient mariners understood quite well that the earth was round. This was based on deductive reasoning through the observation of masts that grew longer or shorter as a ship moved across the horizon. Even the most illiterate sailors new the earth was round. I can't remember who the ancient Greek mathematician was, but well before Christ, he derived a formula for calculating the circumference of the earth. Anyway, I think the term "religious science" is an oxymoron. Religion simply cannot be subject to observable, testable, and falsifiable scrutiny.

Mathematical "theory" states that 1 plus 1 equals 2. Scientific theory is based on facts, observed over time and under the scrutiny of repeated tests. There is no "belief" element involved in the sense you describe. Quite the opposite in fact. If anything, scientific theory demands healthy skepticism until those testable results are compiled and a confirmation of an hypothesis can be established.