Tiger337

I don't think it's possible to prove that the earth just sprung up naturally. This notion that this beautiful and scientific earth just happened by accident without any help fron an intelligent creator seems just as bold as assuming that there was some sort of creator with a plan. I am definitely more science based than faith based and I don't think anyone truely knows why we are here, but I don't think the motion of a planned creation is outrageous.

Correct, the null hypothesis was that the universe revolved around the earth which was a perfectly reasonable assumption and science rejected that.

Right, the null hypothesis was that it was flat which is perfectable reasonable given the knowledge at the time. This null hyposthesis was rejected by science.

Your average agnostic probably would. Not sure about the average atheist. I mean right off the bat, they are rejecting the notion of the existence of a god. They have no evidence that a god does not exist. I certainly understand the idea of starting with the null hypothesis, but when the majority of the world believes in a god, doesn't that become the null?

I am referring to anyone that goes through life not questioning!

Do you think that religious people never question their beliefs?

That may be true to an extent, but new religions would spring up in their place for similar reasons why the traditional religions were created. I think most people have a natural curiousity which makes them wonder about the origins and meaning of life. Not everybody goes through not questioning why we are here

Expos All-stars (Players who started with Expos or first became good with Expos): C Gary Carter 1B Andres Galaraga 2B Jose Vidro SS Orlando Cabrera 3B Tim Wallach LF Andre Dawson CF Tim Raines RF Larry Walker PH Vladimir Guerrero SP Pedro Martinez SP Randy Johnson SP Steve Rigers

I saw "potential destination" which could mean anything. It sounds like BS. It's hard to imagine the Tigers signing him. I surely wouldn't mind if they got him, but he is really frustrating to watch despite the good results some years. I watched him a lot the last couple of years because he was on my fantasy team and he seems to go on a 3-ball count to every batter. I could see him coming to the Tigers and them trying to get him to control the strike zone. It may or may not work, but he doesn't seem like the type with whom they would have success.

I always think of Dawson as an Expo.

One could also decide to be an asshole.

I don't know if that was the original intent of capitalism, but I am convinced that is the end result. Not all companies think that way, but I think the big corporations do.

The idea that everything in the Bible is correct when there is so little proof takes an incredible amount of faith. I can not accept that without evidence and it stuns how many people accept it so easily. However, the idea that there is no reason for our existence is really depressing to me. One can say "Why should we even bother to try to do anything with our lives if God controls everything?" On the other hand, why should we try to do aything with our lives if our existence is meaningless? The latter seems more dangerous to me. I am most comfortable in my belief that people all over the world are connected in some way and that we should be kind to and respectful of one another and try to make the world a better place for all. That takes a lot of faith in itself, and I don't know how we became connected nor think it's possible for me to know without some kind of revelation. It's just my way of making sense of everything.

I believe that all things are possible and that some things are unknowable. I am an agnostic.

yes, it's a separate issue.

I don't know, but a 100-loss season should be a rare event for any respectable franchise. It should only be the result of everything just going wrong for a season. It shouldn't be because teams didn't try to put together a decent roster.

You can't compare playoff appearances and new champions before and after the start of the draft because they didn't have playoffs prior to the draft. They just took the winner in each league and had a World Series. As for you other point, I think all teams should try to be competitive every year. Constant tear downs and re-building are not good for the game. I don't even think they are more effective for individual teams long-term.

I think they don't mind too much if people park there. What they don't like is some of you guys peeing in the parking lot after the party.

Did you send out the Rule V invitations yet or do we just show up?

That would be better, but if the goal is to have a competitive league, there shouldn't be 4 100+ win teams and 4 100+ loss teams.

What measure would you use?

Is there evidence that baseball is now more competitive than it was before? Has the variance of win totals decreased for example? I don't care if the owners make money or not, but they fall all over themselves spending hundreds of millions on free agents. Good thing they suppressed the salaries of the younger players with the draft.

Has the distribution of talent objectively changed? There is still a huge difference between the haves and have nots each year. Every year, a bunch of teams loses more than 100 games. They've got almost half the teams in the playoffs every year and a quarter of the teams are still done by the all-star break. The drama off the MLB draft is mostly fabricated because it usually takes years for the players to make it, if they make it all. It's not like the NBA and NFL. MLB is raking in the dough though, so it's all good.

He doesn't seem like a Scott Harris type. Too many walks.