Stampler's Spurs-Mavs Preview... Version 2.0!
It's like the original BDL version, only more so!
This is going to be difficult, and even, some might even argue, treasonous of me. You see I hate the Mavericks. I hate every single thing about them. And I don’t mean "hate" like the cliché sports fan version of hate where you merely root for one group of strangers over another group of strangers because of geographical attachments and preferable uniform colors. No, I literally hate the Mavericks.
Like, if their team plane were to crash, I’d probably shake my head sadly for a few seconds, because it’s technically always BAD when a plane crashes, but then I’d drink a Coke and go on with my day. I wouldn’t, like, sit and there and ruminate on it, you know? I would just shrug my shoulders and life would go on.
So, I guess Mr. Nutpuncher couldn't fly after all.
I’m the guy rooting for that one-in-a-million chance that Mark Cuban will actually go serve hard time for insider trading. And that he’ll have a frisky roommate all too eager to show him his idea of "hard time" and "insider trading." (Now that would make for an interesting "Blog Maverick" entry. No, I don't care about your opinion on the iPhone, you asshat.)
I’m the guy who finds Dirk Nowitzki to be the most likable Maverick by far, and I wouldn’t piss on Dirk if he were on fire. The guy’s German after all and for all I know he’d enjoy it.
Das nat ahh-pill jus!
Have I painted a detailed, yet colorful enough picture for you? Is there anyone out there having difficulty understanding where I’m coming from? No? Good. Because you see my friends, despite hating the Mavs with every fabric of my being, I’m afraid I’m gonna have to pick those bastards to "upset" the Spurs in six games. Yeah, I know, I suck. I'm a horrible person. I hope I get this wrong, honestly.
But the facts remain that the Mavs, those stupid, ugly, dirty, foul-mouthed, devil-worshiping, gun-running, heroin-trafficking, Ozone-ruining, wife-beating, animal-abusing, child-pornography viewing, non-recycling, Grisham-reading, drunk-driving, seal-clubbing, Holocaust-denying, binge-eating, Taliban-supporting, ESPN-viewing, GOP-voting, puppy-murdering, Christian rock-listening, reality television-loving, Jagermeister drinking* Mavs are relatively healthy while my Spurs are without the services of one Emanuel David Ginóbili, our talisman, fourth quarter savior and resident force of nature.
While Ginóbili has spent most of this season in a jacket, delighting crowds with his comic timing and romantic flair, he’s generally been more valuable in the past as a postseason assassin. In losing him the Spurs are missing their only penetrator besides Parker, their peskiest defensive playmaker, their most clutch free throw shooter and just a guy who manages to make the momentum turning play more often than not. We at PtR would contemplate sacrificing a carnal evening with Mila Kunis for a healthy Manu Ginóbili (in the end we’d still probably opt for the former, but at least we’d have contemplated it).
Here's the reality of it: Due to Manu's stress fracture, we are in the unenviable positiion of having to depend on mediocrities like Roger Mason Jr. and Michael Finley (FOR GOD SAKES MICHAEL FREAKIN' FINLEY) for much-needed clutchness. Does that sound like a recipe for success to you? Pop has abandoned George Hill, who for my money is no worst than our third best bench player (behind Kurt Thomas and Drew Gooden) in favor of Ime Udoka, who is a decent wing rebounder and beyond awful in every other facet of the game. He's kinda-sorta hinted that Bowen might have a place as the ninth guy in the rotation, but only because Manu's hurt.
Pop's lost his fastball, and how anyone can argue otherwise at this point is beyond me. Exhibit A, as always, is his open contempt for anyone under 30. Exhibit B is his love affair for Finley, who never has done anything to deserve it. Exhibit C is his new-found appreciation of Udoka, who's just as bad as Fin. Exhibit D is his backup point guard bungling. He loves Hill he says, rookie's not phased by anything, very mature, and he knows how to go to the basket. But he yanks Hill and goes with Mason anyway, even though he doesn't know how to get to the basket. Mason's turnovers go up and his shooting percentage goes down. Pop says he's very pleased with Mason's play, and then the next game tries Jacque Vaughn, FSM help us. A few games of the JV and it's back to Mason. Then Pop admits that the plan all along was to have Manu be the de-facto backup PG. Scratch that, it's Mace again.
Ugh.
If the Spurs win this series it will be strictly because of the brilliance of Tim and Tony and not anything Pop does. I firmly believe this. At this point he's become a caricature.
I have no idea how Tim will hold up in this series. The rest between games should help, but I'm guessing the Mavs will bang him around a bit to test those knees. I don't think he's magically healed all of a sudden and his fourth quarter against the Blazers is still relatively fresh in my mind. I know the playoffs will get his adrenaline flowing, but the Mavs have some size and athleticism to throw at him.
The key to this series will be our second big on the floor, whether it's Bonner, Thomas or Gooden. They all have differning strengths and weaknesses. Bonner can stretch the floor, but he's been terrible ever since Gooden came aboard, doesn't rebound well and is a marginal defender, at best. Thomas can board, but his offensive game is limited and he's not quite agile enough laterally to keep up with Dirk. Gooden is a post-up threat and okay rebounder, but his pick-and-roll defense is reminiscent of a young Shaq. Or the current one.
I think what I'm trying to say is that Nowitzki will be a tough match-up for us.
Sure, we have some advantages. They've got nobody who can guard Tony. Tim has to be doubled or he'll hurt them inside. We've got home court. Dallas is not, let's say, the mentally toughest team out there.
But I just can't see this Spurs team winning a playoff game on the road. Sorry. And winning all four at home, with no slip-ups, is a bit unrealistic.
To me, it's a win-win scenario. If we lose, then Duncan has most of the spring and summer to rest and heal up. Parker can take a breath before his pressing international commitments. And most of all it will be a wake up call to the organization - and to Pop - that the team needs to get younger, faster and springier. I know it's become fashionable to trot out Manu and Tony as arguments that Pop isn't averse to relying on youth, but people forget that back then he almost had no choice. The first championship came in '99 and in the ensuing years the team got old and stale. Their wings and point guards couldn't penetrate or keep up with Kobe. The team just couldn't score enough, period. Pop took a chance on Tony in '02 and Manu in '03, but even after winning a second title, wasn't sold on either, preferring Jason Kidd to both. His defensiveness about the topic and assertion that the team would've still tried to keep Tony and Manu, even with Kidd on board, is so much bunk. We know how the team operates with the cap by now. If Pop got his way those guys would've gone on to become superstars elsewhere and we'd be stuck on two 'chips.
Suppose Pop had the four titles on his resume but he had the '09 version of Terry Porter as his starting point guard, someone like Mike Bibby. Suppose he has the '09 version of Steve Smith as his shooting guard (oh wait, he does). Now suppose he has two rookies, an 18-year old Tony Parker and a 24-year old Manu Ginobili on his bench. You think Mr. Four Trophies plays those guys now? Ha.
Smirk it up, you Smirkasaurus Rex
After Tony's second travel and third brick he'd be benched, below Vaughn on the point guard depth chart. And I don't want to even imagine what would become of young Manu after he tried a crazy wrap-around pass or one of his rookie steal gambles goes awry.
Pop has forgotten what has made him successful. Only losing can remind him. And if it turns out that the formula all along wasn't age or youth, but simply the once-in-a-genaration triumverate of Tim, Manu, and Tony, well then it would mean that Pop was never that important in the first place, right?
HOWEVUH, if we do win, if the pathetic Mavs can’t even get by an ancient, Manu-less Spurs with a gimpy Tim Duncan, then maybe my hatred of them is pointless after all and the rivalry’s already a thing of the past. Beating Cuban and co. would be pretty sweet, regardless of the circumstances. It'd be a nice memory to keep from a lost season where Murphy's Law has been the prevailing theme. And if you local yokels are stoked about Cubes diving into your tourist attraction, hey great, more power to ya.
* Okay I made that up. The Mavs prefer Goldschlager. Jagermeister just sounded more diabolically evil.
136 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Denver fan here
Normally, I can’t stand the Spurs. But then there’s the Mavericks. Before I get run out of here for being a Nugs fan…
I think the Spurs will win. Sure, they aren’t playing great right now and everything’s stacked against them. But tell me I’m not alone in thinking that Tony Parker will get absolutely murderous on Jason Kidd. When JJ Barea comes in will be even worse. What’s his career high anyway?
Anyways, new Mavs coach who didn’t come straight out of Pop’s system. Huge Texas rivalry and SA with home court. Of course Duncan has to anchor the team for whole series and I think he can do it. Spurs in 5 no joke.
i also say spurs in 5. i firmly believe tht the spurs have the easiest first round match up in the west.
see you in round two, if the nugs dont get stung, that is………
I should edit the shit out of this. It was clearly stated that there will be no bagging on Michael Finley on this blog ever again. BANNED!!!
We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on Apr 17, 2009 8:02 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Just don’t take away our ability to make fun of the JV!
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson
If The JV makes the game winner in a game 7, then I will take that away too.
We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on Apr 17, 2009 8:14 PM CDT up reply actions
if the JV plays in a game 7, Pop should be fired.
"Like feel or follow or fuck" she said...
by Aaronstampler on Apr 17, 2009 8:15 PM CDT up reply actions
I never agreed to that. However, we can work a compromise. I’ll promise to not bag on Fin anymore if I’m allowed to talk about women, sex, and show pics of girls in bikinis. I’d turn Fin into goddamn Michael Jordan if you want.
"Like feel or follow or fuck" she said...
by Aaronstampler on Apr 17, 2009 8:14 PM CDT up reply actions
Would you settle for a picture of Finley in a thong?
We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on Apr 17, 2009 8:15 PM CDT up reply actions
how you would have such a thing in your possession concerns me.
"Like feel or follow or fuck" she said...
by Aaronstampler on Apr 17, 2009 8:16 PM CDT up reply actions
Oh, please. You totally already got yours in. Your pressing International commitments link fools no one, mister man.
Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed. - CMoney
huh?
"Like feel or follow or fuck" she said...
by Aaronstampler on Apr 17, 2009 9:28 PM CDT up reply actions
who? what? Me… little innocent stampizzle?
Ha… you crack me up.
By the way, brilliant article. I think you’re totally wrong – but brilliantly written non the less.
Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed. - CMoney
no seriously, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
"Like feel or follow or fuck" she said...
by Aaronstampler on Apr 17, 2009 10:19 PM CDT up reply actions
Now, I’m confused. Don’t know what you guys are talking about either.
Of course, The Cure just came on “Jumping Someone Else’s Train”.
We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on Apr 17, 2009 10:26 PM CDT up reply actions
damn that’s a good song!
i saw them live at Radio City last year. the most “badassery” display of a concert. 3 hours of music. huurah
I’m jealous.
"Like feel or follow or fuck" she said...
by Aaronstampler on Apr 18, 2009 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions
oh, that. I can’t control other people’s sigs. I’m not that diabolical. I don’t even know who that chick is.
"Like feel or follow or fuck" she said...
by Aaronstampler on Apr 18, 2009 3:14 AM CDT up reply actions
Losing = good? Does. Not. Compute. Sorry.
Every coach has eccentricities. Pop’s one of the top 3 coaches in this league. You’d hate just about any possible replacement, with a passion. Having Manu play as PG was an obvious choice, and it would’ve freed Mason. Hill wasn’t nearly as effective as he was during the start of the season when Mason started playing backup PG – we were all talking about the “rookie wall”. Hill isn’t Tony. Manu and Tony would still have eventually made the rotation, because they are Manu and Tony. Finley has done stuff for us.
But yes, he’s crazy not to use Hill more, at least as a lockdown defender option. He would be great for the Pauls of this world.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
Oh, and losing wouldn’t change Pop’s mind about anything.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
+1 to both of these LD posts. its batshit crazy to think that pop is anything but top 3 in the association. i’d argue that he’s at the top of the heap.
i long for the day when georgie hill gts the starting nod in the bruce bowen role as defender. bruce needs to teach him that kick-out move under the jump shooter……
i’m not going to be quite as negative as Stampy, mostly because i’m too much of an idiot er hopeful to believe that this team can get to the WCF (even though we’d be swept there so i don’t know why i’m hoping for that) but in all seriousness i can’t see the logic in what Pop’s doing. You know he is one of the best and even though he’s had the best threesome in the league these last 5 years he still figured out the system, how to play them together, surround them with some ok talent (at times), and have a team mentality with no egos. The guy is a hall of famer and deserves credit. But i have to agree with stamp that some of his decisions this year have been down right idiotic or completely stubborn from becoming old. Mace is the worst backup pg ever. and i do mean ever. I’ve never actually preferred a player to shoot a contested fall away 18 footer over taking the ball to the rim. Good lord even the JV gets by more people than RoMaJu. I know there is no dissing on him but re-signing fin was a mistake (i don’t care how many game winners he’s hit), not playing Hill is a mistake, not playing the Toros guys more is a mistake. Pops mortgaging the last few yrs of Tim’s career on a season that was lost a long time ago. i just don’t get it, and i honestly don’t think there is anything to get
sorry that was so long
oh ya and if losing in the first round shakes things up this summer then i think its worth it, but i sadly do agree with LatinD that losing probably won’t change pop’s mind, which is very very sad. this team needs help in the form of young, athletic, dunking people.
This season was lost when Manu’s injury proved to be season-ending. Not before that.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
Now I’m sounding negative too. I don’t think the season is lost – I was just “fixing” staves’ statement, since he said the season was lost early. I meant that if anyone could consider it so, it was only when Manu was injured.
I think to consider any season where the Spurs present a lineup that includes Tony, Tim and Manu “lost” before you actually lose is preposterous. I thought we all agreed that those guys were our window – you don’t waste a whole year of your window because the opposition is playing better than you midway through the season, or at all. And certainly not to train rookies.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
That’s not to say it wasn’t feasible to fight for the championship and let those rookies grow into the system.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
I’m not making sense? Uh… well, let me add a disclaimer: I know shizats about basketball and couldn’t make a J to save my life.
But I stand by what I said. I think. Probably.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
i here what you are saying and it makes sense. i don’t totally agree but then again i don’t have too. But you are right in saying that you don’t throw away a season when you have those 3 guys playing together, i just have a different idea of how things should have been handled once Manu went out in Feb. But bottom line i really just want them to win every year and its hard to not second guess things when they don’t go perfectly
Yeah, staves, I know what you’re saying too. I just don’t like giving up. :)
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
i think the writing was on the wall when was held out during the rodeo road trip and 2 weeks turned into over a month. All i’m saying is if going up against this Lakers team with less than a 100% Ginobili (which the Spurs knew would be the case in Feb) was the game plan then it was a very weak and naive game plan. I want them to win every year but if they can’t realistically compete then i’d rather waste a year and have it be beneficial for future years (ie resting tim, tony and playing younger guys) then try to make a push with a team that is obvious can’t hang with that Lakers team
That is the most Anti-Spurs attitude I have ever heard. Try telling Manu or Tim “This season doesn’t matter-take it easy” It doesn’t work that way. They are elite competitors for a reason. By your logic the Argentine national team shouldn’t have even played in the 2004 olympics because USA was so heavily favored.
...formerly known as speedostuffer
Resigning Fin was not a mistake. Pop over relies on him when our opponents possess a super star 2 guard but Finley is very reliable, understands the offense and never makes bone head plays that will cost us the game. Who else would you rather have in his place? Harriston because he can dunk? Fresh young players aren’t certain to play well. In fact the opposite is more likely. George Hill is an exceptional rookie and should definitely be backing up Tony. That would cut into Finleys minutes which would be fine but not playing Finley all together is crazy.
...formerly known as speedostuffer
Come on Spurs fans! I mean who here is not still giggling about making a last-second dash into the “2, 3, 6, 7” side of the bracket leaving the Jazz, Rockets, Blazers & Lakers to slug it out for one WCFinals spot?
Besides, nothing is better than watching an exasperated Mark Cuban finally succumb and drop his face into his hands and then wipe away his last shred of hope for the season.
Now I understand subtle understatement and an “aw shucks we could never beat the Mavs” approach to lull them into overconfidence. But dammit don’t let them rob you of your dreams.
In fact here’s a little youtubage to help you realize that all is not lost. It is pretty old school but worth 2:00 min to watch to the end. (Besides if you squint the guy in it looks like Manu. OK maybe squint more.)
PS. I wasn’t around here last year was it always this glum or is this mostly just due to the injuries?
Glum? Where do you get “glum” in Stampler’s post? I don’t see it.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
We used to have Stamplers Ying (Optimism) to offset Matthew Powell’s Yang (Realism).
Now our Ying/Yang is broken.
And he’s really bummed about Manu.
On the other hand, pretty much everyone else is looking at the glass half full around here. Spurs in 6. Go down in flames, you Maverick bastards!
Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed. - CMoney
I have hope because of Tony. The Mavs won’t be able to defend him and mentally they are much more likely to fall apart than us. Besides, I’m one of those always irrationally optimistic fans who then gets depressed for several days, drinks heavily and then shouts “Wait until next year!” Of course, unlike Cubbies fans, the Spurs actually have championships in the last century!
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson
Don’t let the pessimists convince you that your optimism is irrational
...formerly known as speedostuffer
I like being irrational about sports. It’s more fun that way. Besides, in this case I don’t understand everyone’s love affair with the Mavs. I just don’t see them as the superior team.
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson
neither do I. Timmy and Drew are going to do a lot of damage in the post and Tony will have an amazing series. Remember last year when we were concerned with the Suns and we bounced them in 5. Same story here.
...formerly known as speedostuffer
Tony got better this year and our bench is much better than last year’s, even sans Manu. Meanwhile, the Mavs, despite the Jason Kidd addition, got worse in the Western Conference race, became a stale fish, at best. That’s all there is to it, really. Don’t anybody give me that B.S. “peaking at the right time” argument. The Mavs will be in for a shock, just like how the Sunnies thought they liked the match-up with the Spurs and came back crashing down to the depths of Hades.
http://roleplaya.blogspot.com
by silverandblack_davis on Apr 17, 2009 8:53 PM CDT up reply actions
I think the addition of Drew is a huge disadvantage for the Spurs because it means that when he’s in with Tim they can’t hide Dirk. This will prove to be big.
We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on Apr 17, 2009 10:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Wait…. disadvantage for the mavs, you mean? Otherwise, why and how are we hiding Dirk?
"If I was the kind of guy who posted a signature line, this would be it from now on." -SiMA
by SgtinManusArmy on Apr 17, 2009 10:37 PM CDT up reply actions
change disadvantage to advantage.
We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on Apr 18, 2009 10:39 AM CDT up reply actions
You’re my kind of drunk, Cap! Testify, sister.
Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed. - CMoney
But the facts remain that the Mavs, those stupid, ugly, dirty, foul-mouthed, devil-worshiping, gun-running, heroin-trafficking, Ozone-ruining, wife-beating, animal-abusing, child-pornography viewing, non-recycling, Grisham-reading, drunk-driving, seal-clubbing, Holocaust-denying, binge-eating, Taliban-supporting, binge-eating, Jagermeister-drinking*, ESPN-viewing, GOP-voting, puppy-murdering, Christian rock-listening, reality television-loving Mavs are relatively healthy while my Spurs are without the services of one Emanuel David Ginóbili, our talisman, fourth quarter savior and resident force of nature.
I totally love this paragraph. It almost feels dirty having Manu’s name connected to the end of that rant.
Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed. - CMoney
I screwed it up though. Fixed now.
"Like feel or follow or fuck" she said...
by Aaronstampler on Apr 17, 2009 10:21 PM CDT up reply actions
He had binge-eating twice. That’s what I noticed, at least.
We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on Apr 17, 2009 11:15 PM CDT up reply actions
This article is really sick, as someone of German nationality from North Germany I cannot believe your discrimination towards German. This is one of the most offensive things I have ever read. Firstly, I would like to say that I do not enjoy being urinated on and I do not know any German who does. Just because you once saw a German being “pissed” on while you were surfing pornography online does not mean that all Germans enjoy this. Furthermore, I am willing to bet that Dirk Nowitzki does not deny the Holocaust, denial of the Holocaust is not common in Germany, we learn much about it in the school. Denying the Holocaust is actually illegal in Germany and is punishable by going to jail. I would also like to point out that we are not proud of the Holocaust either, most Germans are ashamed of what took place. It is truly wrong of you, even if you are doing it just as fun, to make these assumptions; it can be very offensive to some people.
Aw, c’mon, this has to be candid camera…
If it helps, CPComberg, Stampler is a grammar-nazi.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
You know, if CP was an argentine-german his post would have been LOUDER.
We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on Apr 17, 2009 11:16 PM CDT up reply actions
As someone of German descent, I laughed. Then again, I’m secure enough in myself to do so. Yea, I could take it as an offensive rant… but I’d die a little inside knowing I didn’t have a sense of humor about myself and my heritage.
Please get better for real this time, Manu.
Many of us are of German descent, but we’re not going to feel something like this as deeply as a native German. But for all of us, something as incredibly sobering as the Holocaust should not be a laughing matter. It’s the historical reality in itself which should cause us to “die a little inside.”
I don’t know, I know some Holocaust jokes that always cause a chuckle or two.
I still haven’t found good 9/11 jokes, I know only one and it sucks.
As a rule of thumb, the most recent the tragedy the better the joke has to be. But thankfully I’m surrounded by pretty insensitive people so I haven’t gotten in trouble yet.
My tapeworm tells me what to do.
reading this made me and Manoli laugh out loud for a good five minutes. Thank you. I needed that today.
1. I did not make up the stereotype about you Germans and your fetishes. Don’t blame me, I’m just the messenger. I’m not creative enough to actually make up rumors about nationalities of people. I’m just not. :-(
2. Secondly, if your government goes out of it’s way to make Revisionist statements illegal, then it would seem (correct me if I’m wrong) that more than a couple in your population are inclined to engage in such an unhealthy activity unless authority intervenes. For example, in the U.S. we make it illegal to sleep with people under 18. Why? Because if we didn’t, lotsa people would. Yes, I realize this is a poor analogy, and it’s like comparing apples and oranges. Being a Revisionist is a despicable thing while sleeping with a high school junior, like one on the cheerleading squad or maybe one from an all-girls Catholic school wear they have to wear those plaid uniforms with the skirts and the high socks, well that’s just ten different kinds of awesome.
3. Please do yourself a favor and relax. I bear no ill will towards you or the German people. My last name is of German roots. Plus, I’m Turkish. Not only were we allies in WWI (but not WWII you evil wackos) but we’re like your Mexico. It actually says that on our travel brochures. “Come visit Turkey, we’re Germany’s Mexico.”
All the gardeners, dishwashers, laborers in Germany? Yup, Turks. Plus, a Turkish boy can grow up in Germany, live his whole life in Germany, barely speak a word of Turkish, and if he’s not good enough to be on the German soccer team, he can still suit up for the Turkish one. That’s kinda neat, right?
"Like feel or follow or fuck" she said...
by Aaronstampler on Apr 18, 2009 3:53 AM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, I never got the whole making it a crime to deny the Holocaust thing. It’s a marketplace of ideas, they have to compete on their own, not because of some law. For example creationists are morons but I still support their right to voice their moronic ideas. I’m a little on the fence about making " First!" a misdemeanor though.
Anyway, didn’t Turkey commit a genocide of its own?
My tapeworm tells me what to do.
You can support their right to insult your intelligence so freely because I doubt you really care about it. I mean, you care in the way that we all do: a monstrous thing happened, and it was wrong. Let us not forget so that history doesn’t repeat itself, yadda yadda. But Germans nowadays have to live in a society that still suffers the aftershocks of the flawed Nazi ideology that led them to near destruction – its return is a real threat for them. This is not creationists trying to force a round peg into a square hole.
In fact, I’m sure Stampler’s opinion on the Armenian genocide isn’t as blasé, either. Right, Stampler?
That’s not saying I don’t subscribe to the you-can-joke-about-everything-and-please-remove-the-stick-from-your-derriere way of thinking. If we can’t laugh about death and the depth of the human potential for violence and xenophobia, then what can we do?
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
LD: I really like your first (and second) paragraph here, but doesn’t your third paragraph contradict the first? And how do creationists “try to force a round peg into a square hole?”
Hm. Well, in the first two paragraphs I was talking about Holocaust revisionists, not guys making jokes. I don’t think Stampler really believes that every German denies the existence of the Holocaust – he was just writing an elaborate list of “bad” adjectives, and he actually meant that those denying the Holocaust are to be shunned. Makes sense now?
Maybe the analogy isn’t so good for Creationists? I was just trying to say that they’re defending a theory that simply makes no sense, no matter how much they try to force it to. And it won’t make sense until they stop calling it a “science”. At least that’s what I think, being a huge agnostic and all. Go watch Creation Science 101, by Roy Zimmerman, for my opinion expressed in an articulate and awesome fashion.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
I’m a Christian, so I’m a little biased (ok, a lot biased), but the creation theory does mesh with science on many levels. Do I consider myself a Creationist? No, but I do believe we were created.
Again, I’m biased :)
"You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas." -Davy Crockett
"Give me an army of West Point graduates, and I'll win a battle. Give me a handful of Texas Aggies, and I'll win a war." -Gen. George S. Patton
by spursfan4ever on Apr 18, 2009 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions
Hmmm…I thought your link was going to give me a good idea of what you really believe. Instead, it was just Mr Zimmerman making fun of the Creation story and the Christian worldview. He’s witty, but what he presented lacked substance.
If there is a Creator, then why does Creationism not make sense? A ‘creationist’ is simply a person who believes that the world (and esp. mankind) was designed, and exists for a purpose. Intelligent design (or creation science) simply teaches that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected (random) process such as natural selection."
The Darwinist view (the official view of mainstream science) is opposed to the possibility that the natural world was designed by a Creator for a purpose. Evolutionists believe in naturalistic evolution, a purely materialistic process that has no direction and no conscious purpose.
Natural selection certainly occurs, but no one has evidence that it can accomplish the creative acts that Darwinists claim it can. As an explanation for changes in populations, Darwinism is a verified doctrine. As an explanation of how complex organisms came into existence in the first place, it is just another philosophy.
Darwinian evolution can’t explain the origin of life, so concerning this issue, how can it be any more scientific than Creationism? It can’t.
In the end, what is actually at issue is not the specifics of evolution vs. the specifics of Genesis. Rather, at issue are two worldviews: the claim that life is the product of impersonal forces vs. the claim that life was designed by an intelligent agent.
Well, I try to keep things lighthearted because I consider this a basketball forum, and I wouldn’t want to antagonize other posters. Serious chat tends to devolve (what a fitting term, eh?) into name-calling, even when people have the best ofintentions, and although I doubt that would happen with you, 4him, I still don’t want to risk it in Pounding the Rock. And honestly, I don’t feel strongly enough about this subject to go on and on about it.
Also, I thought you’d at least get a laugh out of Roy’s song. I mean, when he says God put the dinosaurs fossils just to tease us – that’s high comedy right there. :)
I’ll try to answer your questions, regardless, because you wrote such a long and thoughtful post – but I’ll keep it short. If you really want, we can take this to private e-mails.
Basically, I don’t mind the existence of Creationism. Like many I think that everyone’s entitled to their own beliefs, and I don’t care if you’re Catholic, Atheist or Pastafarian. What bothers me is that not everyone lobbying for Creationism is as understanding as you are, and in fact use it to reject or discredit the theory of evolution, one of the most accepted and proved scientific theories in the history of mankind.
What bothers me is that people insist children should be taught Creationism and Evolution as two theories of equal value. Not being able to explain the origin of life isn’t a factor in this discussion, and doesn’t make Evolution any less of a science – theorizing about how evolution happened once the first organism appeared and trying to understand how everything works has nothing to do with that first spark. Evolution is systematic, it’s organized by general principles and based on hypothesis – but most of all, it’s falsifiable. Creationism isn’t.
That shouldn’t be taught in school as “science”, because that would only confuse kids and obscure the concept. If Creationism is taught, then that’d open the door for thousand other theories without a scientific foundation.
That’s my opinion – take it with a grain of salt the size of Texas. This is getting more screen time that my careless comment probably deserves. It’s a basketball forum, and I assure you, 4him, that I meant no offense by it.
So how about ’em Spurs?
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
Thanks for your reply. Once again, if by evolution you mean natural selection, then that certainly happens. But while there is clearly evidence of changes within a given species, there is no evidence of changes from one species to another (birds to mammals, apes to humans, etc.). There are no transitional (intermediate) forms. Darwinists like to make the unwarranted leap from changes within species (micro-evolution) to changes from one species to another (macro-evolution), but it’s an unproven notion. They like to insist that it is a single process instead of facing the scientific evidence. They like to cover up difficulties by using bad philosophy (and using the blanket term ‘evolution’). If our philosophy demands that small changes add up to big ones, then the scientific evidence becomes irrelevant.
Concerning schools: If only natural selection would be taught as a scientific theory, then that would be fine. But when evolution is taught in schools as an origin of life, then Creationism should be given equal time. What is happening in schools today (and it’s been happening for many years) is that students are being force-fed a Darwinian worldview with no competing viewpoint. And when Darwinian evolution is taught, what is implied (if not explicitly stated)? There is no God. Should students be taught only that viewpoint, without even being given the opportunity to hear about Intelligent Design?
The advance of science is not raising new challenges to Christian faith, as we are often told. Rather, it fails to support any naturalistic theory of life’s origin. What it does support is the idea of Intelligent Design.
Okay, enough of that – back to hoops…
I really didn’t want to get into this debate. But to propose that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory is a little beyond the pale, other than not being falsifiable , there’s isn’t a single scientific paper written on Intelligent Design.
There’s no competing viewpoint because no other scientifically based viewpoint exists, that’s why we don’t teach competing viewpoints of the theory of gravity.
Lots of people can live with God and evolution, lots of them believe God created life and then it evolved. But yes, evolution does it make it easier to be an atheist.
Evolution is accepted because it had to fight to be accepted, Darwin collected mountains of evidence to defend his book. Lots of his ideas were wrong, and that was found because of further research that does nothing but add to the evidence of evolution. If Intelligent Design wants to be taken seriously it has to do the same, it can’t just say, oh evolution can’t explain this, therefore the whole theory is wrong. It has to gather facts, publish papers, conduct experiments, predict results, etc.
In courts you can only use facts, and that’s why time and time again Intelligent Design has been struck down by judges both liberal and conservative.
P.S Humans didn’t descend from apes, apes and humans both have a common ancestor. We’re more like cousins.
My tapeworm tells me what to do.
You guys are still talking about this? Come on the Spurs are down
1-0….get your priorities straight!
...formerly known as speedostuffer
The person arguing with you could say the same thing. If one stops, the conversation stops…
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
You opened up a real can of worms here, eh?
There are plenty of scientific papers on Intelligent Design. They are not hard to find, though the Darwinists work hard to keep them from getting out into the marketplace of ideas. As Phillip Johnson says, “As long as Darwinists control the definitions of key terms (such as science), their system is unbeatable, regardless of the evidence.”
To really get into this is beyond the scope of this forum, but I’ll say a few things. Not only are scientists today acknowledging an ultimate beginning, but they are also recognizing that the physical structure of the universe provides clear evidence of purpose and design. They have proposed what is known as the anthropic principle, which states that the physical structure of the universe is exactly what it must be in order to support life. And if the universe exhibits design, it is logical to conclude that there is a Designer. The universe appears to be designed b/c it is designed, and that’s powerful evidence for the Biblical worldview that God created the world.
The computer revolution has put an end to any chance theory of life’s origin. Mathematicians began writing computer programs to simulate all kinds of processes, including evolution itself. They simulated the trial-and-error processes of neo-Darwinian evolution over the equivalent of billions of years. The computers showed that the probability of evolution by chance processes is essentially zero, no matter how long the time scale.
Experiments have failed to support any naturalistic theory of life’s origin. What they do support is the idea of intelligent design. The experiments give positive evidence that life arises only when the raw materials are carefully selected, arranged, controlled, and organized by an intelligent cause. This is becoming even clearer today as scientists learn more about what is inside of the cell, and esp. the structure of DNA.
If we were to see for example ripples on a sandy beach, we assume that they were formed by random processes. But if we were to see words written in the sand, such as “Hipuks loves (whoever)”, we would know that a couple of lovers had recently been there. In the same way, when scientists probed the nucleus of the cell, they came across something similar to “Hipuks loves (whoever)”, the only difference being that DNA contains vastly more information. There is a clear correspondence between DNA and written messages. Are there natural forces capable of writing a book or programming a computer disk or writing a symphony or even designing a game-winning shot? Clearly not. The discovery of DNA provides powerful new evidence that life is the product of intelligent design.
Here’s some recommended reading from the ID side: Phillip E. Johnson’s Darwin on Trial, Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, and also Behe’s latest, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism.
P.S. If apes and humans have a common ancestor, what is it? And what are the transitional (intermediate) forms?
Look, guys, I also feel strongly about this topic, but this is not the forum to argue it, in my opinion. I made a mistake when I discussed it even with reservations.
Maybe in the offseason we should think of something to incorporate chats about general topics to the blog.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
The transitional game never ends. If a give you a transitional fossil between birds and dinosaurs, you’ll want another transitional fossil between them, and then another and another. Fossilization is extremely rare, we’re lucky enough as it is that we find the fossils that we do.
The are not scientific papers on ID, they can call it scientific papers all they want, but that does not make so. Proper scientific papers are peer-reviewed and publish in scientific journals.
I can argue with you all day long but I won’t for PTR’s sake, but if you believe the things you just wrote you’ve got some rather curious ideas about evolution.
The scientific world is as uniform in their support of evolution as they can be ever be in the support of any theory. I know where you’re coming from by your use of the term Darwinists instead of evolutionists, you’re confusing the man with the idea.
If you want to talk about DNA, it contains tons of information about adaptations that animals once had and no longer have. It’s one of strongest proofs yet in favor of evolution.
"As long as Darwinists control the definitions of key terms (such as science), their system is unbeatable, regardless of the evidence."
He wishes science had a different definition because he knows ID doesn’t fit under the normal definition of science. If his version of science applied, we’ve start having astrology research institutes.
Intelligent Design is nothing but creationism repackaged, I’m sure after they get defeated a couple more times they’ll come up with something else.
My tapeworm tells me what to do.
This guy is a clear example of how modern-day Darwinists go much further than even Charles Darwin ever intended in promoting the philosophy of Darwinism. Here is a quotation from Dawkins’ book The Blind Watchmaker:
“I want to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world-view happens to be true, but that it is the only known theory that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence.”
Admittedly he is one of the most influential figures in evolutionary science, but he is a rabid anti-Christian who religiously promotes atheism. The Blind Watchmaker talks about biology, but its main thrust is a sustained argument for atheism.
by 4Him on Apr 19, 2009 9:30 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well put, 4Him. And not just this post — but everything along this thread.
You make the creationist agruments exceedingly well, and I both thank and applaud you.
Recced to paradise.
You’re better off trying to intimidate the sea.
- LatinD
religiously promotes atheism
Huh. :)
Not that there’s anything wrong with promoting atheism, right?
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
But I imagine you mean that you don’t like people disguising said promotion as something else.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
Yes, along these lines. It all started with Darwin. Today historians recognize that he was first committed to the philosophy of naturalism, and then sought a theory to justify it scientifically. Modern culture has placed science as the highest authority to define the world “as it really is.” Darwinism provides the scientific justification for a naturalistic approach in every field. As Dawkins himself said, Darwin “made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
Anti-Christian? That’s a pretty narrow view of it. He’s railed more against Islam a lot more(because of Sharia, etc.) than he has against Christianity, but his main thrust seems to be against all religious extremism/absolutism. As I understand it, he believes the best way to stop religious extremism is with the spread of atheism. I don’t totally agree, as there are plenty of religious people I know who aren’t taking it to the extremes of the people he talks to in The Root of all Evil?, but I just think that his arguments are interesting.
Please get better for real this time, Manu.
The German guy is way too sensitive. First of all, I said the Mavs organization as a whole denies the Holocaust, and he immediately took it to mean just Dirk, so you can see he’s like totally paranoid about perceptions of the German people. He also ignored that that accusation was piled on with like 20 others.
“Hey, hey, hey, Dirk might be a heroin trafficker and he might really be into child porn, but he DOES NOT deny the Holocaust! That’s disgusting!”
Gimme a break.
And (I know this is going to go over well) believe it or not, but I don’t have an opinion on the Armenian genocide. As God is my witness, most of my family will swear up and down that it didn’t happen and it was all made up. I have read a couple of sources from a couple of historians (non-Turkish ones) where they don’t see any evidence that it ever happened, and certainly not in the numbers Armenians suggest. I know for a fact that Turkey has challenged Armenia to come forward with evidence to an independent EU council and they never did.
I’m not saying it didn’t happen, I’m just saying I’m not 100% convinced that it did. And even if it did it’s not the kind of thing that would make me feel ashamed or embarrassed, because it doesn’t involve me or anyone I know. I just happen to be born in a country with some bad history. Most developed countries have some bad history. Certainly this one does.
"Like feel or follow or fuck" she said...
by Aaronstampler on Apr 18, 2009 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions
No, I’ve been some form of atheist/agnostic since about…age 8. I think all life evolved from a single organism or maybe more than one organism and when you die, the worms eat you.
I didn’t want to start a debate about this though, I was just saying how I support speech I don’t like.Maybe I should’ve chosen another example.
I think it’s the greatest single thing about this country is freedom of speech. And it’s even greater when the radical or very offensive ideas are discussed, for that is when that freedom is truly tested.
It’s easy to have freedom of speech when you like what is being said, but it’s only real when you disapprove of it and still allow it.
My tapeworm tells me what to do.
Fair enough. But as you’re supporting free speech, maybe you shouldn’t use a term like ‘morons’ when referring to those who simply believe differently than you do.
4Him, perhaps Hipuks is simply demonsrating his love for freedom of speech by excersizing his right while being somewhat less than polite toward those who believe differently than he does.
But, now that he knows of a couple non-moronic, Creationist Spurs fans, maybe he’ll reconsider changing the language he uses to describe us.
I know that I’d appreciate it.
You’re better off trying to intimidate the sea.
- LatinD
What do you mean “a couple”? I count 4Him… and that’s that.
… :)
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
When most people use the term “Creationist,” though, they are really talking about “Biblical Literalism,” i.e. we are all descended from Adam and Eve, all the animals came from refugees on Noah’s Ark, the world is 4000 years old, dinosaur bones are a trick of Satan, etc.
I know I’m late to the party, but on some level, all Christians could be considered “Creationists,” if that is taken to mean “God has some role in the creation of life and the universe.” I would put myself in that camp as well, though I don’t believe the Bible is literally true, but rather, metaphorically true, through the flawed hands of human scribes.
For example, I think that the term “Billions and Billions of years” would have not made sense to an Israelite 5000 years ago, so it’s OK to say “on the first day, God did this, on the second, this…” and so on.
Also, Manu is awesome.
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Thanks for what you shared here. My only question would be why don’t you think the Bible is literally true? It is based on historical figures and historical events, and has more archaeological evidence than any book in history.
The incredible unity of the Bible points to the hand of God. The Bible was written over a period of 1,500 years by more than 40 human authors. The authors wrote in different places, and the Biblical writings were composed on three different continents and in three different languages. Humanly speaking it would be impossible for 40 authors over 1,500 years to come up with a story that all points to a single event in history. Yet, the Bible is unified – from beginning to end, there’s one unfolding story of God’s plan of salvation for mankind through Jesus Christ.
Then there’s fulfilled prophecy: The Old Testament contains over 300 references to the Messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. There’s absolutely no way that the Gospel writers could have manipulated all that, and their independent testimonies plus the consistency of their message proves that they didn’t. Plus, many of the prophecies concerning the Messiah were totally beyond possible human control, such as ancestry, place of birth, time of birth, manner of birth, betrayal, manner of death, people’s reactions, piercing, His legs remaining unbroken on the cross, and burial.
The truth of Christianity rests in the person of Jesus Christ. The same Jesus who believed that the OT was the divinely inspired Word of God. When Jesus referred to the Scriptures as "the commandment of God" and the "Word of God", He’s not talking about myth or metaphor. When He confirms various accounts of the OT, He’s not referring to myth, but rather the historicity of those accounts.
I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence. :-)
My only question would be why don’t you think the Bible is literally true?
Because the Bible was written by Man. Not to mention it was written thousands of years ago. I hope you can see our skepticism when the Old Testament (Divinely Inspired Word of God), contains the following. . .
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.
2. Exodus 21:7. States that a father can sell his daughter into slavery.
3. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. Seriously?
4. My boss insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put death, should I do it or should I ask the police to do it?
5. Lev. 11:10 – Eating shellfish is an abomination
6. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear contacts.
7. Lev. 19:27 expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples.
8. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
9. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
10. Deut. 21:18-21. It says that we can take our stubborn and rebellious son, who won’t listen to his mother and father when we discipline him, out to the edge of the city where the elders will stone him to death.
I genuinely respect your faith and views in which you choose to live your life by. I’m just pointing out that The Old Testament “God’s Word” looks pretty unrealistic when held up against today’s standards.
Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed.
Nothing like religion to spice up the offseason.
Guys?
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
LD, just be glad I was able to resist chiming in. It was hard, my brother, but I did it for you and for PtR.
;)
Thanks, Lauri. You’re a strong woman.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
Sorry, but I can’t pass this one up. And while It’s very tempting to respond to Hipuks’ latest entry as well, this will be my last contribution for now.
CMoney: Your entry is typical of how people seek to discredit the Bible by throwing up OT verses (mainly from Leviticus) without understanding the context.
Basically there are two types of Biblical law – moral and ceremonial. The moral law of the Ten Commandments is an expression of God’s character, and it’s the embodiment of two great principles: Love toward the Creator and love toward our neighbor. “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:36-40). Jesus said that He did not come to destroy the moral law, but rather to fulfill it.
The ceremonial (or provisional) law was specifically for the nation of Israel and was added because of transgressions of the moral law. The ceremonial law consisted of ordinances, ceremonies and sacrifices in the sanctuary system that pointed to the future redemption through Jesus Christ. But since Christ’s sacrificial death, all other sacrifices were rendered unnecessary, and therefore actually disrespectful of God. God has made a new covenant with His people, and that covenant consists of writing the moral law in their minds and hearts. “I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Hebrews 8:10).
Moral laws are timeless, eternal, and universal, based on God’s own character, and therefore they apply today. The verses you brought here are from the ceremonial law, which no longer needs to be observed (as of about 2,000 years ago).
So CMoney, you’re free to cut your hair and play football, and you don’t need to kill your boss or your relatives. However, I would pay attention to the moral law, and especially the Savior who lived it out in order to show us what God is like.
Ahhh!
As a die hard Mavs fan, there’s nothing that i love more than seeing a rival fan bending over and accepting the facts. Especially a spurs fan… Glorious. Fact: Mark Cuban is the best owner in the league. Fact: Dirk will own this series. Fact: I can’t wait to have the great feeling of knowing that every single spurs fan will have that sick disgusted feeling in the pit of their stomachs watching their spurs crumble at the hands of their biggest rival. LOL. The only thing in this article i will agree with is this… Being a German, sort of, the holocaust, was in fact, made up…LOL. LOL
The only thing in this article i will agree with is this… Being a German, sort of, the holocaust, was in fact, made up…LOL.
See, Stampler? Not all the feedback you receive is negative.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
“There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.” Arthur Conan Doyle
“Facts might be false if they challenge the conviction of a mind already made up.” Sarah Churchwell
You are very hopeful, but don’t allow your ‘facts’ to cloud your judgment.
Here’s where you need to use your LOL: the Mavs are the Spurs’ biggest rival? LOL
Concerning your last statement, you need to learn something from your fellow ‘countryman’ above.
Missed One
You forgot: “George W. Bush, Worst President Ever, presidential library-hosting …. turds.”
did Jimmy Carter suddenly not happen???
by Pflash on Apr 18, 2009 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
He was ahead of his time, especially concerning the Green Philosophy. And I’d be willing to bet he’ll be listed ahead of the shrub in 100 years..
Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed. - CMoney
Actually, I think the shrub nick name was created by the late, great Molly Ivins. God bless her bleeding liberal heart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Ivins
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375757147/$%7B0%7D
Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed. - CMoney

by 


































