Crotalus

Hopefully he's back on track. He's a guy who should be on the podium this year.

Hopefully Hart will wrestle better than he has the last couple of weeks.

No you've got me trying to follow two threads. Haha.

R12 his freshman year, too. And was 2-2 in 2021. I'd love to be more hopeful but I'll just plan on being surprised if he does better than that. Nice. That was definitely Mizzou’s best chance for bonus and they took advantage. The second half of this dual looks to be pretty evenly matched.

Big Elam is a round of 12 guy at best. Just hasn't been able to improve much from year to year.

Thank you very much. Mizzou’s twitter is letting me down.

Hawks loses 4-2 in what was one of the best bonus possibilities for ISU. Elam vs Bastitda is likely the second best match of the night.

Anybody covering play-by-play for those of us without flo? Mocco wins 7-5 over unranked opponent. Not exactly inspiring.

Hadn't heard of him. Incredible story indeed. Here's a non-flow piece about him:

Huge Mizzou fan and super excited for this matchup. As far as I know, both guys are healthy and I (maybe naively) don't think either coach will duck here. If O'Toole doesn't take the mat, I'll be one of the first ones here to bash coach Smith, but I don't see that happening.

Part of the problem is they didn't show a good clip of the hold. Most people, including Greg Olsen, are thinking it was the left hand on JuJu's back. But it was the right hand pulling the jersey that you can barely see right at the beginning of the relay they kept showing. Bradberry got beat on that inside out move and grabbed the jersey to show JuJu down. The jersey pulling away from the body made an easy, if unpopular, call. How much are you supposed to let a DB get away with on the most important play of the game?

I fully agree with you, here.

Crazy to think what the world must have looked like when that happened a few thousand years ago. Hahaha. Anyways, I'm going to have to check that place out. Sounds right up my alley.

No, you're not willing to accept the conclusions because it conflicts with your view of humans riding T-rexs just a few thousand years ago. Coincidentally, I spent the morning searching for fossilized shark teeth from Miocene age deposits (~23-5 mya). Got a really nice Carcharodon hastalis (the genus is in debate) and a beast of a Hemipristis serra that was unfortunately missing most of the tip.

Yeah, he was NCAA wrestling's Bob Gibson.

Why wait? Let's jump right in. I think it's completely bonkers and belongs in the realm of philosophy, not science. While it is "theoretically" possible, there is no evidence to back it up (though it would have been programed that way, of course).

Likewise, my friend. Likewise.

Wow, this thread blew up while I was trying to actually get some work done. But Mike handled any I would have responded to directly. It is really hard to have an intelligent conversation about this when some folks can't distinguish between a scientific theory and a "theory". Science thrives on being challenged and questioned, but you need data in order to do so. The ideas that have been challenged the most and stood the test of time are the ones we have the most confidence in. The age of the planet/universe and evolution are some of the most heavily scrutinized concepts and are by far still our best explanations. Dunning-Kruger is one of those buzz words you are so fond of, but it is more accurate than your comment above.

I'm make it simple for you, pseudoscience is when you have your answer before you ask any questions. Ex: the earth is 6,000 years old. The only schtick is your deflection.

There is a lot to tackle here. First a nitpick, the singular form of species is still just species. Regarding evolution, between the fossil record, genetics, biogeography, morphology, etc., there is an enormous amount of evidence supporting macro evolution. The missing link is not, and never really was an issue. That typically refers to a transitional creature between humans and apes. There is evidence in the fossil record, and more recently, of other hominid species that we either share ancestors with or evolved from. And among many other groups, transitional fossils, aka (not so)missing links, are abundant. Again, there is a mountain of evidence to support evolution, but I don't have the time or wherewithal to try and provide it here. The theory of evolution is far beyond speculation.

The scientific method or lack thereof. No surprise there. Let's all shove evolution and the mountain of evidence behind it under a rug because it contradicts our beliefs.

Politically speaking, at the national level, it doesn't make much sense to split off and join an ultra conservative state. It would be the opposite of the gerrymandering the right is such a fan of. They would lose any influence they have on the presidential or senatorial races.

There are surely countless competing scientific theories in all different scientific disciplines, but this bill aims to ban teaching any of them. If there is sufficient data to support them, then they should be taught. But pseudoscientific theories should not be taught alongside them.

There were no actual insults in my comment, though you may have inferred a couple. I also used an oversimplification of the differences between scientific theory and pseudoscience to tell you how you were wrong about them both being the same because they are both not provable. Those differences are exactly why they should not be taught as equal competing ideas in a science class.

Holy shit. You keep proving you don't actually know what scientific theory is. It's not provable by definition. But it does use observation and experimentation to attempt to disprove them. The other is pseudoscience that does the exact opposite. Also, scientific theories are not taught as fact. They are taught as the best explanation for the given thing they attempt to explain, based on experimentation and observation. Some people clearly don't comprehend the difference, however.