Dual Factor hypertrophy training?

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (vicious @ June 17 2005,6:11)]

Quote[/b] ]But "Starless and Bible Black"

I really like Starless actually.  I like Fripp's sustain effect that he does with his guitar.  

Quote[/b] ]Greg Lake has got to be one of the best bass guitarists (note I said one of the best)

Actually my beef with Hendrix was how undemocratically he approached the power trio lineup during live performance.  It's really, really hard for any bassist, be it Redding or Cox, to really improvise when they're just trying to mantain a pocket around Hendrix.  Which is why I preferred the early Who or Cream, two bands that had bassist and leads really playing off each other.
cheers,
Jules

Entwhistle was amazing, stoic but amazing.
Bruce, although classicaly trained, never did a lot for me. Don't get me wrong he was an excellent songwriter, wrote most of their hits, but I think he had Manfred to thank for some of that, just like Winwood had Capaldi and Mason.

Sustain, an easy pedal push but tough to master. Trower did though

But when it comes to bassists you can't beat Motown, old R&B and da FUNK. Just listen to the bass patterns during the Spinners, Ojays, Tempations, Sam Cook, Otis, and Funkadelics. Their arpeggiation and staccato was outstanding.
Anyway no more wasting Bryan's server with music trivia.

 

[NWlifter]

Quote[/b] (mikeynov @ June 17 2005,12:55)]

Quote[/b] ]Seriously, how many bodybuilding boards double as creationist propaganda mills for anti-evolutionist rhetoric? You couldn't write fiction better than that.

Ouch dude, that's pretty insulting to me. I happen to be a creationist

 

[mikeynov]

Quote[/b] (NWlifter @ June 18 2005,5:47)]

Quote[/b] (mikeynov @ June 17 2005,12:55)]

Quote[/b] ]Seriously, how many bodybuilding boards double as creationist propaganda mills for anti-evolutionist rhetoric? You couldn't write fiction better than that.

Ouch dude, that's pretty insulting to me. I happen to be a creationist

Time to start learning about evolutionary biology, then

In all seriousness, sorry to offend, if I did. But come on - why creationist stuff on a bodybuilding website? :\

 

[NWlifter]

Quote[/b] (mikeynov @ June 19 2005,6:53)]

Quote[/b] ]Time to start learning about evolutionary biology, then

Learned and rejected

Quote[/b] ]In all seriousness, sorry to offend, if I did.

Just the retoric stuff concerning beliefs I share, but that's cool, thanks for apologizing

Quote[/b] ]
But come on - why creationist stuff on a bodybuilding website? :\

My honest answer would be, the owner must be a Christian first, and a bodybuilder second.

 

[BoSox]

completely off-subject, but since this thread is wildly off-subject I figure it's acceptable, but everyone should read this book by Sam Harris, The End of Faith. It's basically about the sheet that belief in antiquated religions pulls over our eyes. While not everyone will agree with it (obviously) and some parts are definately over-generalized, it's a great read, regardless of your faith.

Infomercial over

 

[NWlifter]

Yeah, there are good books on both sides of that topic, mostly it comes down to what one beleives. Each views the other as 'having a sheet over their eyes'.

Non-believers view people like me as being blind, I view them as being blind.

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Well, I've never admitted this before, but since we are all coming out of the closet.....

I'm .........

not Blind

 

[BoSox]

I'd also like to proclaim my vision.

 

[NWlifter]

LOL, you guys should be politicians, which blind are you not? LOL

 

[mikeynov]

Quote[/b] (NWlifter @ June 20 2005,6:12)]Yeah, there are good books on both sides of that topic, mostly it comes down to what one beleives. Each views the other as 'having a sheet over their eyes'.
Non-believers view people like me as being blind, I view them as being blind.

Well, the problem with evolution specifically is that rejection of evolution is almost entirely religiously motivated.

When 99% of the opposition to a scientific theorum (with that opposition itself representing approximately %.015-.010 of scientists in relevent fields according to GALLUP polling) comes from a fraction of a fraction (usually calvinistic, conservative protestant denominations) of the world religious community, I think it's fair to say that you're dealing with a religious issue.

So, I never cared about faith-based beliefs. I do care when a fraction of the scientific community who all happen to (largely) share the same religious roots claim that their opposition is scientifically based, however. For example, there is little to no peer reviewed basis for any anti-evolutionist groups. They publish their own internal journals and peer review each other, without putting their work forward to be critiqued by the scientific community at large. That's alarming.

Being a biology major myself, I understand the importance and relevence of evolutionary theory as one of the fundamental, unifying theorums of all biology. Removing our understanding of evolution from biology would set back the field ~150 years.

As examples of the above, research in population genetics and biogeography would literally collapse without principles of common descent, as would the fields of comparative anatomy/physiology and paleontology.

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (NWlifter @ June 20 2005,6:49)]LOL, you guys should be politicians, which blind are you not? LOL

Well again, I rarely openly talk about my non blindness but for just this once (more).....

I subscribe to be the type of non blindness that.....

has visions, oopppps I mean vision

 

[NWlifter]

Hey Mike- I won't get into this as I've been there too many times on other forums and everyone ends up with hard feelings. All I will say is that I myself reject evolution for faith AND I personally find it scientifically preposterous. Too many points to debate on that one. But it's cool to me that others do not share my beliefs, cheers and best wishes

DKM- I totally understand both your points

Cheers!
Ron

 

[navigator]

Funny thing; I stumbled into this threading thinking it was about Dual Factor Hypertrophy ...

Quote[/b] (mikeynov @ June 20 2005,5:14)]

Quote[/b] (NWlifter @ June 20 2005,6:12)]Yeah, there are good books on both sides of that topic, mostly it comes down to what one beleives. Each views the other as 'having a sheet over their eyes'.
Non-believers view people like me as being blind, I view them as being blind.

Well, the problem with evolution specifically is that rejection of evolution is almost entirely religiously motivated.
When 99% of the opposition to a scientific theorum (with that opposition itself representing approximately %.015-.010 of scientists in relevent fields according to GALLUP polling) comes from a fraction of a fraction (usually calvinistic, conservative protestant denominations) of the world religious community, I think it's fair to say that you're dealing with a religious issue.
So, I never cared about faith-based beliefs. I do care when a fraction of the scientific community who all happen to (largely) share the same religious roots claim that their opposition is scientifically based, however. For example, there is little to no peer reviewed basis for any anti-evolutionist groups. They publish their own internal journals and peer review each other, without putting their work forward to be critiqued by the scientific community at large. That's alarming.
Being a biology major myself, I understand the importance and relevence of evolutionary theory as one of the fundamental, unifying theorums of all biology. Removing our understanding of evolution from biology would set back the field ~150 years.
As examples of the above, research in population genetics and biogeography would literally collapse without principles of common descent, as would the fields of comparative anatomy/physiology and paleontology.

Well, being a master of science in the area of theoretical physics, I can honestly say that I have yet to encounter any solid evidence that suggests there is no Creator. I don't think I ever will. How can one honestly use what is said to be created to prove that there's no creator?
Mikeynov, none of the things you've cited rules out a Creator, really. Niether does chaos theory, quantum mechanics, relativity theory, aliens from outer space, nor a variety of other topics. The chosen belief system of 99.99995% of the Earth's population has no bearing on the existence of a Creator, either.

It's solely an issue of belief and/or faith ... IMHO, of course.

 

[mikeynov]

Quote[/b] (navigator @ June 20 2005,9:44)]Funny thing; I stumbled into this threading thinking it was about Dual Factor Hypertrophy ...

Quote[/b] (mikeynov @ June 20 2005,5:14)]

Quote[/b] (NWlifter @ June 20 2005,6:12)]Yeah, there are good books on both sides of that topic, mostly it comes down to what one beleives. Each views the other as 'having a sheet over their eyes'.
Non-believers view people like me as being blind, I view them as being blind.

Well, the problem with evolution specifically is that rejection of evolution is almost entirely religiously motivated.
When 99% of the opposition to a scientific theorum (with that opposition itself representing approximately %.015-.010 of scientists in relevent fields according to GALLUP polling) comes from a fraction of a fraction (usually calvinistic, conservative protestant denominations) of the world religious community, I think it's fair to say that you're dealing with a religious issue.
So, I never cared about faith-based beliefs. I do care when a fraction of the scientific community who all happen to (largely) share the same religious roots claim that their opposition is scientifically based, however. For example, there is little to no peer reviewed basis for any anti-evolutionist groups. They publish their own internal journals and peer review each other, without putting their work forward to be critiqued by the scientific community at large. That's alarming.
Being a biology major myself, I understand the importance and relevence of evolutionary theory as one of the fundamental, unifying theorums of all biology. Removing our understanding of evolution from biology would set back the field ~150 years.
As examples of the above, research in population genetics and biogeography would literally collapse without principles of common descent, as would the fields of comparative anatomy/physiology and paleontology.

Well, being a master of science in the area of theoretical physics, I can honestly say that I have yet to encounter any solid evidence that suggests there is no Creator. I don't think I ever will. How can one honestly use what is said to be created to prove that there's no creator?
Mikeynov, none of the things you've cited rules out a Creator, really. Niether does chaos theory, quantum mechanics, relativity theory, aliens from outer space, nor a variety of other topics. The chosen belief system of 99.99995% of the Earth's population has no bearing on the existence of a Creator, either.
It's solely an issue of belief and/or faith ... IMHO, of course.

Evolution has nothing to do with existence of deities, nor does any science at all. Metaphysical abstractions are firmly outside of the boundaries of scientific inquiry - science CAN'T make a statement on "creators" at all.

Evolutionary theory pertains to the past and present diversity of life on this planet - no more. It does not attempt to explain the origin of life itself, much less the role of an abstract creator. It explains how daughter populations diverge from parent populations as modified subsets of those parent populations, and how this process over time creates the pattern of diversity in life that we observe.

When you say "evolutionary theory," you're talking biology specifically. Which is also what I'm talking about.

I'd go so far to say that this is the #1 mistake made in these conversations - making evolution a religious issue. Evolutionary theory is no more theistic/atheistic than any other branch of science.

 

[mikeynov]

Quote[/b] (NWlifter @ June 20 2005,9:38)]Hey Mike- I won't get into this as I've been there too many times on other forums and everyone ends up with hard feelings. All I will say is that I myself reject evolution for faith AND I personally find it scientifically preposterous. Too many points to debate on that one. But it's cool to me that others do not share my beliefs, cheers and best wishes
DKM- I totally understand both your points
Cheers!
Ron

Well, I'd just suggest being honest about it - it's faith first, science second. And the latter, imho, is a rationalization - you are, in effect, suggesting that most of the world's biologists hold a "preposterous" theory, despite 150 years of peer reviewed evidence on the subject and a convergence of acceptance across all major religious belief systems (from atheistic to theistic - most of those who accept evolution in the western world are Christian, for example).

I don't mind that people disagree with evolution if they are up front as to WHY they do. Imho, I've yet to see somebody who really understood the subject disagree for scientific reasons.

I hope you don't take any of this as an insult. I enjoy the subject, and I hate to see people turned off from it, most particularly those in the creationist movement. It's a fascinating subject to explore and, imho, a little disrespectful to those in the field to dismiss it as being insufficient without a tremendous background in that subject (kind of like how bodybuilders would dismiss most of the discussions on this board due to anecdote and scientific prejducie).

 

[navigator]

Quote[/b] (mikeynov @ June 20 2005,7:21)]Evolutionary theory is no more theistic/atheistic than any other branch of science.

Well, put in those words, I think we just said the same thing.

 

[mikeynov]

Quote[/b] (navigator @ June 20 2005,10:26)]

Quote[/b] (mikeynov @ June 20 2005,7:21)]Evolutionary theory is no more theistic/atheistic than any other branch of science.

Well, put in those words, I think we just said the same thing.

It's an important point I wish more theists realized. I'm not religious myself, but I hate to see the religious turned off by good science due to other religious individuals painting a distorted picture of that science.

Science should be a subject everybody can enjoy. It shouldn't infringe on people's faith and it shouldn't make them feel like outsiders.

I'm about to have a BS in bio myself, and vertebrate evolution was the area I enjoyed the most in terms of my curricula. I've spent time in various courses related to this subject - the mechanics of evolution, comparative anatomy, botany and zoology as well as herpetology and mammology specifically, and found these courses the most enjoyable for that reason.

 

[navigator]

Quote[/b] (mikeynov @ June 20 2005,7:34)]

Quote[/b] (navigator @ June 20 2005,10:26)]

Quote[/b] (mikeynov @ June 20 2005,7:21)]Evolutionary theory is no more theistic/atheistic than any other branch of science.

Well, put in those words, I think we just said the same thing. :blush

It's an important point I wish more theists realized.  I'm not religious myself, but I hate to see the religious turned off by good science due to other religious individuals painting a distorted picture of that science.
Science should be a subject everybody can enjoy.  It shouldn't infringe on people's faith and it shouldn't make them feel like outsiders.
I'm about to have a BS in bio myself, and vertebrate evolution was the area I enjoyed the most in terms of my curricula.  I've spent time in various courses related to this subject - the mechanics of evolution, comparative anatomy, botany and zoology as well as herpetology and mammology specifically, and found these courses the most enjoyable for that reason.

I see what you're saying.

On the flip side, I don't think "theists" should be automatically considered foolish or poor in science, which is often the case in today's universities...

 

[mikeynov]

Quote[/b] (navigator @ June 20 2005,10:51)]

Quote[/b] (mikeynov @ June 20 2005,7:34)]

Quote[/b] (navigator @ June 20 2005,10:26)]

Quote[/b] (mikeynov @ June 20 2005,7:21)]Evolutionary theory is no more theistic/atheistic than any other branch of science.

Well, put in those words, I think we just said the same thing.

It's an important point I wish more theists realized. I'm not religious myself, but I hate to see the religious turned off by good science due to other religious individuals painting a distorted picture of that science.
Science should be a subject everybody can enjoy. It shouldn't infringe on people's faith and it shouldn't make them feel like outsiders.
I'm about to have a BS in bio myself, and vertebrate evolution was the area I enjoyed the most in terms of my curricula. I've spent time in various courses related to this subject - the mechanics of evolution, comparative anatomy, botany and zoology as well as herpetology and mammology specifically, and found these courses the most enjoyable for that reason.

I see what you're saying.
On the flip side, I don't think "theists" should be automatically considered foolish or poor in science, which is often the case in today's universities...

Definitely not. Religious intolerance in any form ain't cool in my book.

But, last time I checked, most scientists are still theists of some sort, so I don't see why that'd be an issue.

The problem arises when religious people start claiming that science supports a position of a 6000 year old planet or independent creation of life. It doesn't, and hasn't in at least 200 years. Hijacking science for religious purposes is usually what raises the ire of scientists - and not just atheistic scientists, but theistic scientists too. It is my experience that most professionals working in the field hate to see their area of expertise misrepresented.

Hugh Ross, for example, is an old earth creationist with a fair background in physics/cosmology who directs a lot of his work towards young earth creationists. However, Ross, who has no formal training at all in biology, does exactly what he criticizes YEC's for (selectively ignoring science they don't like) when he forsakes evolution as "unscientific," and that those religious individuals who embrace it have been "duped." What's particularly ironic about that is that Ross' opponents claim the EXACT same thing about Ross' beliefs.

What's fascinating to me is the remarkable parallels I've seen in the bodybuilding world. Bodybuilding dogmas gain religious adherence, and proponents will selectively ignore evidence which runs contrary to their pet beliefs, even creating their own brands of pseudo-science to support their scientifically unsupportable ideas (see: most of HIT). You hear the same claims of absurdity leveled at scientific establishment alongside charges of bias and naivety.

Very few people learn to recognize and appreciate the labor and effort scientists put in towards their respective fields, and this applies across almost everything, in my experience.

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (navigator @ June 20 2005,8:44)]aliens from outer space

See there, now you got it.
We are just one huge petrie dish in the Grandest Study of them All.

LIFE ON EARTH
Journal of Alien Sciences 300,000,000,023 BCE;2(1)47-50.Review

In our attempt to indentify if growth can thrive on this nasty little orb, placed in this tiny galaxy, we have transplanted life from our home planet.

Discussion: Yes we have seen now through time that growth of several species have developed and thrived. We have had several setbacks (we told Sol not to throw those dang rocks in the lab) along the way and lost many different life forms but overall life can be sustained.