Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (183946)	3/23/2006 11:03:26 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You think you know more about evolutionary science than William Provine and Richard Dawkins. They're the experts on the subject, though I was commenting on their meanders into philosophy. No, it should be wrong to promote atheism in taxpayer funded science classrooms. It isn't. On this we agree. However, I remember many classes in college where the Profs philosophical views on issues not related directly to the class where expressed. For example, some of my Libertarian business class Profs had much to say on many subjects not directly related to the business subjects. They liked to stray into Sociology for example. So the question is one in general, should teachers share their philosophies with their students, especially when their views are against the generally accepted views of the discipline. I actually think it is fine, provided the teacher is forthright in stating this. No, first Id doesn't deal with the origin of life. Uh? No, the one who did that was Darwin pandasthumb.org Nicolaus Copernicus - "My goal is to find the truth in God's majestic creation." (Not only was he searching for truth, he wasn't a materialist. He used the "G" word and he was, gasp, a creationist. So he must not have been a scientist. Heh.) Thanks for making my point. If he had been a materialist, he would have known better than to say what he said. Many scientists today are confused on the issue as well. So what? I think you're the only one with that idea about common descent. Common descent and evolution are always associated. BTW I have no problem with common descent. In fact, I consider it evidence for divine intervention in re. to the origin of life. What the heck? Common descent is what the whole ID arguement with evolution is about. Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life. That is called abiogenesis. Different field. Darwins theory is about the diversity of life, nots its origin. If you have no problem with common descent, then you just stated you have no problem with evolution. You sound like a theistic evolutionist. I think you are wrong - the coelacanth is unchanged from what the species was hundreds of millions of years ago. That's what made it newsworthy. No, I'm quite correct. They are not even placed in the same family. The modern coelacanth is in the family Latimeriidae. The fossil coelacanths are in the family Coelacanthidae. They have structural differences. AFAIK, their are no fossil examples of the modern one, and no living ones of the fossil version. Of course, creationist sites will tell a different story... There are many ancient fossils which have some living creatures quite similar, especially the marine ones and reptiles. Croc's and alligators come to mind. Mammals are quite different in that regard.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (183946)	3/23/2006 11:40:52 AM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

NEW YORK TIMES CAN'T GET ANYTHING RIGHT Another Bad Slip for 'NY Times': Katrina Victim Unmasked By EDITORAND PUBLISHER March 23, 2006 10:10 AM ET NEW YORK For the second time in less than a week, The New York Times today admitted to a serious error in a story. On Saturday it said it had misidentified a man featured in the iconic "hooded inmate" photograph from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Today it discloses that a woman it profiled on March 8 is not, in fact, a victim of Hurricane Katrina--and was arrested for fraud and grand larceny yesterday. As it did in the Abu Ghraib mistake, the Times ran an editors' note on page 2 of its front section, along with a lengthy news article (this time on the front page of Section B). Again mirroring the Abu Ghraib episode, the newspaper revealed a surprising and inexplicable lapse in fact-checking on the part of a reporter and/or editor. The original article, more than 1000 words in length, was written by Nicholas Confessore. He also wrote the news article about the error today. Without saying that he wrote the first story, he wrote today: "The Times did not verify many aspects of Ms. Fenton's claims, never interviewed her children, and did not confirm the identity of the man she described as her husband." The editors' note states: "An article in The Metro Section on March 8 profiled Donna Fenton, identifying her as a 37-year-old victim of Hurricane Katrina who had fled Biloxi, Miss., and who was frustrated in efforts to get federal aid as she and her children remained as emergency residents of a hotel in Queens. "Yesterday, the New York police arrested Ms. Fenton, charging her with several counts of welfare fraud and grand larceny. Prosecutors in Brooklyn say she was not a Katrina victim, never lived in Biloxi and had improperly received thousands of dollars in government aid. Ms. Fenton has pleaded not guilty. "For its profile, The Times did not conduct adequate interviews or public record checks to verify Ms. Fenton's account, including her claim that she had lived in Biloxi. Such checks would have uncovered a fraud conviction and raised serious questions about the truthfulness of her account." Last Saturday, the Times editors' note disclosed that Ali Shalal Qaissi, pictured on the front page "as the hooded man forced to stand on a box, attached to wires, in a photograph from the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal of 2003 and 2004," was not that man. "The Times did not adequately research Mr. Qaissi's insistence that he was the man in the photograph," it related. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)