Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
ArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneous
Discussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK Scuba
DirectoryScuba Clubs

Scuba Forum / General / May 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

No Comment.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick - 03 Apr 2007 04:03 GMT
Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims
By LAURA CLARK - More by this author »

Last updated at 11:58am on 2nd April 2007

Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending
Muslim pupils, a Government backed study has revealed.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of
upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where
Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons
often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

The findings have prompted claims that some schools are using history 'as a
vehicle for promoting political correctness'.

The study, funded by the Department for Education and Skills, looked into
'emotive and controversial' history teaching in primary and secondary
schools.

It found some teachers are dropping courses covering the Holocaust at the
earliest opportunity over fears Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic and
anti-Israel reactions in class.

The researchers gave the example of a secondary school in an unnamed
northern city, which dropped the Holocaust as a subject for GCSE coursework.

The report said teachers feared confronting 'anti-Semitic sentiment and
Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils'.

It added: "In another department, the Holocaust was taught despite
anti-Semitic sentiment among some pupils.

"But the same department deliberately avoided teaching the Crusades at Key
Stage 3 (11- to 14-year-olds) because their balanced treatment of the topic
would have challenged what was taught in some local mosques."

A third school found itself 'strongly challenged by some Christian parents
for their treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict-and the history of the
state of Israel that did not accord with the teachings of their
denomination'.

The report concluded: "In particular settings, teachers of history are
unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in
which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of
worship."

But Chris McGovern, history education adviser to the former Tory government,
said: "History is not a vehicle for promoting political correctness.
Children must have access to knowledge of these controversial subjects,
whether palatable or unpalatable."

The researchers also warned that a lack of subject knowledge among
teachers - particularly at primary level - was leading to history being
taught in a 'shallow way leading to routine and superficial learning'.

Lessons in difficult topics were too often 'bland, simplistic and
unproblematic' and bored pupils.

Signature

                                Popeye
        "Best thing for him, really, his therapy was
           going nowhere."  -Dr. Hannibal Lector.

                   www.finalprotectivefire.com

Dennis (Icarus) - 03 Apr 2007 12:59 GMT
> Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims
> By LAURA CLARK - More by this author »
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of
> upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

Damn.....wonder if the schools will drop evolution next, since that
contradicts what is taught some churches?

> There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where
> Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons
> often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

Will they stop indicating that all citizns, regardless of gender, are equal
as well, since that too contradicts what is taught in some mosques?
tht a woman's testimony should be givern equal weight to a man's?

> The findings have prompted claims that some schools are using history 'as a
> vehicle for promoting political correctness'.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> earliest opportunity over fears Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic and
> anti-Israel reactions in class.

Islam is a relgion of pece, and they'll behead anyone who says otherwise,
and stone that person's family.

> The researchers gave the example of a secondary school in an unnamed
> northern city, which dropped the Holocaust as a subject for GCSE coursework.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> state of Israel that did not accord with the teachings of their
> denomination'.

Damn...even Chrisitans are getting in on it. At least this seems to be a
response to
complaints, rather than fear of a response. It'd be interesting to see what
their problem is.

> The report concluded: "In particular settings, teachers of history are
> unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Lessons in difficult topics were too often 'bland, simplistic and
> unproblematic' and bored pupils.

Signature

Dennis

janusz_w@hotmail.com - 03 Apr 2007 13:22 GMT
No comment?

If I were you I would take Arabic language classes.

Janusz
Joe English - 04 Apr 2007 01:20 GMT
> Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims
> By LAURA CLARK - More by this author »
[quoted text clipped - 58 lines]
> Lessons in difficult topics were too often 'bland, simplistic and
> unproblematic' and bored pupils.

I heard this today on the radio, and read an article in the paper
regarding this - absolutely unbelievable
Scott - 04 Apr 2007 01:38 GMT
> I heard this today on the radio, and read an article in the paper
> regarding this - absolutely unbelievable

Ask the Limeys, and the Iranians, and after you get both sides of that coin,
ask the liberals.
dechucka - 04 Apr 2007 03:36 GMT
>> I heard this today on the radio, and read an article in the paper
>> regarding this - absolutely unbelievable
>
> Ask the Limeys, and the Iranians, and after you get both sides of that
> coin,
> ask the liberals.

So what is the current state of creationism being taught in the science
courses in the US at the moment?
Scott - 04 Apr 2007 03:51 GMT
> So what is the current state of creationism being taught in the science
> courses in the US at the moment?

Depends upon whom you ask, and doesn't answer the rhetorical question you
didnt answer.
dechucka - 04 Apr 2007 04:04 GMT
>> So what is the current state of creationism being taught in the science
>> courses in the US at the moment?
>
> Depends upon whom you ask, and doesn't answer the rhetorical question you
> didnt answer.

Just wondering, Is creationism being taught as fact in some US schools?
Scott - 04 Apr 2007 12:04 GMT
> >> So what is the current state of creationism being taught in the science
> >> courses in the US at the moment?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Just wondering, Is creationism being taught as fact in some US schools?

Are you stoned or just being purposely obtuse?

I am sure it is being taught as fact in some private Christian or Mormon
schools, but certainly not in public schools.
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick - 04 Apr 2007 12:27 GMT
>> >> So what is the current state of creationism being taught in the
>> >> science
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Are you stoned or just being purposely obtuse?

 Answer "E"?
Carl Nisarel - 04 Apr 2007 14:09 GMT
rec.scuba's resident pussy "Scott Koplin"
<pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> whined:

> I am sure it is being taught as fact in some private Christian
> or Mormon schools, but certainly not in public schools.

As usual, you're wrong, pussy.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/whats_the_matter_with_co
lorado.php

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

dechucka - 04 Apr 2007 22:27 GMT
>> >> So what is the current state of creationism being taught in the
>> >> science
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> I am sure it is being taught as fact in some private Christian or Mormon
> schools, but certainly not in public schools.

Bush wants intelligent design taught in schools and I understand it is
happening in some US public schools that Intelligent design is being taught
as being as factual as evolution theory.

Just goes to show there are religious nutters all over the world trying to
push there ideas on kids
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick - 04 Apr 2007 22:51 GMT
> Bush wants

 <whatever>

 What is the whole world going to do when they don't have Bush to blame
anymore?

> Just goes to show there are religious nutters all over the world trying to
> push there ideas on kids

 I don't see that theory is any more provable than the other.

 It's never the religion thats the problem, dude, it's always the
followers.
Carl Nisarel - 04 Apr 2007 22:17 GMT
"Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick"
<Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> muttered:

>   What is the whole world going to do when they don't have
>   Bush to blame anymore?

The whole world won't be as f.cked up and won't have things to
blame.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Star - 05 Apr 2007 02:50 GMT
On Apr 4, 2:51 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick"
<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:

> > Bush wants
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>   I don't see that theory is any more provable than the other.

Science does not seek prove anything, particularly not a theory.

Issue with creationism is that there is no empirical evidence,  no
testable hypotheses, so is considered an idea or belief, thus does not
fall into the realm of science.  We are free to believe whatever we
choose, and belief requires no proof. I would never suggest to a
student what he should believe. I will, however, teach the science and
scientific habits of mind he needs to learn to think - that's my job.

*

>   It's never the religion thats the problem, dude, it's always the
> followers.
Carl Nisarel - 05 Apr 2007 14:57 GMT
"Star" <lclee1@gmail.com> muttered:

> I will, however, teach the science and
> scientific habits of mind he needs to learn to think - that's
> my job.

Yet you think that creationalism and evolution are not mutually
exclusive.

You're not qualified to teach science.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

TonyP - 05 Apr 2007 22:19 GMT
> Science does not seek prove anything, particularly not a theory.

Then what about volution.

> Issue with creationism is that there is no empirical evidence,  no
> testable hypotheses, so is considered an idea or belief, thus does not
> fall into the realm of science.  We are free to believe whatever we
> choose, and belief requires no proof. I would never suggest to a
> student what he should believe. I will, however, teach the science and
> scientific habits of mind he needs to learn to think - that's my job.

The same can be said of evolution. No one is saying that there is
empirical evidence for creationism. It is a theory as is evolution. What
is wrong with teaching both and let the students decide? They would have
the tools to make an informed decision.
What is everyone afraid of.
A belief does not require proof. But a belief in Christianity does.
Carl Nisarel - 05 Apr 2007 22:13 GMT
TonyP <arpierre@hooptown.net> muttered:

> No one is saying that there is
> empirical evidence for creationism. It is a theory as is
> evolution.

No, it isn't. A person can derive and test falsifiable hypotheses
using the premises of evolution. That cannot be done with
creationism.

You're engaging in a fallacy of equivocation.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

TonyP - 06 Apr 2007 01:51 GMT
> TonyP <arpierre@hooptown.net> muttered:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> You're engaging in a fallacy of equivocation.

Really... let me read your tests.
Carl Nisarel - 06 Apr 2007 01:01 GMT
TonyP <arpierre@hooptown.net> muttered:

>> TonyP <arpierre@hooptown.net> muttered:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Really.

Yes, really.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

dechucka - 05 Apr 2007 23:01 GMT
>> Science does not seek prove anything, particularly not a theory.
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> What is everyone afraid of.
> A belief does not require proof. But a belief in Christianity does.

Because is a theory based on scientific enquiry and study the other depends
on some mythical being which nobody has shown exists
Scott - 05 Apr 2007 23:29 GMT
> Because is a theory based on scientific enquiry and study the other depends
> on some mythical being which nobody has shown exists

Several of Stephen Hawkings theories have just been proven wrong. Ever hear
him talking about being able to look into the mind of God? What do you
suppose drives that curiousity and the ability to research those questions?

Science is man trying to define and explain that which he doesnt understand,
and is wrong more than right.

Do you think all scientists are athiests?

Or are you just another self defined elite leftist that think he knows more
about man, the universe and human spirituality than anyone else?

Do you chuckle at funerals when people pray?
Carl Nisarel - 05 Apr 2007 23:39 GMT
"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> muttered:

> Several of Stephen Hawkings theories have just been proven wrong.

Fallacy of composition.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

dechucka - 06 Apr 2007 00:39 GMT
>> Because is a theory based on scientific enquiry and study the other
> depends
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> suppose drives that curiousity and the ability to research those
> questions?

enquiring minds

> Science is man trying to define and explain that which he doesnt
> understand,
> and is wrong more than right.

based on study and observable evidence

> Do you think all scientists are athiests?

No

> Or are you just another self defined elite leftist that think he knows
> more
> about man, the universe and human spirituality than anyone else?

no

> Do you chuckle at funerals when people pray?
Scott - 06 Apr 2007 01:01 GMT
<chop>

Too bad you don't put as much into your justifications and defenses as you
do into your attacks.

It would make exchanges with you worth the small effort.
dechucka - 06 Apr 2007 01:07 GMT
> <chop>
>
> Too bad you don't put as much into your justifications and defenses as you
> do into your attacks.
>
> It would make exchanges with you worth the small effort.

the chop and an ad hominem attack you are getting desperate

Scott if you can supply some evidence for creationism or intellegent design
that would be great. Till than they should be kept in the scripture classes
and out of the Science classes.
Scott - 06 Apr 2007 01:40 GMT
> Scott if you can supply some evidence for creationism or intellegent design
> that would be great. Till than they should be kept in the scripture classes
> and out of the Science classes.

I didnt put them in either, you did.
TonyP - 06 Apr 2007 02:55 GMT
>><chop>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> that would be great. Till than they should be kept in the scripture classes
> and out of the Science classes.

http://www.origins.org/articles/dembski_scienceanddesign.html
Carl Nisarel - 06 Apr 2007 02:44 GMT
TonyP <arpierre@hooptown.net> muttered:

> http://www.origins.org/articles/dembski_scienceanddesign.html

Dembski.

<snicker>

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/astonishing_weirdness.php

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/accept_the_implications.php

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

TonyP - 06 Apr 2007 01:56 GMT
>>Science is man trying to define and explain that which he doesnt
>>understand,
>>and is wrong more than right.

> based on study and observable evidence

So is intelligent design. IF you have ever bothered to do the research.

>>Do you think all scientists are athiests?

> No

Glad to hear that. There are a number of groundbreaking noted scientists
that are Christian. Ever wonder how they can reconcile their FAITH with
science?

>>Or are you just another self defined elite leftist that think he knows
>>more
>>about man, the universe and human spirituality than anyone else?

> no

>>Do you chuckle at funerals when people pray?

He probably does.
Carl Nisarel - 06 Apr 2007 01:08 GMT
TonyP <arpierre@hooptown.net> muttered:

>> based on study and observable evidence
>
> So is intelligent design.

No, it isn't.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

TonyP - 07 Apr 2007 00:07 GMT
> TonyP <arpierre@hooptown.net> muttered:
>
>>>based on study and observable evidence
>>
>>So is intelligent design.

> No, it isn't.

To borrow an oft time used quote directed at you personally, "cite"
Carl Nisarel - 06 Apr 2007 01:08 GMT
TonyP <arpierre@hooptown.net> muttered:

>  There are a number of groundbreaking noted scientists
> that are Christian. Ever wonder how they can reconcile their
> FAITH with science?

Ignorance.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

TonyP - 07 Apr 2007 00:08 GMT
> TonyP <arpierre@hooptown.net> muttered:
>
>> There are a number of groundbreaking noted scientists
>>that are Christian. Ever wonder how they can reconcile their
>>FAITH with science?

> Ignorance.

You? Indeed.
dechucka - 06 Apr 2007 02:06 GMT
>>>Science is man trying to define and explain that which he doesnt
>>>understand,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> So is intelligent design. IF you have ever bothered to do the research.

really? and what supplies the guiding force and what observable evidence is
there
Scott - 06 Apr 2007 03:16 GMT
> really? and what supplies the guiding force and what observable evidence is
> there

Bumble bees fly.

Hummingbirds fly.

Science and laws of physics say they cant.
Grumman-581 - 06 Apr 2007 03:22 GMT
> Bumble bees fly.
>
> Hummingbirds fly.
>
> Science and laws of physics say they cant.

Bullshit... The Shuttle proved that if you put a big enough engine
behind something, it can fly... <snicker>
Scott - 06 Apr 2007 03:37 GMT
> > Bumble bees fly.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Bullshit... The Shuttle proved that if you put a big enough engine
> behind something, it can fly... <snicker>

Same with F4 Phantoms.

Man and all his science still cant build an operational hummingbird or
bumblebee.

God = Mother Nature can.
Grumman-581 - 06 Apr 2007 03:55 GMT
> Man and all his science still cant build an operational hummingbird or
> bumblebee.

Give us a couple of million years of trial and error and we might be
able to... Hell, I don't have anything really pressing planned for the
next few million years...

I suspect if we could find a need for a robotic bumblebee, we could
build one...

http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/aero/wellman/bumblebee.html

Considering the amount of nectar that a hummingbird requires to
maintain its metabolic rate each day, comparing it to a military jet
fighter is not inappropriate...
Greg Mossman - 06 Apr 2007 03:40 GMT
> Bumble bees fly.
>
> Hummingbirds fly.
>
> Science and laws of physics say they cant.

Huh?  Cite?
Carl Nisarel - 06 Apr 2007 02:51 GMT
"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> muttered:

>> Bumble bees fly.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Huh?  Cite?

Scotty is wrong, as usual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumble_bee#Flight

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Greg Mossman - 06 Apr 2007 03:50 GMT
> "Greg Mossman" <moss...@qnet.com> muttered:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Scotty is wrong, as usual.

But I thought he knew everything about wildlife biology from one of
his dads?

Obviously the apple fell far from the tree.
dechucka - 06 Apr 2007 12:00 GMT
> "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> muttered:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumble_bee#Flight

and for the Humming Bird

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104263
Carl Nisarel - 06 Apr 2007 15:17 GMT
"dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> muttered:

> "Carl Nisarel" <hostlbuddha@postmaster.uk.co> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104263 

Notice how Scotty is pretending that these posts don't exist.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Greg Mossman - 06 Apr 2007 20:05 GMT
> "dechucka" <dechu...@vomithotmail.com> muttered:
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Notice how Scotty is pretending that these posts don't exist.

That's the advantage of pretending to kill file everything you won't
or can't understand.  Just as effective as blinders on a horse, though
horses are much smarter.
Carl Nisarel - 06 Apr 2007 20:15 GMT
"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> noted:

> On Apr 6, 7:17 am, Carl Nisarel <hostlbud...@postmaster.uk.co>
>> "dechucka" <dechu...@vomithotmail.com> muttered:
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> won't or can't understand.  Just as effective as blinders on a
> horse, though horses are much smarter.

Yea, well, you know the saying. You can lead a horse to water
but you can't put a tank on his back and make it dive in. (or
something like that)
Greg Mossman - 07 Apr 2007 16:30 GMT
> "Greg Mossman" <moss...@qnet.com> noted:
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> but you can't put a tank on his back and make it dive in. (or
> something like that)

Nowadays, you can make a horse President.

Is he still pretending he didn't see where we once again shattered his
world view by providing clear evidence of something he denied
existed?  Those blinders are amazing.  I sometimes wish I had some.
There are lots of things I'd like to block out, but I tend to take the
bad with the good.

This is very illustrative of how the 30-percenters can still support
our beloved President/horse and his big war.  They've simply used
their very effective and selective blinders to block out the past 5
years of his lies.  Maybe I'll conk a Republican in the head and steal
his blinders when I retire.  If I'm gonna get Alzheimers anyway, I
might as well only remember the good stuff.
Joe English - 07 Apr 2007 17:40 GMT
>>"Greg Mossman" <moss...@qnet.com> noted:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>
> Nowadays, you can make a horse President.

May happen sooner than you think!

> Is he still pretending he didn't see where we once again shattered his
> world view by providing clear evidence of something he denied
> existed?  Those blinders are amazing.  I sometimes wish I had some.
> There are lots of things I'd like to block out, but I tend to take the
> bad with the good.

There's always Hope.

> This is very illustrative of how the 30-percenters can still support
> our beloved President/horse and his big war.  They've simply used
> their very effective and selective blinders to block out the past 5
> years of his lies.  Maybe I'll conk a Republican in the head and steal
> his blinders when I retire.  If I'm gonna get Alzheimers anyway, I
> might as well only remember the good stuff.
Scott - 07 Apr 2007 17:48 GMT
> May happen sooner than you think!

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
Rod - 07 Apr 2007 20:28 GMT
>> "Greg Mossman" <moss...@qnet.com> noted:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>his blinders when I retire.  If I'm gonna get Alzheimers anyway, I
>might as well only remember the good stuff.

Well it does appear we may get an old nag for president
Chris Guynn - 09 Apr 2007 15:31 GMT
> > "Greg Mossman" <moss...@qnet.com> noted:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
> Nowadays, you can make a horse President.

I still don't think Hillary will win.
dechucka - 06 Apr 2007 09:51 GMT
>> really? and what supplies the guiding force and what observable evidence
> is
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Science and laws of physics say they cant.

really?
TonyP - 07 Apr 2007 00:08 GMT
>>>>Science is man trying to define and explain that which he doesnt
>>>>understand,
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> really? and what supplies the guiding force and what observable evidence is
> there

Again, what research have you done on the subject.
dechucka - 07 Apr 2007 00:20 GMT
>>>>>Science is man trying to define and explain that which he doesnt
>>>>>understand,
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Again, what research have you done on the subject.

You are the expert you tell me
Star - 06 Apr 2007 04:16 GMT
> >>Science is man trying to define and explain that which he doesnt
> >>understand,
> >>and is wrong more than right.
> > based on study and observable evidence
>
> So is intelligent design. IF you have ever bothered to do the research.

Perhaps you could offer a testable hypothesis that I might use to
bring ID into my biology classroom, then?  So far, not even Jonathan
Wells has been able to do that, and I have asked him personally.

*
TonyP - 07 Apr 2007 00:36 GMT
>>>>Science is man trying to define and explain that which he doesnt
>>>>understand,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> bring ID into my biology classroom, then?  So far, not even Jonathan
> Wells has been able to do that, and I have asked him personally.

Thanks Star. Keep on me for info... here is one link that might interest
you. It's a little "heady" for the most part.
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_ma/
The site has a wealth of other information, along with books, etc.
Here is a site with more "normal" language. The Second Law of
Thermodynamics, which for me says alot against evolution.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp

These are online sites. I have several books on the topic for various
scientists with alphabets after their names.
dechucka - 07 Apr 2007 00:39 GMT
>>>>>Science is man trying to define and explain that which he doesnt
>>>>>understand,
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> you. It's a little "heady" for the most part.
> http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_ma/

sorry the ICR in the cite stands for what?

Maybe something mainstream would be better
dechucka - 07 Apr 2007 00:51 GMT
>>>>>>Science is man trying to define and explain that which he doesnt
>>>>>>understand,
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Maybe something mainstream would be better

Just had a read of the article. The author describes a very complex life
cycle of a parasitic worm and than reaches this amazing conclusion based on
nothing " Chance alone cannot account for this system or the structures it
displays. An argument from intelligent design, however, might be made on the
basis of the "irreducible complexity" of the structures and features found
in this group. "  ie this is very comples I don't understand how it happened
so there must be a God, a conclusion of a God based on ingnorance. I've got
another explantation for this comples life style it evolved over millions of
years

If this is the type of crap science that the ID people want to teach than
science as we know it is dead.
Star - 07 Apr 2007 06:13 GMT
> >>>>Science is man trying to define and explain that which he doesnt
> >>>>understand,
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Thanks Star. Keep on me for info...

I am not sure why you are thanking me........

> here is one link that might interest
> you. It's a little "heady" for the most part.http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_ma/

I do not know what you mean by "heady."  The article is babble and
chaff, rich in misused terminology and cleverly disguised as a genuine
peer-reviewed publication.

> The site has a wealth of other information, along with books, etc.
> Here is a site with more "normal" language. The Second Law of
> Thermodynamics, which for me says alot against evolution.http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp

This author is writing about a misconception in thermodynamics, not
evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is
possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a
cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25]

Rephrase the 2nd law another equivalent way: "The entropy of a closed
system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy
and often (but not always,) corresponds to intuitive notions of
disorder or randomness. Many creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd
law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

That website in no way presents genuine research but instead spews
articles that twist concepts to support their cause.

> These are online sites. I have several books on the topic for various
> scientists with alphabets after their names.

I'm sorry, Tony, you are certainly free to believe in whichever God
you choose.  I will again argue that belief by nature needs no proof,
and that is the beauty of belief.  I can BELIEVE whatever I want, and
there's no room for anyone to make me change that based on something
they fabricate and call  "proof" or "truth."

Jonathan Wells has an alphabet after his name, but that hasn't
prevented him from spewing all kinds of garbage and calling it
science.  ANd I still don't have an example of a testable hypothesis
to use in a HS biology class.

*
TonyP - 08 Apr 2007 00:41 GMT
> This author is writing about a misconception in thermodynamics, not
> evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> disorder or randomness. Many creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd
> law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

But is this system closed or open that we live in.

> That website in no way presents genuine research but instead spews
> articles that twist concepts to support their cause.

I would have to disagree.

>>These are online sites. I have several books on the topic for various
>>scientists with alphabets after their names.

> I'm sorry, Tony, you are certainly free to believe in whichever God
> you choose.  I will again argue that belief by nature needs no proof,
> and that is the beauty of belief.  I can BELIEVE whatever I want, and
> there's no room for anyone to make me change that based on something
> they fabricate and call  "proof" or "truth."

I would have to ask you then, how many truths are there?

> Jonathan Wells has an alphabet after his name, but that hasn't
> prevented him from spewing all kinds of garbage and calling it
> science.  ANd I still don't have an example of a testable hypothesis
> to use in a HS biology class.

Question... what are you using for evolution?
Rod - 08 Apr 2007 01:48 GMT
>> This author is writing about a misconception in thermodynamics, not
>> evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
>Question... what are you using for evolution?

Has anyone ever met a "tony" that they could respect ?
Scott - 08 Apr 2007 02:01 GMT
> Has anyone ever met a "tony" that they could respect ?

Come on man, that was offside. I hope it was a joke I dont get.

Tony is a good dude, actually dives, and at least he has the balls to post
in his own name and stand his ground.

I may not agree with him at all times, but he has my respect.
dechucka - 08 Apr 2007 02:08 GMT
>> Has anyone ever met a "tony" that they could respect ?
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> I may not agree with him at all times, but he has my respect.

and he has the conviction of his beliefs and doesn't run away when someone
questions his beliefs
Rod - 08 Apr 2007 02:21 GMT
>> Has anyone ever met a "tony" that they could respect ?
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>I may not agree with him at all times, but he has my respect.

OK, I'll take a ten yard penality on that.
Scott - 08 Apr 2007 02:39 GMT
> >> Has anyone ever met a "tony" that they could respect ?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> >
> OK, I'll take a ten yard penality on that.

No foul, no penalty.

Barkeep, a round for Rod and Tony.
TonyP - 12 Apr 2007 22:39 GMT
>>Has anyone ever met a "tony" that they could respect ?

> Come on man, that was offside. I hope it was a joke I dont get.
>
> Tony is a good dude, actually dives, and at least he has the balls to post
> in his own name and stand his ground.
>
> I may not agree with him at all times, but he has my respect.

Thanks Scott. I usually don't bother answering ad homenim stuff.
dechucka - 13 Apr 2007 09:38 GMT
>>>Has anyone ever met a "tony" that they could respect ?
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Thanks Scott. I usually don't bother answering ad homenim stuff.

you just like to use it
Grumman-581 - 06 Apr 2007 01:14 GMT
> Do you chuckle at funerals when people pray?

Nawh, I use it as a time to discretely pop a top on another cold
one... <evil-grin>
Scott - 06 Apr 2007 01:44 GMT
> > Do you chuckle at funerals when people pray?
>
> Nawh, I use it as a time to discretely pop a top on another cold
> one... <evil-grin>

At dads funeral we played Flatt and Skruggs.

He wasnt there.
TonyP - 06 Apr 2007 01:50 GMT
>>>Science does not seek prove anything, particularly not a theory.
>>
>>Then what about volution.

>>>Issue with creationism is that there is no empirical evidence,  no
>>>testable hypotheses, so is considered an idea or belief, thus does not
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Because is a theory based on scientific enquiry and study the other depends
> on some mythical being which nobody has shown exists

And how have you come to this conclusion of a mythical being? Evidence
would be nice.
Carl Nisarel - 06 Apr 2007 01:00 GMT
TonyP <arpierre@hooptown.net> muttered:

> And how have you come to this conclusion of a mythical being?
> Evidence would be nice.

The irony is hilarious.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

TonyP - 07 Apr 2007 00:04 GMT
> TonyP <arpierre@hooptown.net> muttered:
>
>>And how have you come to this conclusion of a mythical being?
>>Evidence would be nice.

> The irony is hilarious.

Not as hilarious as your non-evidence. But that's ok... you have been
exposed again. There is a psychological name for someone like you...
Carl Nisarel - 11 Apr 2007 18:58 GMT
> Not as hilarious as your non-evidence.

Russell's teapot is brewing up a great batch.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

dechucka - 06 Apr 2007 02:07 GMT
>>>>Science does not seek prove anything, particularly not a theory.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> And how have you come to this conclusion of a mythical being? Evidence
> would be nice.

that why it is mythical it doesn't excist
Scott - 06 Apr 2007 03:16 GMT
> that why it is mythical it doesn't excist

Prove it.

Or shut the f.ck up.
Grumman-581 - 06 Apr 2007 03:42 GMT
> Prove it.
>
> Or shut the f.ck up.

One man's mythology is another man's religion... You're not going to
change his mind nor is he going to change yours... The "proof" to any
particular religion is in the various writings that are made by
proponents of that particular religion / belief system... There is no
independent and repeatable verification that can be used to prove the
validity of these writings... Perhaps that is why they use the term
"faith"?  One should not try to bring logic into the conversation when
one is dealing with religion... By the very nature of the topic, the
participants cannot discuss the issues with objective minds... Each
religion thinks that it is the only one who will get the penthouse
suite in the afterlife whereas all the other religions will get a low
rent basement studio apartment... It doesn't matter whether it is the
camel f.ckers, the Druids, the Jews, or whatever flavor of the lawn
service worker worshipers... Each of the various religions / sects
believe that the rest of the sects are doomed in an afterlife that
only the believers of their particular brand of religion can truly
see... I have to wonder if with all the various religions that have
come and gone over the years, if any *one* of them was truly
*right*... Somehow, I suspect that if there is an afterlife, it's
probably something that doesn't exactly match any of the beliefs of
any of the various religions over the years...
dechucka - 06 Apr 2007 09:52 GMT
>> that why it is mythical it doesn't excist
>
> Prove it.

how can you prove a negative? Logic isn't your strong point

> Or shut the f.ck up.

anger management is needed by you in this case
Scott - 06 Apr 2007 13:57 GMT
> how can you prove a negative?

No sh.t, you are starting to understand, but that would be proving a
negative.

> Logic isn't your strong point.

At least as strong as yours.

> > Or shut the f.ck up.
>
> anger management is needed by you in this case

Oh, shut the f.ck up. Now youre a shrink?
Chris Guynn - 09 Apr 2007 15:39 GMT
> >> that why it is mythical it doesn't excist
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> how can you prove a negative? Logic isn't your strong point

Wolf, is that you?
TonyP - 07 Apr 2007 00:09 GMT
>>>>>Science does not seek prove anything, particularly not a theory.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> that why it is mythical it doesn't excist

Again, your evidence.
Chris Guynn - 09 Apr 2007 15:37 GMT
> >>>>Science does not seek prove anything, particularly not a theory.
> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> that why it is mythical it doesn't excist

Or, is does exist and we just can't prove it.
nospam@all.please.net - 06 Apr 2007 04:37 GMT
>>>>Science does not seek prove anything, particularly not a theory.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> And how have you come to this conclusion of a mythical being? Evidence
> would be nice.

http://www.venganza.org/
Dennis (Icarus) - 06 Apr 2007 04:06 GMT
> > Science does not seek prove anything, particularly not a theory.
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> The same can be said of evolution. No one is saying that there is
> empirical evidence for creationism. It is a theory as is evolution. What

Not really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

> is wrong with teaching both and let the students decide? They would have
> the tools to make an informed decision.
> What is everyone afraid of.
> A belief does not require proof. But a belief in Christianity does.

Dennis
Lee Bell - 06 Apr 2007 11:29 GMT
> What is wrong with teaching both and let the students decide?

OK.  I'll teach creationism.

Some people believe in a God that made it all happen in 6 days and rested on
the 7th.

Done.  Send me a salary check.

Lee
Greg Mossman - 06 Apr 2007 20:20 GMT
> > What is wrong with teaching both and let the students decide?
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Done.  Send me a salary check.

And no one will complain as long as you teach it in the right setting,
i.e. a class in comparative religions, or mythology in literature.
They can introduce "creation" after the Greek mythologic theory of the
world being formed out of chaos, which I believe correlates with the
Big Bang theory a lot closer than any of the Christian myths.  After
all, the Greeks made important advances in mathematics, philosophy,
and government.  The early Christians, on the other hand, came from
and fluorished in an era when civilization was most in decline, when
human beings were at the lowest point in their mental development.
Why should some Conan-looking barbarians from the Dark Ages be trusted
to have gotten it right versus some civilized toga-wearing Greeks?

But they're all entertaining stories, and they should be taught in
their proper place.

It's when they want to teach the stories in science classes that we
secularists have a little problem.  That's the equivalent of asking,
"what is wrong with teaching both 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 and letting the
students decide?"

It's OK to discuss a science-fiction world where 2+2=5 in a lit class,
but not in science, please.
TonyP - 07 Apr 2007 01:09 GMT
>>>What is wrong with teaching both and let the students decide?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> Why should some Conan-looking barbarians from the Dark Ages be trusted
> to have gotten it right versus some civilized toga-wearing Greeks?

Arthur Stanley Eddington  mathematical cosmologist.
Georges Lemaître  proposed the Big Bang theory on the basis of Hubble's
discovery of universal expansion.
Henry F. "Fritz" Schaefer is one of the foremost theoretical chemists of
our day.
William Phillips was co-recipient of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics.
Francis Collins is the director of the U.S. Human Genome Project.
Rustum Roy, one of the world's foremost materials scientists, holds
three chairs at the Pennsylvania State University.
Louis Pasteur.
Isaac Newton.
Johannes Kepler astronomer.
Robert Boyle.
Michael Faraday.
Lord Kelvin.
Carolus Linnaeus is often called the Father of Taxonomy.
Oh, the list goes on and on.....

> It's when they want to teach the stories in science classes that we
> secularists have a little problem.  That's the equivalent of asking,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> It's OK to discuss a science-fiction world where 2+2=5 in a lit class,
> but not in science, please.
I guess those people listed have no clue either and you do.
dechucka - 07 Apr 2007 01:14 GMT
>>>>What is wrong with teaching both and let the students decide?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> Carolus Linnaeus is often called the Father of Taxonomy.
> Oh, the list goes on and on.....

You will find that they base their science on observable fact to disprove a
null hypothesis and their religion on faith. It is only people like you who
want to blur the obvious differences
TonyP - 08 Apr 2007 00:18 GMT
>>>>>What is wrong with teaching both and let the students decide?
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> null hypothesis and their religion on faith. It is only people like you who
> want to blur the obvious differences

Then how do they reconile their belief in God with science, since to
you, they don't mesh.
dechucka - 08 Apr 2007 00:28 GMT
>>>>>>What is wrong with teaching both and let the students decide?
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> Then how do they reconile their belief in God with science, since to you,
> they don't mesh.

You better ask them?
Danlw - 07 Apr 2007 17:08 GMT
>>>>What is wrong with teaching both and let the students decide?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>> but not in science, please.
> I guess those people listed have no clue either and you do.

Well, I am close to agreeing with you on this.  I think children should be
taught NO religion at all, given the info on all, let them make up their own
minds when old enough to understand.  Dan
TonyP - 08 Apr 2007 03:52 GMT
>>>>>What is wrong with teaching both and let the students decide?
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
> taught NO religion at all, given the info on all, let them make up their own
> minds when old enough to understand.  Dan

And where do you draw the line in parenting. At what age can they make
up their own mind? What about the laws of the land (USA). Based upon
what. History of this country, all those wonder sayings in the gov't
buildings and courts in this country. Exclude that information too.
Why not just let them choose what they want to do. Hey, anarchy works
for some people.
Danlw - 08 Apr 2007 18:18 GMT
>>>>>>What is wrong with teaching both and let the students decide?
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
> Why not just let them choose what they want to do. Hey, anarchy works for
> some people.

When did teaching a child a reasonable thought process become bad parenting?
Morality and "being good" are not
exclusive to religion.  Teach them how to make decisions and that with the
right to make decisions comes responsibility.

It may come as a shock, but a lot of people who do not believe in the
christian version of god, though they may well believe in a higher power,
are law abiding citizens who go out of thier way to help others.  Dan
TonyP - 12 Apr 2007 23:02 GMT
>>snip<<

>>>Well, I am close to agreeing with you on this.  I think children should
>>>be taught NO religion at all, given the info on all, let them make up
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>Why not just let them choose what they want to do. Hey, anarchy works for
>>some people.

> When did teaching a child a reasonable thought process become bad parenting?
> Morality and "being good" are not
> exclusive to religion.  Teach them how to make decisions and that with the
> right to make decisions comes responsibility.

Tell me, you mention morality and being good. Where did this concept
originate.
I totally agree with your second part. That is missing today.
Responsibility for your decisions.

> It may come as a shock, but a lot of people who do not believe in the
> christian version of god, though they may well believe in a higher power,
> are law abiding citizens who go out of thier way to help others.  Dan

No, that does not come as a shock to me. I know many people that are
good parents and citizens that are not "religious".  And some believe in
a higher power, although when asked, they can't give any info on why
they believe that way.
While we all have a choice in what we choose to believe, there are those
times when most people ask "why".
Greg Mossman - 16 Apr 2007 01:22 GMT
> Tell me, you mention morality and being good. Where did this concept
> originate.

With the Greeks?
Danlw - 07 Apr 2007 17:04 GMT
>> What is wrong with teaching both and let the students decide?
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Lee

Lee, you forgot about that new "Christian" museum that is opening
soon--Kentucky or somewhere down there, that claims dinosaurs "walked with
people" and that T-rex was actually a vegetarian.  They had to explain all
those bones somehow.  Bet those teeth on T-Rex were great for pulling
carrots...  Dan
TonyP - 08 Apr 2007 03:50 GMT
>>>What is wrong with teaching both and let the students decide?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> those bones somehow.  Bet those teeth on T-Rex were great for pulling
> carrots...  Dan

Hmmm.... I guess those sharp teeth a panda has is for meat too. Oh, and
bears, I wonder what their primary diet is (excluding polar bears).
dechucka - 08 Apr 2007 04:01 GMT
>>>>What is wrong with teaching both and let the students decide?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Hmmm.... I guess those sharp teeth a panda has is for meat too. Oh, and
> bears, I wonder what their primary diet is (excluding polar bears).

Bears are omnivores. Google is your friend and will stop you looking like an
idiot, maybe

Some info on there teeth

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/panda/

Since pandas spend most of their time eating tough, nutrition-poor bamboo,
strong teeth and jaws are very important to a panda's survival. Giant pandas
have large molars (flat teeth used for crushing food). They also have a few
sharp teeth which they use to bite tough bamboo stalks. Pandas have 42
teeth. They also have strong jaw muscles which they use for chewing tough
bamboo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear

Depending on the species, bears can have 32 to 42 teeth. Bear teeth are not
specialized for killing their prey like those of cats. Normal canine teeth
in a carnivore are generally large, pointed and used for killing prey, while
bears' canine teeth are relatively small and typically used in defense or as
tools. Bears' molar teeth are broad, flat and are used to shred and grind
plant food into small digestible pieces.

and on diet

http://www.wwfchina.org/english/pandacentral/htm/learn_about_giant_panda/panda_q
_a/diet.htm


http://www.idahoptv.org/dialogue4kids/bears/bearseat.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_bear

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_bear
TonyP - 12 Apr 2007 22:51 GMT
>>>>>What is wrong with teaching both and let the students decide?
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>>Hmmm.... I guess those sharp teeth a panda has is for meat too. Oh, and
>>bears, I wonder what their primary diet is (excluding polar bears).

> Bears are omnivores. Google is your friend and will stop you looking like an
> idiot, maybe

More ad homenim. But then, that is your first line of running.

> Some info on there teeth
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> teeth. They also have strong jaw muscles which they use for chewing tough
> bamboo

What about the canine teeth?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> tools. Bears' molar teeth are broad, flat and are used to shred and grind
> plant food into small digestible pieces.

I see. Those long teeth are for eating berries and insects and
vegetation. Ok.

> and on diet
>
> http://www.wwfchina.org/english/pandacentral/htm/learn_about_giant_panda/panda_q
_a/diet.htm

Nice long canine. Maybe you should read this link yourself.
To cut and paste....  "The panda is a carnivore that acts like a
herbivore. The panda diet is almost 100% vegetarian". A contradiction
isn't it.

> http://www.idahoptv.org/dialogue4kids/bears/bearseat.html

Still don't read the links you post.... "Their rate of feeding increases
as food quality increases. In summer they will eat throughout the day as
they search for nutritious food such as berries. By eating the most when
the best quality food is available, bears quickly fatten up for their
coming hibernation.

Black bears seldom hunt and chase down big animals for food. The only
time black bears are likely to search for meat is in the spring, when
plant food is still scarce. During this time, bears may look for newborn
deer, elk, and moose." They'll eat meat BECAUSE their plant food is
scarce.  Again... big sharp canines for eating lettuce.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_bear

"The Grizzly bears, which reside in the American northwest, are not as
large as Canadian or Alaskan sub-species Ursus arctos. This is due, in
part, to the richness of their diet which in Yellowstone consists of
whitebark pine nuts, roots, tubers, grasses, various rodents, army
cutworm moths and scavenged carcasses, none of which match the fat
content of the salmon available in Alaska. During early spring, as the
bears emerge from their dens, elk and bison calves are actively sought.
The bear will move in a zig-zag pattern, nose to the ground, hoping to
find a meal."  Let's see. You need those big long sharp teeth for eating
fish. I don't. Oh, and those pine nuts and grasses are sure tough.

But you still can't see how ridiculous your reply is. You just validated
my point. Thanks.
dechucka - 13 Apr 2007 09:26 GMT
>>>>>>What is wrong with teaching both and let the students decide?
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 84 lines]
> But you still can't see how ridiculous your reply is. You just validated
> my point. Thanks.

sorry should have seen you where a religious nutter before. You are up there
with the Taliban, mad hindus, vicious Jews etc etc
Carl Nisarel - 14 Apr 2007 20:14 GMT
TonyP <arpierre@hooptown.net> sputtered:

> Nice long canine. Maybe you should read this link yourself.
> To cut and paste....  "The panda is a carnivore that acts like
> a herbivore. The panda diet is almost 100% vegetarian". A
> contradiction isn't it.

Only to a fuckin moron like you, Tony.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dennis (Icarus) - 08 Apr 2007 04:24 GMT
> >>>What is wrong with teaching both and let the students decide?
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Hmmm.... I guess those sharp teeth a panda has is for meat too. Oh, and
> bears, I wonder what their primary diet is (excluding polar bears).

http://www.idahoptv.org/dialogue4kids/bears/bearseat.html
Black bears:
Horsetails & grasses
Berries: chokecherry, huckleberry, & buffaloberry are favorites forbs
(broad-leaned plants)
Aquatic plants such as lilies
Elk & Moose calves,
Deer fawns
Ground squirrels & other small rodents
Ants,
Wasps,
Bees (adults & larvae)
Carrion

Pandas:
http://www.animalinfo.org/species/carnivor/ailumela.htm#Diet
The giant panda's diet consists mainly (over 99% (Schaller et al. 1985)) of
bamboo shoots, up to 13 mm (1/2") in diameter, and bamboo roots. It also
eats bulbs of plants such as iris and crocus, grasses and occasionally fish,
insects, carrion, eggs and small rodents.

With a digestive system characteristic of a carnivore, the giant panda is
very inefficient in digesting bamboo, utilizing an average of only 17 % of
the dry matter.  Therefore, adult pandas must eat 10 - 18 kg (22 - 40 lb) of
bamboo per day to get enough nourishment.

Dennis
Grumman-581 - 08 Apr 2007 07:18 GMT
> Hmmm.... I guess those sharp teeth a panda has is for meat too.

They're an evolutionary dead end... Evolved to eat a single type of
bamboo...

> Oh, and bears, I wonder what their primary diet is
> (excluding polar bears).

Uhhh... Anything *smaller* than they are?
<snicker>

Seriously though, they're opportunistic eaters...
*  Horsetails & grasses
* Berries: chokecherry, huckleberry, & buffaloberry are favorites
forbs (broad-leaned plants)
* Aquatic plants such as lilies
* Elk & Moose calves,
* Deer fawns
* Ground squirrels & other small rodents
* Ants,
* Wasps,
* Bees (adults & larvae)
* Carrion
* Salmon,
* ground squirrels and other small mammals
* trout
* bighorn sheep
* mountain goat
* mountain climbers
Danlw - 08 Apr 2007 18:09 GMT
>> Hmmm.... I guess those sharp teeth a panda has is for meat too.
>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> * mountain goat
> * mountain climbers

Don't forget, the bears also eat wildlife photographers after they have won
their trust and let them get in close. Dan
TonyP - 12 Apr 2007 22:52 GMT
>>Hmmm.... I guess those sharp teeth a panda has is for meat too.
>
[quoted text clipped - 25