| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" |
| Date: |
10 May 2004 01:40:14 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
"AC" <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc9vdb9.26c.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net...
NASHVILLE, Tennessee (AP) -- A prominent Southern Baptist is asking the
national convention to consider a resolution recommending parents remove
their children from what he calls "godless" and "anti-Christian" public
schools.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/07/baptist.schools.ap/index.html
I think it's a fine idea. It will get the anti-science Fundies and their
kids out of government funded schools and leave the rest to learn science,
without having religion pushed down their throats.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
The parents also think it's a great idea to teach their kids real science
and not the skewed myth of evolution which atheists are pushing down their
throats..
That way the world will have real scientists in the future.
Can you say "Eyes Wide Open"
.
|
|
| User: "R.Schenck" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
10 May 2004 03:55:06 PM |
|
|
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <Atheistsare@fools.com> on 10 May 2004
posted
"AC" <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc9vdb9.26c.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net...
NASHVILLE, Tennessee (AP) -- A prominent Southern Baptist is asking
the national convention to consider a resolution recommending parents
remove their children from what he calls "godless" and
"anti-Christian" public schools.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/07/baptist.schools.ap/index.html
I think it's a fine idea. It will get the anti-science Fundies and
their kids out of government funded schools and leave the rest to
learn science, without having religion pushed down their throats.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
The parents also think it's a great idea to teach their kids real
science and not the skewed myth of evolution which atheists are
pushing down their throats..
That way the world will have real scientists in the future.
Can you say "Eyes Wide Open"
why the constant switching you stupid coward?
<plonk>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Skywise" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
10 May 2004 04:46:09 PM |
|
|
"R.Schenck" <nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2ga8smFg7csU2@uni-berlin.de...
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <Atheistsare@fools.com> on 10 May 2004
posted
"AC" <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc9vdb9.26c.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net...
NASHVILLE, Tennessee (AP) -- A prominent Southern Baptist is asking
the national convention to consider a resolution recommending parents
remove their children from what he calls "godless" and
"anti-Christian" public schools.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/07/baptist.schools.ap/index.html
I think it's a fine idea. It will get the anti-science Fundies and
their kids out of government funded schools and leave the rest to
learn science, without having religion pushed down their throats.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
The parents also think it's a great idea to teach their kids real
science and not the skewed myth of evolution which atheists are
pushing down their throats..
That way the world will have real scientists in the future.
Can you say "Eyes Wide Open"
why the constant switching you stupid coward?
<plonk>
Go hide under that killfile blankey again you useless fool
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
10 May 2004 03:38:10 PM |
|
|
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <Atheistsare@fools.com> shot from
the breach towards his enemies, screaming forth the battle cry:
"AC" <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc9vdb9.26c.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net...
NASHVILLE, Tennessee (AP) -- A prominent Southern Baptist is
asking the national convention to consider a resolution
recommending parents remove their children from what he calls
"godless" and "anti-Christian" public schools.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/07/baptist.schools.ap/index
.html
I think it's a fine idea. It will get the anti-science Fundies
and their kids out of government funded schools and leave the
rest to learn science, without having religion pushed down
their throats.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
The parents also think it's a great idea to teach their kids
real science and not the skewed myth of evolution which atheists
are pushing down their throats..
That way the world will have real scientists in the future.
Can you say "Eyes Wide Open"
Great, now I have to plonk this stupid ***** again.
Stay in there this time you morphing *****.
--
Phil Roberts | Without me its just aweso. | http://www.flatnet.net/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
10 May 2004 09:12:11 PM |
|
|
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <Atheistsare@fools.com> wrote in message
news:H5Qnc.21$o02.32552@news.uswest.net...
"AC" <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc9vdb9.26c.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net...
NASHVILLE, Tennessee (AP) -- A prominent Southern Baptist is asking the
national convention to consider a resolution recommending parents remove
their children from what he calls "godless" and "anti-Christian" public
schools.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/07/baptist.schools.ap/index.html
I think it's a fine idea. It will get the anti-science Fundies and
their
kids out of government funded schools and leave the rest to learn
science,
without having religion pushed down their throats.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
The parents also think it's a great idea to teach their kids real science
and not the skewed myth of evolution which atheists are pushing down their
throats..
Sure. Since they probably will not be goint into a job market that doesn't
involve science, like stocking shelves, flipping burgers, moping floors...
That way the world will have real scientists in the future.
Can you say "Eyes Wide Open"
The irony is astounding.
Boikat
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
10 May 2004 10:10:59 PM |
|
|
In article <%CWnc.104414$oN1.18573@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Boikat"
<boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote:
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <Atheistsare@fools.com> wrote in message
news:H5Qnc.21$o02.32552@news.uswest.net...
The parents also think it's a great idea to teach their kids real
science and not the skewed myth of evolution which atheists are pushing down
their throats..
Sure. Since they probably will not be goint into a job market that
doesn't involve science, like stocking shelves, flipping burgers, moping
floors...
Weird. I've managed to become quite successful without involving myself
in either science or shelf-stocking or burger-flipping.
One might think from your comment that those were the only alternatives.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
11 May 2004 08:24:36 AM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-82538F.23181410052004@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <%CWnc.104414$oN1.18573@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Boikat"
<boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote:
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <Atheistsare@fools.com> wrote in message
news:H5Qnc.21$o02.32552@news.uswest.net...
The parents also think it's a great idea to teach their kids real
science and not the skewed myth of evolution which atheists are
pushing down
their throats..
Sure. Since they probably will not be goint into a job market that
doesn't involve science, like stocking shelves, flipping burgers, moping
floors...
Weird. I've managed to become quite successful without involving myself
in either science or shelf-stocking or burger-flipping.
One might think from your comment that those were the only alternatives.
It's a euphamism for "any job which does not require critical or logical
thinking".
Boikat
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
11 May 2004 10:04:41 AM |
|
|
In article <Dx4oc.150323$Yw5.13819@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Boikat"
<boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-82538F.23181410052004@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <%CWnc.104414$oN1.18573@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Boikat"
<boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote:
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <Atheistsare@fools.com> wrote in
message news:H5Qnc.21$o02.32552@news.uswest.net...
The parents also think it's a great idea to teach their kids real
science and not the skewed myth of evolution which atheists
are pushing down their throats..
Sure. Since they probably will not be goint into a job market that
doesn't involve science, like stocking shelves, flipping burgers,
moping floors...
Weird. I've managed to become quite successful without involving myself
in either science or shelf-stocking or burger-flipping.
One might think from your comment that those were the only
alternatives.
It's a euphamism for "any job which does not require critical or logical
thinking".
Okay. And my comment still stands. I've managed to become rather
successful both as an attorney and in federal law enforcement without
ever needing to use science. Whether I was taught evolution or
creationism in grade school would have had zero effect on my success
later in life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
11 May 2004 10:12:15 AM |
|
|
BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <Dx4oc.150323$Yw5.13819@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Boikat"
<boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-82538F.23181410052004@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <%CWnc.104414$oN1.18573@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Boikat"
<boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote:
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <Atheistsare@fools.com> wrote in
message news:H5Qnc.21$o02.32552@news.uswest.net...
The parents also think it's a great idea to teach their kids real
science and not the skewed myth of evolution which atheists
are pushing down their throats..
Sure. Since they probably will not be goint into a job market that
doesn't involve science, like stocking shelves, flipping burgers,
moping floors...
Weird. I've managed to become quite successful without involving myself
in either science or shelf-stocking or burger-flipping.
One might think from your comment that those were the only
alternatives.
It's a euphamism for "any job which does not require critical or logical
thinking".
Okay. And my comment still stands. I've managed to become rather
successful both as an attorney and in federal law enforcement without
ever needing to use science. Whether I was taught evolution or
creationism in grade school would have had zero effect on my success
later in life.
Is this the excuse that lawyers use when they shoe horn the evidence
into their arguments to fit their desired outcome? ;-)
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
11 May 2004 10:19:28 AM |
|
|
"David" <NOdaycdSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1gdm9sh.1n8pmmp1qsx1nvN%NOdaycdSPAM@hotmail.com...
BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <Dx4oc.150323$Yw5.13819@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Boikat"
<boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-82538F.23181410052004@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <%CWnc.104414$oN1.18573@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Boikat"
<boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote:
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <Atheistsare@fools.com> wrote in
message news:H5Qnc.21$o02.32552@news.uswest.net...
The parents also think it's a great idea to teach their kids
real
science and not the skewed myth of evolution which atheists
are pushing down their throats..
Sure. Since they probably will not be goint into a job market
that
doesn't involve science, like stocking shelves, flipping burgers,
moping floors...
Weird. I've managed to become quite successful without involving
myself
in either science or shelf-stocking or burger-flipping.
One might think from your comment that those were the only
alternatives.
It's a euphamism for "any job which does not require critical or
logical
thinking".
Okay. And my comment still stands. I've managed to become rather
successful both as an attorney and in federal law enforcement without
ever needing to use science. Whether I was taught evolution or
creationism in grade school would have had zero effect on my success
later in life.
federal law enforcement? i thought it was all about science these days? DNA
evidence, etc?
Is this the excuse that lawyers use when they shoe horn the evidence
into their arguments to fit their desired outcome? ;-)
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
12 May 2004 09:03:54 AM |
|
|
In article <c7qr8o$t3s$1@trsvr.tr.unisys.com>, "Patrick"
<pjm@netscape.net> wrote:
"David" <NOdaycdSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1gdm9sh.1n8pmmp1qsx1nvN%NOdaycdSPAM@hotmail.com...
BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <Dx4oc.150323$Yw5.13819@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Boikat"
<boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-82538F.23181410052004@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <%CWnc.104414$oN1.18573@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
"Boikat" <boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote:
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <Atheistsare@fools.com> wrote
in message news:H5Qnc.21$o02.32552@news.uswest.net...
The parents also think it's a great idea to teach their kids real
science and not the skewed myth of evolution which atheists
are pushing down their throats..
Sure. Since they probably will not be goint into a job market that
doesn't involve science, like stocking shelves, flipping
burgers, mopping floors...
Weird. I've managed to become quite successful without involving myself
in either science or shelf-stocking or burger-flipping.
One might think from your comment that those were the only
alternatives.
It's a euphamism for "any job which does not require critical or logical
thinking".
Okay. And my comment still stands. I've managed to become rather
successful both as an attorney and in federal law enforcement without
ever needing to use science. Whether I was taught evolution or
creationism in grade school would have had zero effect on my success
later in life.
federal law enforcement? i thought it was all about science these days?
DNA evidence, etc?
The science involved with collecting and proving DNA evidence is done by
crime scene techs and lab techs and presented in court by the Assistant
US Attorney.
As an agent, I don't need to know a thing about the underlying science
of DNA in order to do my job.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
12 May 2004 12:09:06 PM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-2BD594.10111912052004@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <c7qr8o$t3s$1@trsvr.tr.unisys.com>, "Patrick"
<pjm@netscape.net> wrote:
<snip>
The science involved with collecting and proving DNA evidence is done by
crime scene techs and lab techs and presented in court by the Assistant
US Attorney.
As an agent, I don't need to know a thing about the underlying science
of DNA in order to do my job.
It is always easier to know how than why but the people that know why will
always have the edge.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
12 May 2004 10:16:30 PM |
|
|
In article
<HYsoc.47293$Ut1.1338091@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Mike
Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-2BD594.10111912052004@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <c7qr8o$t3s$1@trsvr.tr.unisys.com>, "Patrick"
<pjm@netscape.net> wrote:
<snip>
The science involved with collecting and proving DNA evidence is done by
crime scene techs and lab techs and presented in court by the Assistant
US Attorney.
As an agent, I don't need to know a thing about the underlying science
of DNA in order to do my job.
It is always easier to know how than why but the people that know why will
always have the edge.
Not really. Since knowing the why isn't necessary to do the job, those
who do know it won't really have an advantage over those who don't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
13 May 2004 12:08:52 PM |
|
|
In article <BTR1702-CB468E.23234612052004@news.west.earthlink.net>,
BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article
<HYsoc.47293$Ut1.1338091@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Mike
Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-2BD594.10111912052004@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <c7qr8o$t3s$1@trsvr.tr.unisys.com>, "Patrick"
<pjm@netscape.net> wrote:
<snip>
The science involved with collecting and proving DNA evidence is done by
crime scene techs and lab techs and presented in court by the Assistant
US Attorney.
As an agent, I don't need to know a thing about the underlying science
of DNA in order to do my job.
It is always easier to know how than why but the people that know why will
always have the edge.
Not really. Since knowing the why isn't necessary to do the job, those
who do know it won't really have an advantage over those who don't.
*
And after you do this job for a few years and the time comes to move
upward, you will not have an advantage over those who know both
'how' and 'why'.
earle
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
13 May 2004 06:01:10 PM |
|
|
"Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-79B415.10152213052004@netnews.comcast.net...
In article <BTR1702-CB468E.23234612052004@news.west.earthlink.net>,
BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article
<HYsoc.47293$Ut1.1338091@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Mike
Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-2BD594.10111912052004@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <c7qr8o$t3s$1@trsvr.tr.unisys.com>, "Patrick"
<pjm@netscape.net> wrote:
<snip>
The science involved with collecting and proving DNA evidence is
done by
crime scene techs and lab techs and presented in court by the
Assistant
US Attorney.
As an agent, I don't need to know a thing about the underlying
science
of DNA in order to do my job.
It is always easier to know how than why but the people that know why
will
always have the edge.
Not really. Since knowing the why isn't necessary to do the job, those
who do know it won't really have an advantage over those who don't.
*
And after you do this job for a few years and the time comes to move
upward, you will not have an advantage over those who know both
'how' and 'why'.
Years ago there used to be two and four year RN programs. The two year
people came out knowing how to do everything. There four year people barely
knew how to take a blood pressure. But it's easy to learn how to do that
stuff. Within a very short time the four year people were pushing pens in
admin and the two year people were still pushing pills on the floor.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
14 May 2004 09:11:07 AM |
|
|
In article <earle.jones-79B415.10152213052004@netnews.comcast.net>,
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <BTR1702-CB468E.23234612052004@news.west.earthlink.net>,
BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article
<HYsoc.47293$Ut1.1338091@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Mike
Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-2BD594.10111912052004@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <c7qr8o$t3s$1@trsvr.tr.unisys.com>, "Patrick"
<pjm@netscape.net> wrote:
<snip>
The science involved with collecting and proving DNA evidence is
done by crime scene techs and lab techs and presented in court by the
Assistant US Attorney.
As an agent, I don't need to know a thing about the underlying
science of DNA in order to do my job.
It is always easier to know how than why but the people that know why
will always have the edge.
Not really. Since knowing the why isn't necessary to do the job, those
who do know it won't really have an advantage over those who don't.
*
And after you do this job for a few years and the time comes to move
upward, you will not have an advantage over those who know both
'how' and 'why'.
Nope. Again, the people who know the underlying science are in an
entirely different department. My career track would never intersect
with theirs.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Louann Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
13 May 2004 07:09:30 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 May 2004 03:16:30 +0000 (UTC), BTR1701
<BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
As an agent, I don't need to know a thing about the underlying science
of DNA in order to do my job.
It is always easier to know how than why but the people that know why will
always have the edge.
Not really. Since knowing the why isn't necessary to do the job, those
who do know it won't really have an advantage over those who don't.
I can see that would work once the job has been laid down into
procedures by people who do know both 'why' and 'how.' But what do you
do when you run into a problem outside the routine?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
13 May 2004 12:10:09 PM |
|
|
In article <pip6a0ti513g4rlpkcck3254onnsdh77dq@4ax.com>,
Louann Miller <louann_m@yahoo.net> wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2004 03:16:30 +0000 (UTC), BTR1701
<BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
As an agent, I don't need to know a thing about the underlying science
of DNA in order to do my job.
It is always easier to know how than why but the people that know why will
always have the edge.
Not really. Since knowing the why isn't necessary to do the job, those
who do know it won't really have an advantage over those who don't.
I can see that would work once the job has been laid down into
procedures by people who do know both 'why' and 'how.' But what do you
do when you run into a problem outside the routine?
*
He would run to someone who knows both 'how' and 'why'.
earle
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
13 May 2004 11:56:13 AM |
|
|
In article <pip6a0ti513g4rlpkcck3254onnsdh77dq@4ax.com>,
louann_m@yahoo.net wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2004 03:16:30 +0000 (UTC), BTR1701
<BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
As an agent, I don't need to know a thing about the underlying
science of DNA in order to do my job.
It is always easier to know how than why but the people that know why
will always have the edge.
Not really. Since knowing the why isn't necessary to do the job, those
who do know it won't really have an advantage over those who don't.
I can see that would work once the job has been laid down into
procedures by people who do know both 'why' and 'how.' But what do you
do when you run into a problem outside the routine?
Such a situation won't arise, since the job of collecting, analyzing and
understanding the DNA evidence isn't the job of the agent.
Crime scene techs and lab techs do that. The agents just take the
results and plug them into the investigations as a whole. Knowing the
ins and outs of reverse transcriptase whatevers isn't necessary.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dick C" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
12 May 2004 01:19:01 PM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote in talk.origins
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-2BD594.10111912052004@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <c7qr8o$t3s$1@trsvr.tr.unisys.com>, "Patrick"
<pjm@netscape.net> wrote:
<snip>
The science involved with collecting and proving DNA evidence is done by
crime scene techs and lab techs and presented in court by the Assistant
US Attorney.
As an agent, I don't need to know a thing about the underlying science
of DNA in order to do my job.
It is always easier to know how than why but the people that know why
will always have the edge.
I recently finished a book that talked about DNA evidence, and its' use in
courts. It seems that for quite awhile after its' usage was accepted,
every lawyer in the country immediately accepted it as absolute evidence.
The problem was that what the testing kit manufacturers were claiming was
either false or greatly exagerrated. A canny lawyer found that out and
challenged the evidence. He did some research and found people who actually
understood what it was, and the science behind it. Apparently the testing
was not accurate enough, the results could fit a lot of different people.
Newer methods are much better. But if the police and prosecutors understood
the underlying science, then they might actually see what was wrong to
begin with.
And if jurors actually understood science, they might be able to make
more informed decisions.
--
***** #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email:
.
|
|
|
| User: "MEC" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
13 May 2004 01:32:38 PM |
|
|
***** C <foo.dickcr@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<Xns94E774286C8A8dickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136>...
Mike Painter wrote in talk.origins
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-2BD594.10111912052004@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <c7qr8o$t3s$1@trsvr.tr.unisys.com>, "Patrick"
<pjm@netscape.net> wrote:
<snip>
The science involved with collecting and proving DNA evidence is done by
crime scene techs and lab techs and presented in court by the Assistant
US Attorney.
As an agent, I don't need to know a thing about the underlying science
of DNA in order to do my job.
It is always easier to know how than why but the people that know why
will always have the edge.
I recently finished a book that talked about DNA evidence, and its' use in
courts. It seems that for quite awhile after its' usage was accepted,
every lawyer in the country immediately accepted it as absolute evidence.
The problem was that what the testing kit manufacturers were claiming was
either false or greatly exagerrated. A canny lawyer found that out and
challenged the evidence. He did some research and found people who actually
understood what it was, and the science behind it. Apparently the testing
was not accurate enough, the results could fit a lot of different people.
Newer methods are much better. But if the police and prosecutors understood
the underlying science, then they might actually see what was wrong to
begin with.
This presumes that police and prosecutors *care* if anything is wrong
with the evidence. For all the obviously guilty folks who get away
with their crime (e.g., O.J.) I wonder how many innocent people are
convicted. Groups like the Innocence Project
(http://www.innocenceproject.org/) exist because cops and prosecutors
are not always concerned with getting things right. Mind-boggling as
it seems, I have even heard that according to U.S. courts evidence of
actual innocence is not necessarily grounds for a new trial. (anyone
know if this is accurate? As I said, I only heard it, but it does not
surprise me).
An even more OT cite; we're number one!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts43.html
And if jurors actually understood science, they might be able to make
more informed decisions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dick C" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
13 May 2004 04:06:40 PM |
|
|
MEC wrote in talk.origins
***** C <foo. > wrote in message
news:<Xns94E774286C8A8dickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136>...
Mike Painter wrote in talk.origins
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-2BD594.10111912052004@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <c7qr8o$t3s$1@trsvr.tr.unisys.com>, "Patrick"
<pjm@netscape.net> wrote:
<snip>
The science involved with collecting and proving DNA evidence is
done by crime scene techs and lab techs and presented in court by
the Assistant US Attorney.
As an agent, I don't need to know a thing about the underlying
science of DNA in order to do my job.
It is always easier to know how than why but the people that know why
will always have the edge.
I recently finished a book that talked about DNA evidence, and its' use
in courts. It seems that for quite awhile after its' usage was
accepted, every lawyer in the country immediately accepted it as
absolute evidence. The problem was that what the testing kit
manufacturers were claiming was either false or greatly exagerrated. A
canny lawyer found that out and challenged the evidence. He did some
research and found people who actually understood what it was, and the
science behind it. Apparently the testing was not accurate enough, the
results could fit a lot of different people. Newer methods are much
better. But if the police and prosecutors understood the underlying
science, then they might actually see what was wrong to begin with.
This presumes that police and prosecutors *care* if anything is wrong
with the evidence. For all the obviously guilty folks who get away
with their crime (e.g., O.J.) I wonder how many innocent people are
convicted. Groups like the Innocence Project
(http://www.innocenceproject.org/) exist because cops and prosecutors
are not always concerned with getting things right. Mind-boggling as
it seems, I have even heard that according to U.S. courts evidence of
actual innocence is not necessarily grounds for a new trial. (anyone
know if this is accurate? As I said, I only heard it, but it does not
surprise me).
It is my understanding that that is the case. New evidence needs to be
found that would probably change the outcome of the trial. Of course,
you have to convince the appeals court that that would happen.
On the other side of the coin, when a person is found not guilty, he
cannot be retried for the same crime. Once O.J. was declared not guilty
he walked, no matter how much more evidence came to light.
Of course, I deliberately avoided using O.J. as an example because that
verdict was not about evidence, rather about a black jury worshipping
a black sports star in a town that was inlove with stars.
Do police and prosctutors care? I think usually they do. But there
certainly are police who will try to get an easy clearance on a case,
especially if it is getting media attention. And there are prosecutors
who will go for a conviction just to make themselves look good.
I the Seattle are a few years ago, a woman had been raped in a car off
of a road by Sea-Tac airport. The woman provided a description of the car,
a description of the rapist. The police also got a tire print from the
scene. The cop who was investigating pulled over some poor schmuck and
arrested him for the crime. He was later found guilty of it. Even though
the description did not match, the car did not match, and the tire print
did not match. The cop had pushed and persuaded and tricked the victim
into identifieing the poor guy. A Seattle Times reporter heard about it
and spent quite a while proving the the guys innocence. The case was
eventually thrown out the poor man is now free.
On the other hand, a good cop, even though he does not have enough
evidence for a conviction, will keep at it. Witness the Green River
Killings.
Solved by DNA taken 20 years ago, but not able to be tested until a
year and a half ago. Just to ensure that they had the right man,
the killer admitted to some of the killings he was originally charged
with, then told the police where a whole lot more bodies were and
admitted to killing them.
--
***** #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email:
.
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
13 May 2004 05:35:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 May 2004 21:06:40 +0000 (UTC), ***** C <foo.dickcr@comcast.net>
wrote:
MEC wrote in talk.origins
***** C <foo.dickcr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<Xns94E774286C8A8dickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136>...
Mike Painter wrote in talk.origins
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-2BD594.10111912052004@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <c7qr8o$t3s$1@trsvr.tr.unisys.com>, "Patrick"
<pjm@netscape.net> wrote:
<snip>
[...]
This presumes that police and prosecutors *care* if anything is wrong
with the evidence. For all the obviously guilty folks who get away
with their crime (e.g., O.J.) I wonder how many innocent people are
convicted. Groups like the Innocence Project
(http://www.innocenceproject.org/) exist because cops and prosecutors
are not always concerned with getting things right. Mind-boggling as
it seems, I have even heard that according to U.S. courts evidence of
actual innocence is not necessarily grounds for a new trial. (anyone
know if this is accurate? As I said, I only heard it, but it does not
surprise me).
Ok, here's how it works: There is no *Constitutional* right to a new trial
simply because some new evidence supposedly comes to light. Imagine trying
to put some Mafia type in jail if you needed to give him a new trial every
3 months because a new <cough> "alibi" witness was suddenly "found".
Of course, if the reason the evidence wasn't found before was because of
prosecutorial misconduct (i.e. hiding facts from the defense) that might,
depending on the circumstances and the nature of the evidence, give rise to
a Constitutional right to a new trial.
Also, many state courts have the power under state law to review prior
convictions "in the interest of justice" but that is not a *right* of the
defendant.
A kind of in-between area involves older cases where blood type match
evidence was used in a case to show the defendant could have committed the
crime and now DNA evidence conclusively shows that the semen/blood/whatever
didn't come from the defendant or victim. I don't now of any cases that
hold there is a Constitutional right to a new trial but that may just be
because most prosecutors won't argue against the accuracy/importance of DNA
evidence because that position could be used against them in later
prosecutions. They don't want to be on record as saying that DNA testing
isn't all but conclusive.
It is my understanding that that is the case. New evidence needs to be
found that would probably change the outcome of the trial.
That is a threshold for all claims for a new trial on newly discovered
evidence. Say that in *****'s example below there was no coercion of the
complaining witness and the evidence all pointed to the person who was
arrested *except* that the victim's original description (otherwise
matching the defendant) had the rapist as 5'7" and it turned out that the
suspect was 5'8". Even if that was not revealed to the defense, given the
rest of the evidence there would be no real reason to believe it would have
changed the outcome, even if the defense had known about it and brought out
that "discrepancy" at trial.
[...]
I the Seattle are a few years ago, a woman had been raped in a car off
of a road by Sea-Tac airport. The woman provided a description of the car,
a description of the rapist. The police also got a tire print from the
scene. The cop who was investigating pulled over some poor schmuck and
arrested him for the crime. He was later found guilty of it. Even though
the description did not match, the car did not match, and the tire print
did not match. The cop had pushed and persuaded and tricked the victim
into identifieing the poor guy. A Seattle Times reporter heard about it
and spent quite a while proving the the guys innocence. The case was
eventually thrown out the poor man is now free.
And he is probably suing for or has already gotten quite a bit of money
because of it (not that it would make it right).
[...]
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Lawyers are like other people -- fools on the average;
but it is easier for an ***** to succeed in that trade than any other.
-- Mark Twain --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dick C" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
13 May 2004 10:51:43 PM |
|
|
catshark wrote in talk.origins
On Thu, 13 May 2004 21:06:40 +0000 (UTC), ***** C <foo. >
wrote:
snip
A kind of in-between area involves older cases where blood type match
evidence was used in a case to show the defendant could have committed
the crime and now DNA evidence conclusively shows that the
semen/blood/whatever
didn't come from the defendant or victim. I don't now of any cases that
hold there is a Constitutional right to a new trial but that may just be
because most prosecutors won't argue against the accuracy/importance of
DNA evidence because that position could be used against them in later
prosecutions. They don't want to be on record as saying that DNA testing
isn't all but conclusive.
I agree with the latter part. Besides, when DNA shows that the person
convicted did not do the crime, it would look bad for the prosecutor to
fight. Often times the prosecutor is elected to the position, or is looking
for a higher office. Trying to keep an innocent man in jail will not look
good during an election.
However, weren't alot of those cases involve a pardon?
It is my understanding that that is the case. New evidence needs to be
found that would probably change the outcome of the trial.
That is a threshold for all claims for a new trial on newly discovered
evidence. Say that in *****'s example below there was no coercion of the
complaining witness and the evidence all pointed to the person who was
arrested *except* that the victim's original description (otherwise
matching the defendant) had the rapist as 5'7" and it turned out that the
suspect was 5'8". Even if that was not revealed to the defense, given
the rest of the evidence there would be no real reason to believe it
would have changed the outcome, even if the defense had known about it
and brought out that "discrepancy" at trial.
It seems to me that I have heard of cases where new evidence, major new
evidence, was unearthed that would definitely have reversed the decision,
and a new trial was not allowed.
I the Seattle are a few years ago, a woman had been raped in a car off
of a road by Sea-Tac airport. The woman provided a description of the car,
a description of the rapist. The police also got a tire print from the
scene. The cop who was investigating pulled over some poor schmuck and
arrested him for the crime. He was later found guilty of it. Even though
the description did not match, the car did not match, and the tire print
did not match. The cop had pushed and persuaded and tricked the victim
into identifieing the poor guy. A Seattle Times reporter heard about it
and spent quite a while proving the the guys innocence. The case was
eventually thrown out the poor man is now free.
And he is probably suing for or has already gotten quite a bit of money
because of it (not that it would make it right).
I seem to remember that he got a goodly amount.
[...]
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Lawyers are like other people -- fools on the average;
but it is easier for an ***** to succeed in that trade than any other.
-- Mark Twain --
--
***** #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email:
.
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
14 May 2004 06:21:19 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 May 2004 03:51:43 +0000 (UTC), ***** C <foo.dickcr@comcast.net>
wrote:
catshark wrote in talk.origins
On Thu, 13 May 2004 21:06:40 +0000 (UTC), ***** C <foo.dickcr@comcast.net>
wrote:
snip
A kind of in-between area involves older cases where blood type match
evidence was used in a case to show the defendant could have committed
the crime and now DNA evidence conclusively shows that the
semen/blood/whatever
didn't come from the defendant or victim. I don't now of any cases that
hold there is a Constitutional right to a new trial but that may just be
because most prosecutors won't argue against the accuracy/importance of
DNA evidence because that position could be used against them in later
prosecutions. They don't want to be on record as saying that DNA testing
isn't all but conclusive.
I agree with the latter part. Besides, when DNA shows that the person
convicted did not do the crime, it would look bad for the prosecutor to
fight. Often times the prosecutor is elected to the position, or is looking
for a higher office. Trying to keep an innocent man in jail will not look
good during an election.
However, weren't alot of those cases involve a pardon?
I believe they might have, especially when DNA evidence was new. I think
(but have not researched it at all) that most cases now involve joint
motions by the prosecutors and defendants to set aside the conviction.
It is my understanding that that is the case. New evidence needs to be
found that would probably change the outcome of the trial.
That is a threshold for all claims for a new trial on newly discovered
evidence. Say that in *****'s example below there was no coercion of the
complaining witness and the evidence all pointed to the person who was
arrested *except* that the victim's original description (otherwise
matching the defendant) had the rapist as 5'7" and it turned out that the
suspect was 5'8". Even if that was not revealed to the defense, given
the rest of the evidence there would be no real reason to believe it
would have changed the outcome, even if the defense had known about it
and brought out that "discrepancy" at trial.
It seems to me that I have heard of cases where new evidence, major new
evidence, was unearthed that would definitely have reversed the decision,
and a new trial was not allowed.
Well, there is always an argument over whether it would have *definitely*
reversed the decision but, yes, there are a number of troubling cases along
those lines. They involve cases with no prosecutorial misconduct and,
hence, no Constitutional right to a new trial. The argument made against
giving a new trial is that the defendant had a fair trial to begin with and
the system needs "finality". Constantly retrying defendants _en masse_
every time some bit of new evidence comes to light (so the argument goes)
would cause the system to break down. The idea that someone should be kept
in prison (or, worse, executed) when there is substantial evidence of
innocence (the opposing argument goes) does more damage to the system by
eroding confidence in its fairness. There is no *simple* answer to these
issues. Ultimately, the only real recourse lies in the fairness and
integrity of prosecutors, state governers, individual judges and the like.
[...]
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
LAWYER, n.
One skilled in circumvention of the law.
- Ambrose Bierce -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dick C" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
14 May 2004 02:07:03 PM |
|
|
catshark wrote in talk.origins
On Fri, 14 May 2004 03:51:43 +0000 (UTC), ***** C <foo. >
wrote:
catshark wrote in talk.origins
I agree with the latter part. Besides, when DNA shows that the person
convicted did not do the crime, it would look bad for the prosecutor to
fight. Often times the prosecutor is elected to the position, or is
looking
for a higher office. Trying to keep an innocent man in jail will not look
good during an election.
However, weren't alot of those cases involve a pardon?
I believe they might have, especially when DNA evidence was new. I think
(but have not researched it at all) that most cases now involve joint
motions by the prosecutors and defendants to set aside the conviction.
Oddly enough, I was looking at ABC' News's off the wire, which is the
most recent news to come out. Seems that the Governor of Texas
pardoned a man convicted of rape based on DNA evidence. However, it
seems that there were problems in the DNA testing which led the Texas
Board of Pardons and Paroles to recommed that he be pardoned.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040514_953.html
snip
It seems to me that I have heard of cases where new evidence, major new
evidence, was unearthed that would definitely have reversed the decision,
and a new trial was not allowed.
Well, there is always an argument over whether it would have *definitely*
reversed the decision but, yes, there are a number of troubling cases
along
those lines. They involve cases with no prosecutorial misconduct and,
hence, no Constitutional right to a new trial. The argument made against
giving a new trial is that the defendant had a fair trial to begin with
and
the system needs "finality". Constantly retrying defendants _en masse_
every time some bit of new evidence comes to light (so the argument goes)
would cause the system to break down. The idea that someone should be
kept
in prison (or, worse, executed) when there is substantial evidence of
innocence (the opposing argument goes) does more damage to the system by
eroding confidence in its fairness. There is no *simple* answer to these
issues. Ultimately, the only real recourse lies in the fairness and
integrity of prosecutors, state governers, individual judges and the
like.
It seems that the new Hi tech tools have opened up all sorts of problems
with our legal system. What should be a tremendous aid to police and
prosecutors often times comes back to bite them. However, like
fingerprints, given time DNA will prove to be useful to the courts.
However, in the meantime, it is up to the defense attorneys to keep
demanding that the cases be reviewed, and often times the governor has
to pardon them.
In the case in Texas, the Governor also ordered that the man's criminal
record be cleaned, and that he receive 25 grand a year for the time he
spent behind bars.
--
***** #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email:
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
11 May 2004 04:27:11 PM |
|
|
David wrote:
BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <Dx4oc.150323$Yw5.13819@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Boikat"
<boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-82538F.23181410052004@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <%CWnc.104414$oN1.18573@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Boikat"
<boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote:
"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <Atheistsare@fools.com> wrote in
message news:H5Qnc.21$o02.32552@news.uswest.net...
The parents also think it's a great idea to teach their kids real
science and not the skewed myth of evolution which atheists
are pushing down their throats..
Sure. Since they probably will not be goint into a job market that
doesn't involve science, like stocking shelves, flipping burgers,
moping floors...
Weird. I've managed to become quite successful without involving
myself in either science or shelf-stocking or burger-flipping.
One might think from your comment that those were the only
alternatives.
It's a euphamism for "any job which does not require critical or
logical thinking".
Okay. And my comment still stands. I've managed to become rather
successful both as an attorney and in federal law enforcement without
ever needing to use science. Whether I was taught evolution or
creationism in grade school would have had zero effect on my success
later in life.
Is this the excuse that lawyers use when they shoe horn the evidence
into their arguments to fit their desired outcome? ;-)
Look, if you're going to try to insult lawyers, make it witty.
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
11 May 2004 06:16:07 PM |
|
|
Robin Levett
David wrote:
BTR1701
"Boikat"
"BTR1701"
"Boikat"
"+Church of The Painful Truth
The parents also think it's a great idea to teach their kids real
science and not the skewed myth of evolution which atheists
are pushing down their throats..
Sure. Since they probably will not be goint into a job market that
doesn't involve science, like stocking shelves, flipping burgers,
moping floors...
Weird. I've managed to become quite successful without involving
myself in either science or shelf-stocking or burger-flipping.
One might think from your comment that those were the only
alternatives.
It's a euphamism for "any job which does not require critical or
logical thinking".
Okay. And my comment still stands. I've managed to become rather
successful both as an attorney and in federal law enforcement without
ever needing to use science. Whether I was taught evolution or
creationism in grade school would have had zero effect on my success
later in life.
Is this the excuse that lawyers use when they shoe horn the evidence
into their arguments to fit their desired outcome? ;-)
Look, if you're going to try to insult lawyers, make it witty.
The last thing the US justice system needs is witty comments to hide
their problems. There are enough witty comments in the court room.
"If the glove doesn't fit then you must acquit."
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
12 May 2004 09:07:40 AM |
|
|
In article <1gdmvq8.11317d3mn62y6N%NOdaycdSPAM@hotmail.com>,
NOdaycdSPAM@hotmail.com (David) wrote:
Robin Levett
David wrote:
BTR1701
"Boikat"
"BTR1701"
"Boikat"
"+Church of The Painful Truth
The parents also think it's a great idea to teach their kids
real science and not the skewed myth of evolution which atheists
are pushing down their throats..
Sure. Since they probably will not be goint into a job market
that doesn't involve science, like stocking shelves, flipping
burgers, moping floors...
Weird. I've managed to become quite successful without involving
myself in either science or shelf-stocking or burger-flipping.
One might think from your comment that those were the only
alternatives.
It's a euphamism for "any job which does not require critical or
logical thinking".
Okay. And my comment still stands. I've managed to become rather
successful both as an attorney and in federal law enforcement
without ever needing to use science. Whether I was taught evolution or
creationism in grade school would have had zero effect on my success
later in life.
Is this the excuse that lawyers use when they shoe horn the evidence
into their arguments to fit their desired outcome? ;-)
Look, if you're going to try to insult lawyers, make it witty.
The last thing the US justice system needs is witty comments to hide
their problems. There are enough witty comments in the court room.
"If the glove doesn't fit then you must acquit."
That's wasn't the US justice system. That was the California justice
system.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
12 May 2004 12:16:18 PM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-1506D6.10084712052004@news.west.earthlink.net...
Is this the excuse that lawyers use when they shoe horn the
evidence
into their arguments to fit their desired outcome? ;-)
Look, if you're going to try to insult lawyers, make it witty.
The last thing the US justice system needs is witty comments to hide
their problems. There are enough witty comments in the court room.
"If the glove doesn't fit then you must acquit."
That's wasn't the US justice system. That was the California justice
system.
The attorney's did their job. It was ignorant people that acquitted the man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Leader Pushes Homeschooling |
12 May 2004 10:19:52 PM |
|
|
In article
<CZsoc.47299$Ut1.1337340@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Mike
Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-1506D6.10084712052004@news.west.earthlink.net...
Is this the excuse that lawyers use when they shoe horn the evidence
into their arguments to fit their desired outcome? ;-)
Look, if you're going to try to insult lawyers, make it witty.
The last thing the US justice system needs is witty comments to hide
their problems. There are enough witty comments in the court room.
"If the glove doesn't fit then you must acquit."
That's wasn't the US justice system. That was the California justice
system.
The attorney's did their job.
But the judge didn't. He let them walk all over him.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
