40° Light Rain
See complete forecast
You are not logged in. (Log in • Create account)
24 April 2008
at 3:33 p.m.
After reading Rick's letter I am glad to hear from the level headed people on this forum. You all are right on. However we all need to make sure we vote and take action by signing the petions because you can bet Rick and people like him will also.
8 March 2008
at 9:19 a.m.
I am not going to turn this into a debate on evolution vs creation.There are alot smarter people than I still debating these issues and it will probably continue for quite some time, but I belive that by only teaching one side our school system is endorsing only one option. There is a reason that both sides have argued for years over this. Neither can prove their side 100%. The true FACT is both, to this point in time, are theorys and should let the individual make up his or her mind. If you do not belive this then you have not studied both equally with an open mind.
I agree with your statement on the use of the Bible in the government and that is all I would accept being taught in a history class.
Here is another idea instead of saying religon call it creation science or intelligent design. Religion was the wrong word to describe my thoughts. The last thing I want is someone standing up in school preaching to our kids, that is not right. There are a ton of scentists out there who are dedicated to proving creation just like evolution. Schools should teach both theorys. The basic idea that I would like to see in schools is that we are not 100% sure what happened.
7 March 2008
at 4:31 p.m.
The only two reasons I have for in school teaching is that the Evolution Theory is taught so it would make sense to also teach the other side of the coin. When we teach only one idea and not mention the other what is that saying to our children? Teach both or nothing.
The Bible is a major part of how our goverment was set up. I belive that should be understood by our students.
I agree that students should go to churches to learn in more depth about religion but, If the school would touch on the subject the student would know about different religions and where to go for each religion.My point being that if I walked into the Catholic church and asked about intelligent design I would get a baised answer that would point me to the Catholic chruch. Even if you ask your parents you will get a biased answer. Who is going to tell me about all the other religions or ideas?
7 March 2008
at 8:42 a.m.
The way I see it we need to teach of both veiws, non biased and let each person make up their own mind. If our schools teach the theory of evolution then to be fair it would be necessary to teach of religion also. I don't mean a specific religion just the intelligent design theory. Then the student could seek out other information, either way, outside of the school system.
The other idea that I also see as relevant is the role of the bible in founding this country. I do think we should teach, from a historical stand point, about how and why our founding fathers did what they did.
The key to teaching this in schools is unbiased teachers. Religion is a personal decision and needs to stay that way.
11 February 2008
at 1:33 p.m.
I second your opinion grannyrett. Thanks for your comment.
1 February 2008
at 9:22 p.m.
Apparently your reading comprehension needs some work.
1. You say nothing is verified. The story printed in the paper directly stated that it was “verified” by George Bird Grinnell. Who, by the way, dismissed many stories due to lack of evidence. If you would have actually read the entire page on my referenced site 90% of the stories are verified but I guess if you can't believe the Alaska Game and Fish you can consider these “stories” as not verified.2. You state “there have been extraordinarily few wolf attacks on humans” which I more than agree to, as I stated in the paper. That statement being “While I agree it is nowhere near common, it is possible”.3. “Wolves are often hungry. With all the history of wolves in North America, and all those hungry wolves, how come we don't see more attacks?” Wolves have been eradicated from the most densely populated areas in North America for 50 to 100 years. So that means human wolf contact has been limited and most of the time when it did occur it was someone trying to kill the wolf, which would lead you to the idea that wolves generally stayed as far away as possible.4. Lastly, you're most absurd statement yet, you know the one about “fear mongering”. I had no intention of creating fear in anyone; I was simply stating my rebuttal to the statement “They don't attack children”. Putting a blanket statement out there like that is ludicrous. With the right circumstances they will, any predator will.
My opinion is that wolves are impressive animals and deserve their place in our wilderness, but they are not cute huggable animals. I also believe that there is more of a threat of getting bitten by a domestic dog than a wolf or any other predator but the possibility is there. My information to prove that is in my letter and creditable. I would not let my children play with or around a dog, of any kind unless I know the animal. Please reread my letter and the information on the web site very slowly and carefully it was not meant to be rhetoric.
26 January 2008
at 12:39 a.m.
Rick here an example that is real close to home. The link at the bottom is the rest of the story, but this one is interesting due to the location. By the way your link is an e-mail address.
George Bird Grinnell investigated several reported wolf attacks on humans. He dismissed many reports for lack of evidence. Grinnell did verify one attack.
This occurrence was in northwestern Colorado. An eighteen-year-old girl went out at dusk to bring in some milk cows. She saw a gray wolf on a hill as she went out for the cows. She shouted at the wolf to scare it away and it did not move. She then threw a stone at it to frighten it away. The animal snarled at her shouting and attacked her when she threw the stone at it. The wolf grabbed the girl by the shoulder, threw her to the ground and bit her severely on the arms and legs. She screamed and her brother, who was nearby and armed with a gun, responded to the scene of the attack and killed the wolf. The wolf was a healthy young animal, barely full grown. Grinnell met this girl and examined her. She carried several scars from the attack. This attack occurred in summer about 1881. (Grinnell, G.B.; Trail and Campfire - Wolves and Wolf Nature, New York, 1897)
26 January 2008
at 12:29 a.m.
Don't kid yourself any large predator will attack anything if it is hungry enough. While I agree it is nowhere near common, it is possible.
17 January 2008
at 8:36 p.m.
Native, So instead of you being dead wrong you are going to pass this off as us missing your point? Typical
16 January 2008
at 8:48 p.m.
Native, how does crow taste?
or see results without voting.
This site is best viewed with
or the latest version of Internet Explorer
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Craig Daily Press. All rights reserved.