What I have noticed about these debates...

Nope. No evolution in my high school, or grade school for that matter. And I was looking out for it - I was a creationist just like you at the time.Then, thank goodness, I actually started to read about the theory, and not what my church was telling me about it. Then I realized that Kent Hovind (no Dr.) was a joke. Actually, he doesn't have the money. Now what kind of a man would make an offer that he could never be able to pay? Not an honest one, I think.On the other hand, I have a standing offer of one whole American dollar to the first creationist who can explain what a "kind" is, and how I would go about telling the difference between two "kinds". Seriously. (And unlike Hovind I actually have the money I'm putting at stake.) Many people have done just that. Guess what? Hovind welches on his offer every time. The man is not very honest.

But you haven't answered my question. How do I tell if two similar individuals are in the same "kind" or not? I mean, a dog is a dog, but a dog isn't a wolf. Yet Kent Hovind would have us believe they're the same "kind". Why?Black and brown bears are clearly bear "kind", but is a panda bear?"Kind" can't simply mean "any classification of animals we have a popular name for." After all, I could just as easily say that bears and wolves and dogs are in the same kind - the "mammal" kind. "Patriot University"? It's not a university. It's a mail-order degree mill. They have no accredation, so any degree you get from them counts no more than if you made it yourself at Kinko's. Here's a radical new idea - why don't you come up with your own arguments? Or at least deliver their arguments in your own words. I don't want to argue with The Collected Sayings of Kent Hovind. I want to argue with you. This guy I've heard of, at least. He's a lawyer, not a biologist. Why is his opinion relevant?

Well, that's a start, but it's hardly "everything evolutionists think." For starters, a lot of Darwin's conclusions are racist. And genetics wasn't known to scientists at the time, so Darwin's model of heredity has a bunch of holes.I mean, if you wanted to know everything about a modern theory, why would you pick up a book published in 1859?If you want to know the theory, pick up Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory." That'll set you straight. Precisely because Hovind is a fraud. Gould thought it was pointless to waste time debating with liars that could be used to actually further the knowledge of science. Hovind is such a joke that Answers In Genesis won't even touch him. He's little more than a humerous annoyance. Would you debate with a mosquito?On the other hand Gould was never too shy to testify when creationists took school districts to court to prevent the teaching of evolution.Gould didn't refuse to debate Hovind because he was afraid of him. Gould refused to debate Hovind because Hovind was so very, very far beneath him, and not even worth his time.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-23-2003]

So, two of Cybereagle's three heroes aren't biologists. Can somebody google the third? I have to go to work. (See you guys tomorrow morning.)My guess is, we're gonna be 4-for-4 non-biologists. When I want to know about taxes, I ask an accountant. When I want to know about life (the origins of and otherwise) I'll ask a biologist, not a guy (Hovind) whose fake degree is nominally in education. (If you were going to get a fake degree to argue with evolutionists, why not at least get one in biology? Honestly!)

Why not? I assume your position is that "if evolution were unassailably true, then the ACLU would have nothing to fear from creationists."I don't see how that follows. One one hand, you'd have accepted scientific theory. On the other, a well-organized, well-funded movement to suppress scientific knowledge to schoolchildren and, by extension, adults.What's not to fear about that? If I were the ACLU I'd have my panties in a big knot about that.

Hey, here's a heads-up, AC - science is hard. It's generally too hard for 14-year-olds to do. Quite frankly, at that age, students should just take notes and memorize, because they just don't have the background to really assess the data.On the other hand, the scientific method is easily accessable. I'm all in favor of exploring questions using the scientific method. But is it really appropriate to ask grade-schoolers to pick an origin story? Let's just tell them what the evidence points to, shall we? (It's not creationism, I'm afraid.)And for that matter, when I was a creationist at that age, guess what? I couldn't have discussions in the classroom with the teacher. Why? Not because my viewpoint was being silenced, but rather, because the teacher simply didn't know enough about evolution to talk about it. The problem isn't teachers lording the scientific viewpoint over the creationist students. It's that the teachers don't know enough science to teach anything that's not in the textbook.We need more evolutionists in the classroom, not less. Only then can the discussion you seek even occur. To the contrary. They support the rights of all believers to worship as they please - and the rights of atheists not to be made to worship.What they really don't like, and what the Constitution prohibits, is the suggestion that our government favors or otherwise puts special approval on any particular religious tradition. For instance, a public shrine, on government property, dedicated to a specific religion - like this Ten Commandments business. I mean, if you support the Ten Commandments shrine on the statehouse grounds, then I assume you won't mind if I enshrine the Koran right next to it? What? Sure it is. Bush's public funding for faith-based charities, for instance. That's as obvious a public funding for religion that our constitution allows, I think.After all, you're hampered by the fact that we live in America. Science isn't religion. (As evidenced by the fact that persons of all religion do science.) But creationism is religion, because creationists are always Christians. And guess what? We can't publicly fund religion because it's unconstitutional. Which is just fine with me.Now, does anyone want to tell me what a "kind" is? And why they are immutable? And how I'm supposed to tell the difference between two kinds? Or does anyone on the other side want to add to the pot? We're at $1.50 US, here.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-25-2003]

I think Schraf has replied already (I'm just catching up on this thread today) but I thought I'd reply.Actually, the law of the United States is not based on the Ten Commandments. After all, what are the commandments? Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, etc, ok, those are reflected in American legal code. But then, those same laws appear in almost every culture, Christian or otherwise.And what about the rest? "Honor thy parents"? That's not a law. "Thou shall keep no other gods but me"? We have a constitution that specifically prohibits that kind of thinking. "Thou shalt heep the sabbath"? People work on Sunday all the time. "Thou shall not covet"? How could we make that a law? Coveting is the base of our economy, after all.This country stands for cultural and religious pluralism, participatory government, and freedom of the press and speech. You'd be hard-pressed to find those in the Ten Commandments - or anywhere in the bible. And a government shrine that says "Thou shall keep no other gods but me" is an unconstitutional endorsement of a particular religion, and is hardly inclusive to persons of other religious traditions.So, no. None of our laws - except the obvious ones - are based on the Ten Commandments any more than they're based on the Code of Hammurabi.