Quote:I'm ready for a presidential candidate who is serious about education reform. We should not be putting our youth in mountains of debt just to be educated. Instead of encouraging education we discourage it. How messed up is that?
It's very messed up. You can buy a machine for 40 dollars that has access to virtually all knowledge that man has accumulated to this point including live video of teachers and professors explaining it in detail. At the dawn of the digital age the idea that we would double down on the path that has created a mountain of student debt greater than all consumer debt is beyond asinine to the point of sheer stupidity.
Quote:What evidence do you have that we started as a complex organism rather than a single celled organism? Just poof magically we are here? If so what do you base that on?
speaking strictly from a scientific observation point of view here. Everything has an origin point. Species have never been recorded to change from one to another, they change, they adapt, they even evolve but they haven't biologically evolved into a different species.
There's two possibilities everything came from the same organism or single cell, or from the beginning our world was a complex world with multiple organisms. Both require a level of faith since neither theory can be proven, that was my original point. If we're going to only teach science and say one theory isn't scientific you have to admit the other is just as much based on faith as any other unproven theory. I find it more plausible this world and the universe has always been a complex universe made up of multiple organisms that leads me to believe there is an intelligent design behind our origion. You can argue what or who that designer is but that's more religion than science.
Quote:speaking strictly from a scientific observation point of view here. Everything has an origin point. Species have never been recorded to change from one to another, they change, they adapt, they even evolve but they haven't biologically evolved into a different species.
There's two possibilities everything came from the same organism or single cell, or from the beginning our world was a complex world with multiple organisms. Both require a level of faith since neither theory can be proven, that was my original point. If we're going to only teach science and say one theory isn't scientific you have to admit the other is just as much based on faith as any other unproven theory. I find it more plausible this world and the universe has always been a complex universe made up of multiple organisms that leads me to believe there is an intelligent design behind our origion. You can argue what or who that designer is but that's more religion than science.
Ten years ago people who believe in creation would have turned red in the face in flat out refusal of that part you accept above. What's the point? That the creation theory has attempted to ignore and deny every part of evolution including the age of the earth. Over time, the less moronic believers have been forced to accept those parts which are absolutely provable. What's the end result? The whole thing will be accepted and it will just become "the plan" of the design. That's fine if you need to put a name to things for whatever reason but that will be the end result, IMO
Saying that scientific extrapolation requires faith in the same manner as intelligent design is an insult to the scientific process. It's no different than misusing the word theory in a scientific sense. Totally different kinds of faith.
Quote:Ten years ago people who believe in creation would have turned red in the face in flat out refusal of that part you accept above. What's the point? That the creation theory has attempted to ignore and deny every part of evolution including the age of the earth. Over time, the less moronic believers have been forced to accept those parts which are absolutely provable. What's the end result? The whole thing will be accepted and it will just become "the plan" of the design. That's fine if you need to put a name to things for whatever reason but that will be the end result, IMO
Saying that scientific extrapolation requires faith in the same manner as intelligent design is an insult to the scientific process. It's no different than misusing the word theory in a scientific sense. Totally different kinds of faith.
Yeah, people get hung up on the word "theory" of evolution.
There's scientific theory (one backed by evidence), and then there's just a wild theory.
I mean there's the theory that aliens did experiments on Apes using their own DNA and created humans. But it shouldn't be taught in school either.
Quote: I went out to the Junk yard today and a 99 Mazda Protege sure looks like a 99 Ford Ranger. But that doesn't inherently mean that mommy and daddy had special time.
ha ha! again, hilarious. a 99 Mazda protege looks like a ford ranger to you? And you expect me (or anyone) to consider anything you say seriously? LOL! Thanks again for another good laugh!
Quote:ha ha! again, hilarious. a 99 Mazda protege looks like a ford ranger to you? And you expect me (or anyone) to consider anything you say seriously? LOL! Thanks again for another good laugh!
Didn't realize cars were living beings in the first place.
Quote:Didn't realize cars were living beings in the first place.
Some people think if you put enough big words into a long enough post, you will appear more knowledgeable than others. Also, use words like "ignorant" as much as possible.
Quote:Ten years ago people who believe in creation would have turned red in the face in flat out refusal of that part you accept above. What's the point? That the creation theory has attempted to ignore and deny every part of evolution including the age of the earth. Over time, the less moronic believers have been forced to accept those parts which are absolutely provable. What's the end result? The whole thing will be accepted and it will just become "the plan" of the design. That's fine if you need to put a name to things for whatever reason but that will be the end result, IMO
Saying that scientific extrapolation requires faith in the same manner as intelligent design is an insult to the scientific process. It's no different than misusing the word theory in a scientific sense. Totally different kinds of faith.
Again I'm leaving religious aspect out of it, but that's exactly how I was taught creationism over a decade ago. I also attended a public high school and took all my sciences at a state college so I'm well aware of both theory's.
Quote:speaking strictly from a scientific observation point of view here. Everything has an origin point. Species have never been recorded to change from one to another, they change, they adapt, they even evolve but they haven't biologically evolved into a different species.
There's two possibilities everything came from the same organism or single cell, or from the beginning our world was a complex world with multiple organisms. Both require a level of faith since neither theory can be proven, that was my original point. If we're going to only teach science and say one theory isn't scientific you have to admit the other is just as much based on faith as any other unproven theory. I find it more plausible this world and the universe has always been a complex universe made up of multiple organisms that leads me to believe there is an intelligent design behind our origion. You can argue what or who that designer is but that's more religion than science.
I don't think it requires faith. You are just looking at evidence to determine, based on what we know now, the most likely reason. The great thing about using evidence is if it changes, so will our knowledge about the world. I don't have to defend something even if the evidence is contrary to it because I have "faith".
Quote:Again I'm leaving religious aspect out of it, but that's exactly how I was taught creationism over a decade ago. I also attended a public high school and took all my sciences at a state college so I'm well aware of both theory's.
That's easy to say and maybe takes a more off board conversation because really you can't leave that part out. Why? Because it's the creator of the "theory" (pun so totally intended)
Quote:That's easy to say and maybe takes a more off board conversation because really you can't leave that part out. Why? Because it's the creator of the "theory" (pun so totally intended)
well of course I was taught a specific creator but that's not the point. That's religion which I'm trying not to inject into the conversation. Other faiths teach an origin point but have different names for a creator. The point is either science states everything came from nothing or it states that everything comes from something. When you boil it all down, all the theories of origin come down to those two arguments.
Quote:Ten years ago people who believe in creation would have turned red in the face in flat out refusal of that part you accept above. What's the point? That the creation theory has attempted to ignore and deny every part of evolution including the age of the earth. Over time, the less moronic believers have been forced to accept those parts which are absolutely provable. What's the end result? The whole thing will be accepted and it will just become "the plan" of the design. That's fine if you need to put a name to things for whatever reason but that will be the end result, IMO
Saying that scientific extrapolation requires faith in the same manner as intelligent design is an insult to the scientific process. It's no different than misusing the word theory in a scientific sense. Totally different kinds of faith.
So wait a minute.... let me get this straight. Eric85 rightly pointed out to you that there is little to no evidence to support your extrapolation (the idea that species morph or evolve into other isolated species over time "macro evolution") and your response is to blindly insult people who disagree with you, name call, and top it all off you blatantly fundamentally and falsely categorize creation theory? And you're the person who wants to be in charge of the way information is disseminated in schools?
Before we go any further, there have been people of faith in all of the scientific disciplines before James Darwin was thought about and long after he died. To fundamentally label everyone who sees providence in a blade of grass as some wacked out flat earther is both insulting and WRONG. For whatever reason in this strand of conversation its the people most ardently espousing adherence to proven scientific evidence and reason that are the first to resort to name calling and snarky remarks. Why I don't know but frankly, I expect better!
You still have yet to acknowledge the simple fact that in reality, evolution is not the opposite of creation. I have yet to make any case supporting the field of abiogenesis which is essential to any belief in a universe devoid of a creator. If you have an opinion or evidence that you would like to bring to the conversation i welcome it with open arms, but i would politely ask that you keep the insults and the backhanded compliments to yourself.
Quote:So wait a minute.... let me get this straight. Eric85 rightly pointed out to you that there is little to no evidence to support your extrapolation (the idea that species morph or evolve into other isolated species over time "macro evolution") and your response is to blindly insult people who disagree with you, name call, and top it all off you blatantly fundamentally and falsely categorize creation theory? And you're the person who wants to be in charge of the way information is disseminated in schools?
Before we go any further, there have been people of faith in all of the scientific disciplines before James Darwin was thought about and long after he died. To fundamentally label everyone who sees providence in a blade of grass as some wacked out flat earther is both insulting and WRONG. For whatever reason in this strand of conversation its the people most ardently espousing adherence to proven scientific evidence and reason that are the first to resort to name calling and snarky remarks. Why I don't know but frankly, I expect better!
You still have yet to acknowledge the simple fact that in reality, evolution is not the opposite of creation. I have yet to make any case supporting the field of abiogenesis which is essential to any belief in a universe devoid of a creator. If you have an opinion or evidence that you would like to bring to the conversation i welcome it with open arms, but i would politely ask that you keep the insults and the backhanded compliments to yourself.
If I wasn't so lazy, I would insert the Michael Jackson gif of him eating popcorn here.
This could be a rather interesting discussion.
I just got into this thread, but I'm confused. Did Rubio create Sanders, or did Sanders evolve from Rubio?
Quote:If I wasn't so lazy, I would insert the Michael Jackson gif of him eating popcorn here.
This could be a rather interesting discussion.
I'm not sure how interesting it is going to get. If there is scientific evidence of a creator than present it. Otherwise I'm not seeing the point. At all.
Quote:So wait a minute.... let me get this straight. Eric85 rightly pointed out to you that there is little to no evidence to support your extrapolation (the idea that species morph or evolve into other isolated species over time "macro evolution") and your response is to blindly insult people who disagree with you, name call, and top it all off you blatantly fundamentally and falsely categorize creation theory? And you're the person who wants to be in charge of the way information is disseminated in schools?
Before we go any further, there have been people of faith in all of the scientific disciplines before James Darwin was thought about and long after he died. To fundamentally label everyone who sees providence in a blade of grass as some wacked out flat earther is both insulting and WRONG. For whatever reason in this strand of conversation its the people most ardently espousing adherence to proven scientific evidence and reason that are the first to resort to name calling and snarky remarks. Why I don't know but frankly, I expect better!
You still have yet to acknowledge the simple fact that in reality, evolution is not the opposite of creation. I have yet to make any case supporting the field of abiogenesis which is essential to any belief in a universe devoid of a creator. If you have an opinion or evidence that you would like to bring to the conversation i welcome it with open arms, but i would politely ask that you keep the insults and the backhanded compliments to yourself.
Show me where I said anything remotely close to that?
Little to no evidence is wrong. There is plenty of evidence that point to it as a reasonable extrapolation for evolution that occurs over time periods that are not observable to humans, as least not at this point in history. Compare that with creationism and what do you have? Zero, zilch nada. No evidence period.
If that extrapolation makes people uncomfortable or something that is understandable but not the fault or an indictment of the science.
I, at no point, have said it's the opposite. Where are you getting your nonsense from? What I did say is it is not necessary.
Quote:Remember, this would be funded by businesses that are making an investment. A person in college that has a good record of grades could entice a company to put forth money to train (educate) him or her. Where investment firms would enter the picture would be more-or-less "betting" that this person will graduate with a certain degree and eventually earn the "normal" income that a person with such a degree would earn. The investment firms would provide the capital (cash).
Wouldn't this person get scholarship funding though?
If you take the cream of the crop, the ones that businesses will line up for as soon as they graduate, I would guess that these students (most I would say) have some kind of money coming in already because they are the cream of the crop.
As such, they are the ones that these groups would want to fund...the 4.0 GPAs with off the charts SATs and great resume and volunteer work.
Though I suppose you can make a case that the top businesses will get the top recruits, and the ones with smaller pockets can still get good prospects that can be groomed into their roles.
In either case, I think what you've outline here is how internship SHOULD be for college students. Not the unpaid crap we see all the time, ones which don't really prepare you for what you're going to do in your career (coffee anyone?)
Quote:Show me where I said anything remotely close to that?
Little to no evidence is wrong. There is plenty of evidence that point to it as a reasonable extrapolation for evolution that occurs over time periods that are not observable to humans, as least not at this point in history. Compare that with creationism and what do you have? Zero, zilch nada. No evidence period.
If that extrapolation makes people uncomfortable or something that is understandable but not the fault or an indictment of the science.
I, at no point, have said it's the opposite. Where are you getting your nonsense from? What I did say is it is not necessary.
So let me get the straight. You call me and everyone that agrees with me either moronic or less moronic. Then when i call you out on it, highlighting exactly where you said that and you deny it.
And you want to be taken seriously as an arbiter of what constitutes evidence or not?
No wonder your support for the statement that "there is evidence to support the extrapolation" is to simply restate "there is evidence to support the extrapolation."
Methinks thou doth protest too much. You can't complain about you inferiority complex, when you are the one that initiates all attacks on a poster's intelligence when you disagree with them. That's pathetic, and I'm sorry, but the golden rule applies.
You want respect? Learn how to have a discussion in that type of manner.