Without education, what kind of jobs will be available to young Americans?

[Jarhead]

putting condoms on cucumbers

Yes, because we all know, that teaching kids to have safe sex is EXACTLY the same as telling them to run out and fuck five strangers.

Thanks for the example, ass hat.

Yo...keep up with the program.

The debate isnt about whether or not sex education in the schools at a young age will result in kids running around doing each other.

The debate has to do with whether or not it is approprate for the government to decide when a child should be exposed to sex. Many parents prefer they broach the subject with their children when they feel their childrn are ready

And just as is true in real life, not everyone is metally prepared for things at the same exact age...so it makes sense that some parents wish to wait.

If you dont know the crux of the debate, I suggest you sit back and watch...and learn.

 

[Texanmike]

You are so wrong it actually hurt my eyes to read the part about the Theory of evolution.

Which is in the same stage as the Theory of Relativity, and the Theory of Gravity, and the Theory of Light.

Sorry but it simply isn't true, and what you said constitutes a blindness to an educated view on what evolution actually is.

You're kidding right? All of the theories you listed have been observed, in real time. The theory of evolution is of an entirely different nature than the rest of them. Evolution is not based on observation of events in real time.

There are two theories of evolution.

One is the theory of evolution as the origin of species. It is based on speculation and circumstancial evidence. Every piece of the theory is based on incomplete fossil records. It has been tested, not in practice but in theory.

The second is the theory of evolution of a species. Put a bunch of black rats in the dessert for few months and you will have a population of entirely white rats.

One is observed. One is based on circumstantial evidence. Gravity, Relativity and Light are all observed.

So tell me. How much scrutiny have you applied to the science? Do you know the shortcomings? I can list them for both of them and I haven't really taken a stance but for you to sit there and tell me that I don't know enough? I've evaluated both and freely admit I haven't come to a conclusion.

Mike

 

[Photonic]

You are so wrong it actually hurt my eyes to read the part about the Theory of evolution.

Which is in the same stage as the Theory of Relativity, and the Theory of Gravity, and the Theory of Light.

Sorry but it simply isn't true, and what you said constitutes a blindness to an educated view on what evolution actually is.

You're kidding right? All of the theories you listed have been observed, in real time. The theory of evolution is of an entirely different nature than the rest of them. Evolution is not based on observation of events in real time.

There are two theories of evolution.

One is the theory of evolution as the origin of species. It is based on speculation and circumstancial evidence. Every piece of the theory is based on incomplete fossil records. It has been tested, not in practice but in theory.

The second is the theory of evolution of a species. Put a bunch of black rats in the dessert for few months and you will have a population of entirely white rats.

One is observed. One is based on circumstantial evidence. Gravity, Relativity and Light are all observed.

So tell me. How much scrutiny have you applied to the science? Do you know the shortcomings? I can list them for both of them and I haven't really taken a stance but for you to sit there and tell me that I don't know enough? I've evaluated both and freely admit I haven't come to a conclusion.

Mike

Hate to tell you but the Modern Theory of Evolution rests on Genetics.

Go ahead and prove genetics wrong.

 

[Photonic]

Oh, and while I'm on it, there has been observation of both the evolution of species and the origin of species based on the evolutionary process. All documented.

 

[Jarhead]

Oh, and while I'm on it, there has been observation of both the evolution of species and the origin of species based on the evolutionary process. All documented.

Can you explain the beginning of the universe? Sure, the big bang...but what was before the big bang?
In other words...what went "Bang" and where was it right before it went "bang"?

Without an explanation of that, all else is still speculation.

My belief?

It was God's decision to develop the world to slowly evolve as it did.
Evolution was God's plan all along.

Do I sound like a politician?

 

[DontBeStupid]

The debate has to do with whether or not it is approprate for the government to decide when a child should be exposed to sex. Many parents prefer they broach the subject with their children when they feel their childrn are ready

Oh! So all those abstinence only programs, they were really about making sure the parents could educate the children in a timely manner that the parent got to choose?

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

 

[Texanmike]

Off the top of my head:

Climate Change
Evolution
Stem Cell Research
American History

Have all come under attack in recent years. Not to mention the basic idea of Logic has pretty much been tossed out the window by anyone the Right. But not so much the specifics is what's the problem, but the fact that these attacks attack the process.

For example, many "conservatives" like to attack the Theory of Evolution, saying "Well, it's just a theory. I have a theory too." They don't want to acknowledge that in the Scientific Community, a Theory has weight. It's been tested and has evidence supporting it. It's been upgraded from a Hypothesis (remember that word?). Calling "Intelligent Design" a "Theory" the same as the Theory of Evolution, is an attack on the Scientific Process.

If this keeps up, the Chinese will be inventing everything and we will be working for them.

Have you noticed what you're doing?

"Climate change"

Who is debating that the climate is changing? Up for debate is what is causing the climate change. But we can't even decide how the climate is changing. Global cooling? Global warming? Just changing?

"Evolution"

Again. You can represent it however you like but it is a theory. If you are all for the "scientific process" then you will understand that the "theory" of Evolution is in the same stage as the "theory" of Intelligent Design. Both have been tested and both have proponents. The fact that you happen to agree with Evolution doesn't make it any more or less valid to the guy after you. The same goes for Intelligent Design.

Stem Cell research. Embryonic Stem Cell Research, to be specific. Some people actually view that as morally wrong. There are people who are against Eugenics too. That is a science. It just happens to be one that most of us find to be immoral. Funny thing huh? Are you saying that if I regect the study of Euginics that I am against science?

"American History"

You would be surprised at how little history you were taught. Most of what we get is a fourth generation washed down version of history. History has been rewritten for all of history. If you want to learn anything about history go get a book written at the time of the event.

Funny, you didn't list Math, English, Geology or anything that doesn't have a raging political debate. I wonder if your debate is political in nature...

Mike

You are so wrong it actually hurt my eyes to read the part about the Theory of evolution.

Which is in the same stage as the Theory of Relativity, and the Theory of Gravity, and the Theory of Light.

Sorry but it simply isn't true, and what you said constitutes a blindness to an educated view on what evolution actually is.

You are so wrong it actually hurt my eyes to read the part about the Theory of evolution.

Which is in the same stage as the Theory of Relativity, and the Theory of Gravity, and the Theory of Light.

Sorry but it simply isn't true, and what you said constitutes a blindness to an educated view on what evolution actually is.

You're kidding right? All of the theories you listed have been observed, in real time. The theory of evolution is of an entirely different nature than the rest of them. Evolution is not based on observation of events in real time.

There are two theories of evolution.

One is the theory of evolution as the origin of species. It is based on speculation and circumstancial evidence. Every piece of the theory is based on incomplete fossil records. It has been tested, not in practice but in theory.

The second is the theory of evolution of a species. Put a bunch of black rats in the dessert for few months and you will have a population of entirely white rats.

One is observed. One is based on circumstantial evidence. Gravity, Relativity and Light are all observed.

So tell me. How much scrutiny have you applied to the science? Do you know the shortcomings? I can list them for both of them and I haven't really taken a stance but for you to sit there and tell me that I don't know enough? I've evaluated both and freely admit I haven't come to a conclusion.

Mike

Hate to tell you but the Modern Theory of Evolution rests on Genetics.

Go ahead and prove genetics wrong.

Oh, well... then it is settled. The fact remains that it is based on circumstance.

We test the genetic material from two species and speculate about how they might have common heredity. Wow, what a surprise. Organisims in the same environment have similar characteristics. I'm familiar with the research and the theory. Much moreso than you might think. I just don't think it is conclusive. Here's a thought. Most people that fall on one side of the evolution/ID argument in the scientific community made up their minds before they applied the science. Both arguments are tainted and neither are as reliable as they would have you believe. The reality is we have no idea how we got here.

Mike

 

[Annie]

I thought this was about education and some people's reasoning for getting costs under control?

Teaching our young about scientific method, the meaning of 'theory' is appropriate for science classes. Teaching creationism in science class isn't. Are some school districts trying to do that? Yes, a few. Very few. If I lived in one of those, I'd be going bananas on them.

Rdean threw in science hoping that a few would turn this into evolution thread, so here we are.

 

[Texanmike]

The debate has to do with whether or not it is approprate for the government to decide when a child should be exposed to sex. Many parents prefer they broach the subject with their children when they feel their childrn are ready

Oh! So all those abstinence only programs, they were really about making sure the parents could educate the children in a timely manner that the parent got to choose?

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

Why teach anything? Why not let the parents do it? Why don't we have bike riding classes in school? Ass whiping classes? When did it not become the parents job to parent?

Mike

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

putting condoms on cucumbers

Yes, because we all know, that teaching kids to have safe sex is EXACTLY the same as telling them to run out and fuck five strangers.

Thanks for the example, ass hat.

Hey Fuckwad, perhaps you should get off your dead ass, put down the beer can and teach your kids some responsibility... like most of us do already.

Now fuck off.

Bye!

 

[yidnar]

Some in this country are fighting education. Especially science. Without an education, what kind of jobs will be available? Or don't people care?

lets see what kind of jobs are out there for drop outs............crack dealer,crack whore,thief,gang member,community organizer !!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The debate has to do with whether or not it is approprate for the government to decide when a child should be exposed to sex. Many parents prefer they broach the subject with their children when they feel their childrn are ready

Oh! So all those abstinence only programs, they were really about making sure the parents could educate the children in a timely manner that the parent got to choose?

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

Hey, CantHelpButBeStupid, why are you such a fucking busy-body? Why don't you tend to your own and stay the fuck out of other's lives? Just because you're obviously too stupid to teach your kids not to go around screwing anything that has a pulse doesn't mean everybody is this bad off.

Deal?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The debate has to do with whether or not it is approprate for the government to decide when a child should be exposed to sex. Many parents prefer they broach the subject with their children when they feel their childrn are ready

Oh! So all those abstinence only programs, they were really about making sure the parents could educate the children in a timely manner that the parent got to choose?

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

Why teach anything? Why not let the parents do it? Why don't we have bike riding classes in school? Ass whiping classes? When did it not become the parents job to parent?

Mike

Because CantHelpButBeStupid is a typical, lazy liberal jerkoff that is willing to abdicate all his responsibilities to da gubmint.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I'm familiar with the research and the theory. Much moreso than you might think. I just don't think it is conclusive.

If it was conclusive, it would be called the Law of Evolution.

I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'm familiar with the research and the theory. Much moreso than you might think. I just don't think it is conclusive.

If it was conclusive, it would be called the Law of Evolution.

I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

You & Think have no place in the same sentence.

 

[Photonic]

Oh, and while I'm on it, there has been observation of both the evolution of species and the origin of species based on the evolutionary process. All documented.

Can you explain the beginning of the universe? Sure, the big bang...but what was before the big bang?
In other words...what went "Bang" and where was it right before it went "bang"?

Without an explanation of that, all else is still speculation.

My belief?

It was God's decision to develop the world to slowly evolve as it did.
Evolution was God's plan all along.

Do I sound like a politician?

No, you don't. Because no politician would admit to being blinded by their faith.

 

[Texanmike]

I'm familiar with the research and the theory. Much moreso than you might think. I just don't think it is conclusive.

If it was conclusive, it would be called the Law of Evolution.

I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

I think you lack the ability to question that which you hold as sacred. First you are telling me that it is based on something that is accepted as truth. Then you tell me that it isn't conclusive but I should treat it as something that is almost conclusive but not quite. I think you cannot elloquently argue your point, likely do to a lack of real familiarity with the subject, so you make broad generalizations and don't deal with any of the topics I present. Instead you look for me to make syntactical errors and exploit them. Have fun with that.

Mike

 

[DontBeStupid]

I'm familiar with the research and the theory. Much moreso than you might think. I just don't think it is conclusive.

If it was conclusive, it would be called the Law of Evolution.

I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

I think you lack the ability to question that which you hold as sacred. First you are telling me that it is based on something that is accepted as truth. Then you tell me that it isn't conclusive but I should treat it as something that is almost conclusive but not quite. I think you cannot elloquently argue your point, likely do to a lack of real familiarity with the subject, so you make broad generalizations and don't deal with any of the topics I present. Instead you look for me to make syntactical errors and exploit them. Have fun with that.

Mike

It's not about syntax. Words have meaning. Especially in the Scientific Community. Saying that a Theory is "just a theory" and saying it's not "conclusive", clearly shows you don't know what you're talking about. Or you do, but you're using this as a veiled attempt to attack Science, like may others do. Regardless, my point has been proved now multiple times just within this thread.

So, since there is now a CLEARLY established fight against Education, both in this thread and in this country, care to answer the original question?

Without an education, what kind of jobs will be available?

 

[Photonic]

If it was conclusive, it would be called the Law of Evolution.

I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

I think you lack the ability to question that which you hold as sacred. First you are telling me that it is based on something that is accepted as truth. Then you tell me that it isn't conclusive but I should treat it as something that is almost conclusive but not quite. I think you cannot elloquently argue your point, likely do to a lack of real familiarity with the subject, so you make broad generalizations and don't deal with any of the topics I present. Instead you look for me to make syntactical errors and exploit them. Have fun with that.

Mike

It's not about syntax. Words have meaning. Especially in the Scientific Community. Saying that a Theory is "just a theory" and saying it's not "conclusive", clearly shows you don't know what you're talking about. Or you do, but you're using this as a veiled attempt to attack Science, like may others do. Regardless, my point has been proved now multiple times just within this thread.

So, since there is now a CLEARLY established fight against Education, both in this thread and in this country, care to answer the original question?

Without an education, what kind of jobs will be available?

The kind of jobs that will be available are those that do not help this country compete against other countries.

Education loses, we all lose.

 

[Texanmike]

Part of the problem with the education system today is that we have blurred the line between fact and opinion. We stifle scientific exploration and we celebrate only an expression of liberty that is in line with our own. This is symptomatic of our society as a whole. Take "women's rights" for example. We support a woman's right to work. We champion their cause. Find me a feminist who is celebrating the woman who chooses to be a stay at home mom. You won't find many because "freedom of expression" is usually relegated to some form of "freedom of expression of ideas I espouse".

We start this process by supporting children and trying to make difficult work easier. We see games designed to teach you multiplication tables and make it fun. We wonder why our children are intellectually lazy when we teach them that learning should be fun. Learning isn't fun. Discovery, which is a byproduct of learning, is fun. We try to reward children incrementally as they learn small bits of information instead of allowing them the gratification of connecting cause and effect.

I started a thread about the Constitution in a different thread and it was based on my own research. Why don't we approach more things like this? My hypothesis is that we don't because we are used to getting our research spoon fed to us. When I was growing up (not all that long ago) a research paper involved going to the library looking through the card catalogue and finding book after book. If it was scientific it involved expirements and observation, if it was historical it involved endless hours reading and trying to piece two or more concepts together based on what I read. Many times I wound up with an entirely different conclusion than my original hypothesis. That doesn't happen very often. We don't encourage discovery of the world around us, we encourage discovery of the way we feel. That is at the root of the problem. Its a sad state when we spoon feed people their ideas and then are surprised when we have no advance. If "education" is someone's ability to parrot an instructor then we should not be surprised that we are falling behind in innovation.

Mike