Should Schools Teach "Intelligent Falling"?

No, I don't agree. Just like i don't agree that the only way to circumnavigate the planet is on a plane or boat. Sure, You could do it using nothing but forward rolls and doggy paddle, but that isn't practical and it isn't realistic.

It's becoming more and more apparent that you haven't entirely thought through what this utopia would entail. Now we are relying on volunteers to build roads? Like they don't have anything else to do. I assume the same would be true for bridges, schools, police station, traffic lights and fire engines?

have a sit down and think about it... get back to us when you have a bit more than an unrealistic dream which consists of other people voluntarily doing stuff for you while you don't pay a penny for it.

 

I agree with you here, Stox; but I wouldn't hold my breath expecting anything from Guerilla. He isn't prepared to accept the implications of his flawed premises, as evidenced across many, many subjects. Whether it's Hitler (or Reagan) as a non-interventionist, a religious defense of the freedom of expression (unless it's a defense of religious curbs on someone else's freedom of expression), a rejection of "collectivism" and defense of "individual choice" (unless it's the individuals of the body politic who flatly reject his views), or outright lies designed to cloud the truth and sway the gullible, you won't get anywhere. When he's soundly refuted, or openly exposed, he moves on - my experience anyway.

Taxation, his much vaunted "user fees," etc. His is a land of the mind, that never was, and never will be. Rightly so, I would say, since those living today have decided to leave the state of nature and enter into civil society, with its agreed upon norms for collective relationships, and its acknowledgment that at least some measure of things made in the common weal serve the individual interest quite well. It all rests on some religious sense of political economic magic - "state's rights," and now, as it seems the new wave of the P&R section is becoming, secessionism: something magical about the governmental entity called a "State" over the state, as it exists in our federal system.

To extend the implications out fully, as we must if we are to move from an amusement locked in one's brain to a real-world framework, to be beholden to none is to be the guy living alone in a state of blissful anarchy, in that rock cave about 3/4 mile up in that back canyon, yonder.

 

That's odd, you've made several posts in this thread indicating that you do agree with that statement.

So you no longer believe what you wrote earlier? I can source the relevant bits for you if that would help.

Could you explain how private medicine, infrastructure, education etc is not practical or realistic?

I have thought it through. When you're done trying to be cheeky and condescending, we can discuss the subject in detail. Why couldn't volunteers build roads? Or why couldn't I pay privately to build a road? Or why couldn't everyone on my street pay to put in sidewalks?

Again, you are (I can only assume, intentionally) misrepresenting my position. I'm not averse to paying for what I use. It's not just voluntary labor, it's voluntary payment.

The question you should be asking and trying to defend, is what gives you the right to take from my for your consumption? Not the legal right, we all understand socialism. I mean the moral right.

 

Ok so what method are you suggesting we implement to ensure you only pay for what you use?
again, What you say is nothing but a far fetch unattainable idea that is neither practical or workable. And know what the funny thing is? Any system that involves cataloging and checking every individuals usage of public amenities will ultimately cost far more than what you are paying now.

tell us how it will work and stop assuming that because you can imagine something it must be possible.
Give us specifics of how funds will be gathered, How we will determine exactly how much you owe and how the funds collected are to be allocated? Are you prepared to pay for the purchase, upkeep and manning of an ambulance even though you may never use one? Are you prepared to pay for a fire service even though your house may never catch fire? Are you prepared to pay for a police force even though you may never dial 911?

tell us how this obviously insane and unworkable idea is going to work? Do you have any idea or does your need to appear to be an anti-establishment rebel outweigh your need to appear sane and rational?

 

most of what you earn is a direct result of the society you live in. If you work at a mcdonalds in Romania you will get 2-300 /month. If you work at a mcdonalds in the US or in western Europe you will probably get 3-4 times more. So where's that difference from? That difference in pay is a result of the quality of the society you live in.

P.S. I'm interested in hearing a plan on how things would work in your proposed system too

 

Jackuul, You can't confuse adaptation (or selective breeding) for "evolution." Some guy turned wolves into dogs in just a decade or two. Not "millions" of years. Horses and dogs and cats are examples of intelligent design. Not evolution. People had to use their brains to breed them to get the desired results. Modern horses, dogs and cats didn't come about in the wild. They are also all staying in the same species. No one has observed a bird turning into a reptile or a reptile turning into a bird.

A human with down syndrom has extra chromosomes. Are you claiming that a person with down syndrom is a different species?

And as I pointed out, the changes we observe today do not in any way prove where it all started. It's an assumption, a religion to say otherwise.

I never claimed creationism has been proven or anything more than a religion.

I pointed out that "science" has to fudge the laws of physics to explain why the universe is a consistant temperature. Creationism doesn't. I pointed out that the changes we observe today do not refute Creationism and in fact support the Bible. Those two facts do not prove creationism. They merely lend it some plausibility.

I'm pointing out that your double standard is showing. To you, lack of observation proves evolution. Since it happened millions of years ago and nobody saw it, by your logic, we know it happened.

You refuse to believe in God until he's on video but you've drank the kool-aid on birds turning into reptiles or visa versa without a video to prove it.

That's why evolution is a religion. Faith is believeing in the unseen. And faith is the basis of religion. Not science.

I've yet to see any observed science that disproves any aspect of Creationism. The uniform temperature of the universe nearly KOs the Big Bang theory if not for "science"'s willingness to bend the laws of physics for a short time.

 

Kalvin you seem to be the only one that is confused with adaptation and evolution. This adaptation argument is just your facile attempt to admit that animals do change due to selective pressure without admitting that evolution occurs. Adaptation IS evolution.

if you believe that animals do change, join the club. that is what we believe too. Congrats, You are an evolutionist.

Someone with downs can still breed with someone without downs. The ability to breed is pretty much the definition of "species". if two animals can have sex and produce an offspring (providing that mechanism is functioning normally) they are the same species.

What could disprove it? When your "theory" boils down to nothing more than "invisible magic man done it" and doesn't actually have any evidence, Science or experiments that are open to refutation it makes disproving it very hard. But then that is irrelevant. it's your job to prove your theory, not ours to disprove it.

What uniform temperature?

At any point feel free to put some evidence supporting your "magic man done it theory" on the table and i'm sure it wont take us long to kick the absolute shit out of it and make you wish you had never voiced such absurd childish opinions.

 

No. It's not. Adaptation occurs within species. Evolution is change from one species to a completly new species and requires the leap of faith that all things came from one single cell of life that magically came into existence. Religion.

There used to be debates between Micro and Macro evolution. "Science" never won that debate and now they just pretend they're the same thing.

Arguing that adaptation proves Evolution is as idiotic as claiming that because the grass is green, evolution is true. Evolution implies adaptation but adaptation does not imply evolution.

No one has ever observed one species turning into a new species. "it takes too long" is no different than the "prophet" that claims the world will end in the year 4000.

Mule. By that definition a human is the same species as a mule. They can have sex and no offspring is expected because the mechanism isn't functioning properly.

Science still doesn't even know what constitutes a species.

And you accuse me of needing to read books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem

The Bible has no "Horizon Problem." "Science" has to bend the laws of physics to try to solve this problem that they've created. That's what happens when you try to force science to fit your "science." Eventually it's all going to fall apart.

Theories cannot disprove anything. Gravity is a theory because they don't understand what exactly it is. All they know is that large bodies have a strong pull that is not electro or magnetic in nature. Just because I know how to drive a car doesn't mean I know how it works. Science knows how to work with gravity, they just have a theory on what it is.

Evolution is a theory because it's chock full of assumptions and speculation.

 

This adaptation thing was invented by creationists as a dishonest strawman argument. Scientists don't see a difference, And neither would you if you had even a shred of integrity. it seems being a dishonest liar is a requirement for creationists.

I'm not denying that animals adapt within a species, But that is what evolution is. it's adaptation due to selective pressure. your mind is clouded because you think it terms of "species" when you really should be thinking in terms of independently adapting life which is subjected to varying selective pressures.

By the way, I'm still waiting for evidence of this magic-man-done-it theory. Got any?

 

From a neutral and unbiased perspective [is it even possible ?]
I think currently, science has the better logic, arguments and suggestions.

While god might have played a bit in there, evolution is a tangible force.
Look at a few fossils and their descendants.
When you think about it, evolution makes more sense for a neutral logical person.

God still has his roles, why do religions feel as if their god has to do every thing imaginable and put his finger in every pie.

 

I'm not the one that's confusing their religion with Science. I'm still waiting for evidence that reptiles evolved into birds or that any species evolved into another species. Or even a single shred of evidence that we all came from one single cell billions of years ago.

"Species" is critical in understanding biology. You can't just dismiss it because adaptation has never been proven to go past that line as is required by evolution.

Was the Horizon Problem also invented by creationists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation

So where do the Jews fit into your world view?

 

So you don't have any evidence or experiments that support your claim? You should probably stop making the claim then.

 

By your argument, so should you.

So as soon as you stop preaching your religion I'll stop poking holes it in and talking about other religions.

So until you provide that evidence that I can observe and test in a scientific setting as is required by your religion, I ask that you take your own advice and stop making claims.

It's only fair.

The only difference between my religion and your religion is that I know that what I believe is a religion.

 

I have. I have explained how, using genome markers which are formed when a nucleotide bond is repaired, We can easily tell which animals share a close common ancestor. So what is your evidence for the magic-man-done-it theory?

 

why are you 'waiting'? just walk to a library or bookstore, or just use your computer and read. the evidence is there and has been for decades. you are just repeating this over an over and ignoring the answers.

looks like you are using the forum as a practice ground for your pastor's teachings on how to win an argument by repeating nonsense, lie, turning over other people's sayings until they just quit. but no, that will not prove your point.

 

Isn't it possible that that is how God chose to create the world, and that the english word "day" actually means a really long time. In some parts of the Bible, that meaning of "day" is fairly clear, but not as clear in the creation account.

This is just what I've always thought of as my reason for not really caring if evolution is taught in schools or not. But I'm not sure either way. I can see your point too that the evidence really isn't there.

Edit: Actually, I think I'd say the evidence is there, but the proof is not. So that makes it faith based, and shouldn't be taught in public schools either?

 

He's a "christian", You didn't expect anything other than dishonesty, Deceit and ignorance from him did you?

 

that's a bit "Religionist", isn't it?

 

Narrow the role of government, and allow the free market to provide for demand.

Well first you ask me, then the next sentence, you condemn any possible response. As far as cataloging and checking usage, isn't this what the government should have to do anyway, rather than under provide a needed service in demand, or over provide a service with little or no demand.

Comments like this are funny. Not that I put myself on that scale, but I imagine that the first man to say the earth was round, or that we could put a man on the moon, or that man could build flying machines must have been regarded with the same disbelief and mockery.

To the latter 3 examples, sure. It would be like buying insurance. People buy insurance without mandates to do so. But I certainly shouldn't have to buy household insurance if I don't own a house. This doesn't need to be managed by the state.

Why would funds be allocated and collected? How does Dell collect payment for it's computer sales? How does a plumber charge for his services? If no toilets break, does he go out of business?

Your arguments show either (1) you're intentionally being obtuse which is possible, because you've already contradicted yourself several times in this thread, or (2) you really cannot fathom a society where people pay for what they use, work harder to pay for more, or elect not to pay and do without.

I don't have a need to appear any which way to you. That you continually create ad hominem attacks, instead of discussing the subject in good faith, shows the weakness of your position, or your capacity to debate.

Assuming that you are willing and capable of stretching your mind to new ideas, ask yourself the following,

(1) Do I have a right to take food/money/energy from you and use it myself or for my family/friends, without your permission?

(2) How were the oldest Universities built and funded?

(3) If everyone kept their tax dollars, and used that money to buy the same services government provides via the free market, with competition and punishment (bankruptcy) for inefficiency, would they get less or more for their money?

 

I'm curious about how things like basic scientific research would be possible under this model