You will own nothing

[Arthur Brain]

Everyone starts with SOME assumptions.

Atheists start off with different assumptions than I do. You seem to mostly agree with their assumptions.

That you've never been able to discuss the facts is a shame.

Science doesn't which is the point. Atheism is entirely irrelevant so not sure why you're even bringing that up. Science deals with the collation of evidence and formulates theories that best fit the data, modifying or discarding depending in basic terms.

 

[marke]

There's no need for any cognitive dissonance with evolution being part of creation anyway so that's pretty much moot. Where you get the idea that "Marxism" is taught in schools is anyone's guess. Just another one of your bizarre diatribes here really.

Of course the secularists teach Marxism in schools. Secularists are stupid.

California has curriculum modeled more on marxism than on markets

State lawmakers want to teach students ideas for its ethnic studies curriculum in district schools.

thehill.com

Parents will not know what their child is learning because the state is making up words, but at least there is a glossary. More harmful are the few intelligible ideas. As William Evers, a former member of the California Academic Content Standards Commission, recently pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, the model curriculum says capitalism is a “form of power and oppression” and such systems “dehumanize” people.

 

[marke]

Medical bills are the biggest cause of bankruptcies in The US. If the poor can't afford health care, they can't afford education either.

If the US goes bankrupt trying to pay everyone's medical bills then there will be no healthcare provided for anyone.

 

[marke]

Science doesn't which is the point. Atheism is entirely irrelevant so not sure why you're even bringing that up. Science deals with the collation of evidence and formulates theories that best fit the data, modifying or discarding depending in basic terms.

Nearly three hundred years ago some bozo assumed the earth must be millions of years old because of fossils encased in rock. That erroneous assumption has led to a whole host of bad conclusions, interpretations of data, and bad science called evolution.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nearly three hundred years ago some bozo assumed the earth must be millions of years old because of fossils encased in rock. That erroneous assumption has led to a whole host of bad conclusions, interpretations of data, and bad science called evolution.

Hard to argue with those kind of smarts...

 

[ok doser]

If the poor can't afford health care ...

... they can use Medicare or Medicaid or free health clinics

see: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...free clinics are,Alaska as the lone exception.

 

[ok doser]

Everyone starts with SOME assumptions.

Of course they do. Only the retarded would claim otherwise.

 

[Eric h]

... they can use Medicare or Medicaid or free health clinics

Agreed.

But medical bills are still the biggest reason for bankruptcies, so something is wrong.

 

[Right Divider]

Medical bills are the biggest cause of bankruptcies in The US. If the poor can't afford health care, they can't afford education either.

The vast majority of children in government schools are NOT "poor".
This argument is a smoke screen.

 

[Right Divider]

Science doesn't which is the point.

Yes, science DOES.

Science is ALWAYS executed within a thought paradigm that has a priori assumptions. That you think otherwise is a testament to your ignorance on the subject.

Atheism is entirely irrelevant so not sure why you're even bringing that up.

I'm bringing it up because you mostly agree with them and you disagree with God.

Science deals with the collation of evidence and formulates theories that best fit the data, modifying or discarding depending in basic terms.

And, AGAIN, it does not occur in a vacuum.

 

[Eric h]

The vast majority of children in government schools are NOT "poor".
This argument is a smoke screen.

So poor people could afford to pay for their kids education, but medical bills bankrupt them. The smoke is in my eyes.

 

[Right Divider]

So poor people could afford to pay for their kids education, but medical bills bankrupt them. The smoke is in my eyes.

You are immensely dense.
MOST kids are NOT poor. Using the EXCEPTIONS to define a RULE is stupid.

 

[ok doser]

You are immensely dense.
MOST kids are NOT poor. Using the EXCEPTIONS to define a RULE is stupid.

And poor kids qualify for free medical care

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, science DOES.

Science is ALWAYS executed within a thought paradigm that has a priori assumptions. That you think otherwise is a testament to your ignorance on the subject.

I'm bringing it up because you mostly agree with them and you disagree with God.

And, AGAIN, it does not occur in a vacuum.

No, it doesn't RD. Scientific theories do not become formulated because of 'assumption' and science is independent of any human bias. The evidence is what matters. Beliefs, biases, prejudices et al are entirely irrelevant. The ToE did not come about on some sort of whim by way of. If it didn't pass muster or hold up to scrutiny then it would never have become a theory. By now you should realize what the term 'theory' means when applied to science as well. Now, there can be some area for assumption in science but once again, this is in conjunction with established parameters and if data comes about that undermines said then modification and else ensues.

The two most prominent and knowledgeable voices on here in reference to scientific matters were Alate & Barb, neither of whom are atheists so that was feeble. Disagreement with the likes of yourself and similar ilk does not equate to disagreement with God by any stretch.

 

[marke]

So poor people could afford to pay for their kids education, but medical bills bankrupt them. The smoke is in my eyes.

Government regulation, interference, and influence has driven medical costs and the cost of education sky high. Costs are so great that many Americans cannot afford them without government assistance. The government cannot afford to subsidize healthcare and education for all without bankrupting the nation.

 

[ok doser]

Science is ALWAYS executed within a thought paradigm that has a priori assumptions.

As a professional scientist, I can verify that this is true.

 

[marke]

No, it doesn't RD. Scientific theories do not become formulated because of 'assumption' and science is independent of any human bias. The evidence is what matters. Beliefs, biases, prejudices et al are entirely irrelevant. The ToE did not come about on some sort of whim by way of. If it didn't pass muster or hold up to scrutiny then it would never have become a theory. By now you should realize what the term 'theory' means when applied to science as well. Now, there can be some area for assumption in science but once again, this is in conjunction with established parameters and if data comes about that undermines said then modification and else ensues.

The two most prominent and knowledgeable voices on here in reference to scientific matters were Alate & Barb, neither of whom are atheists so that was feeble. Disagreement with the likes of yourself and similar ilk does not equate to disagreement with God by any stretch.

The science which has developed age of the earth estimates if founded entirely on speculations, assumptions, theories, guesses, and opinions that have driven research to dismiss facts that do not agree with apriori opinions, assumptions, speculations, and theories.

How Science Figured Out the Age of Earth

For centuries scholars sought to determine Earth’s age, but the answer had to wait for careful geologic observation, isotopic analyses of the elements and an understanding of radioactive decay

www.scientificamerican.com

Aristotle thought the earth had existed eternally. Roman poet Lucretius, intellectual heir to the Greek atomists, believed its formation must have been relatively recent, given that there were no records going back beyond the Trojan War. The Talmudic rabbis, Martin Luther and others used the biblical account to extrapolate back from known history and came up with rather similar estimates for when the earth came into being. The most famous came in 1654, when Archbishop James Ussher of Ireland offered the date of 4004 B.C.
Within decades observation began overtaking such thinking. In the 1660s Nicolas Steno formulated our modern concepts of deposition of horizontal strata. He inferred that where the layers are not horizontal, they must have been tilted since their deposition and noted that different strata contain different kinds of fossil. Robert Hooke, not long after, suggested that the fossil record would form the basis for a chronology that would “far antedate ... even the very pyramids.” The 18th century saw the spread of canal building, which led to the discovery of strata correlated over great distances, and James Hutton’s recognition that unconformities between successive layers implied that deposition had been interrupted by enormously long periods of tilt and erosion. By 1788 Hutton had formulated a theory of cyclic deposition and uplift, with the earth indefinitely old, showing “no vestige of a beginning—no prospect of an end.” Hutton considered the present to be the key to the past, with geologic processes driven by the same forces as those we can see at work today. This position came to be known as uniformitarianism, but within it we must distinguish between uniformity of natural law (which nearly all of us would accept) and the increasingly questionable assumptions of uniformity of process, uniformity of rate and uniformity of outcome.
That is the background to the intellectual drama being played out in this series of papers. It is a drama consisting of a prologue and three acts, complex characters, and no clear heroes or villains. We, of course, know the final outcome, but we should not let that influence our appreciation of the story as it unfolds. Even less should we let that knowledge influence our judgment of the players, acting as they did in their own time, constrained by the concepts and data then available.

 

[Right Divider]

No, it doesn't RD. Scientific theories do not become formulated because of 'assumption' and science is independent of any human bias.

Science does not work in a vacuum. People (i.e., scientists) all have a world view within which they work. An atheist has a difference starting point than a Christian. When we talk about one-time, non-observable events, there is a high degree of bias involved.

The evidence is what matters. Beliefs, biases, prejudices et al are entirely irrelevant.

If only it actually worked that way.

The ToE did not come about on some sort of whim by way of.

Of course it did. It's a belief system about the unobservable past.

If it didn't pass muster or hold up to scrutiny then it would never have become a theory.

Again, if only it actually worked that way.

By now you should realize what the term 'theory' means when applied to science as well.

I do.

Now, there can be some area for assumption in science but once again, this is in conjunction with established parameters and if data comes about that undermines said then modification and else ensues.

This conflicts with other statements that you've made about "science".
If the second part of your statement were actually true, the "theory" of a single common ancestor of all life on earth would have been abandoned long ago.

The two most prominent and knowledgeable voices on here in reference to scientific matters were Alate & Barb, neither of whom are atheists so that was feeble. Disagreement with the likes of yourself and similar ilk does not equate to disagreement with God by any stretch.

And yet they agree with atheists regarding origins.

"ilk"

 

[Eric h]

You are immensely dense.
MOST kids are NOT poor. Using the EXCEPTIONS to define a RULE is stupid.

You are incredibly stupid, you did not reply to my post.

I said poor children would not be able to pay for their education. I did not say most kids are poor. However about 1 in 6 children in the USA are living in poverty.

Children remain the poorest age group in America. Nearly 1 in 6 lived in poverty in 2018—nearly 11.9 million children (see Table 2). The child poverty rate (16 percent) is nearly one-and-a-half times higher than that for adults ages 18-64 (11 percent) and two times higher than that for adults 65 and older (10 percent).

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrIQhw_zAFh47AA9Al3Bwx.;_ylu=Y29sbwMEcG9zAzIEdnRpZANDMjAxN18xBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1627536576/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.childrensdefense.org%2fpolicy%2fresources%2fsoac-2020-child-poverty%2f/RK=2/RS=4xHEY.txkzanZS0bvZD_5aDl7u4-

 

[Right Divider]

You are incredibly stupid, you did not reply to my post.

I said poor children would not be able to pay for their education. I did not say most kids are poor. However about 1 in 6 children in the USA are living in poverty.

I did NOT say that you said most kids are poor.

Always the false accusations with you.

Education is NOT a legitimate function of government. It leads to corruption, just like most things that government touches.