zapatos

I would like to see an assessment done at some point to help determine what type of future is in store for the student, then lead the curriculum in that direction. At the least I think we need to determine if the student is likely to pursue college or not. If destined for college and a professional career then much of what I've seen outlined so far seems appropriate. But if the student is not likely to pursue or excel at college then perhaps the curriculum should focus on vocational studies.

So in your view of the world it is more appropriate to call God 'BS', 'fairy tale', and 'metaphor' rather than to call God 'him'? To the point of suggesting violence against me? When all I was doing was using a commonly used pronoun when referencing him? http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Protestant/2001/11/On-This-Shelf-Of-Rocks-I-Will-Build-My-Church.aspx

I'm a bit strapped for time myself, but if you are that interested in it I'll spend the 2+ hours watching it then writing up a summary so that you don't have to. I'll get back to you.

If it is logically irrefutable that there is no wall out there and that space is infinite, why do you keep asking someone to explain the boundary and what is beyond it? You already know the answer and have indicated that your mind cannot be changed.

My problem is that you seem to have skipped a couple of steps in your logic. If I read the above correctly you are saying that: 1. Any given limit of the end of space must be explained/described/etc. 2. What lies beyond must be contemplated. 3. Therefore there is no end of space. Did I get that right? If not please fill in what I overlooked. If so, then I suggest that steps 1 and 2 are insufficient argument to lead to step 3.

Clothes also protect people from radiation, insects, thorns, splashing bacon grease, ridicule, revulsion, the spread of fecal matter, saddle sores, dropped boxes, etc. Fancy, expensive clothes are just silly to those who find them silly. Just like some people feel about fancy cars, fancy food, fancy music, fancy homes, fancy dancing, fancy hotels, etc. What is fancy and expensive to one person may be dull and cheap to another.

And this is where my question comes in. Why not classify them as prisoners of war? If the US is fearful of releasing them, they could simply claim that since Al Qaeda and the US are still at odds, then they are justified in the continued holding of them.

During World War II prisoners of war were held until the surrender of the belligerents. Is it possible the US could reclassify the prisoners as POWs and continue to hold them due to the fact that there has been no surrender? I suspect not as it hasn't been done but I am unsure why.

I haven't answered because I don't know. I recognize that the depth of my ignorance is substantial. The difference between us is that after I surpass the limits of my understanding, I stop making definitive statements because I realize there are things beyond my understanding. You on the other hand continue to make definitive statements. It's like you believe that if your brain is not capable of imagining anything else, then there must not be anything else. "I cannot imagine how 'x' can be true, therefore it must be false." In my experience that type of attitude comes from someone who does not know enough to understand the depth of his ignorance.

Two things come to mind. Not just relative to this thread but to many of the religion threads. 1. Why is it necessary to ridicule someone else's beliefs? I understand why someone will argue against another's beliefs if they feel those beliefs or logic which leads to them are wrong, but why add the ridicule? It doesn't help the debate and only tends to antagonize. Not to mention the fact that it seems a bit rude. I may think your sister is ugly but is it really necessary for me to make fun of her to you? 2. On the science forums I regularly hear things such as 'It doesn't matter if it makes sense to you or not...'. The point being that you not being able to understand something does not in itself make it wrong. But on the religion forum, if it doesn't make complete sense with no gaps in logic to someone with even a minimal amount of theistic background, then that person feels comfortable enough to declare those beliefs as false and worthy of, once again, ridicule. It feels as if there is a bit of a double standard going on.

How does having an infinite amount of time guarantee anything happening a second time? Or even a first? What is the logic that leads from 'infinite time' to 'come about again'? How does an infinite amount of time lead to 'anything happening'? Given an infinite amount of time will the physics of the universe change?

Perhaps you were thinking of the time it takes a photon to leave the sun... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core

I find it interesting that you are so confident there is no limit to space, simply because you cannot imagine how it could be otherwise. Is your imagination really that powerful? (Hint: It's all in your head.)

True, you may have a less biased attitude by questioning. Based on what I have seen of you, this seems to be your approach. But not questioning doesn't necessarily mean that you do have a biased attitude. As far as I can tell, I am not awed by anyone. I just feel comfortable that I (usually) recognize where things fall on BS scale - from total excrement to scientifically well supported. If I give more credence to someone who has higher status it is because they have proven themselves, not because they make my knees shake. Sorry, I missed your point.

I don't think they are cowering at all, and would love to rock the boat if the opportunity presented. But where is your best chance to make a contribution? Investigating something new or trying to prove that Special Relativity is really a fraud? I imagine most scientists are quite practical and are not going to waste their time going against such long odds. Not out of fear of rocking the boat, but out of fear of wasting their careers.

To each his own of course, but I feel that for me to thoroughly question those giants would be a waste of effort. The chances of me uncovering a flaw made by a top person in his field (that also was not uncovered by anyone else) are indeed slim. I am very comfortable accepting established science without scrutinizing its validity myself.

Yes, please supply the reference.

A problem with a software filter is that it may keep useful information from us. What were the exact words Obama used referring to Republicans when he did not realize his microphone was on? We may never know if the word keeps being deleted.

Who is it that instructs the President, Senators, and Congressmen on what they should do? Who is it that we cannot throw out in the next election? I don't know who this group of people is that you are talking about.

I always hate it when someone starts out by telling me I should quit being a dumbass and start being smart like them. So there is no chance we will just borrow more money? Or that we will increase taxes? Or that the economy will have a good run? Or that there will be modifications to the Social Security system? Or any of many other possibilities? And really, we are giving up everything? Can you expand on this please? Take it back from whom? From the people we put in office? Take it back from us? Again, the worst? You cannot imagine any other slavery that was or could be worse?

So this thread is only for those who wish to agree with each other? Sounds boring.

This is an interesting sentence. You start out sounding as if it is unknown if ghosts are real, and then proceed to make what sounds like a factual statement about them, which of course you cannot do unless the ghosts are real.

Awesome! She was spinning clockwise for me at first and I could not get her to spin counter-clockwise. I then found that if I closed my eyes and imagined her spinning in the opposite direction, as I opened my eyes she would be spinning in that imagined direction. At that point I could get her to change back and forth at will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

You said 'yes' they made a grave error, but then followed that with an edit indicating that perhaps (as I interpreted your remark) they did not make a grave error. Can you please clarify for me?