What do you think of my manifesto ideas? Watch

username1350010
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
..
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
(Original post by Reaver Daniels)
Ok so these are just a couple ideas for a manifesto.

Europe

Leave the EU, I know UKIP already have this one but considering we'd be approximately £170 billion better off a year I think it would be a good thing and we could easily remedy the free trade thing by joining BRIC (trade agreement between Brazil, Russia, India, and China) and as for euro police we could easily tighten up on boarder control to stop criminals fleeing to foreign countries.
''We'd be approximately £170 billion better off a year'' - Source?

Around 40-50% of our exports go to Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy...United_Kingdom). I wanna say that retaining free trade with Europe is more important than proposing free trade with an informal bloc.

(Original post by Reaver Daniels)
Immigration

I also think we should tighten up on Immigration, studies show that about 550 thousand (as oppose to the 400 thousand emigrating) people immigrate to the UK each year and is costing the government 60 billion a year for their living here. Source? My plan for immigration would be to put a cap on it and simply bring it under control. To what level? I would do this by ensuring that no one can enter the UK unless they qualified for any of the following: OPTION NUMBER ONE... earning at least 50 thousand a year from jobs that they would already be required to have before they came here. Why is this important?
OPTION NUMBER TWO... The person wishing to obtain entry to the UK would have to prove that they could speak perfect English. Why is this important?
Please note. The above rules do not apply to children or students.
Please also note. Students are given a year after graduating to find a job agreeing with OPTION ONE or are allowed to stay if they already have OPTION TWO - I am aware that most universities require their international students to speak perfect English anyway. I would also want to pass a bill that would ensure that only 20% of their income earned in the UK could be sent home to their own country,the other 80% must be spent in the UK as this will boost the economy. How will you go about 'checking' this?
See the stuff in bold, please reply to that.

(Original post by Reaver Daniels)
Criminal Discipline

My third point would be to tackle criminal discipline... In my opinion criminals aren't punished enough, if a sentence is life in prison it should mean exactly what it says not "oh will give you 20 or so years and then if you're good you only have half that." I also think that the death penalty should be brought back for certain crimes if the prosecutors can be 100% sure that the offender actually did commit the crime in question. I think we should have degrees of crimes with third degree crimes receiving a death penalty, second degree receiving life in prison and 1st degree receiving any specified number of years below life in prison.
If anyone sexually assaults in any way, murders (not man slaughter) or tortures that's a third degree crime and warrants death. If anyone
Second degree etc.
First degree crimes petty crimes etc.
What crimes would fit into the first/second/third degree that you speak of? Why do sexual assaults, murders and tortures grant someone death? Why not something which has a greater impact on society, such as tax evasion, corruption, etc?

(Original post by Reaver Daniels)
Education

As for education I believe that the standards of graded should be raided in that rather than 90% and above equal A* it should be 95% and above. An A grade would be 90% and above and so on. (I have straight A* at gcse and they were too easy) I also think that both evolution and creationism as well as all other outlooks on the subject of how we came to be should be taught as theory. Because let's face it, there is no solid evidence for either side of the argument (I've researched both) so let's find some common neutral ground and let children choose for themselves. Even though that creationism has pretty much been debunked (there are plenty of videos on Youtube about this) I would also state that sex education should only start being taught the year before exams are taught to keep children's minds innocent for longer. Why should the mind of a child be kept innocent? If innocence was really important, surely other measures would be taken to ensure that it is retained (say, banning sexual adverts/music videos on TV and on the internet, banning violent images on adverts/the news, etc?))

So those are the main points, let me know what you think. The above are only ideas btw.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Read the bold stuff above.
0
reply
Burridge
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by Reaver Daniels)
Ok so these are just a couple ideas for a manifesto.

Europe

Leave the EU, I know UKIP already have this one but considering we'd be approximately £170 billion better off a year I think it would be a good thing and we could easily remedy the free trade thing by joining BRIC (trade agreement between Brazil, Russia, India, and China) and as for euro police we could easily tighten up on boarder control to stop criminals fleeing to foreign countries.

Immigration

I also think we should tighten up on Immigration, studies show that about 550 thousand (as oppose to the 400 thousand emigrating) people immigrate to the UK each year and is costing the government 60 billion a year for their living here. My plan for immigration would be to put a cap on it and simply bring it under control. I would do this by ensuring that no one can enter the UK unless they qualified for any of the following: OPTION NUMBER ONE... earning at least 50 thousand a year from jobs that they would already be required to have before they came here.
OPTION NUMBER TWO... The person wishing to obtain entry to the UK would have to prove that they could speak perfect English.
Please note. The above rules do not apply to children or students.
Please also note. Students are given a year after graduating to find a job agreeing with OPTION ONE or are allowed to stay if they already have OPTION TWO - I am aware that most universities require their international students to speak perfect English anyway. I would also want to pass a bill that would ensure that only 20% of their income earned in the UK could be sent home to their own country, the other 80% must be spent in the UK as this will boost the economy.

Criminal Discipline

My third point would be to tackle criminal discipline... In my opinion criminals aren't punished enough, if a sentence is life in prison it should mean exactly what it says not "oh will give you 20 or so years and then if you're good you only have half that." I also think that the death penalty should be brought back for certain crimes if the prosecutors can be 100% sure that the offender actually did commit the crime in question. I think we should have degrees of crimes with third degree crimes receiving a death penalty, second degree receiving life in prison and 1st degree receiving any specified number of years below life in prison.
If anyone sexually assaults in any way, murders (not man slaughter) or tortures that's a third degree crime and warrants death. If anyone
Second degree etc.
First degree crimes petty crimes etc.

Education

As for education I believe that the standards of graded should be raided in that rather than 90% and above equal A* it should be 95% and above. An A grade would be 90% and above and so on. (I have straight A* at gcse and they were too easy) I also think that both evolution and creationism as well as all other outlooks on the subject of how we came to be should be taught as theory. Because let's face it, there is no solid evidence for either side of the argument (I've researched both) so let's find some common neutral ground and let children choose for themselves. I would also state that sex education should only start being taught the year before exams are taught to keep children's minds innocent for longer.

So those are the main points, let me know what you think. The above are only ideas btw.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Sounds to me like you'll be voting UKIP come the general election?
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by Reaver Daniels)
Source for Britain 170 billion better off:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/430...European-Union

As for your comment on free trade with Europe, no amount of Free trade is worth being in debt over, what's the point in trading if it gets you nowhere.

As for what level I'd enforce control on immigration to, see my conditions for entering the country.

Having a job waiting for them here before they come is important because otherwise, they could just enter the country and laze around on benefits. I doubt they'd do that if they had a job waiting for them here that was willing to pay them 50 thousand a year

As for the importance of being able to speak English I would refer to the saying "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." If they have no plans to learn the language of the country they are emigrating to then their commitment is obviously not great enough to merit living there.

As for checking this, I would set up an agency for this specific task, it would probably be a long and slow process but in order for an accurate assessment, this would have to be the case.

The degrees of crime are an undeveloped section of this, as I stated these are ideas, not official. However, I thought that those three would most likely be the three crimes most mentioned if I were to do a public survey. They are undeveloped though, like I said.

Maybe it has been debunked but by using what research? And how credible is a YouTube video anyway?

I believe that in order to improve the morality of future generations, we must do exactly what I've stated, I would even go so far as to saying that we should put an age rating on things such as music videos.
Alright, thank you for your reply.
0
reply
Burridge
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by Reaver Daniels)
Oh and my source for immigration costs yearly. http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/3893889/
Am I missing something here, or does that article not claim that immigration contributes £60bn to the economy? Not costs, which was what you claimed in your post ...
0
reply
chrisawhitmore
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
Yeah, I was kind of sceptical, and then you pulled out the creationist stuff and now I'm just worried. Please, demonstrate the lack of evidence for evolution, because there's a nobel prize in it for you if you can contradict the findings of every reputable biologist in the last century.

In the meantime, please refrain from getting flu jabs or eating bananas, carrots, all dairy products, any non-hunted meat, taking insulin (if you're diabetic) or using any of the other products of selective breeding or genetic engineering, because they don't exist (if there's no evidence for evolution)
1
reply
Burridge
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by Reaver Daniels)
Ok so these are just a couple ideas for a manifesto.

Europe

Leave the EU, I know UKIP already have this one but considering we'd be approximately £170 billion better off a year I think it would be a good thing and we could easily remedy the free trade thing by joining BRIC (trade agreement between Brazil, Russia, India, and China) and as for euro police we could easily tighten up on boarder control to stop criminals fleeing to foreign countries.

Immigration

I also think we should tighten up on Immigration, studies show that about 550 thousand (as oppose to the 400 thousand emigrating) people immigrate to the UK each year and is costing the government 60 billion a year for their living here. My plan for immigration would be to put a cap on it and simply bring it under control. I would do this by ensuring that no one can enter the UK unless they qualified for any of the following: OPTION NUMBER ONE... earning at least 50 thousand a year from jobs that they would already be required to have before they came here.
OPTION NUMBER TWO... The person wishing to obtain entry to the UK would have to prove that they could speak perfect English.
Please note. The above rules do not apply to children or students.
Please also note. Students are given a year after graduating to find a job agreeing with OPTION ONE or are allowed to stay if they already have OPTION TWO - I am aware that most universities require their international students to speak perfect English anyway. I would also want to pass a bill that would ensure that only 20% of their income earned in the UK could be sent home to their own country, the other 80% must be spent in the UK as this will boost the economy.

Criminal Discipline

My third point would be to tackle criminal discipline... In my opinion criminals aren't punished enough, if a sentence is life in prison it should mean exactly what it says not "oh will give you 20 or so years and then if you're good you only have half that." I also think that the death penalty should be brought back for certain crimes if the prosecutors can be 100% sure that the offender actually did commit the crime in question. I think we should have degrees of crimes with third degree crimes receiving a death penalty, second degree receiving life in prison and 1st degree receiving any specified number of years below life in prison.
If anyone sexually assaults in any way, murders (not man slaughter) or tortures that's a third degree crime and warrants death. If anyone
Second degree etc.
First degree crimes petty crimes etc.

Education

As for education I believe that the standards of graded should be raided in that rather than 90% and above equal A* it should be 95% and above. An A grade would be 90% and above and so on. (I have straight A* at gcse and they were too easy) I also think that both evolution and creationism as well as all other outlooks on the subject of how we came to be should be taught as theory. Because let's face it, there is no solid evidence for either side of the argument (I've researched both) so let's find some common neutral ground and let children choose for themselves. I would also state that sex education should only start being taught the year before exams are taught to keep children's minds innocent for longer.

So those are the main points, let me know what you think. The above are only ideas btw.


Posted from TSR Mobile
My thoughts ...

I'm not entirely convinced by either argument when it comes to the EU, but I'd say I side more with the pro-EU case.

Immigration has benefited this country both in economic and social terms. I don't support a cap on immigration. My only issue with immigration concerns the concentration of immigration; which, I don't believe, is best tackled by simply reducing the numbers.

I don't support the death penalty. I believe it is barbaric and inhumane, and any society that practices it ought to be ashamed.

I think there is a pretty clear consensus amongst the scientific community when it comes to the evolution/creationism debate. And I don't believe that sex education corrupts children's minds.
0
reply
Elenchus
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
Leave the EU, I know UKIP already have this one but considering we'd be approximately £170 billion better off a year I think it would be a good thing and we could easily remedy the free trade thing by joining BRIC (trade agreement between Brazil, Russia, India, and China)
"BRIC" is just a grouping of emerging markets, there is no free trade between them.

Source for Britain 170 billion better off:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/430...European-Union
Credit to you for at least having a source before wildly asserting figures. I would however take it with a large pinch of salt as the study cited is by the economic spokesperson for UKIP and not an independent thinktank.


I also think we should tighten up on Immigration, studies show that about 550 thousand (as oppose to the 400 thousand emigrating) people immigrate to the UK each year and is costing the government 60 billion a year for their living here.
Oh and my source for immigration costs yearly. http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/3893889/
Your source says immigration is contributing to the economy???:confused: Where did you get costing 60 billion a year from?

"Coalition plans to curb EU immigration could cost the UK economy £60 billion"

"Tighter immigration controls would result in an estimated loss of 2% from GDP by 2050, equivalent to £60bn, as business suffers from the lack of talent and a booming old-age population takes its toll on the public finances.

"the Office for National Statistics predicted that the UK would need seven million more migrants over the next 50 years in order to keep debt down."

I also think that the death penalty should be brought back for certain crimes if the prosecutors can be 100% sure that the offender actually did commit the crime in question.
I could agree but in reality it is impossible to ever be 100% sure so it just isn't feasible to reintroduce the death penalty and in any case juries can always make the wrong decision.

The person wishing to obtain entry to the UK would have to prove that they could speak perfect English.
What does "perfect" english mean?

As for education I believe that the standards of graded should be raided in that rather than 90% and above equal A* it should be 95% and above. An A grade would be 90% and above and so on.
What would this acheive if implemented?

I also think that both evolution and creationism as well as all other outlooks on the subject of how we came to be should be taught as theory. Because let's face it, there is no solid evidence for either side of the argument (I've researched both) so let's find some common neutral ground and let children choose for themselves.
Both evolution and creationism are taught in schools. Creationism is taught in RS; rightly however only evolution is taught in biology because of the overwhelming evidence to support it. Obviously everything taught in science classes are only "theories".
0
reply
Oschene23
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by Reaver Daniels)
Ok so these are just a couple ideas for a manifesto.

Europe

Leave the EU, I know UKIP already have this one but considering we'd be approximately £170 billion better off a year I think it would be a good thing and we could easily remedy the free trade thing by joining BRIC (trade agreement between Brazil, Russia, India, and China) and as for euro police we could easily tighten up on boarder control to stop criminals fleeing to foreign countries.

Immigration

I also think we should tighten up on Immigration, studies show that about 550 thousand (as oppose to the 400 thousand emigrating) people immigrate to the UK each year and is costing the government 60 billion a year for their living here. My plan for immigration would be to put a cap on it and simply bring it under control. I would do this by ensuring that no one can enter the UK unless they qualified for any of the following: OPTION NUMBER ONE... earning at least 50 thousand a year from jobs that they would already be required to have before they came here.
OPTION NUMBER TWO... The person wishing to obtain entry to the UK would have to prove that they could speak perfect English.
Please note. The above rules do not apply to children or students.
Please also note. Students are given a year after graduating to find a job agreeing with OPTION ONE or are allowed to stay if they already have OPTION TWO - I am aware that most universities require their international students to speak perfect English anyway. I would also want to pass a bill that would ensure that only 20% of their income earned in the UK could be sent home to their own country, the other 80% must be spent in the UK as this will boost the economy.

Criminal Discipline

My third point would be to tackle criminal discipline... In my opinion criminals aren't punished enough, if a sentence is life in prison it should mean exactly what it says not "oh will give you 20 or so years and then if you're good you only have half that." I also think that the death penalty should be brought back for certain crimes if the prosecutors can be 100% sure that the offender actually did commit the crime in question. I think we should have degrees of crimes with third degree crimes receiving a death penalty, second degree receiving life in prison and 1st degree receiving any specified number of years below life in prison.
If anyone sexually assaults in any way, murders (not man slaughter) or tortures that's a third degree crime and warrants death. If anyone
Second degree etc.
First degree crimes petty crimes etc.

Education

As for education I believe that the standards of graded should be raided in that rather than 90% and above equal A* it should be 95% and above. An A grade would be 90% and above and so on. (I have straight A* at gcse and they were too easy) I also think that both evolution and creationism as well as all other outlooks on the subject of how we came to be should be taught as theory. Because let's face it, there is no solid evidence for either side of the argument (I've researched both) so let's find some common neutral ground and let children choose for themselves. I would also state that sex education should only start being taught the year before exams are taught to keep children's minds innocent for longer.

So those are the main points, let me know what you think. The above are only ideas btw.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you are a bit harsh with the grading system reform you mentioned you'd like. Also, I'd add to your education part the mass reintroduction of the grammar school system to improve standards.

Also I don't think we can afford as a country to lower tuition fees back to £3000. We have a huge debt to pay off thanks to the last Labour government, so it is not sustainable at least in the short run to be thinking about a lowering of fees, especially with more people than ever before attending uni.
0
reply
Old_Simon
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by Reaver Daniels)
Ok so these are just a couple ideas for a manifesto.

Europe

Leave the EU, I know UKIP already have this one but considering we'd be approximately £170 billion better off a year I think it would be a good thing and we could easily remedy the free trade thing by joining BRIC (trade agreement between Brazil, Russia, India, and China) and as for euro police we could easily tighten up on boarder control to stop criminals fleeing to foreign countries.

Immigration

I also think we should tighten up on Immigration, studies show that about 550 thousand (as oppose to the 400 thousand emigrating) people immigrate to the UK each year and is costing the government 60 billion a year for their living here. My plan for immigration would be to put a cap on it and simply bring it under control. I would do this by ensuring that no one can enter the UK unless they qualified for any of the following: OPTION NUMBER ONE... earning at least 50 thousand a year from jobs that they would already be required to have before they came here.
OPTION NUMBER TWO... The person wishing to obtain entry to the UK would have to prove that they could speak perfect English.
Please note. The above rules do not apply to children or students.
Please also note. Students are given a year after graduating to find a job agreeing with OPTION ONE or are allowed to stay if they already have OPTION TWO - I am aware that most universities require their international students to speak perfect English anyway. I would also want to pass a bill that would ensure that only 20% of their income earned in the UK could be sent home to their own country, the other 80% must be spent in the UK as this will boost the economy.

Criminal Discipline

My third point would be to tackle criminal discipline... In my opinion criminals aren't punished enough, if a sentence is life in prison it should mean exactly what it says not "oh will give you 20 or so years and then if you're good you only have half that." I also think that the death penalty should be brought back for certain crimes if the prosecutors can be 100% sure that the offender actually did commit the crime in question. I think we should have degrees of crimes with third degree crimes receiving a death penalty, second degree receiving life in prison and 1st degree receiving any specified number of years below life in prison.
If anyone sexually assaults in any way, murders (not man slaughter) or tortures that's a third degree crime and warrants death. If anyone
Second degree etc.
First degree crimes petty crimes etc.

Education

As for education I believe that the standards of graded should be raided in that rather than 90% and above equal A* it should be 95% and above. An A grade would be 90% and above and so on. (I have straight A* at gcse and they were too easy) I also think that both evolution and creationism as well as all other outlooks on the subject of how we came to be should be taught as theory. Because let's face it, there is no solid evidence for either side of the argument (I've researched both) so let's find some common neutral ground and let children choose for themselves. I would also state that sex education should only start being taught the year before exams are taught to keep children's minds innocent for longer.

So those are the main points, let me know what you think. The above are only ideas btw.


Posted from TSR Mobile
I love these kids who do a module or a bit of reading on one of the major scientific discoveries in history and pronounce there is no "solid evidence" lol.
0
reply
[email protected]
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by Reaver Daniels)

Immigration

I also think we should tighten up on Immigration, studies show that about 550 thousand (as oppose to the 400 thousand emigrating) people immigrate to the UK each year and is costing the government 60 billion a year for their living here. My plan for immigration would be to put a cap on it and simply bring it under control. I would do this by ensuring that no one can enter the UK unless they qualified for any of the following: OPTION NUMBER ONE... earning at least 50 thousand a year from jobs that they would already be required to have before they came here.
OPTION NUMBER TWO... The person wishing to obtain entry to the UK would have to prove that they could speak perfect English.
Please note. The above rules do not apply to children or students.
Please also note. Students are given a year after graduating to find a job agreeing with OPTION ONE or are allowed to stay if they already have OPTION TWO - I am aware that most universities require their international students to speak perfect English anyway. I would also want to pass a bill that would ensure that only 20% of their income earned in the UK could be sent home to their own country, the other 80% must be spent in the UK as this will boost the economy.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Do you actually know the immigration policies in the UK? Because they have changes a lot within this past few years and they are much stricter than what you are saying.

Tier 1; High value migrants
- Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) For people with at least £50,000 (under certain circumstances) / £200,000 (standard route) to invest in the UK by taking over or setting up a UK business
- Tier 1 (Investor) For people who want to invest in the UK and have at least £1m to invest in a UK investment opportunity
- Tier 1 (Graduate Entrepreneur) For graduates of UK universities who are endorsed by their university. Limited to 2,000 a year.
- Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) Only open to truly exceptional people working in the arts and sciences. Limited to 1,000 a year


Tier 2 Skilled workers
- Tier 2 (General) For workers who have an offer of skilled work and a certificate of sponsorship from a UK employer with a valid Tier 2 sponsorship licence. The job on offer must be one that cannot be filled by a worker already resident in the UK. Since 2011, there has been a cap of 20,700 visas that can be issue in this category every year
- Tier 2 (Intra company transfer) For employees of multinationals who are being transferred to the UK branch, Applicants must have a valid certificate of sponsorship from their employer.
- Tier 2 (sportsman) For sportspeople of international calibre intending to stay in the UK for a lengthy period
- Tier 2 (minister of religion) For missionaries, monks, ministers of religion and the like

Tier 4 Students
Tier 4 student visas are for students at UK educational institutions.
As a reminder UK students need to prove that they have paid entirely the course or have the funds to do so in the bank account + enough to support living costs £800 per month (£1000 if London). And an English test which has become mandatory.


Tier 5 Temporary workers


So it's not like it's easy to do so, unless you are a refugee I suppose.

Now even British citizens married to foreigners cannot return to the UK because immigration has become so tough that their partner wouldn't be able to get a UK residence. I've met many couples who've encountered this issue and it's often mentioned on the news.
0
reply
michaelhaych
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by Reaver Daniels)
Even if trade agreements couldn't be struck up between the BRIC, the richest 2 countries in Europe are Norway and Switzerland and they aren't in the EU.
They are the richest nations per capita, not the outright richest nations. Wealth per capita is largely irrelevant in terms of potential trading capacity

I understand what you're saying about the death penalty, but it is already in place in this country, for one crime only... Conspiring against the queen.
no it isn't

"the death penalty was abolished in all circumstances in 1998. In 2004 the 13th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights became binding on the United Kingdom, prohibiting the restoration of the death penalty for as long as the UK is a party to the Convention"

I assume that you're an evolutionist. If there is solid irrefutable evidence to support evolution as fact that can't be looked into properly and found to be just undone by circular reasoning then go ahead and I'll accept it as fact right now. To my knowledge, for something to be scientific fact it has to be observable and testable. I can't observe or test evolution therefore it is nothing more than a faith.
You are fundamentally wrong; in science a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation which is the case for evolution. There is just as much evidence supporting evolution as there is evidence supporting gravity and germ theory. Natural selection has been observed in labs and in nature on countless occasions such as antibiotic resistance, nylon-eating bacteria, molecular phylogenetics, DNA sequencing, molecular clocks, etc

Give me some then Einstein. I've got an open mind. Fill it with your solid evidence of evolution. Everyone's arguing that it's true but no one's given me anything to prove it yet. I did my gcse science got an a* but saw nothing to convince me that it's fact.
Woah, step back everybody. A* in GCSE science? We're dealing with the global academic elite here.

Creationism has no place in a science classroom; every culture and society in human history has had some idea on the origin of life and the universe, there are probably millions of different beliefs in that regard, why should the Christian viewpoint be taught in place of the countless others?

Yeah we are in a lot of debt, 1.4 trillion as of next year to be exact. However if we leave the EU then we should receive an additional 62 billion a year as our current annual income is 612 billion a year and the expenditure is 720. So in 23 years our economy could be out of debt, but if we were to increase that to say 24 years we'd be able to keep tuition fees at 3000 and still be getting out of debt... It's a win win situation
I don't know why you feel that there is absolutely no financial benefit to being in the EU; leaving the EU would increase the trade barriers between the UK and the remaining EU nations, resulting in reduced trade and, as roughly half of our exports are destined for the European market, a substantially lower Gross Domestic Product
0
reply
michaelhaych
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by Reaver Daniels)
Well forgive me if I'm wrong, but spending 53 million a day on the EU doesn't seam like financial benefit to me.
Have you not considered ANY of the benefits that paying for EU membership brings? Non-EU corporations are far more likely to set up factories and offices within an EU nation for tax purposes, foreign car companies such as Nissan have a very large impact on the British economy and job market as a result of this; leaving the EU would likely lead to the loss of millions of jobs in the UK as these TNCs move to lower-cost EU nations, sectors linked to EU membership such as aerospace would also suffer and the loss of tax revenue if companies dealing with the eurozone, especially banks, move from the City to the EU. Britain's exports would also be subject to EU export tariffs and would still have to meet EU production standards.

The UK's contribution to the EU budget is a tiny fraction of the benefits to business of being in the single market. Operating Profit = Gross Profit – Total operating expenses

You are twisting my words... I never said that creationism should be taught in a science class because it isn't science. If you give me until tonight I'll disprove your evidence for evolution I have to go to school now though.
You CANNOT explain antibiotic resistance or the existence of nylon-eating bacteria without natural selection
You CANNOT explain the evident diversification in the extensive diatom fossil record without natural selection
You CANNOT explain the presence of pseudogenes and defunct biochemical pathways without natural selection
You CANNOT explain vestigiality without natural selection

The evidence in favour of evolution is overwhelming; if you doubt evolution then you should also doubt the idea that matter consists of atoms or the idea that syphilis is caused by bacteria

'Clap clap' well done for telling me I'm wrong about the death penalty, I only found out i was wrong about that after I posted it.
This is a discussion, if you make claims and points expect others to have a rebuttal

Ooooooo look at you, mocking my grade! yeah bro straight a* in all gcses sorry if that upsets you
I wasn't mocking your grade I was mocking the idea that you think GCSE Science provides you with enough information to make a reasonable and informed decision on anything related to science
0
reply
cole-slaw
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by Reaver Daniels)
Ok so these are just a couple ideas for a manifesto.

Europe

Leave the EU, I know UKIP already have this one but considering we'd be approximately £170 billion better off a year I think it would be a good thing and we could easily remedy the free trade thing by joining BRIC (trade agreement between Brazil, Russia, India, and China) and as for euro police we could easily tighten up on boarder control to stop criminals fleeing to foreign countries.

Immigration

I also think we should tighten up on Immigration, studies show that about 550 thousand (as oppose to the 400 thousand emigrating) people immigrate to the UK each year and is costing the government 60 billion a year for their living here. My plan for immigration would be to put a cap on it and simply bring it under control. I would do this by ensuring that no one can enter the UK unless they qualified for any of the following: OPTION NUMBER ONE... earning at least 50 thousand a year from jobs that they would already be required to have before they came here.
OPTION NUMBER TWO... The person wishing to obtain entry to the UK would have to prove that they could speak perfect English.
Please note. The above rules do not apply to children or students.
Please also note. Students are given a year after graduating to find a job agreeing with OPTION ONE or are allowed to stay if they already have OPTION TWO - I am aware that most universities require their international students to speak perfect English anyway. I would also want to pass a bill that would ensure that only 20% of their income earned in the UK could be sent home to their own country, the other 80% must be spent in the UK as this will boost the economy.

Criminal Discipline

My third point would be to tackle criminal discipline... In my opinion criminals aren't punished enough, if a sentence is life in prison it should mean exactly what it says not "oh will give you 20 or so years and then if you're good you only have half that." I also think that the death penalty should be brought back for certain crimes if the prosecutors can be 100% sure that the offender actually did commit the crime in question. I think we should have degrees of crimes with third degree crimes receiving a death penalty, second degree receiving life in prison and 1st degree receiving any specified number of years below life in prison.
If anyone sexually assaults in any way, murders (not man slaughter) or tortures that's a third degree crime and warrants death. If anyone
Second degree etc.
First degree crimes petty crimes etc.

Education

As for education I believe that the standards of graded should be raided in that rather than 90% and above equal A* it should be 95% and above. An A grade would be 90% and above and so on. (I have straight A* at gcse and they were too easy) I also think that both evolution and creationism as well as all other outlooks on the subject of how we came to be should be taught as theory. Because let's face it, there is no solid evidence for either side of the argument (I've researched both) so let's find some common neutral ground and let children choose for themselves. I would also state that sex education should only start being taught the year before exams are taught to keep children's minds innocent for longer.

So those are the main points, let me know what you think. The above are only ideas btw.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I think you need to check your sources.
0
reply
Smushy
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
If idiots like you can get straight A*'s, there really is something wrong with education in the UK.
0
reply
captain.sensible
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
you're right on all but education - we should privatise the schools in my opinion but obviously I'll be quite lonely with this position seeing as most people believe in state management (except private schools)
0
reply
chrisawhitmore
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by Reaver Daniels)
Woah, bro, calm down dear. I didn't mean to rattle your cage. I'm merely expressing my view that Evolution has no absolutely solid evidence to support, it isn't observable, it isn't testable therefore it isn't fact. It's a theory.
Yeah, but the problem here is that you, like many people who take your position, don't understand what a theory is in terms of the scientific method. In science, there are no facts. At all.

There are observations and there are theories, but there are no solid facts because there is nothing that can be proven. The theory of evolution has a mountain of well documented evidence (not least in the fossil record, where it has been noted that a single out of place fossil would destroy the credibility of the theory, and where no out of place fossils have ever been found).

Similar non-fact theories include the theory of gravity, the theory that touching extremely hot things will burn you, the theory that stabbing yourself in the eye is a bad idea and literally all of the myriad theories involved in my typing this message into a computer and it being sent to you.

None of these are facts, but they are so well evidenced they can, for ease of use, be treated as such. Likewise evolution.
0
reply
Burridge
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by Reaver Daniels)
Well here's my argument against the fossil record.

One of the most powerful pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record. If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution never occurred! Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.
Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms? Critics often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible states in Genesis I that all creatures reproduce “after their kind” (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism. Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn’t it?
Too many questions and no answers
It can also be noted that evolutionists only discuss this subject in the broadest terms. If evolution is true, why don’t they give us answers to our many questions?
Where did all the 90-plus elements (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc.) come from? How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements?
How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?
Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from—carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.? They could not have developed from the elements, because elements rarely react with each other. For example, did all the salt in the ocean form by sodium reacting with chlorine (a gas)? Therefore almost all compounds had to have been created as compounds. When did all the compounds we find in the world develop—before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang? When evolutionists use the term “matter,” which of the thousands of compounds is included? When evolutionists use the term “primordial soup,” which of the elements and compounds is included?
Why do books on evolution, including grade school, high school and college textbooks, not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation; why don’t they speculate about this?
Life from non-life
How did life develop from non-life?
Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate and jealousy, come from?
What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?
Spontaneous reproduction
What are the odds that, of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate? Why are there two sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here? If the first generation of mating species didn’t have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point? Isn’t evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?
Conclusion: No parents, no evolution. A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.
Organ development
How did the heart, lungs, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring? For example, did the first animal develop 10 percent of complete veins, then 20 percent, and on up to 100 percent, with veins throughout its entire body and brain? Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot? How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from? Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?
Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from? What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this.
How did the animal survive during these changes (and over thousands of years)? Of course, at the same time, the animal’s eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food, and its brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food. Like the heart, brain, veins and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal’s body must be fully functional in the first moments of life.
The preceding points indicate that evolution couldn’t occur, and the fossil record indicates that it didn’t occur! In other words, if you cannot come up with a detailed, feasible scenario of how the first animal developed, the whole evolutionary theory goes out the window, because it never even could have gotten started. Or is your attitude going to be: Don’t bother me with such details; my mind is made up.
Misleading textbooks
Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don’t evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed (an animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)?
What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50 percent of offspring are male and 50 percent are female (based on 50 percent X-chromosomes and 50 percent Y-chromosomes)? Again, is there some sort of plan here?
To a creationist, the incredible complexity of human life, plant life and the universe is absolutely overwhelming evidence that there must have been a designer. Additional evidence for a designer: The law of gravity is basic to an understanding of the universe.
Who invented gravity?
Where did the law of gravity come from? Did it have a beginning? Isn’t it reasonable to assume that when matter was created, the law of gravity was established at the same time to regulate matter? Further evidence: The earth receives an incredible amount of energy from the sun, even though the sun is 93,000,000 miles away. Yet the earth only receives one part in two trillion of the sun’s total energy. And since the sun is only an average star among the 100 trillion billion stars in the universe, the total energy in all these stars is absolutely beyond human comprehension. (It has been written that the number of stars is greater than the number of grains of sand in every beach and desert in the world!)
Where did this energy come from? Isn’t the only reasonable answer that it was the result of a creative act by an almighty designer/creator?
Evolution—A solution by default
Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence of design without any serious consideration? Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London, has given us some insight as to why this is so. He said, “Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” This, of course, is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural. Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.
Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the three main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy and the origin of life?
Truth or dare
If you believe in evolution, can you give just one coercive proof, i.e., a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life?
Isn’t it true that, rather than “proofs” of evolution, all that evolutionists can come up with are “evidences” for evolution to someone who already believes in it?
Let’s see some answers to important questions such as these posed in this article, rather than a discussion of what is science and what is religion. That type of discussion is entirely irrelevant. What we seek is the truth, and creationism is a far more reasonable and logical explanation of the origin of the universe, the material world and human life.
Why have you just posted your GCSE coursework on a public student forum?
0
reply
michaelhaych
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by Reaver Daniels)
Well here's my argument against the fossil record.

One of the most powerful pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record. If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution never occurred! Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.
Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms? Critics often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible states in Genesis I that all creatures reproduce “after their kind” (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism. Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn’t it?
Too many questions and no answers
Limbs and wings evolved from lobe fins of ancient fish that consisted of a single/very small number of bones, these proto-limbs then elongated and became increasingly more complex, aiding movement within water, to a point where they were capable of facilitating locomotion on land. Organisms do not develop non-functioning parts with the "intention" of putting them to work in future generations following a period of development; if a feature is not useful it is not passed on (at least not to the entirety of the population), instead it is a case of refining parts of the organism with primitive functions through the development of more complex or additional features.
The idea of a "Missing link" is still a popular term, well recognized by the public and often used in the popular media. It is, however, avoided in science, as it relates to the concept of the great chain of being and to the notion of simple organisms being primitive versions of complex ones, both of which have been discarded in biology. In any case, the term itself is misleading, as any known transitional fossil is no longer missing while each find will give rise to new gaps in the evolutionary story on each side, the discovery of more and more transitional fossils continues to add to our knowledge of evolutionary transitions. There is no need in biology to find the "missing link", partly because evolution is a flowing spectrum of allele frequency rather than existing in discrete states; it is more a case of observing the continuous change in the fossil record e.g. Birds are believed to have diverged from Reptiles approximately 150 million years ago, fossil evidence shows that birds exhibit increasingly more reptilian traits as one approaches fossils of 150 million years of age, culminating in Archaeopteryx siemensii


It can also be noted that evolutionists only discuss this subject in the broadest terms. If evolution is true, why don’t they give us answers to our many questions?
Where did all the 90-plus elements (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc.) come from? How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements?
How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?
Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from—carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.? They could not have developed from the elements, because elements rarely react with each other. For example, did all the salt in the ocean form by sodium reacting with chlorine (a gas)? Therefore almost all compounds had to have been created as compounds. When did all the compounds we find in the world develop—before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang? When evolutionists use the term “matter,” which of the thousands of compounds is included? When evolutionists use the term “primordial soup,” which of the elements and compounds is included?
Why do books on evolution, including grade school, high school and college textbooks, not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation; why don’t they speculate about this?
Why is the origin of the universe, its constituent elements, chemical bonds, etc in any way relevant to a theory regarding the diversification of life? It appears that you grossly misunderstand the definition of evolution

Life from non-life
How did life develop from non-life?
Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate and jealousy, come from?
What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?
Evolution is NOT a theory regarding the origins of life, if that's what you're interested in then go and research panspermia and abiogenesis, evolution deals with how life has changed and diversified since its origin. Primal emotions, such as fear, are associated with ancient parts of the brain and evolved among pre-mammal ancestors. Filial emotions, such as motherly love seem to have evolved among early mammals. Social emotions, such as guilt and pride, evolved among social primates. Emotions provide social organisms with a wide range of physiological and communicational advantages:
  • Sadness - appeasement and sympathy
  • Love - focus of resources on one individual, increasing the likelihood of survival for any offspring
  • Disgust - warning of potentially dangerous foods or behaviours

Facial expressions initially served a non-communicative adaptive function. Thus, the widened eyes in the facial expression of fear have been shown to increase the visual field and the speed of moving the eyes which helps finding and following threats. The wrinkled nose and mouth of the facial expression of disgust limit the intake of foul-smelling and possibly dangerous air and particles. Later, such reactions, which could be observed by other members of the group, increasingly become more distinctive and exaggerated in order to fulfil a primarily socially communicative function.

Evolution is not a random process; biological symmetry provides advantages in terms of economy of biochemical processes as well as conserving space within the genome, allowing the available genetic complexity can be better spent on more more advantageous attributes. Beyond that very small level where sheer osmosis can bathe all the cells in nutrients and wastes can diffuse away, some sort of fate-map for the specialized cells would seem to be required.

Spontaneous reproduction
What are the odds that, of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate? Why are there two sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here? If the first generation of mating species didn’t have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point? Isn’t evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?
Conclusion: No parents, no evolution. A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.
Genetic exchange is not unique to sex; unicellular organisms exchange DNA all the time through transformation, transduction and conjugation. The uptake and integration of naked DNA (transformation) was enhanced through adaptations that allowed more efficient integration of DNA.

Organ development
How did the heart, lungs, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring? For example, did the first animal develop 10 percent of complete veins, then 20 percent, and on up to 100 percent, with veins throughout its entire body and brain? Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot? How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from? Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?
Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from? What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this.
How did the animal survive during these changes (and over thousands of years)? Of course, at the same time, the animal’s eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food, and its brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food. Like the heart, brain, veins and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal’s body must be fully functional in the first moments of life.
The preceding points indicate that evolution couldn’t occur, and the fossil record indicates that it didn’t occur! In other words, if you cannot come up with a detailed, feasible scenario of how the first animal developed, the whole evolutionary theory goes out the window, because it never even could have gotten started. Or is your attitude going to be: Don’t bother me with such details; my mind is made up.
You're referring to Irreducible Complexity; a concept that has been widely refuted and disproved as pseudoscience, evolutionary biologists have demonstrated how such systems could have evolved and they are readily available (see: evolution of the eye); this argument is based entirely on ignorance of the subject

Misleading textbooks
Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don’t evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed (an animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)?
What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50 percent of offspring are male and 50 percent are female (based on 50 percent X-chromosomes and 50 percent Y-chromosomes)? Again, is there some sort of plan here?
To a creationist, the incredible complexity of human life, plant life and the universe is absolutely overwhelming evidence that there must have been a designer.
Again, you're completely ignorant on the subject, you're formulating arguments and then making no attempt to research them in any depth whatsoever, instead you're assuming that there is no answer to the question you propose. Fossil records show that animals evolved from flagellated eukaryotes roughly 600 million years ago.
It is advantageous for humans to show equal distribution in terms of sex, it is not a universal characteristic; many species show gross inequality in this regard. Species with male care and polyandry invariably have adult sex ratios with a large surplus of males, which in some cases can reach as high as six males per female.

Additional evidence for a designer: The law of gravity is basic to an understanding of the universe.
Who invented gravity?
Where did the law of gravity come from? Did it have a beginning? Isn’t it reasonable to assume that when matter was created, the law of gravity was established at the same time to regulate matter? Further evidence: The earth receives an incredible amount of energy from the sun, even though the sun is 93,000,000 miles away. Yet the earth only receives one part in two trillion of the sun’s total energy. And since the sun is only an average star among the 100 trillion billion stars in the universe, the total energy in all these stars is absolutely beyond human comprehension. (It has been written that the number of stars is greater than the number of grains of sand in every beach and desert in the world!)
Where did this energy come from? Isn’t the only reasonable answer that it was the result of a creative act by an almighty designer/creator?
Again, completely irrelevant to a theory concerning itself with the diversification of life, learn what evolution actually is.

Evolution—A solution by default
Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence of design without any serious consideration? Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London, has given us some insight as to why this is so. He said, “Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” This, of course, is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural. Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.
Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the three main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy and the origin of life?
Largely because any evidence for creationism that isn't based on emotion or subjective perspectives is almost entirely circumstantial and pales in comparison to the overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of evolution.
In contrast how can creationists accept the supernatural if they do not know the origin of the creator?

Truth or dare
If you believe in evolution, can you give just one coercive proof, i.e., a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life?
Isn’t it true that, rather than “proofs” of evolution, all that evolutionists can come up with are “evidences” for evolution to someone who already believes in it?
Let’s see some answers to important questions such as these posed in this article, rather than a discussion of what is science and what is religion. That type of discussion is entirely irrelevant. What we seek is the truth, and creationism is a far more reasonable and logical explanation of the origin of the universe, the material world and human life.
Proof is a mathematical concept that doesn't really apply to science, there is no absolute proof for anything in science, truths in science are provisional. You can prove that 2>1, you cannot prove that electricity causes a light bulb to work or even that the light bulb is composed of atoms.

The scientific explanation of gravitational force cannot explain all aspects of the phenomenon, theories explaining gravity are not internally consistent nor mathematically reconcilable with quantum mechanics and of course, gravity is "only a theory", this does not mean that gravity is a theory in crisis, nor does it lend any validity to the idea of Intelligent Falling. Intelligent Falling should not be taught in school along with the theory of gravity so that students can make "an informed decision" on the subject.
2
reply
Burridge
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by Reaver Daniels)
That's the best reply you can come up with? Really? I thought the evidence that supported it was so numerous that it might as well be fact?

That's quite a pathetic response on all accounts, Burridge?

Are you going to argue your point against mine? Or just ask me why I posted some coursework?
Actually, I wasn't the one arguing with you about the evolution/creationism topic. But anyway, I think the above poster done a pretty good job
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices? (November update)

Yes I know where I'm applying (133)
69.63%
No I haven't decided yet (36)
18.85%
Yes but I might change my mind (22)
11.52%

Watched Threads

View All