83501nwahs This is not the case in Texas, RNs are those with an Associate Degree in Nursing (ADN) or are Diploma Nurses (rarity). Next are BSN, MSN, FNP Many smaller schools are affiliated with larger Universities with in-house campuses on the grounds. I said "I ended up with enough to receive an AS, but still shy a few for a BS." The pursuit of biology courses was personal and not an intentional degree plan. I have more credits then the minimum to receive an AS but less then a BS. If at anytime I chose to transfer my records to one of our "sister" universities then I would only be a few credits short of applying for a BS. BTW what state do you hail from, I only ask because an ADN is common among nurses of many states.
CREATIONIST TEACHERS
by badboy 53 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Simon
Creationists always jump on the word "theory" and in doing so demonstrate their ignorance of the scientific process.
Nearly everything in science is labelled 'theory' because it is an explanation that fits the known facts at the time but scientists, unlike religionists, don't tend to presume that they are 100% correct and that understanding will not progress.
That's why we have theories of gravity, magnetism and a whole host of other pretty well proven science. Maybe creationists take issue with these too?!
-
Gerard
Creationist "science" fails to meet the key criteria of any true science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural events created by a deity
-
yknot
Crazyblondeb
What kind of nurse are you?
When I am working I prefer being a travel nurse....(traveling to my local hospital but paid CEs, higher wages, travel & housing allowance and 3 month commitment to what ever unit that interests me and completion bonuses...oh and referal bonuses too).
My mom owned a temporary staffing agency ( I was often used as labor) so travel / temp nursing is right up my alley.
I love my job!.....I really really really love my job!
-
yknot
Like I said to Max....creationism is already being inferred and evolution is only getting a brief statement about a chapter being available for personal reading in Texas. By both being at the table of discussion both have a chance to present their pov. Evolution actually gets more spotlight then it presently receives. If you truly believe in evolution you should rejoice for your message will be heard by far more students.
Perhaps then we can all sing Kumbaya before discussing " Genetics and the Origin of Species" by Theodosius Dobzhansky
-
bisous
One more reason not to live in Texas. Not that I needed one.
Although it IS very fun to visit for apostafests. -
Gerard
Evolution is a theory that could become invalidated tomorrow if a test came along that gave results outside of what Evolutionary Theory has predicted. In other words, the process of conducting science could be the undoing of evolution in an instant,
Evolution is not a theory and does not "predict". And it is a fact that no single "test" will refute but only reinforce it with further details.
It is not necessary to understand the origin of life on earth to validate and accept evolution by natural selection, cortesy of measurable genetic mutation.
-
yknot
aahhh bisous
We are flooded with Californian and more are coming everyday.....(Hubby is a Californian......I like foreigners..LOL)
-
Gerard
The terminology of science:
A fact, in science, is an observation.
A theory, in science, is an explanation of the observations.
-
logic&reason
I really don't want to offend anyone. Often I read through these evolution/creation debate threads, start to make a comment, then delete it and move on to another thread.
I do this because it seems like every few days this comes up, and there is no way to convince either side that they are wrong.
Back and forth it goes, like a game of Tennis. Or Ping-Pong. Or Badminton.
It seems like the creationists out there accept varrying degrees or aspects of evolution. Maybe it's nothing, maybe it's adaptation, maybe it's "microevolution", maybe it's the decent of man. Guys like Michael Behe stop just short and say there is a point of irreducible complexity that could not have evolved.
Again, I DO NOT want to offend anyone, but it is almost like the level of acceptance of evolution is proportionate to the amount of scientific education/awareness that the person has, or has allowed themselves to have.
Does that stem from a sort of intellectual arrogance?... "If I don't understand it, or if I cannot explain it, God must have done it..." Maybe.
But that's the problem that the scientific community should combat. If we stop and say: "God did it... that's the explanation." Then scientific progress stops. Why keep investigating if you accept that "God did it" or "It's magic"? There is nothing to test. Nothing more to prove.
In my opinion, the more we understand, the less we have to rely on the "God did it" explanation.