Hi Julia,
How many of you followed the WTS direction on education years ago and have been screwed by it?
I did wind up following the advice. But for me, I don't feel it worked out too bad.
I fell in love with computer programming when I first encountered it in grade 12 (1982). I took computer science 11 which was offered for the first time that year. With no job, still living at home with my parents who were on welfare, I decided to go back to high school for additional year. I took computer science 12 that second year.
When that year ended, I did apply to go to college and get a student loan. I did not know what else to do to further my interest in computer science. Nonetheless, I felt like I had deeply betrayed the faith by even applying for college. When my loan application ran into problems I took it as a sign and dropped the idea.
After working as a construction laborer in Fort McMurray, AB, I returned to Quesnel, where I got a computer-related job for the school district. I was employed both as a teacher of adult education computer courses as well as the defacto PC support person. I also designed and wrote a student registration system for district as well as a few other programs.
Eventually I would be hired by West Fraser where I worked in their IT department.
So... from a career perspective I have wound up doing exactly what I had wanted and to this day still love going to work. Since I didn't take the traditional route, I also did not wind up with any student loans. Furthermore, my connection to the Witness faith did help me with some basics like reading, writing and public speaking. I also give the faith the credit for my interest in the Bible, which continued with me, despite leaving and being an atheist.
So... 100% good, right? Ah, no not exactly. I have run into some interesting issues. Without a degree, I have felt the pressure and expense to pursue industry certifications. Some of these are expensive! When we decided to move to the USA my visa application was delayed, as my work experience was evaluated by the INS to see if it was the equivalent of a degree.
When I struggle with spelling and grammar, I do think this reflects no real post-secondary education. Basics of calculus and algebra are also missing. I do try and improve of course, but time is limited. I had an on-site interview with Google and this gap seemed obvious to me. Both young guys who interviewed me were recent ASU grads and while I could explain my approach to solving algorithms in ways that makes sense to me, it was clear there was a "language gap."
I love supporting my daughters in their post-secondary education. Both my wife and I made that a priority, even when we were in the faith. My oldest is an RN, my second is an art major, my third is at St. John's College (a 'great books' college) being a philosophy major. My fouth is going into 4th grade. And... we're slowly going broke, but enjoying life!
Cheers,
-Randy
Posts by rawe
-
119How many of you followed the WTS direction on education years ago and have been screwed by it?
by Julia Orwell ini'm really interested in this question because i've heard for years that if you forgo further education and go pioneering, when you have a family down the track you will get a good job because jehovah will provide for you because you pioneered.
as long as i was a kool-aid drinker, even then, i thought, "how does pioneering pay your bills?
surely education should come first.
-
-
rawe
-
261
Evolution is Crap, there I said it!
by Crazyguy inok i started another thread and every one jumped on me because i was trying to take the theory of evolution out of the mix and most here seem to believe in it so i will just say it.
the theory of major evolution is crap!
the theory is falling apart.
-
-
rawe
Hi QC,
Please forgive me for a lack of insight... but I'm not sure how to take the posts you've made. When you post: " You're done cofty, gig is up. You opted in on Darwin and lost. ALL those old books you’ve read are obsolete (as of June 2013)." it sort of reads like good natured poking at Cofty. Am I right? Or do you really contend that books on the subject of evolution prior to this one of June 2013 have been made obsolete?
Here is part of one of the first quotes about the book...
The issue on the table is not now, nor has it ever been, the fact of evolution (change over time); the issue has always been the mechanism of evolution – is it blind and undirected or is it under the control of an intelligence that had a goal in mind? That’s the nub of the question, and in Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen Meyer has masterfully laid out one of the most compelling lines of evidence for the latter.
This of course gets to the heart of how scientific theories operate. That is, a good theory is able to make correct testable predictions as well as explain things as they are now. So, what then is the predicted outcome of this goal seeking intelligence? Have these goals been tested and shown to be reliable?
Cheers,
-Randy
-
261
Evolution is Crap, there I said it!
by Crazyguy inok i started another thread and every one jumped on me because i was trying to take the theory of evolution out of the mix and most here seem to believe in it so i will just say it.
the theory of major evolution is crap!
the theory is falling apart.
-
-
rawe
Hi snare&racket,
"Oh my goodness...... Evolution is just the science of how animals change over time depending on the environment of the earth at the time...."
First, thanks for posting that picture of flagellum, that Michael Behe asserts is irreducibly complex and therefore could not have evolved. In the picture I counted about 10 components. I find that interesting because one of the illustrations Behe used in his book was animal crossing a road and having the luck of not getting hit my a car. While that would be reasonable to assume as possible, if the number of lanes increased to 1000 (my recall, please verify & correct) we should not expect success. In other words as the number of components required increases there gets a point where it becomes non-plausible to suggest they would all be present at the same time. But... 10 components is not a high number, certainly not "1000 lanes."
The other illustration Behe used was a mouse trap. This of course is a comparison between a non-biological systems that is ID vs a biological system, wherein we know how current examples of flagellums arrive, that is biological reproduction, even if we don't know the precise pathway that resulted in the first ever example of the flagellum.
But... let me throw this out there. I agree, the theory of evolution is really just a working model that does a fantanstic job of explaining how life changes over time and how all life is related. It does not address the origin of life for example. But Evolution is also Crap, at least to Crazyguy. I think there are reasons why this seems true as well. The first big reason is the seeming implication that evolution is a counter pointer to special creation as outlined in Genesis. The second is, in my opinion, truly ironic... that is various forces that contribute to our evolution as a species, such as ability to plan and purpose, the fact that we live a short time and die, that we are tool creators, drivers in regards to mate selection, how we process in-group vs out-group loyalty determination, etc, all make the theory of evolution seem wrong.
The process of evolution has resulted in the origin of a species, that ironically was destined to find the theory non-intuitive and somewhat unpleasant.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
261
Evolution is Crap, there I said it!
by Crazyguy inok i started another thread and every one jumped on me because i was trying to take the theory of evolution out of the mix and most here seem to believe in it so i will just say it.
the theory of major evolution is crap!
the theory is falling apart.
-
-
rawe
Hi *lost*,
they are very intelligent, thinking, emotional creatures. Quite amazing to watch and study.
Quick post before I head off to work... a few days ago just watched a Netflix documentary comparing wolves and dogs. The biggest difference: Dogs, unlike wolves will interact in a social manner with humans. Wolves by contrast are social only within their pack of other wolves. They demonstrated this with pointing to a treat under a upside down bucket. They also tied a treat to a rope that was impossible for the dog or wolf to get to. In the pointing case the dog followed the clue, the wolf not. In treat on a rope, the dog looked to the human for help, whereas the wolf continued in frustration.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
261
Evolution is Crap, there I said it!
by Crazyguy inok i started another thread and every one jumped on me because i was trying to take the theory of evolution out of the mix and most here seem to believe in it so i will just say it.
the theory of major evolution is crap!
the theory is falling apart.
-
-
rawe
Hi Cofty,
No he doesn't. He resorts to magical answers again and again.
It has been a long while since I read Behe, but help me out on my misunderstanding. My recall from his Black Box book was ID was required because of IC. That the intelligent designer placed within the first life form the potential for different systems. And in fact, this is was the primary flaw pointed out by Kenneth Miller. That evolution would not preserve, in working order, future-only functional sequences. This is a big problem, because where DNA does not code for functional genes we see the largest degree of mutation.
Nonetheless, I recall Behe saying he accepted macro evolution and a common ancestor between say Apes and Humans.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
261
Evolution is Crap, there I said it!
by Crazyguy inok i started another thread and every one jumped on me because i was trying to take the theory of evolution out of the mix and most here seem to believe in it so i will just say it.
the theory of major evolution is crap!
the theory is falling apart.
-
-
rawe
Hi S,
Hey, rawe, are you suggesting that the first life form was created by god?
No. Actually I believe that if God exists, is able to act without detection, and does so in violation of the laws of nature, then we cannot know anything about our world, even in principal.
We have lots of evidence for ID of many things, computers, cameras, cars, ant hills. We have lots of evidence for evolution, fossil record, DNA, actual experiments such as Richard Lenksi's work with E. coli. However, we are short on examples for the origin of life. But...
We do have, thanks to Miller, et al, have experiments on the origin of amino acids. And we have the testimony of experts like James Watson that life is basically chemistry and does not support the notion of "vitalism" (i.e. something mysterious and God-like about it). So my understanding is the origin of life is unknown, other than we do know it happened in the past. However, when it comes to "this is like that", I definately feel "origin of life is like other productions by natural forces that can (over the short term) build up complexity."
Cheers,
-Randy
-
261
Evolution is Crap, there I said it!
by Crazyguy inok i started another thread and every one jumped on me because i was trying to take the theory of evolution out of the mix and most here seem to believe in it so i will just say it.
the theory of major evolution is crap!
the theory is falling apart.
-
-
rawe
Hi S, et al,
Part of the reason I left the last one a question mark, was I had to hurry off to work. My point is intelligent design is a real and applies to many things. When a gopher digs a hole he (or she) is using his brain -- thus it can be said the hole is an example of ID. As is the arrow head, as is the Mona Lisa. We generally know the output of an intellect when we see it.
But the vast majority of scientists, especially biologists, reject the notion postulated by Behe, that the first example of life on the planet was the result of ID.
It is also generally understood and accepted that all examples of life now are definately not the result of ID in the present tense. Although a man or woman may use their intellect in the mate selection process, they have no real control over the purely natural processes that result in a new example of a human. Thus, comparing ID systems (such as a camera) to natural systems (such as an eye) is fundementally flawed.
If we accept that life now results from natural causes and not ID, why would we feel compelled to suggest the first example of life was ID?
For the sake of argument, lets say that is the case, life originates from ID. Even if that is the case, then when did it make the transition to natural forces? To Behe he stops at the first cell, then lets evolution take over. As Witnesses we were taught every species had to be specially created, based on the assumption that reproduction, selective pressures and mutations could never result in new species. That is really an odd view of ID -- considering the "intelligence" keeps creating species that ultimately go extinct, some where north of 90% of the time!
Cheers,
-Randy
-
261
Evolution is Crap, there I said it!
by Crazyguy inok i started another thread and every one jumped on me because i was trying to take the theory of evolution out of the mix and most here seem to believe in it so i will just say it.
the theory of major evolution is crap!
the theory is falling apart.
-
-
rawe
Hi Cantleave,
I really hope you don't teach science Randy!
I'm not a teacher. I work as a software engineer -- but please do expand on this.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
261
Evolution is Crap, there I said it!
by Crazyguy inok i started another thread and every one jumped on me because i was trying to take the theory of evolution out of the mix and most here seem to believe in it so i will just say it.
the theory of major evolution is crap!
the theory is falling apart.
-
-
rawe
Hi Julia,
I've touched on the two belief systems (evolution and ID) when teaching, while not promoting either one.
Our ability to understand the world is largely based on our ability to correctly separate things into two basic categories...
(1) Things that are the result of intelligence
(2) Things that are the result of natural processes without the input of an intelligence.
Thus when we see a gopher hole, we can assign the hole to the intellect of the gopher. However, the gopher is not the product of ID, we know it is the result of a process of sexual reproduction and growth.
A snowflake with its intricate crystal shape - #2
A round smooth rock - #2
A rock shaped into an arrow head - #1
The Mona Lisa - #1
All living life forms - #2 (i.e. come from some parent form of the life)
First example of a life form - #?
Cheers,
-Randy
-
140
WT Society holds EXTREME Responsibility for 1975 and False Expectations
by flipper inhowever- many jw's who have come into the jw organization from like 1985 forward virtually may have no knowledge of the wt society's 1975 debacle and false predictions of the end times or armageddon predictions.
just like in in the book 1984 by george orwell the wt society has a way of not only erasing it's history so no newer witnesses will be aware of their false predictions, but also they are re-writing their history as if those false predictions never happened.. so for those of you here who may have never read or heard of how whipped up into an emotional frenzy witnesses were in the years just before 1975 by the wt society claiming the end was any day now- this threads for you.
to see the pressure that was put on jw's by the wt society to get rid of everything before " armageddon " .
-
-
rawe
Hi Flipper,
I was 9 years old in 1975. My parents were both disfellowshipped and had been since I was 4. We lived in Wells, BC, Canada, pop ~500. The nearest Kingdom Hall would have been in Quesnel over 50 miles away. And yet, I was excited and giddy at the prospect of the world coming to an end -- thanks in large part to my dad, who continued to preach the "truth" to his children. Somehow in my mind, I got it in my head the actual day would be December 25th, to show how bad Christmas was.
At that time I loved knowing the truth about Christmas and that Santa Claus wasn't real -- often arguing with my little friends on this subject. So... with out telling any one I counted down the days until 12/25/1975. Nothing happened. Being a kid I brushed it off and didn't think about it much after that. However, when I was studying the Life Everlasting book prior to my baptism in 1981 the study conductor wanted to skip over the chapter that emphasized 1975, but I insisted we cover it.
Cheers,
-Randy