mmhmm. ayy hab olso herd oof ze droling tu. ya? yoo no dat damb ting

Yes, indeed, education is very important. The first thing that strikes me about education is knowledge gain. Education gives us a knowledge of the world around us and changes it into something better. It develops in us a perspective of looking at life. It helps us build opinions and have points of view on things in life. People debate over the subject of whether education is the only thing that gives knowledge. Some say education is the process of gaining information about the surrounding world while knowledge is something very different. They are right. But then again, information cannot be converted into knowledge without education. Education makes us capable of interpreting things, among other things. It is not just about lessons in textbooks. It is about the lessons of life.

Many parents stress to there children to further their education by going to college. The benefits of a college education are endless, However many people have been able to by pass a college degree and still maintain in today's society. While a college education increases ones chances of earning more money, its not the only way to a well paying and rewarding career. Thus brings the question why is a college education important in today's society?

The main benefit of a college education is it betters your career opportunities. A college degree opens a variety of opportunities in the working force, giving a better chance for success.

How can you teach yourself, when you know nothing about the particular subject?

Internal reasoning?

Well, Prayer is rather a coping method. Whatever you pray for won't necessarily come true.

Internal reasoning shall fulfill your prophecies when praying (If it is worth so). However, it does not necessarily always happen, thus showing his lack of concern (If he existed).

Yes. I was the head of my Debate Team at High School. Internal reasoning is a very important aspect of Debating.

If prayer is a more solemn version to make someone laugh?

Yes, along with jokes and satirical sketches, intended to make someone laugh.

Macroevolution - Evolution that results in the formation of a new taxonomic group above the level of a species. (1)

I'm going to break down my argument into four simple primary points that any layman can examine:

1) Fossil - If we were to hypothesize that there is common descent between species, when we study the fossil record as a whole we should see an apparent and gradual change over time between different distinct species. For example, if we presume species X evolved from, or shares a common ancestor with species Y, over the course of Z years, we would expect to find fossil forms that change from X, to appearing to be X less and less like X and gradually more and more like Y, and those fossils should be independently dated and fit within the current hypothesis in terms of timescale.

2) Morphological - If we were to hypothesize that there is common descent between species, when we study currently living organisms, we should find various parts of the body that are "left over" parts, remnants from presumed previous ancestor species that those older species would have used for various specific purposes in their specific habitats, but currently have no known use or existing function for the current species in it's current habitat, or would have current uses that might be drastically different than their ancestors and were co-opted for other uses to adapt to different environments.

3) Genetic - If we were to examine the genomes of all living things, we should find patterns and similarities connecting different species and they would be related to the extent that the species are related. Like the fossil evidence, we should find patterns over time that fit into their respective time scales, and presumed relatives should share parts of their genomes that correlate to the combination between each species genetic rates of change and the amount of time between the divergence of those species. Oversimplified example: Species X's DNA is known to change about Q% each generation, and we think that species X diverged from species Y approximately Z years ago, we would hypothesize the DNA of species Y to be at most Z * Q% different.

4) Convergence of Evidence - If we were to hypothesize that there is common descent between two species, we should find this hypothesis is supported by the genetic evidence, fossil evidence, AND morphological evidence, and that each provides strength and independent verification to the others.

If macroevolution occurred, we would expect to find evidence supporting the aforementioned hypothesis, as well as each distinct area supporting the others. While this is only an extremely small and oversimplified part of the overwhelming evidence for macro evolution, providing independent and converging evidence that supports each hypothesis would be very strong evidence for macroevolution and therefore your premise, namely "there is no observable evidence for macroevolution" would be demonstrated to be false.

(1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

No.

Doctrine antagonistic to theism is just immoral. Just because it contradicts with your belief?

Although you can not present proportional evidence that any deity has ever existed,

Faith. Although no proportional, sufficient evidence could be provided and presented that any deity has ever existed, it is still possible that God(s) exist.

Although engaging in direct talks with Iran is risky, I may have to agree with you. Maybe our appealing pleads will cause Iran to drop their nuclear program. And we could come up with brilliant plans to avoid the attack.