pirana

Yeah, right. You visiting The Discovery Institute's website? What you posted clearly indicates one or two things - either you haven't a clue, or your source is one of propoganda and not research (or both). I can not wait to hear about the "precise mechanisms." And why the phrase "especially apes." Anything but apes huh? That is very telling. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I wonder if we could get the most respected of the betting books to post odds on the existence of God? Dutifully considering all the evidence, what would they give? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

The theory of evolution is established upon the dedicated research of thousands of highly educated scientists over what now, . . . a couple hundred years. It has probably been picked at and examined more than any other field in biology, perhaps in all of science. Mostly because it rubs some people the wrong way - not because any research has provided any solid reasons for doubt. Scientists and those that follow their progress react strongly because it irks them that people grant credence to the largely psuedo-scientific nonsense that constitutes the resistance to their hard-gained knowledge. Thermodynamics are not violated by evolution. In any system there can be local increases while the entire closed system experiences entropy. Think about it - there are local increases in order going on all around you all the time. Anyone citing violation of thermodynamics is obviously parroting some fundamentalist goofball who either hasn't got the slightest clue, or does know but is artful at mangling meanings and deceiving those that do not know. Inbreeding is a matter of degree. Small populations can result in poor mixing of the pool. Humans do not have that problem - except maybe in a few hamlets tucked away in the hill country where everybody has been marrying first cousins for too many generations. Most other animal populations do not have the problem either. It does happen though. The shrinking lion populations in certain parts of Africa are one notable exception that has gotten some ink. Electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, and strong nuclear force are very well understood; so it goes without saying that so is light - including it's speed. Gravity is a bit of an enigma, but is well enough understood that no one should doubt it to the point of say, skydiving without a prachute. If you really think that there is as much evidence for Genesis as there is for evolution, you need to read up on the topic - a lot. BTW, one long weekend away and five (?) pages added. Criminy, how do people keep up? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

So, have you got an over/under on this yet? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Approximately the same number that claim to be acting in the name of Allah? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Almost until the Sun comes up. Is that all you got? Almost???? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Interesting. At no point, at any time during a ride up have I even remotely consider not jumping. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Do you think children who are adopted at birth are at a significant disadvantage compared to children who are raised by their biological parents? Blues, Dave I think it is 100% dependent on the adopting parents behavior. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

so a PAIR of parents, just might trump the royal flush of a Mom Child only pairing.. IMHO jimmy dad of a 24 yr. old and a 22 yd old.. pround husband of a super Mom... Agreed. As a family unit, it seems to work more often than any other. I was only thinking of the 1 on 1 variations; for which I'd say the mother/child bond is the most important. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Depends on what you mean by control. Do we occupy it physically? Not so much. Do we force our will thru economic domination? Absolutely yes. As to the issue in question: The dominant power(s) in world history have without exception abused that power. I think it is inherent of our species to do that; remnants from when survival meant making cruel heartless selfish decisions. We appear to be at a point in our history where survival no longer requires quite so selfish behavior, and compassion could be as strong a driver of behaviors as survival. But we are having difficulty with the transition. Either that or we with the wisdom to see this just need to be patient and wait for the rest of the barbarians to intellectually evolve. Yes, I am full of myself. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Strictly personal opinion, but all other things being equal; mother and child relationship trumps all. It's the Royal Flush of relationships. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

This is the best advice so far. Right after abort, abort, abort. And that is my personal opinion. And here are some facts: There is a direct coorelation between single-parent households (SPH's) in a neighborhood and the crime rate. A 13% increase in SPH's equals a doubling of the crime rate. 70% of institutionalized juvenilles come from SPH's. In a population that included 14% of kids coming from SPH's, 43% of the prison population was from SPH's. So roughly 3X the likelihood of going to jail as an adult. Kids from SPH's are 3X more likely to use a weapon against a fellow human. There is a 90% coorelation between violent crime and out-of-marriage birth rates. Girls from SPH's are 2X more likely to become an unwed teenage mom. 70% of rapists, and 75% of murderers come from SPH's. 3X more like to fail in school. 3X more likely to require psych care. 3X more likely to commit suicide. That's a lot of bullets to dodge. Here's the scary part. The best of the studies that this stuff comes from not only factor for stuff like income, race, education, etc; but it is found that the correlation between SPH's & crime/behavioral problems is so strong that it completely dominates those other factors; making them nothing but background noise. Your responses to some of the posts indicate you have done very little in getting to know the challenges you are about to face. The fact that you would even consider removing a 6-month old child from it's mothers presence for 6 months indicates a very low level of awareness of child development or parenting. Nobody expects a new parent to be Dr. Spock, but you do not appear to have a clue. p.s. - It is a very unpolitically-correct fact that the most positive court action ever taken (based on established correlation) to reduce crime and the number of people on welfare is Roe v. Wade. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Are you hearing yourself? Is this fair? For whom? Yeah, that sounds like a fabulous way to grow up. Shuttled back and forth every few months between completely different environments. Have the two of you considered the child in any of this, or is it all about you? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I am asking for opinions of everything this entails. I wasn't specifically asking any questions really. I intentionally left it as general as I could in order to get a wide variety of opinions. For example, if you feel I should get an abortion, I would like to know that. Or if you feel we should get married, I'd like to know that too. I hope this helps. Specifically though, I decided not to go for the abortion and I am not going to marry her. This is a recipe for disaster. Marriage would be foolish if you are not in love and would only be doing it because of the pregnancy. Abortion is the only clean exit for everyone involved and she apparently must be against that. (Which is her decision by the way - you have no authority in that call). You do realize the two of you are setting up some future human for failure. People can bomb away at me if they like, but to plan a broken home for a child is ludicrous. Go ahead and do the web searches for statistics on kids from single-parent or split homes. They are so much more likely to have problems, and so much less likely to be happy and healthy that it is mind boggling to me that anyone would actually plan that out ahead of time. The two of you ought to drop your pride or whatever selfish principles are causing you to do "the right thing" for yourself and think long and hard about the path you are about to set for some yet unborn human. I'll acknowledge beforehand all the anecdotes people are going to throw out about how they or someone else beat those odds. Maybe you pull it off; but that is not likely. I've seen 3 nieces go thru this with a total of 6 kids. One of the six has some sort of chance, only because of radical intervention and contribution from grandparents. The other 5 are getting sucker-punched for life by the selfish desires of their immature parents. Good luck to your child; that kid is really going to need it in order to overcome your humungous mistake. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

A jump still costs less than a round of golf or case of real beer. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

How about DUI? There are many areas in this country where drinking and driving is still seen as normal and acceptable. How about the rednecks that bound and murdered that gay dude out west? They are just products of their environment. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Replying to the last post only because the owners of this site have yet to develop a quick post option and it really ticks me off that I have to page back to the OP. My only comment on the OP is that using that whole "it's my culture" or "I'm a product of my environment" logic would allow anybody to do anything and lay the blame on society, or their parents, or their priest, or their teachers, or ????? Come on DZ.com, get with the modern era and put a quick reply button at the bottom of the page so we don't have to reply to the last (and possibly irrelevant) post or page back to the beginning. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

How do you know we have only scratched the surface, and what makes it so obvious? As far as science as an approach to gaining knowledge, I'd say it is very well defined. The scientific method is firmly established and is well beyond having just had it's surface scratched. If you mean the body of all knowledge that is being exposed and discovered using the scientific method, then I would agree - to a degree. Even there, it is not so obvious that we have yet to discover the nature of nature. The Standard Model has it's gaps, but is very well suited to making predictions and accurately modeling observations. Having mapped the constituent bits of nature down to a relatively homogenous level, I'd say it is highly debatable whether or not we have scratched the surface or gotten much deeper in understanding the world at a fundamental level. From the perspective of knowing everything there is about everythiong there is, then certainly we have only just begun. But the main factor there could simply be the incredible size of the universe - not our method of study. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I think that a distinction here is between core values and core beliefs. Core beliefs tend to be dogmatic and immune to new information. Core values reflect more of a characxter trait than a specific belief. Core beliefs are a setup for contradiction and will often expose unhealthy values. I do not have a core belief that there is no God. I have a core value of honoring the evidence, even if it means changing beliefs. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

The critical thinking atheists I know are all open to possibilities; they just require something more than a request for blind faith. That is about as far on the other end of the spectrum as you can get from the fundamentalists that deny empirical evidence. I am personally very open to all kinds of things I may not currently believe in - such as alien visitations, dieties, ghosts, and the like. Just give me something, anything, other than a request for blind faith. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I think you have it backwards. What they think is what it is. It's not a game. Thinking that there is something they should think is playing a game. It's very easy to find out what people actually think. Ask them. No game in that, just gathering information. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

If the criteria is that we have that level of knowledge, then the time is now - not 100 or 500 years from now. If the criteria is that the bulk of the world's population get's theri head out of the sand and quits living in denial, then I'd agree on the 500 year estimate. My opinion is based on the fact that learned people knew the Earth was round a couple thousand years before everyone finally got on board; and other such situations. Also, as a matter of official record, it took the Vatican about 450 years to formally recognize Galileo was right and that he should not have been detained. So whether it is the huddled masses accepting information and begrudgingly changing, or the religious elite finally swallowing their pride and caving; religious beliefs and pride die very hard. And again, this is just an aside with the cultural trainwreck of religious beliefs of human manufacture running their course on some sort of parallel track that is way way behind schedule. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Old pervert here - if you are using the term in a loose and good-humored fashion. (50's guy). Life (as in all of life, the composite of all living things) has no purpose. It has no intent as a whole; not even to propogate. It simply propogates as a matter of mechanism. That which is best suited (again, not with intent) to leave copies behind propogates best. It is what it is. Anything more is just reading in your own hopes and desires. Individual lives however, do have purpose. You get to choose that. And therein lies THE dichotomy of Life. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Those gaps are all but gone already. About the only realm left now is the one that will most likely always be there - the first small fraction of a second after the expansion we call the Big Bang, plus any time cycles that might have ocurred prior to the Big Bang. Everything after that is understood at least well enough to not require divine intervention; and most of said previously or currently claimed intervention appears downright silly given the evidence. So yeah, God's realm is now the brief period of time following the Big Bang (approximately 1 X 10 to the negative 30th power seconds) for which we can most likely never expect to explore. Let's also remember that science does not have proving God does not exist as an agenda. Science just seeks information about the world. It is simply a consequence of the knowledge gained that religion looks to be more of a political sham than anything else. Sometimes knowledge takes people, or groups of people where they did not expect to go. That is one of the cold, unswerving, uncaring characteristics of real research. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

What do you expect of the NAACP. They are a separatist organization by nature of their scope. They are a political organization by their agenda. To me, any organization that seeks specific goals on behalf of only certain races is rascist. They may have all good intentions, but nonetheless they focus their attention first and foremost based on the criteria of race. If they dropped the C, I'd be a fan. As it is, they are more an obstacle than a solution to the ultimate goal of all people being treated the same. They act more as a crutch when they make excuses for people like Vick. The people they make excuses for need a kick in the ass - not another crutch. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley