Darknecrosforte

Considering the prevalence of genetic defects inherited primarily from mothers tend to be metabolic or affecting gross structure rather than intelligence, I'm pretty sure that there is little point in using IQ as a criteria for reproduction with a female. If you're within 15 points and are patient, your kids are likely to inherit your GSK-3B or sodium channel phenotype anyways. She just has to be smart enough to understand how to adapt NAP to parenting and smart enough to connect growing learners to experts to apprentice under during their homeschooling. Since my first child is due in October, I get to see if my wife's average IQ has any effect on my hellspawn. My leisurely studies on synaptic proteins such as calmodulin, neuroligin, and neurolexin show that inheritance is largely autosomal dominant, meaning you only need to inherit one to get the full effect. So what to look out for? Symmetry is a decent way to indirectly gauge fragile-X syndrome, Huntington's, Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, etc. A plain-looking female with even features should be enough. Childhood experience is important. Values and methodical thinking processes should be present. Not "oh... she has to have a 110 IQ, which makes her smart enough for university, but not smart enough to overpower leftist indoctrination".

Hi, Left USMC active duty after 5 years as a radio technician. If in your situation, I would consider several factors such as: Time left on contract, possible loss of GI Bill (which DOES violate voluntarism on the tax-payer, BUT is probably a more benign version of theft), and alternative uses of that remaining contract time. Military life is one of the least voluntary lifestyles outside of the initial choice to enlist, but I'm not sure it is worth quitting with less than 2 years remaining. Take advantage of the perks of being enlisted. They exist unless you're a paratrooper. You can use that GI Bill to subsidize any level of training you need to be useful to others. Since the tax rate is progressive here, you won't have to worry about the unethical nature of leeching off the tax-payer because you WILL get butt-raped later.

Three years of relatively rigorous study of biological and chemical sciences about 50 hours a week including time spent in class with 8 weeks of break total per year is not too deficient in terms of basic understanding of the majority of evidence out there. I am saying the evidence is not nearly as strong as is commonly thought. There is a lot of imagination required to come up with these models and theories instead of say, producing a dinosaur and studying it. There is also a lot of misconception of what a scientist is or what "scientific authority" is. I AM a scientist and soon to be US medical student. I have quickly read through your link and would like to point out that listing a various observations and declaring "Evolution proved" is not rigorous as I have already pointed out. "Oh look, Mendelian genetics! Evolution is real because traits are passed on". This is the nature of most of what you posted. It does nothing to address the issues of extrapolating INITIAL isotope concentrations in once-living fossilized creatures. We do not know if our reference values are correct. This has huge potential to throw off models based on such numbers. I simply recognize that there is a conflict of interest in evolutionary science, especially since it is the most government-funded and "young" branch of science. Most of biology and its continued funding depends on it being true. Other "harder" sciences are not reliant on it at all. Physicists, chemists, and even biochemists do not need evolution to maintain their credibility and funding. I'm not saying evolution is false. I am saying it is a theory.

One of my mentors, Eben Pagan, uses a mental exercise called "Futuring" or "Inevitability Thinking". Allot minimum 30 minutes in a quiet space that allows you to conjure clear images in your head Focus on achieving an alert meditative mindset through deliberately calm breathing and conscious muscle relaxation that begins from the feet and moves upwards. You may want to voice record yourself reading the subsequent steps with sufficient pauses so you can devote more concentration to the exercise. Imagine the ideal world. Do not hold back because of what is realistic. Make this a CLEAR and CONCRETE snapshot image. In first-person point-of-view, float outside of your body and float on the timeline of your life. Take a glance at some of the events of your past that lie on your timeline and then turn around to head toward the future with that image. Look at that image. Where are you? What are you doing? What do you look like? Who is around you? Who have you become? How have you contributed to the image you have created? As you float down toward the future you, what did you have to do to become the future you? Who did you have to surround yourself with to have the strength and knowledge to become that? What did you abandon on the way? Step into the future you and assume that person's viewpoint. How do they see the image of the future? Do they feel appreciation for how they ended up there? What are you feeling as you feel two separate minds inhabit the body of a major factor in how the future came to be? Take another snapshot of how "future you" has affected the world and slowly step backward and out of future you. Float up to the timeline. As you return to the present, notice that there may be clear obstacles in the way as you go back. Remember that you have overcome them already. Float down into your body and take a few moments to calm your body and regain your awareness. Maybe write down some of what you experienced or draw your snapshots. Remember what you had to become in order to make this future inevitable. If you want to become a business owner, what would you need to learn, who would you need to know, and what would have to change so that no matter what happens, you become the future version of yourself where your desired outcomes are completely natural and inevitable. This is how I decided to go from a US Marine radio tech to medical school. I learned exercise physiology so that it is inevitable that I would have the ability to prescribe preventative measures for disease. I chose a flexible career so that my wife can devote herself to the role of philosophical mother. This is definitely a risky path to live because over 300K in loans is no joke. Maybe my future residency will demand so many hours from me over 3-7 years that my wife leaves me. Maybe I succeed in every aspect of life, except as a father. There are realistic and safe aspects to it as well. I just know that the 100 year old me on my deathbed would have immense regrets had I not aimed for becoming the best version of who I could be. I will not sacrifice my family on my journey, but we will support each other as we experience increasing difficulties in the future.

I hear people talk about facts of evolution a lot. Philosophically, I am currently understanding the evidence as a somewhat acceptable working theory. The reasoning is as follows: Most of the evidence for the way these animals looked is based on the conceptual guesses of archaeological biologists based on limited fragments of previously living organisms. Remember the non-feathered raptors of older dinosaur depictions? As far as I know, there is no reliable way to show that fossils have contributed to the current gene pool. We take it for granted that successful mating and production of offspring is generally harder for non-humans in a predatory environment. We have not observed evolution of a completely new species from a different one. We have seen adaptations that can be attributed to transgenic protein modifications of histones, point mutations, and deletions which are not even close to actual evolution. Isotopic-dating methods rely on comparisons of current levels of measured isotopes (rubidium, strontium, etc.) to CALCULATED reference values of what is thought to be the initial value of the isotope in the living creature. This is a huge assumption with a large room for error. The most important fact is that it is not based on an observation. From what I have been learning in genetics, true evolution would require that the universe be much older than we currently project it to be based on thermodynamic kinetics of organic molecules and the ridiculously high failure rate of random reactions These are the main reasons why it is difficult to consider evolution as more than a working theory. Science uses a testable theory to attempt explanations and innovations. It is important to recognize that as people who promote reasoning and evidence that we remember that religiosity also permeates "science" and that scientists must always demand for higher quality proof and be prepared to call bs on each other. Just giving a little pushback to those who use terms like "evolutionary facts".

Hi, This is one of the more useful threads I've seen here when comparing to the nebulous discussions on flat earth theory and whatnot. Served 5 years in the United States Marine Corps as a Ground Systems Radio Technician with two overseas tours (one combat, one to Okinawa). Married to a Kinesiology graduate who intends to peacefully parent as many children as we can support. Currently finishing a bachelor's degree in Exercise Science with electives focusing on physiological and biochemical science. Self-teaching violin using the Suzuki method. Accepted to Western University, Pomona - Osteopathic Medicine program. Scheduled to call in on Saturday, November 21 to get input on my plans to specialize in pediatric neuropathology that may be related to parenting-induced epigenetics. It will be 11-12 years before this training an research is finished. I currently am friends with a hypnotherapist and several biochemists who are interested in masterminding in the future to peacefully subvert the government using anarcho-capitalist principles in the realm of technology and child rearing. We're in the Los Angeles area.

Come on... WE know about NAP and morality, but arguing that a cop "should rethink what he's doing" is derailing the conversation. If not the cop, then the teacher would have to remove the student. At least with the cop, there's a chance that a person will comply with just a uniformed presence. I wonder what would happen with increased expulsions due to these types of behaviors. Since funding is tied to attendance, it is unlikely to be viable, but for those who are appalled at low education-attaining brutes doing their jobs, this is a peaceful way to get disruptive students to not be in school.

Slam? Lifting the student very slightly and rotating her 90 degrees using the femur as a lever =/= slam. The alternatives would be way worse. He couldn't bearhug/raise her out of the desk completely because that affords her better access to any weapons he probably had. He can't actually lift the whole desk with her in the seat either. He chose the most efficient way to get her out of the seat: tip it over. The escalation was not that abrupt in my opinion. Should he just pull out a gun and tell her to get out of the seat? Less physical contact that way, but way worse reaction. I'm assuming that cops generally have no option to just let people ignore their commands. Keeping that in mind, what other options did I miss?

Non-aggression Principle. Gotta establish morality standards before you start talking about complex topics like hypergamy, politics, etc.

You originally ask if competing interpretations reveal subjective nature and preclude it from being an acceptable standard for behavior. I rationally give an example of how something that is often considered to have multiple interpretations is actually a case of not finishing the story, which would normally serve as a reasonable way to respond to the question. However, you bring up the capacity for error, as if this isn't evident to the average person as a way to continue the "argument", rather than address the specific points. I am interpreting most of what you're saying as a passive-aggressive ad hominem/argument from absurdity and I'm guessing it's because I'm making the case that a lot of people misread a good book. People blindly following a book for any reason is stupid but I'm wondering why you respond as if I'm saying something more than "people can't read well". If you want to push back so hard because people commonly weaponize the Bible, you can relax because I know this already. It doesn't invalidate anything I said.

You DIDN'T say "ambiguous". That was the point. And I'm simply nit-picking that reading half of a story and drawing the opposite conclusion that would normally be obvious with a complete read is not the same thing as being "ambiguous". The whole point of me bringing up anything related to the Bible is to show that there is a common misconception that the language or meaning is "vague" or has multiple interpretations. It doesn't. Neither is the notion that even half of the verses are considered "spoken by God". Plenty of sections of the Bible are quotations of scumbags used in the narration of a story.

Nice

Using text to say that text has the capacity for error doesn't strike you as odd? There are many subtle claims you make, especially with et cetera which assumes there is a comprehensive list somewhere and the sentence is shortened with its use. There isn't a list, so most of the previous statements were appeals to mockery. It isn't ridiculous to put terms down in writing. We do this with contracts. In fact, things get really ridiculous when we make UNWRITTEN agreements or give only verbal instructions. As for the re-translations, that opens another huge topic that is unlikely to go anywhere.

I guess we need to rethink using words also. Ironic argument, right?

It isn't the same text. They take single verses without even considering who is speaking, omit the sections that make the consequences obvious, and think they understand. Ambiguous pronoun use makes it hard to understand, but from what I'm guessing, this is adding on to "interpretations" idea. That would be correct if the incomplete reading of an "If/Then" statement was considered a different interpretation from the whole. It isn't. I've argued with theologians about this and even they can't concede to the fact that if you read about Solomon and Rehoboam straight through, it is saying to NOT spank children.