All the more reason to sew the seeds of anarchy. I have no interest in defeating any state, including this one. I am content to allow the ghetto dwellers to arrange their own affairs to their liking in their Metropolises, if they would just leave us the hell alone out here in Flyover Country.

Anarchy would be infinitely less bloody in the heartland, than revolution or civil war (same thing), which we rednecks would win decisively in any case, if they pushed it. A few strategically placed trucks with 18 flat tires, combined with the traffic jam they caused, could instantly seal off highway access to the cities. When, they could no longer get daily food deliveries, their grocery stores would be empty withing three days. I sure wouldn't want to be anywhere near them, when they got hungry. ;-) ◄Dave►

Even two would be a vast improvement over the Incumbrepublocrat UniParty duopoly; but the more the merrier. I like the way European parliamentary systems, generally require politicians to cobble together a tenuous governing coalition, AFTER an election rather than before. This seems infinitely preferable to the machinations ours go through, trying to keep their disparate factions stuck to their base, while trying to woo a few independents for a win.

Then, if the majority in a European coalition tries to run roughshod over their minority partners, they can force another election right away, by withdrawing from the coalition. Once our sheeple have been tricked into electing a particular bunch of liars, they are then stuck with them until the next scheduled election, no matter how onerous they turn out to be. ◄Dave►

I agree with Jim regarding relative writing styles; but it happens that I read Mises' "Theory of Money and Credit," before even reading Ayn Rand, much less Rothbard, Browne, or any other libertarian author besides Robert Ringer. He really opened my eyes as a young entrepreneur, into the true nature of Money, and thus prepared my mind to absorb its research into libertarian thinking soon to follow. ◄Dave►

I don't disagree, RS, and reckon that such a scenario is more than likely, no matter who is POTUS at that time. The question is, which would be more likely to respond by declaring martial law, opening the FEMA camps, confiscating arms, and filling mass graves with contumacious "troublemakers?"

I would welcome such a split. I have almost nothing in common with the Progressive fools living in the Metropolitan rabbit warrens, and fail to see why I should be required to feed them, or suffer under the tyranny of their carelessly chosen nanny state. Outright anarchy among the common country folk in Flyover America, would be far preferable. ◄Dave►

Agreed, Jim. Those are two great quotes. I have been using a version of that quip for years, without realizing that Mencken originated it. It figures. :-) ◄Dave►

I have been cheering Trump on from the day he announced his candidacy. From my perspective, he has already accomplished my goal for him, which was to destroy the elitist's control of the GOP wing, of the Incumbrepublocrat UniParty Duopoly. That he utterly crushed the ambitions of Jeb! and Canadian Born Citizen Cruz et al, was more than enough for me. As an increasingly committed anarchist, I never had any intention of actually voting for an obvious statist like Trump.

My oft repeated motto has been, "Don't vote; it just encourages the bastards." Yet, you make a compelling argument, Robert, that to now allow Hillary to walk away with it, would be an unmitigated disaster for our posterity. I have to agree that the issues where I disagree with Trump, are of little consequence, when compared with the positives in his agenda and Hillary's negatives. Besides, most any other politician would have most of his negatives too, and fewer of his positives. If I didn't live in the Peoples Democracy of Mexifornia, where Republican and Libertarian votes never matter anyway, I might have to reevaluate my vow to boycott the sham election.

I completely agree that voting Libertarian this year would accomplish nothing whatsoever, other than help Hillary. I would recommend that anyone living in a swing and/or battleground State, where their votes might actually matter, give your logic here serious consideration, regardless of their personal ideology. It could matter to future generations, if not our own. ◄Dave►

Agreed, Jim. Sending a child to a Public School is a particularly egregious form of child abuse. If I were a young man interested in having a family today, I wouldn't even consider marrying a woman who would not agree to put her personal career goals on hold, while she home schooled our children. I spent the past 20 years involved in the Private Montessori Preschool business, and know of what I speak. ◄Dave►

Yes, it was planned by Dewy et al over a century ago, Kevin. The explanation is detailed in probably the most informative book I have ever read. I recently found it archived in PDF format: The Underground History of American Education.

It is a tome, whose length at first appears daunting; but I found it well worth the time. At least read the Prologue, which begins thus:

The shocking possibility that dumb people don’t exist in sufficient numbers to warrant the millions of careers devoted to tending them will seem incredible to you. Yet that is my central proposition: the mass dumbness which justifies official schooling first had to be dreamed of; it isn’t real.

If you think you detest Progressives now, reading this remarkable history book will give you a whole new perspective, on just how utterly evil they are! ◄Dave►

I was content to abandon this discussion as futile; but since Mike has taken the time to elegantly disconnect cosmology from biology at length, I will address a couple more misconceptions.

You are also erroneously conflating "origins" with the question of belief in a specific god of your choice. Scott Adams expressed his rejection of the so-called miracle, in the Sunday School tale of "Jonah & the Whale," at age 11. That is a very long way from asserting that he had the origin of Life, or the Universe itself, figured out - then or now.

As it happens, I can recall my own extreme skepticism at about the same age. How could he breathe? It just did not compute. I had busted my mother putting a dime under my pillow, so I had already figured out that my parents had lied to me about the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus. Why then should I believe that there was also an invisible man in the sky, watching my every move, to decide whether I deserved to go to heaven or hell, when I die some day? That sounded suspiciously like the "naughty or nice" Santa Claus threat to me.

It turns out, of course, that Scott and I were right, and this was no miracle. When they excavated the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars were able to translate the ancient scripture directly into modern English, without all the translations and interpretations in between. That is when they discovered that the phrase "swallowed by a big fish," was an idiom of the times, for 'trouble' or 'tribulation.' If today one were to say, "Jonah was in hot water," no one cognizant of the idioms of our times, would believe that he was immersed in a cannibal's stew pot.

Another example they found, was that "pillar of salt," was an idiom of their times, for 'paralysis.' If today one were to say, "Sarah turned as stiff as a board," no one would claim she miraculously became a hunk of wood. I reckon Bible literalists could use a healthy dose of skepticism, to deal with the question of why all these fantastical miracles stopped happening a couple thousand years ago.

Did you see the movie, "Oh God" with Robert Burns? When it starts raining inside my car, I will perhaps pay more attention to the 'Word of God.' Until then, it is all just unsubstantiated hearsay. ;) ◄Dave►

Interesting, RS. The older I get, the more I realize that such answers will not be forthcoming in what little is left of my life, and the less that reality bothers me. The origin of life is a curiosity for sure; but it has never been a particularly compelling one for me. At this point, as a septuagenarian, I find it of no interest whatever. Of even less interest, has been the question of whether our software and memories, might somehow survive beyond our death. I reckon that exceedingly unlikely, so I waste not a second of the only life I have any reason to expect to experience, pondering, pining, or preparing for some "life after death" oxymoron.

I try not to let 'word salad' confuse me. Theists are inclined to twist words like 'faith,' 'belief,' and 'miracle' into contexts contrary to my understanding and usage of such terms. Their frequent claim that the act of disbelieving in the existence of gods, is itself an act of faith, is nonsensical word salad. So is suggesting that the acceptance of the hypothesis of evolution as a valid theory, is also the same as a religious belief system. If theists would acknowledge that the particular gods they worship are also only an unprovable theory, on a par with all other cultish belief system theories, then perhaps we can talk.

Please define what you mean by 'miracle,' as you use it here. It seems to me that you are trying to use it as a synonym for 'phenomenon.' I have no beef with the existence of phenomena. When I say I don't believe in miracles, my intent comports with the dictionary definition: "An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God." We may not be able to answer the questions about life's origins; but it is certainly here and functioning just fine, within the constraints of the laws of nature as we understand them. If everything living is somehow a 'miracle,' then the term no longer denotes something unusual, and has become virtually meaningless.

BTW, as a farm manager in Africa, and a cattle rancher in California, I have personally been involved in the selective breeding of animals and hybrid seed crops. I have observed the process of 'evolution' in real-time, for a good many species. It is not only not miraculous to me, it is not even a theory. It is proven technology. :-) ◄Dave►