4 years 😱😱😱

Best answer: yes, she has privacy.

but you are a parent and you have the right to know, later on she'll thank you....if she becomes a teen mom she won't be happy. especially if the father of the baby is a douchebag. it's your duty to read it, i am a teen and i understand what you're going through. just read it. if she gets mad, fine -- you're only protecting her and it's your right as a mom

Best answer: .
he'l be 71 in june and almost evryone that age has some age-related cognitive decline,

some ppl, less; some ppl, more.

he's obese; that means lack of exercise which means inadequate oxygen to the brain.

beyond those, there are serious psychiatric conditions :

http://tinyurl.com/j4nhv54 NewYorker mag, jan 2017
.
The mental competence of a US president:
.
What is the law when a president loses control?
.
x
.
http://tinyurl.com/zunwnev nytimes opinion sept 28, 2016
.
“Electing Trump would be insanity…”
.
x
.
http://tinyurl.com/h4sfktq nytimes aug 2016
.
“In the last decade of his life, the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease slowed Fred Trump [Donald’s father.] “
.
x
.
“Is Donald Trump a Sociopath?”
.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/07/trump-and-sociopathy/491966/
.
x
.
http://tinyurl.com/h5ldq2v toronto star aug 2016
.
“ ‘Donald Trump is not of sound mind,‘ ”
.
“conservative Stephen Hayes wrote in the Weekly Standard.
.
“Erratic behaviour raises mental health questions”
.
A list of prominent commentators questioning dt’s sanity :
.
x
.
http://tinyurl.com/j7htle8 . washpost aug 01 ‘16
.
“Donald Trump is a man with a disordered personality…”
.
x

.
“This is a unique moment in American political history,
.
“in which the mental stability of one of the major party nominees for president is dominating the conversation.” --
.
David Brooks, conservative commentator.
.
http://tinyurl.com/jsq9hzu Nytimes July 19, 2016
.
x
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/science/donald-trump-nuclear-codes.html?google_editors_picks=true
.
“Debate Over Trump’s Fitness Raises the Issue of Checks on Nuclear Power”
.
x
.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/04/politics/donald-trump-republicans-reaction/
.
“Trump's apparent self-sabotage.”
.
x
.
http://tinyurl.com/j8hzro2 WashPost opinion July 28, 2016
.
“The real estate tycoon is uniquely unqualified to serve as president, in experience and temperament...
.

Best answer: Science is capable of explaining everything, we just aren't at the stage where we are capable of doing that due to lack of technology and inability to test beyond the realms of our solar system.

I would want to talk about the "origins of god" before the origins of the universe or the origins of life.

The Vikings were feared of the unknown making them believe in supernatural beings to make sense of natural phenomenon, the god they feared the most was called "Skoll" who sometimes would eat "Sol" (the sun) causing the dreadful moment when day turned to night which we now called the solar eclipse.

And in about 300 BC a philosopher named Aristarchus was fascinated by eclipses, who was brave enough to question whether they really were caused by gods. he later realized the Eclipse was actually the shadow of the earth passing over the moon and not a divine event. on understanding the eclipses he deduced that the earth was not the center of the universe as everyone has thought, but the sun was.

Adonis Thomas took it even further,
he suggested the stars were not chinks in the floor of heaven as his contemporaries believed. But that stars were other Suns like ours only a very long way away.

Then comes Galileo Galilei the founder of modern-day science, he observed Jupiter night after night from his telescope and made a wonderful discovery, he saw three tiny dots very close to the giant planet, after watching a few nights he realized they had to be moons circling the vast planet, here he was convinced that at least some objects do not orbit the Earth. By this discovery, Galileo went on to prove that the earth orbits the Sun. Aristarchus have been right all along. Galileo's discovery has triggered a revolution in thought that would ultimately loosen the grip of religion but the church in the 17th century confined him to house arrest.

As each century passed, each new discovery further removed the need for a god. If humans didn't have existed, god would not have existed, Humans created god with fear due to ignorance. Let alone modern humans, if the early humans feared the unknown, they would have never left the cave. give science enough time, and it will demystify god until he ultimately recedes.

And that will only happen with boundless curiosity, just because we don't know something at the moment, we shouldn't say, "God did it". Take Isaac Newton. He discovered how much of our physics works on at least a basic level (revolutionary for his time), as well as single-handedly inventing Calculus simply to understand these physics. And yet, when he reached something he couldn't figure out, he 1) gave up (quite unscientific) and 2) told that only God--the Christian god (a being who is demonstrably fictional)--could answer the questions he could not, which was promptly proven false when later physicists and mathematicians when farther than he did. Someone can be a genius yet still wrong.

Now coming to the origins of universe or the origins of life,
Science can't seem to *prove* the answer to your two questions, yet.
the answer is already out there, we are in the process of unraveling it.

The origin of the universe,

Scientific hypotheses which can be proven are laws. If they cannot be proven, then the evidence for them can be theorized.

The big bang itself cannot be proven, and that is why it is a theory, you can't test it in a lab or go back in time to witness it. But it's not wrong just because it's a "theory". we cannot prove it yet since our technology is very limited and not advanced enough to literally prove it. However, technology is rapidly improving. it's only a matter of time.
As you understand evolution, It's been about 200,000 years since us modern humans have existed. Meanwhile, science has made educated theories while religions made books which kill curiosity.

And, "How can something come from nothing?", is an argument from ignorance. You believe that you can't create something from nothing, but you exclude god from that rule. If you believe god didn't need a creator, then you believe nothing created your god. How is that any more plausible than to believe that the Universe came from nothing?

We have pairs of everything in the universe, our planet is not alone, there are 7 other planets in our solar system, our solar system isn't either, there are billions of others, our galaxy is not the only one out there, In the observable universe there are billions of galaxies, so why stop there? maybe there is more than one universe, there could be multi-universes. So If another big bang happened, how would we even know? it, of course, will not happen here. It may have happened before somewhere, and it may have already happened again somewhere, Maybe we're just one of those many other big bangs, so why do we consider ourselves so significant that there must be an omnipotent to create us? and I think you are aware that the universe is continuously expanding, in other words, the big bang didn't stop there, It's continuously banging, it's not just the beginning when it banged from nothing into something but it is still banging, it is expanding into itself, it is always happening, even while you are reading this.

If you believe that god is eternal then it would be much more rational to believe that the Universe itself is eternal.

The origin of life,

Humans aren't significant either, we're made by the one of the most abundant elements in the universe, carbon. it's everywhere.

We're not perfect, the earth isn't perfect, our solar system isn't perfect. the universe as a whole is not perfect, the universe and everything in it are not as organized as we think they are. The universe is HUGE. We are one small planet in a universe that is immeasurably large and filled with quintillions upon quintillions of other planets. Let's say we assigned random traits to each and every planet, for example: how far it is from the nearest star, what elements are in the atmosphere, what its mass is etc. Eventually, if we keep assigning random traits, we are bound to get a planet which has the perfect conditions to harbor life. That is the Earth. We are a coincidence among innumerable others, That way, we don't need to say that life was designed because in a universe so expansive, there is BOUND to be life at some point or another.

Murphy's 1st Law: Anything that can happen will happen.

Anything that is possible, will happen given enough chances (time), No matter how many odds against it.

Let's apply that law to early earth,

Given an early earth rich in organic compounds + a reducing atmosphere of the early earth + energy from the earth's core + energy from the sun, early life is a thermodynamic certainty.

Self-replicating RNA has already been made under those conditions.

When science can explain the universe without the need of a god,
then the God is more of an incompetent than an omnipotent.

God does not exist, we don't need one.

Best answer: Stayin' Alive.

How can you not strut to that bass line?