Newtonian

They could have been superior spiritually, and being one with nature.Sat there in the cave contemplating the meaning of life. Then sapien the war monger(joyfully swinging his stick)grunting up the hill,smashed all their skulls in,raped the females they didnt kill. Therefore i vote for interbreeding.

I think not,its a personal matter who knows what they actually think. I know i would thoroughly hate the bitch.She has no morals Camila was Charles first love,IMO they were both single and should of married.The fact is they didnt,she married another and so did he.She ruined her own marriage and then ruined the marriage of Charles and Diana.Using the oldest of decietfull rituals,befriending Diana. Logically i cannot see William and Harry liking her.I think if they seem to, it may be out of love for their father.

Having spent an age reading the thread,i enter with a metaphorical bowed head.Apart from insenstivity, i found the majority of Syntax252's posts common sense.Also John's,and i fail to see why 'under God' should be so objectionable.Its a voluntary choice you either say it or dont. Why should it be removed,its quite reasonable to assume that alot of people in america are christian.Hence thats why it there in the first place. I thought america was a democracy? If the majority of americas population were athiest,im sure the words would be removed,and their utterence still offensive. I think it shows intollerence and disrespect for other religions,when the minority asks for a voluntary statement to be removed because it offends them hearing it said. Which reminds me of home(UK).I cannot even fly my national flag,because it may cause offence to the ethnic community.And be considered racist! You americans should grow up,theres far greater things to worry about in this world.

Lets not get carried away with the internet though,it is an easily accessible platform to spout all kinds of rubbish.I tend to use the old trusted method of books and library for factual information.

To be serious Phi,i think it will happen.The queen has a few years left yet.Although Charles desperately wants to be king,I think he has blown it with the miss ugly saga. He used to be my favourite royal till the divorce.Im all for the monarchy yet i feel when we lose our Queen it could be over.Thats why i hope William is king,I dont know whether fellow subjects agree with me but i think William will be a great king.

Im not,im English. Charles marrying the women ,who caused the breakdown of his marriage to Diana.Is wholly inapropriate.But as they are no laws broken who cares,however i feel in the long term this will be the beginning of the end for our monarchy.The only possible way of rescuing the situation is for William to be our next king. If Diana were still alive,it would still be inapropriate. Whats even a harder smack in the face,is Camila has recieved the Queen mothers beloved ring for an engagement ring. excuse me, GLAAuuRGel , that was me vomitting on my keyboard!

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

When you get older time flys.

I'd be skeptical as you say,to think that a deficient environment was the sole underlining cause also.

Thanks

Yes page 205 in my frontal lobe. Bearing in mind Coral i was being sarcatic towards Ramin.The evidence or research is inconclusive thus far,although varying sources argue its genetic origin. I have managed to take a look for this http://www.homestead.com/narcissism/ However also bear in mind although im logged in,im not always at my computer.Unfortunately people pay me for attending their building, and staying there for ages.

No but im also interested in making a homemade telescope.Anyone with ideas how i can construct one out of household materials,or relatively cheaply(under £50) with a magnification between 100-600x

Coral i never answered because i never stated drug addiction,wasnt a disorder!.I mentioned drug abuse which is completely different. It is well documented that drug addiction has strong genetic ties,and is often passed down generation to generation.I hope this answers your question. Im sure Ramin will disagree.

Sorry ramin i was arguing from the common sense stance that genetic disorders are just that.You seem to be of the opinion correlation as causality and that an informed and thus proactive environment will somehow counter a psychcological disorder like autism(you favour the Lovaas Method do you not).In fact nobody here has stated that environmental factors cannot influence the severity of a disorder.Only that the environment is not the fundemental underlining cause and that genetics is(i am the parent of 5 well adjusted children,i assume as parents we gave them an individual sufficient environment) However it is your opinion that is predudice and unsubstanciated(regardless of you wording your posts like John danced if Mary sang, and Mary sang,so john danced). .Science has improved our understanding of certain disorders ,and placed defected genes as the main causality and environment contributary. You should get help for your Narcissism its a genetic trait stop denying it. You have continually been evasive and sought only to confuse.By deliberately not involving myself with your drivel,hopefully to the others i have been coherent. Please dont assume my ignorance or lack of interlect in my rebuttal.Im fully aware of Emil Kraepelin and his writings,i just dont agree!You are not alone in believing psychcological disorders or diseases of the mind are not brain diseases and in fact not diseases at all.That because mind is not a material object,it can be diseased only in a metaphorical sense.This disorder or disease is not an observable phenomenon, but a social relationship.And that this fallacy of genetic disease is only a psychiatric excuse in one fell swoop curtailing responsibility and with an immoral justification , it removes motivation from action. The fact is disorders such as Autism are being proven to be `organic mental disorders' and defective genes causal Autism http://ericec.org/faq/autism.html I hope soon geneticists isolate these genes responsible and shut you up!!

You would think after the mother country of communism collapsed,simply because that system doesnt work.The others would realise and follow suit.However like all dictatorships,wether the people want to or not.They can no longer speak out,sort of you made your bed lay in it.

I swear today as i crossed the road, i seen a dead baby ghost on the floor. Though now i think, maybe it was an handkerchief.

Whats everyone going on about. The video's showed nothing extraordinary.The audio i clearly heard the crackles,you could see small burnt splints being caught be the breeze.(which could have been tips of grass) After watching several times i remembered something we did as children playing truant. The flame looked suspiciously like that of lighter fluid squirted on damp grass.You could clearly notice the video jumping frames after several seconds(edited to hide the fact someone was squirting more lighter fluid) Im surprised nobody here has tried it.We all used to buy a tin each on a saturday night,soak a hand ,set it alight and run around the field like a stunt man.Extinguishing the flame several seconds later when you felt the heat,repeating this till we stopped laughing with no burns at all. Anyone who has filled a zippo lighter which has leaked on their hand and ignited it by accident would know this.

Yes food and water,and a house.Maybe a little money as well.

You dont have anything to apoligise to me for Hellbender.I was only pointing out what ive read in threads.

The argument is that genetics are "important" in deficient environments, and so, they are not important. Ok Ramin give us something to work with.Everything said to you is dismissed as a def/enviro.So give us a defined adequate environment,sufficient environment,informed environment.WHATEVER to give us a base to start from. Your obviously at a loss that, defective genes affect the organism regardless of environmental factors. You never answered my question about ADHT. Which cult is teaching you this stuff? What is the full discription of your course? I feel this would be of benefit to other posters,to research the subject for ourselves.Look at it as peer review. You may be bottom of your class and not understand just what their teaching you! EDIT I will post some links that show genetic disorders.

To be fair Matt Slater was an FBI counter terrorism specialist.And you've just blown his cover as a BBC journalist.Shame on you Tiny http://www.narendrasimone.com/

If the only conversation here,was that deficient environments could contribute to mental disorders in a wide spectrum of phenotypes.Then the majority here would agree,as its common knowledge.My 93 yr old grandmother(who's only interest is a life spent playing Bingo)knows that.Hardly worthy of a Uni-degree. But Ramin is clearly stating that disorders i.e Autism are the direct result of environmental factors.Frankly if i was a parent of an Autistic child i would be greatly offended.In fact presently known genetic evidence would point us to accept the reverse of this threads title Genetics are definitely important Ramin are you aware of ADHT.I would be interested to read your take on this,and wether you attribute it to your DE

No the degree to which the defective gene affect the organism is the determining factor.A geneticist would explain a little better. Take schizophrenia although a great deal is known about its biology, the causes of schizophrenia have not yet fully been elucidated.Hence your argument. Through twin and adoption studies, we know that there is an inherited genetic component.Environmental stress may manifest or contribute to episodes of this illness,equally regardless of environment schizophrenia will not be manifested.Indicating environment only playing a minor role,and genetics as causal. A cop out,and untrue. The majority of individuals on this planet can relate to a shitty upbringing.In the 50's many were poor ,i remember queing up in school to recieve shoes that were donated by more affluent pupils parents.I remember the majority of xmas's getting nothing more than an apple/orange and a few sweets.Hey i was no isolated case,it was hard times which affected society at the time. There was no childline in the 50's many were physically and mentally abused,along with their mother(divorce wasnt so easy then) To simplify the point there are millions starving,suffering genocide,poverty,orphaned ,unloved etc.How deficient an environment could they be.Yet according to your argument,the majority of the population of the planet should be running around nutters.The fact that they are not indicates that environment plays a minor role. Not exactly,they will have the defective genes.The way that these affect /and to what degree the organism is unknown presently.However as you point out in some the disorder will manifest itself,in others it wont.Regardless of environmental stress,the disease will not neccersarily manifest.But later generations it may. In a nutshell environmental stress,certainly will not help people with a disposition to mental illness,though equally certain it will not cause episodes of mental illness. An individual can be in the most horrendous of environments and be well adjusted.An individual could be in the happiest of environments and be a pathological fruitcake.Which to me at least indicates a genetic cause.

Ok i will only respond to the above,which is two sentences.The first part even to a layman is absurd.The second sentence is plain rubbish. People with a pre-dispositon for mental illness,will always manifest that disability under a stressfull environment.Did you read that,good because that statement i just typed is BS.Factual and statistical BS.If all your interested in is talking psycho babble,then your conversing with the wrong person.Statistically the majority of vulnerable phenotypes are going about their daily lives well adjusted individuals(even here in this forum )regardless of environment.Statistically mental illness or psychological disorders(not counting drug abuse etc)have been scientifically proven to be genetic. NO i wont post links!

Thanks both of you,I can understand now.I guess if i bring a subject up i should be cautious in my wording. Its only the way i view it,but i personally believe someone's post should be argued away with factual data.I dont think the majority of posters here have a motive or agenda,i may be wrong(i dont think many creationary scientists would find the interlectual stimuli here). I dont have fixed opinion,i like to research evidence myself.If i cannot comprehend the subject i dont discuss it. There are many subjects im interested in,and would enjoy debating the factual issues i have.So please realise my motive is not to rubbish a whole discipline,just make known actual fact. I can read or google for facts,my purpose here is to discuss topics,especially with those posters whom are so indoctrined(perhaps not the correct word)and take on face value a claim as fact,when in reality its a documented best guess assumption.And debated by many in the science community. I do not see it as us against them (creationist Vs science),regardless of an individuals stance.I see it as what are the facts,does it stand up to the scientific method.And when it doesnt I want to talk about it.