Newtonian

 

Creationists are people who feel their very beliefs that they held true for a long time under attack by evolution. These are also people who are conscious of the fact that evolution theory negates the Genesis creation story.These are people who try to make aspects of their religious beliefs sound scientific in order to get equal time in classrooms simply to indoctrinate students. Consider any flaw in paleontology' date=' geology, evolutionary biology, etc. complete proof of their religion's versoin of creation.[/quote']

A question,Ive noticed particularly when discussing evolution .Why are people,who take issue and point out some absurdity,or better inconsistancy in paleon/geology/ ect are they labelled and dismissed as creationists.Surely we should adhere to the scientific method,on all subject matter.Now people can be wrong(lack of understanding)or they could be correct.Simply dismissing a valid problem within a science,with 'CREATIONIST' isnt logical or scientific.It demeans the forum.

Nobody here is saying that environment does not play a part in some pschological disorders,which has been observed for along time.Statistics point to a combination of hereditory and environmental factors.But this is hardly groundbreaking intellectual insight on your part.Its common knowledge!

In fact we can equally say with justification,regardless of environment some people develope psych/dis some dont.So your enviro/def on the whole is a flawed argument.One which is supplanted by genetics

Please,im not being impolite.Im here to be convinced,explain how autism is brought about by your environment deficiency.

With respect,it is you who has ascribed known genetic disorders (autism etc)as psychological disorders,and environmental deficiency as the causal agency.

Ramin,

Perhaps you can explain Down syndrome.And chromosome 21?

I see alot of people here have given you the opportunity to explain yourself.Without the usual ridicule that posts like yours merit.I would feel that you should be honoured, to be allowed to have the floor like this.And to answer good points others have put to you.Please explain to us mere mortals how environment deficiency attributes to causing the mentioned (our factual,but to you presumed genetic disorders)

If im correct and all your argument is founded on is reptiles in the egg.How environmental temperature and humidity alter the actual snakes development/sex ect.Perhaps if you ask Mokele nicely,he will explain this in more detail.

It isnt ignorance,i just dont think its that great.Sure climbing Everest is a real achievement and rightly applauded.But her achievement is only considered good because shes female and small.I would say wow! if Ellen had to row,but in reality her only endurance was isolated loneliness,and sleep deprivation(single parents with handicapped children all over the country know this very well,now thats achievement).Her skills as a sailor are no greater than others who race competetively.

My point is in the first 13 paragraphs of this report

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/sailing/4245147.stm

Im sorry we dont all agree with each other,i was only offering my opinion.

My post wasnt meant to cause alarm,i got the information by WoM.Having spent some time searching,i can now say Glider is correct.Only one individual is cremated,along with the coffin.

The only things that are removed,are metal objects ie:coffin handles,pins from operations etc.

Crematoriums have strict guidlines and are regulated.They even have to allow public access(obviously when not operating) the actual ovens are very clean.

So the remains you recieve are your loved ones.

Wow,i could almost pinch myself.Thousands try this every week,she must be some sailor fighting off all those other sailors.

Get real its about as competative as the round the world air balloon race.Were second place inevitably goes to Richard Branson,on account only two entered.

It could cause long term damage.

Two things: -

 

• You are over simplifying the case. Genes do influence some aspects of psychology' date=' and enviroment influences by a much more acute degree. You cannot ignore one in favour of the other.
  [*']Where did you get your degree?
  

Tiny dont waste your time with it,Genes influence the individuals period.

I think all he is harping on about is depression.We'll all need prozac by the time his finished.

Ramin let me enlighten you;you are stating that disorders such as Autism are due to Environmental defiency .BULLSHIT

Autism knows no racial, ethnic, or social boundaries,family income, lifestyle, and education do not affect the chance or occurrence of autism.There are actually 5 categories to the disorder .Which in this conversation i need not name.

Autism is caused by abnormality in the brain,this shows up on scans between autistic,non-autistic.Whilst presently nobody can pin down what triggers it,accumulated scientific evidence points to it being hereditory,genetic and medical(which i presume is your false assumption of environment..more later)

The main theory is that groups of defective genes inhibit the development of normal brain structure.Scientists are currently searching for these irregular segments in the genetic code of autistic persons.I wont go further into details because of the "fright syndrome" you speak of.

The 'environment difficiency'which you speak of is not valid.Because the only factors in environment that could contribute or lead to the disorder.Are either during pregnancy ingesting toxic substances(no real supporting evidence for this) which interfere with fetal development,viral infection.Or viral infection shortly after birth,phenylketonuria,TS,CRS etc.

Unless your clasifying viral infection as an environment defficiency,your completely seeking to mislead everyone with groundless claims.

Read please There is no evidence whatsoever for Autism being caused by neglect,lack of affection,lack of education in infancy,social interaction,cold,hunger,climate or continent of birth.

Please let me know if you disagree,i look forwrd to reading your rebuttal.

However this forum topic is about animal testing[/u'] not eating animals. We use them for testing and for recreation, among other things which I object to. These are the uses I was talking about.

I see now,i misinterpreted your post sorry.I can see the argument for not using them for recreation.

Why do you object to animal testing though?It is only done for our benefit,you dont want your mothers face burnt off when she is applying her makeup do you Jeff?

Well done Hellbender,the guilt trip does appeal to some who are genuinely embarrased,that our species controls the planet and everything on it.By definition of posession,you are correct animals are not ours.However as an animal ourselves(and predators) anything that we require as food is ours to take.I notice people seem to think they have the moral high ground when discussing this subject.However nobody minds a bunch of hyena's ripping a young gazelle to bits(which i guess is quite a painfull ordeal for the gazelle).

I fail to see humans on the whole using animals for whatever purpose we feel fit,or whenever we feel like it.Apart from food,health and work,we dont.Unless your advocating cannabilism

The first link makes no reference to whether the product was tested on animals' date=' although a company spokesman did state that it had be 'throughly tested'.

 

The second link made no reference to burns or injuries caused by hair products or to animal testing.

 

From searching myself i can find no evidence at all for your assertion that lack of animal testing has caused any women at al to be injuried by hair products.[/quote']

Lets not get carried away here.My point was highlighting that animal testing was neccersary,the consequences with the lack of said testing has led to harmfull health risks in humans.Unfortunately at the moment i cannot find a link for you on the net regarding the burn injuries in the UK by non-animal tested hair dyes.But it has been in the media here over the last year,maybe someone else here from the UK can varify by proxy.

 

heres a few links from 10 min search.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1162356/posts

http://www.keratin.com/ar/ar038.shtml#01

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1934496.stm

 

In my opinion the toxicity of products must be tested on animals,to ensure the health of humans.The benefits far outway ethics.

Did you know P&G killed 48 monkeys testing a well known nasal decongestant.Imagine humans dying because they didnt,and the public outcry "why was it not tested on animals first".

A good link Swansont,seems strange how some can believe a GF to account for the rapid laydown of sediment.

Although i scanned the site,i still couldnt find a solid reason why an upright tree in situe could be fossilised through different strata though

Therefore creationists should be secured in mental health hospitals.

Along with those crazies who believe worms turn into Humans,given a few millenia.

Possibly many cases of HCV out there.All though there is no vaccine,there are drugs which combat it,with positive results.

Aparently a large proportion of liver transplants are caused by HCV,though the exact figures i dont know.

I wouldnt worry though,personal hygeine reduces the risk of infection to minute levels.Your not exactly going to share someones toothbrush are you!

Ive been to an abatoir,and believe me THEY know they aint going in to get milked.

How about if anyone who wants to criticise evolution has to pass an exam to see how well they understand it. If they fail' date=' then they get tied up with iron chains and thrown into the ocean.

 

Just to be fair, the same can be done for anyone who wants to criticise evolution.

 

Golly gosh; I wonder who'll last longer?[/quote']

Completely agree,and that goes for peeps harping on about evolution.

woooah there Hellbender.

I was referring to a false representation of historical fact.Not evolution and nazi's.

As for post 189 why shouldnt schools teach RE as well as evolution.Or are you saying that in the US they actually teach creationist science(a literal bible interpretation)

Ive recently heard that people are cremated in batches.I had believed that people were burnt individually,it now seems that when the furnace is cooled.The remaing ashes are gathered and urns filled with what could be up to six peoples remains.Seems chances of taking your grandad home now is not so good.

Oh sorry i see now.In that case you may want to check the fact that evolution was made part of the school curriculum in US in the late 1920's.It was accepted as the religion of Humanism.

That was the only point i was making regarding Hellbenders bias assumption of history.

Though i appreciate it was the prevailing opinion of nazi germany at the time.

edit Hardly creationist propoganda on my part

Its extremely rare to be infected having sex,its not specifically a STD.regarding toothbrushes,razors it will only be present if the infected person has passed blood onto the items.It does not lay dormant on toilet seats or any other items outside the body,longer than two-three days.As a bloodborne infection HCV occurs more in drug users and needle shareing.

I think its crap.And serves only to entertain the gullible.

in other words, no references.

I dont understand,you have fingers and a brain.The fact i stated isnt that difficult to varify.Its your history try a google and dont be so lazy.

In yet other words' date=' Useless creationist drivel, as always.

 

Why do you even bother trying? Creationists are incapable of reason, and haven't come up with any legitimate points against evolution in almost 150 years of trying.[/quote']

I fail to understand your reason to TROLL ,please tell me how pointing out a mistake to another poster.Qualifies attacking me as some creationist.Its childish and without foundation.

This appears a prevalent opinion on anyone pointing out someones errors,in their assumptions of religious or evolutionary fact.