0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Global Warming is another Lie which is propagated by scientists.THERE IS NO PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING.FALSE PROPAGANDA MACHINE THATS WHAT SCIENCE STANDS FOR>
Assume that the global warming is happening. Q.Is it not possible that Global Warming is part of Natural Cycle?A.Yes.Q.If Natural Cycle is a possibility then what makes you think that this "increase" is not natural but man made?Q.Uncertain and you are claiming scientificly that Progress is the cause of Global Warming?A.Sorry.Q.If the Global Warming is Natural then can how can one stop it?A.I dont think it can be stopped.Q.If it can not stopped then why are you raising the hue and cry?A.SO THAT OTHERS CAN HELP US>I offer a simple solution : Migrate to my country.And stop crying.
If a fact is accepted by majority does it become a truth?
There was an interesting experiment in psychology :A women never felt the pain or fear.For her jumping from a cliff was a ordinary as walking on the streets. Even the defintions of pain and pleasure can be relative...This is becuase Pleasure is also a chemical state mostly found during Sex. Sometimes dreams can trigger pleasure.
Quote from: DoctorBeaver on 06/10/2007 21:45:31I thank you, takes a bow, soaks up the adulation...still would have been nice to contribute though, but i fear my responce would not have lasted too long.
Would I be correct in assuming that the second word of your 2-word reply would have been "off"?
And that is supposed to prove what?
What that says to me, as a psychologist, is that the part of her brain that registers fear was not working. That may be the result of brain damage or faulty genes. How does that relate to a "war on science" or dreams bringing pleasure?
And in what way is the example you gave an experiment? What did the experiment involve? What was their methodology? Who conducted it? Where? When? What hypothesis were they trying to prove? Did they succeed?
Was it the researchers who stopped her brain registering fear? I can't believe that to be the case as it would fly in the face of every ethic known to research.
And as for the link in your subsequent post, can you explain the relevance to this thread of a church objecting to a gay funeral?
QuoteAnd that is supposed to prove what? From current evolutionary point of view nothing.:-))Thats what the replication theory says.There is no purpose which can be known from the troll of species.Anways the thread tries to differentiate between religion and science. Homosexuality which is for pleasure is opposed by Religion and Modern governments are finding it hard to believe the science. There are no new findings but only theories. Science is appearing to become like religion.=======================================
QuoteWhat that says to me, as a psychologist, is that the part of her brain that registers fear was not working. That may be the result of brain damage or faulty genes. How does that relate to a "war on science" or dreams bringing pleasure?Indeed fear is a chemical state as well. But I dont think one learn to induce courage... the brain has high plasticity... only a Natural process can remove fear or produce fear in a sustainable way.Same applies to pleasure..==================================
QuoteAnd in what way is the example you gave an experiment? What did the experiment involve? What was their methodology? Who conducted it? Where? When? What hypothesis were they trying to prove? Did they succeed?This experiment was performed in US by renowned neurologists.The purpose was to demonstrate plasticity of brain. But they found a contradiction. This women managed to develop courage without any external means.================================QuoteWas it the researchers who stopped her brain registering fear? I can't believe that to be the case as it would fly in the face of every ethic known to research.No researchers were able to recreate in other beings.It was a natural state .. and in principle brain has tremendous amount of plasticity... If left brain stops functioning the right brain learns the functions of left.======================================
QuoteAnd as for the link in your subsequent post, can you explain the relevance to this thread of a church objecting to a gay funeral?We see a clear case of violation of human rights.The gay died with a desire to promote gayism ... but the relgious people did not accept the funeral.=====================================
We need to collect more evidence in favour of Evolution towards sustainable pleasure.The latest which apparently being asked in the evolutionary circle is:Why different rates of evolution?Why it took so much time to evolve?Both questions are not supported by evidence.
There is plenty of evidence for evolution. Micro-evolution has been observed in laboratory conditions. However, I have not yet seen 1 single shred of evidence of evolution towards sustainable pleasure. In fact, I would say the opposite is the case. If evolution is driven by the need for sustainable pleasure, how do you explain prey animals? Do you think that living in constant fear of being eaten is a step towards sustainable pleasure?
DIfferent rates of evolution? Simple. If the niche an organism fills disappears then the organism will need to evolve rapidly or it will become extinct. If the organism is comfortable in its environment, has plenty of food etc, then there is no need for urgent evolution. Plus, of course, evolution is a generational thing. The faster an organism reproduces, the more chance there is for rapid evolution.
So, who is it that is asking these questions? I read a lot of science magazines, I visit a lot of science websites, I talk to a lot of very knowledgeable scientists, and I've not heard those questions asked overly much.
You throw statements around without any proof to back them up. You introduce topics that have no relevance to what you originally asserted and, when questioned, dodge the issue by introducing more irrelevancies. Please provide substantiation for your assertions or stop making them. Or, if as I suspect, there is no substantiation and you have merely dreamed up this theory, at least have the courtesy to present it in a logical manner, laying out your arguments in a sensible way, so that we can debate it in an appropriate way. If you cannot do this, then I suggest you take your theories elsewhere.
Professor Richard Dawkins, a senior British evolutionary scientist and outspoken atheist, drew fire on Monday for saying that Jews ?more or less monopolize American foreign policy.? Religious Jews are a small group, Dawkins said, but are ?fantastically successful? in lobbying the US government. Dawkins, who is currently in the US in an attempt to promote atheism and fight religious influence, expressed hope that atheists would be similarly successful in determining government policy.
DOnt value this thread and you persih.
Do you think that the intelligent people are not playing politics?They are stupid and I dont care for his approval.
...instead of fostering a climate of discovery and innovation, the Bush administration has declared war on science. The record is breathtaking: banning the most promising kinds of stem cell research, allowing political appointees to censor studies on climate change, muzzling global warming experts like Dr. James Hansen, overruling doctors and the FDA on emergency contraception, suppressing and manipulating data on mercury pollution, even delaying one report which found that 8 percent of women between 16 and 49 years of age have mercury levels in their blood that could harm future children, denying the risks of toxins like asbestos in the air after the 9/11 attacks, overruling scientists who sought to protect animals under the Endangered Species Act, eliminating scientific committees at the Department of Health and Human Services that did not parrot the politically accepted ideology -- or packing those committees with industry insiders, altering scientific tests on the lead content of children's lunch boxes -- and appointing a lead industry consultant to a key panel formed by the Centers for Disease Control, barring a USDA researcher from publishing or even discussing his work on antibiotic resistant bacteria, censoring government websites on breast cancer research, contraception, climate change, and so much else.
Can everyone please note how well i have been to steer clear of this and other "interesting" topics. I think i deserve a round of applause.