Maurice Said:

Do we have a lead poisoning lawsuit... It's looooong.?

We Answered:

Dear "Is this worth pursuing?"
ABSOLUTELY!!! I am not a lawyer, but I am an author and researcher on the topic of lead exposure.
Become knowledgeable yourself ASAP - read: "LEAD BABIES, how HEAVY METALS are causing our children’s autism, ADHD, learning disabilities, low IQ and behavior problems" and then contact a lawyer who specializes in lead lawsuits. If need help finding one, email me ( scottingham@dccnet.com) or if you have questions about anything related to the exposure or damage. Your son was under 2 years of age - that is critical. I hope you take advantage of the extensive research I have done, and the easy to read book I wrote. You may also want to look into suing the paint manufacturer, as well as the landlord who did not disclose that there was such a risk in your apartment. Let me know how it goes!
Dr. Sandra Cottingham

Josephine Said:

a test for the P&S section .....warning (long to read)?

We Answered:

A test for the P&S section .....warning (long to read)?
this test is to show the comprehension intelligence of this section.

Right. I can say this : I failed.
Not through lack of comprehension, but due to lack of interest.

Answers :
1. What do you think these two birds are singing to each other?
Bird stuff - they're birds.
2. Which magic instrument would you have? A tuba.
what would it do? Expand into a nice size hut, so I could go to sleep after reading this novel.

Craig Said:

I hear “I don’t believe in Evolution because I don’t understand it” a LOT on Y!A. Question: Have you TRIED to?

We Answered:

"Using your own willful ignorance as your REASON behind not ‘believing’ a scientific reality goes against the whole scientific method…"

Actually, in many areas the "theory" of evolution does not adhere to the scientific method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_…

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Gathering up fossils that have complex DNA codes and "reasoning" that the information contained in those fossils arose by chance goes against everything we can observe in today's world. Information that serves a purpose, that is linked with other information to serve a larger purpose, that is far more complex than the codes used to run the Yahoo Answers site, never comes about by chance.

An archaeologist finds a triangular piece of flint or obsidian with regular markings on it and "reasons" - "This must be an arrowhead that a primitive human being used for hunting purposes".

They can't know for sure. It's remotely possible that a piece of flint was in a fast running stream bed and that over time it eroded into what looks like an arrowhead with chisel marks on it. But that isn't the first conclusion the archaeologist would support.

So why the difference in applying reason to interpreting current evidence in regards to what happened in the past to create it?

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=arti…

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.

A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

"And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.