100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
If she lied, then it's libel. Your freedom of speech does not allow you to defame another person or institution.
Nothing to see here, move along. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Mothers Day
|
|
Happy mother's day to all the mother's out there and especially Ruth.   Good question, can we ever really know anyone? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
kicking down the doors ...
|
|
Do you? When something ain't right ...do you got the guts to stand for what is right when religion is wrong ... As a Christian, I can't think of any instance where Christianity would be wrong and I would be right. Could you give me an example? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Mothers Day
|
|
Happy mother's day to all the mother's out there and especially Ruth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guys, let's take a poll. How many of you want to remember breast feeding from you mother?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Fri 05/11/12 10:31 PM
|
|
Genesis 2:16-17 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. God commanded Adam. I have no doubt that at that point, Adam and Eve's entire view of morality was "obey God". They didn't have to think that they were naked or any other aspect of interpersonal morality. Their only concern in the world was to obey God. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
What is your ringtone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Skinny Kitty
|
|
What kind of food are you feeding him? Most cat foods are very high in fillers, which are indigestible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Cure for Cancer?
|
 Funny how you laughed at nutrition and then supported nutrition... No, I was laughing at Royal Rife, Hoxsey Therapy and Gerson Therapy. Quackery at it's finest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Cure for Cancer?
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Thu 05/10/12 09:06 AM
|
|
Low-Carbohydrate, High-Protein Diets May Reduce Both Tumor Growth Rates and Cancer Risk When asked to speculate on the biological mechanism, Krystal said that tumor cells, unlike normal cells, need significantly more glucose to grow and thrive. Restricting carbohydrate intake can significantly limit blood glucose and insulin, a hormone that has been shown in many independent studies to promote tumor growth in both humans and mice. Furthermore, a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet has the potential to both boost the ability of the immune system to kill cancer cells and prevent obesity, which leads to chronic inflammation and cancer. Can a High-Fat Diet Beat Cancer? What sounds like yet another version of the Atkins craze is actually based on scientific evidence that dates back more than 80 years. In 1924, the German Nobel laureate Otto Warburg first published his observations of a common feature he saw in fast-growing tumors: unlike healthy cells, which generate energy by metabolizing sugar in their mitochondria, cancer cells appeared to fuel themselves exclusively through glycolysis, a less-efficient means of creating energy through the fermentation of sugar in the cytoplasm. Warburg believed that this metabolic switch was the primary cause of cancer, a theory that he strove, unsuccessfully, to establish until his death in 1970. Breast Cancer Prevention - Part Time Low Carb Diet Better Than Standard Full Time Diets Women who go on a low carb diet just two days per week have a lower risk of developing breast cancer compared to those who follow a standard calorie-restricted diet every day of the week, in order to lose weight and lower their insulin blood levels. Long-term high blood insulin levels are known to raise cancer risk. These findings were presented by scientists from Genesis Prevention Center at University Hospital in South Manchester, England, at the 2011 CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Cure for Cancer?
|
|
Cancer is most likely caused by damaged DNA. A single cell that has had it's DNA damaged by a free radical or through some other event can't properly reproduce. Every time it tries to reproduce, it produces a flawed cell that quickly dies out. Eventually this "seed" cell produces a viable cell, which is cancer. Eliminating the cancer cells won't prevent the seed cell from producing more cancer cells in the future. Luckily, cancer has a weakness. Cancer cells can only live off of glucose for energy. Cancer cannot grow without enough glucose. So a low carb diet effectively starves the cancer cells, preventing them from growing. This is why anthropologists find no evidence of cancer before the advent of farming. Egyptians were riddled with cancer, but their ancestors were cancer free. It's the high carb, starchy diets that allow cancers to grow. Instead of worrying about finding a cure for cancer (which probably doesn't exist), just eat a low carb diet and starve the cancer into submission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Cure for Cancer?
|
|
Peter & Volant have it right! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
BEST BOOK IN THE WORLD
|
|
It's raining really bad here, now. So, I'm reading the best vampire book from Anne Rice. What's your favorite book of all time and why? Which one is the best? I don't have a favorite book, that would be like picking a favorite child. As for Vampire books, Salem's Lot was really good. The best I've ever read, but I haven't read too many. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Metalwing, there is no "proof." Just admit it. Its a "theory." All of your claims that no one "understands" how evolution works appears to be a distraction. Evolution is still a theory. If there was proof, then it would be called a fact. /sigh... In science, a theory is almost as good as fact (which would be called a law). It means that there is a hypothesis that is supported by a lot of evidence. The problem isn't that there is no proof for the theory of evolution, the problem is that the evidence for the theory of evolution equally supports Creationism. Where evolution sees ancestor species, Creationism sees similar species that died out in the flood or for some other reason. There is no conclusive proof that evolution happened, unless you eliminate the possibility of Creationism first. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Babies born to mothers who smoked had roughly 20% to 30% higher odds of having shortened or missing arms and legs, cleft lips and cleft palates, and abnormally shaped heads or faces compared to babies born to nonsmoking mothers." http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20110711/smoking-in-pregnancy-raises-birth-defect-risk The operative word is higher. The average chance of a birth defect is 4.4%. If the chance is 30% higher, that means the chance of certain defects is 5.72%. The chances of a sibling-sibling child having birth defects is 20-36%. 4-7x more common than from smoking and they are cumulative through generations. thats alot of law based upon 'ifs' still nothing that can LEGALLY deny the right of a sibling to marry a sibling,, because such pregnancy risks are not used to restrict any other group AND Because marriage does not prevent of ensure pregnancy,,,,, better we start accepting' defects' as something else and 'defective' children as the same as anyone else,,,than to start discriminating against adults because we are trying to prevent their births,,,, You don't understand the statistics that you posted. The chances of a sibling-sibling relationship resulting in a terrible deformity or death is much high than for smokers or any other risk group. There is also the problem of cumulative defects. There are plenty of good reasons to make sibling-sibling marriages illegal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-36 percent is quite a spread for TWO Different outcomes (die OR disability),, doesnt really refute anything I said as I said, there is a 50 percent chance dwarfs will have dwarf children,,,and they are not stopped from marrying there is a 25 percent HIGHER Risk of defect (the average overall is 3 percent) for mothers who smoke there are all types of scenarios which pose an INCREASED risk for defect, but none of those people are stopped from MARRYING because the law has generally not been able to TIE either a responsibility or obligation to HAVE children just because one has gotten married nor does not being married stop people from having children so children are a SEPERATE issue to marital law,, meaning there is no LEGAL reason to use the potential for defect in children as a basis for denying the 'right' to marriage,,, The major difference is this: Accumulation of defective genes. Two dwarfs who marry will produce dwarf children 50% of the time. And if their children marry a dwarf, they will also produce dwarf children 50% of the time. But that is the limit of the damage. The chances of a smoking mother having a child with certain defects is about 2x higher than normal or around 6-8%. Not 25% as you asserted and not all defects. But if siblings produce children and then those children produce children, each generation multiples the defects and the defects become worse with each generation. Until you end up with humans who are barely more functional than animals.   Above are pictures of one of these unions. Five of their 19 children are quadrupeds. They have to walk on their hands and feet. They are all also severely mentally retarded. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I need MsHarmony to tell the police in Toledo how they are supposed to act. My next door neighbor is a black, male, teen drug dealer, who is wanted for shooting at a passing car, he walks around with a hoodie on and still does drug deals from his grandmas house and I can't get the police to arrest him, much less shoot him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why should just unrelated lovers suffer let the siblings and cousins marry too,,,why not??? First cousins should legally be able to marry and are in most states. Siblings have an unacceptably high chance of producing children with birth defects. there is no other category of citizen who is stopped from marrying because of a 'high' chance of producing 'defective' children its their body and their choice and it shouldnt be used to deny them their 'right' to marry whom they love (legally arguing the case, that is,,,) Don't quit your day job. I take that as no legal rebuttal. there is a similarly higher risk for 'defect' in children of moms who smoke,, but we dont stop them from marrying there is a similarly higher risk for 'defect' in childrein of dwarfs also have a higher risk for 'defective' children, but are not stopped from marrying so if we arent using a gauge of how likely potential children may be 'defective' (a term I despise, but use in context of this discussion) for other groups,,, what is the LEGAL Reason we can use it for siblings? A 1994 study found a mean excess mortality with inbreeding among first cousins of 4.4%. Children of parent-child or sibling-sibling unions are at increased risk compared to cousin-cousin unions. Studies suggest that 20-36% of these children will die or have major disability due to the inbreeding Unfortunately (for you), the facts show that you are clearly wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why should just unrelated lovers suffer let the siblings and cousins marry too,,,why not??? First cousins should legally be able to marry and are in most states. Siblings have an unacceptably high chance of producing children with birth defects. there is no other category of citizen who is stopped from marrying because of a 'high' chance of producing 'defective' children its their body and their choice and it shouldnt be used to deny them their 'right' to marry whom they love (legally arguing the case, that is,,,) Don't quit your day job. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
