Newtonian

uhm..Im not sure i want to pass on my knowledge.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/30/hair.color/ http://www.hallgold.com/toxic_chemicals_in_cosmetics.html thats a quick 2 sec google,i will try to get some Uk info

uhm.I think this thread is all over the place here.IMO of course animal testing is right. Anyone who has got shampoo in their eyes,knows the bunny suffering was not in vain. Interestingly some hair dyes are no longer tested on animals, especially here in the UK.Which has led to some horrific injuries to women. Animals are not tested on for some sick pleasure,they are in alot of cases neccersary.

As an American you dont seem to know your history,or are choosing to ignore it. All schools taught creation(not specifically 6,000year old earth creationist dogma). In order to gain a foothold in the school system to teach evolution,it was proposed as a RELIGION. As to your inference, yes they seem to many crazy people in america,however a sweeping statement infering they are all crazy religious people is a no no.

Sorry for interrupting,but i feel the twin paradox will always appear to me invalid.Because the twin accelerating at C always stops and accelerates back.Which gives us a frame of ref for each simultaneous.I think laws of physics would be violated. As an example i offer this. The universe is approx 14.5 billion years old,so if we had a telescope capable of allowing us to see say 14.49 by then we must calculate the light we see has taken 14.49by to reach us.Therefore we assume a correct age,however IF a person travelled at LS from secs after the big bang upon reaching earth his time frame would be a younger universe.Which is invalid because then we would say depending on ones Frame of reference the universe has no calcuble age. A thought ,from our own frame of reference we acknowledge we are not at the edges of the expanding universe,and whichever direction we care to view,the universe expands before us.So how can we give a definitive age for an infinite universe. I presume i may not have this correct,but unless we can pinpoint our exact location in space time,our physics will always fail when calculating such.Im comfortable it being our best guess but not our arrogant affirmation. Please help me out here if im wrong.

Rather the problems with QM are incompatible with Einsteins predictable universe.

Having read both links,the only bias i found was from the evolutionist paper.Putting aside the authors motive, the first link only highlighted the finds relevence regarding the time line of mammals and dinosaurs.The second was clearly a ranting about creationism,which when discussing the finds and the implications of such.Failed to offer anything constructive regarding the fossils.As Mokle added his own bias ranting,i would be more inclined to find the fossils a great discovery.Anything that helps our understanding of the past scientifically benefits the future.