It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Avarus
reply to post by TrueTruth
I'm sorry, but belittling your opponent's view by accusing him of using runes and omens is an "elaborate argument", I'm not sure you understand what an elaborate argument is.
Also, There are MANY old theories and studies that are still used today. Just because Einstein's contribution to physics was in the early 1900's, many of his theories are still true today. Pythagoras of Samos (530 BC) contributed to mathematics and is still being taught in school today.
The point is, you can't dismiss it, just because it's old.
Originally posted by TrueTruth
How about I dismiss it because it's wrong? For example, it is archaeological fact that humans ate meat before we cold cook it.
Theories about what we 'should' eat based on the design of our teeth, intestines, etc., are purely speculative. They have no scientific merit. They're mere guesses.
Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by Rawhemp
I'm not going to read an entire book to rehash ideas bandied about on this thread. Instructing people to read entire books in a debate is just poor form. Source it - recapitulate the salient points in brief.
Originally posted by TrueTruth
For example, it is commonly observed that the spine, as a design, is maximally efficient for a 4 legged animal, not a 2 legged animal. Studying the design, it 'looks' like we were 'meant' to walk on 4 legs.
Originally posted by TrueTruth
Also consider that organs and body parts don't function in isolation. The behavior we call 'eating' is extremely complicated. We have many anatomical parts that go towards that single concept of function. Obsessing about one part is meaningless.
Originally posted by TrueTruth
If we look long enough at many of our anatomical features, we could conjure up many 'shoulds' that are 'implied' by design. We could create a list that shows how 'Feature X' is for 'Funciton Y', and using your method of proof, we could determine these parameters by watching other 'less evolved' (older forms) animals, and let the 'intended purpose' of things be revealed.
Originally posted by TrueTruth
The kind of logic you are using - and I really am not trying to tar your with a dirty brush - is used commonly by people who disapprove of homosexuality. They argue that our organs were designed with a clear function, and that we 'should' not deviate from that. Except, all over the animal kingdom, we see that the sex organs really aren't only for reproduction. They often seem to have functions related to simple pleasure, social bonding, and establishing dominance. Nature seems to love a multipurpose tool.
Originally posted by Rawhemp
For example, it is commonly observed that the spine, as a design, is maximally efficient for a 4 legged animal, not a 2 legged animal. Studying the design, it 'looks' like we were 'meant' to walk on 4 legs.
Source?
Originally posted by TrueTruth
Also consider that organs and body parts don't function in isolation. The behavior we call 'eating' is extremely complicated. We have many anatomical parts that go towards that single concept of function. Obsessing about one part is meaningless.
This has nothing to do with the article, i mean what are you even trying to say here? It never obsesses over one part... Try reading it before you make assumptions
Originally posted by TrueTruth
If we look long enough at many of our anatomical features, we could conjure up many 'shoulds' that are 'implied' by design. We could create a list that shows how 'Feature X' is for 'Funciton Y', and using your method of proof, we could determine these parameters by watching other 'less evolved' (older forms) animals, and let the 'intended purpose' of things be revealed.
Actually you can't Lets see you use this theory, at this point your making illogical claims about nothing.
Our sexual organs are designed for one purpose, they just happen to give pleasure because if they didn't no one would reproduce. Just because animals have found a way to exploit this along with humans doesn't mean that now they are meant for other functions as well
Originally posted by pepsi78
Milk alone is a 100% complete protein
Originally posted by Rawhemp
Originally posted by pepsi78
Milk alone is a 100% complete protein
Milk is just as bad as meat if not worse, casein is probably the most cancerous thing consumed by humans.
Watch the vid i posted acouple post above yours
[edit on 17-12-2009 by Rawhemp]
Campbell?
You're referring to the guy who said:
“Eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy.”
The same guy who serves on the advisory board for the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine(PCRM), an organization full of militant vegetarians with obvious ties with PETA.
Think this guy is biased?
Throughout the entirety of The China Study(the actual study), sugar consumption is hardly ever mentioned.
Also, Campbell jumps from 'Casein causes cancer' to 'All animal protein causes cancer.' Is that generalization really warranted?
Campbell spent nearly 20 pages discussing the auto-immune diseases caused by the consumption of cows milk, yet he never mentions the auto-immune diseases caused by wheat gluten.
He raved about Dr. Dean Ornish and his findings yet never once mentioned Dr. Weston Price's study of primitive people who relied heavily on animal-based food, nor did he mention George Mann's research on the Masai.
Thanks for the data, Mr. Campbell, now lets have objective, non-biased scientists analyze them.
Originally posted by Rawhemp
Eskimos, who daily consume 250 to 400 grams of proteins in fish, walrus, or whale meats and 2,200 mg of calcium from fish bone, have the highest incidence of osteoporosis of any population in the world.
And proof of the Eskimos' affliction with "thin bones" can be found in bodies that are centuries old. Two women, about 20 and 40 years old when they died, were buried in an ice flow in the Arctic more than 500 years ago. Recently their well-preserved frozen bodies were discovered and autopsied. The examination showed that both women had suffered from extensive atherosclerosis and osteoporosis.
Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by Rawhemp
... an organization full of militant vegetarians with obvious ties with PETA.
Think this guy is biased?
Why do you constantly ignore the fact that traditional Inuit consuming just as much, if not more meat were VERY healthy. The above may be true for westernized eskimos....not traditional.
The statistical significance of this finding is almost nonexistant and holds little relavence in the scientific community.......because you're talking about 2 bodies.
Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
You're referring to the guy who said:
“Eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy.”
Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
The same guy who serves on the advisory board for the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine(PCRM), an organization full of militant vegetarians with obvious ties with PETA.
Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
Think this guy is biased?
Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
Also, Campbell jumps from 'Casein causes cancer' to 'All animal protein causes cancer.' Is that generalization really warranted?
Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
Campbell spent nearly 20 pages discussing the auto-immune diseases caused by the consumption of cows milk, yet he never mentions the auto-immune diseases caused by wheat gluten.
Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
See, it really does help to analyze data, instead of blindly accepting supporting information.
Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
Why do you constantly ignore the fact that traditional Inuit consuming just as much, if not more meat were VERY healthy. The above may be true for westernized eskimos....not traditional.
Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
The statistical significance of this finding is almost nonexistant and holds little relavence in the scientific community.......because you're talking about 2 bodies.