Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ohio biology curriculum - petition
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 55 (89186)
02-28-2004 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Loudmouth
02-27-2004 3:30 PM


Re: Just in Case You Wanted to Know
Loudmouth,
Your query,
Did you mean to insert a negative qualifier in there somewhere? Or do you actually mean that when evolutionists make predictions that actually bear out they tend to reject them? Not getting this part.
is "No." Pauling actually predicted from evolutionary theory that humans ought to require several to a dozen or more grams of vitamin C per day, in order to experience optimal health. The theory interpreted the widespread inability of humans to synthesize vitamin C from an ancestral diet that contained 2-20 grams per day, which made the genes that caused production of the metabolite counter-productive. So, ancestral mutants who quit synthesizing vit C were more fit, and drove the vit C synthesizers out of the population. A more recent diet shift, to one that contained little vitamin C, has now made that mutant selectively disadvantageous, but no reverse mutation has occurred, so humans now suffer because of a vitamin C deficiency. Pauling showed that the "cave-man" diet of humans had much more vitamin C than contemporary diets, comparable to the levels of vitamin C synthesized by those animals that still produced their own.
Thousands of clinical studies show that increasing doses of supplemental vitamin C, especially to levels comparable to those of the synthesizers, and to the "cave-man" diet levels, increase health levels. More human ailments have shown improvement with vitamin C supplementation than with any other medicinal or supplemental treatment. Pauling indicated that our heavy investment in medical care is largely a response to vitamin C deficiency.
It's a great evolutionary story. The practical consequences are immeasurable. But evolutionists will explain it all away, to toe the party line that taking supplemental vitamin C only produces expensive urine. They do this because of the heavy institutional pressure to suppress the evidence on C, apparently, according to Pauling, because of the tremendous economic changes that would take place in the medical profession if the truth about vitamin C were known. Check up on Matthias Rath's and Pauling's studies on vitamin C and cardiovascular disease, as a particularly compelling example. Imagine how much less we would spend on medicine, if there were no cardiovascular disease. Then think about this simple fact: there is no such thing as cardiovascular disease in any animal that produces it's own vitamin C. It is only found in animals that lack the ability to make vitamin C, and only in those populations (caged, in captivity mostly) that are deprived of vitamin C, getting levels below what they would get in their native habitat. But, you'll find this information suppressed, criticized, rejected by evolutionists, for various reasons, even though it is demonstrably true, biochemically sound in its explanation, harmless in application. All because evolutionists do not adhere to sound scientific methodology, but form their opinions on the basis of emotionally appealing arguments, rationalization. They, with a few exceptions, have no idea really about what science is or how it works. They define science as what evolutionists do to defend evolutionary thinking. Alas for evolutionists, the same reasoning that makes Pauling's data on vitamin c supportative of evolution, makes other data unsupportative. So, they have to reject the nearly compelling vitamin C data, because to accept it would be to accept true scientific thinking, which, of course (this is what true science always does) would eventually show how evolutionary thinking was wrong.
They aren't scientists. They don't really believe in or want truth, or science. They believe in evolution, and will sacrifice both science and truth at that altar.
But, any parent stupid enough to send their children to a public school, deserves such teachers.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Loudmouth, posted 02-27-2004 3:30 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 02-28-2004 1:36 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 47 of 55 (89192)
02-28-2004 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-28-2004 1:14 AM


So, they have to reject the nearly compelling vitamin C data, because to accept it would be to accept true scientific thinking, which, of course (this is what true science always does) would eventually show how evolutionary thinking was wrong.
Didn't you say that Pauling came up with the vitamin C hypothesis because of evolution? "Pauling predicted from evolutionary theory", you said.
If what you say is true that would tend to support evolutionary theory, wouldn't it? As in, a tested prediction?
And anyway, it sounds like all you're saying is "eat your fruits and vegtables." Not exactly ground-breaking, controversial science in my book. In fact I think I heard Dr. Drew tell people that last night on "Loveline."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-28-2004 1:14 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-28-2004 3:24 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 55 (89207)
02-28-2004 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by crashfrog
02-28-2004 1:36 AM


Crash,
you ask,
If what you say is true that would tend to support evolutionary theory, wouldn't it? As in, a tested prediction?
Right on. Pauling's report is a substantial validation of evolutionary theory, of both it's truth and it's usefulness. Just like the Bible Codes are a substantial validation of creation thinking, both truth and usefulness. But, revealingly, the evolutionists ignore Pauling's findings, and the creationists ignore Witztum's ELS's.
That's why I prefer Evolition, which combines the best of both theories.
And eating fruits and veggies in sufficient quantities and qualities is virtually impossible in modern life, to get enough C.
Good health.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 02-28-2004 1:36 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 02-28-2004 7:21 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 55 (89228)
02-28-2004 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-28-2004 3:24 AM


And eating fruits and veggies in sufficient quantities and qualities is virtually impossible in modern life, to get enough C.
How so? Surely modern man has greater opportunity to eat than primitive man? You're telling me that a group of people generally starving more than not still could manage to eat more oranges than me?
I don't get it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-28-2004 3:24 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-29-2004 8:50 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 50 of 55 (89260)
02-28-2004 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by MrHambre
02-17-2004 6:42 PM


bSM
I'll bet it is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by MrHambre, posted 02-17-2004 6:42 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 51 of 55 (89261)
02-28-2004 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by MrHambre
02-17-2004 8:14 PM


THis "athourity" may not work on my /yours or the next generations' but it did on my parents. A philsopher of science simply stated on the phone (about me in my case) and my parents believed the statement. It was like that. I thought it a joke that he wanted to talk to them. But this joke has become more than it was and I KNOW that my parents will die believing what said by said philosopher of science is true EVEN IF i win a noble and END UP highly celebrated (unlikely but still not impossible). As the issue of bothe evolution and creation are cross generational , IT FIGURES!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by MrHambre, posted 02-17-2004 8:14 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 55 (89389)
02-29-2004 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by crashfrog
02-28-2004 7:21 AM


Crash,
You wonder, in response to my comment,
(Me) And eating fruits and veggies in sufficient quantities and qualities is virtually impossible in modern life, to get enough C.
(Then you) How so? Surely modern man has greater opportunity to eat than primitive man? You're telling me that a group of people generally starving more than not still could manage to eat more oranges than me?
The best source of vitamin C is fresh, dark green leaves, which are typical "starvation" diet, but high in protein and low in calories. Also fresh, raw fruits and veggies, and raw meat have a fair level. Yes, if you eat sufficient dandelion leaves and other weeds, or have a garden with Kale, Broccolli, etc, where you eat your uncooked meals, and yes, if you eat raw meat while it is still warm. Oranges? Well, try getting 3000 calories a day from oranges. If you did this, you would be protein starved, but would get sufficient vitamin C. Grains and cooking are the big dietary changes that lower vitamin C in the diet. Leave those two out, and you might be okay.
But there is this. Vitamin C requirements go up with stress and exposure to new pathogens, to which there must be an immune response. Thus, modern men need a lot more vitamin C to cope with contact with strangers, sources of both stress and infection.
Try it, you'll like it.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 02-28-2004 7:21 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 53 of 55 (89507)
03-01-2004 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-27-2004 3:12 PM


Re: Just in Case You Wanted to Know
quote:
Starting with rejection of the idea that "discovering" "the best explanation" for observations is "good science." That's really rationalization. Science is all about making surprizing predictions, and developing ideas so that they are so plausible, we can bet our life on them.
Science is the method of discovering the best explanation for an observation and it is often a very surprising explanation. That you consider this bad "science" is telling. You advocate blind acceptance of assertions without any explanatory power i.e. religious ignorance and dogma. Your sole support is to claim anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and fails to see your genius. But don't worry Stephen, there are good drugs to ameliorate the effects of your dillusions of grandeur...take some.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-27-2004 3:12 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-01-2004 3:51 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 55 (89512)
03-01-2004 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Mammuthus
03-01-2004 3:25 AM


Re: Just in Case You Wanted to Know
M.
You advocate blind acceptance of assertions without any explanatory power i.e. religious ignorance and dogma.
Only for the sake of testing. If I ignored such ideas, I'd be ignorant. And to assert that dogma is wrong is dogmatic.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Mammuthus, posted 03-01-2004 3:25 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Mammuthus, posted 03-01-2004 5:13 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 55 of 55 (89517)
03-01-2004 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-01-2004 3:51 AM


Re: Just in Case You Wanted to Know
quote:
Only for the sake of testing. If I ignored such ideas, I'd be ignorant. And to assert that dogma is wrong is dogmatic.
It is becoming very clear that you are completely without the capacity for reason, have absolutely no integrity, are a complete hypocrite, and are an extremely overbloated self important crank.
When asked to provide testable hypotheses your claim is that is just being dogmatic
When asked to demonstrate how your hypothesis are falsifiable or can even distinguish among any other make believe hypotheses, you either accuse the person asking of being stupid, or claim your self evident authority is good enough.
When you do actually cite scientific research, you cherry pick the results you like, and discard negative results and even the caution of the authors who performed the study. You claim that because the study was done at all, it is evidence for your position regardless of the outcome. This was your modus operandi throughout your prayer study evidence debacle. In addition, what you claim is supported is not even being tested by the studies in question i.e. prayer effects on medical condition that you claim has something to do with testing for the existence of demons.
You have taken a concept like H-D, and decided to define it any way you wish shifting from one post to another to cover you ass which is usually handed to you by others on this board. You then claim it is superior to M-N without ever showing how. Even better, when claiming there are scientists who support your claim, you cite a guy you cannot remember in Kansas who may be dead, you don't know where he was, may have been a physicists..could have been the janitor at a McDonalds.. but who clearly supported your claims about science. When questioned you got pissy and claimed it is for us (Opus1 more specifically) to find out who you talked to since you cannot remember it yourself.
Very amusingly, you have cited in some posts or been interested in studies of evolution which were performed using MN...science is great if you like the result, wrong if you don't...LOL!
You belly ache about being insulted yet you continuously insult people in your posts.
Your hypocrisy is as boundless as your capacity to comprehend science is limited.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-01-2004 3:51 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024