Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Think about our food and the problem of diabetes. You can't get diabetes unless you eat refined foods.
That's not even slightly true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibsonplayer
If you eat raw honey (3 times sweeter than sugar) - you will not get diabetes. You can eat it all day long and it wont give you diabetes.
I don't think that's ever been tested. And either way, nutritionally, that would be an awful diet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibsonplayer
The reason it doesn't it that it contains all the necessary nutrients needed to metabolize it correctly just like the rest of natural organic food.
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibsonplayer
Now think about that. If we evolved then it means we must have evolved to handle ALL foods because none of them in a natural state will give us diabetes.
Well, what do you know, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Current thinking is that modern humans arose about 150,000 years ago. While this date could be pushed farther back, it is very unlikely that it would be pushed back to a million years.
But of course, we didn't arise without predecessors, so our evolutionary heritage, like the heritage of every other living individual of every other extant species, goes back about 3 billion years.
My CURRENT THINKING is NOT that modern humans arose 150,000 years ago. I don't believe that man goes back 3 billion years.
Why thank you, Captain Obvious. How about applying your amazing logical powers to badland's question of the geographical occurrence of "lack of lactase"?
Here's another food-related question, in fact one of the better ones: Why did the Creator provide a gene that would keep us from getting scurvy - only to break it? The gene sequence that allows pretty much every other mammal to generate its own Vitamin C is present in the DNA of dry-nosed primates, including us, but it's not working. The Creator decided to pre-install scurvy? In a bevy of monkeys and apes, and always by breaking a specific gene in the exact same way? Any chance of a logical answer to that one?
If you want to go talk macro evolution go talk to someone else, that is baby talk to me.
There is far more than Vitamin C that we have to get externally including all the essential amino acids which lends weight to my original post that we were created with the intent to eat animals for food.
I do not think you are correct on the first point. Certainly does not explain why it runs in families or agrees with what I have heard from doctos.
I know what lactose intolerance is, having developed it in my early 60s but your claim that food is perfect does not explain why it is perfect only for those who originated from one region on the planet and not the rest.
How much selenium is in the soil where you live? Do you realize how important your environment or location plays a role in your health?
Since I have diabetes I've done my research, but I may have missed something....Can you link me to a scientific study that backs up your claim?
There is no direct study. It is conclusions based on datasets derived from multiple studies. Do you have a scientific study that shows that abstinence from refined foods can still lead to diabetes?
There is no direct study. It is conclusions based on datasets derived from multiple studies. Do you have a scientific study that shows that abstinence from refined foods can still lead to diabetes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibsonplayer
Completely true. Do you have a study that denies this?
So you have no study at all that supports your claim, but you demand that someone else provide a study to prove the negative of your claim? One rule for you and one for everyone else, is it?
Perhaps a little philosophy 101 lesson related to the burden of proof would be beneficial here. The claim was yours, it is up to you to substantiate it, not for others to prove the negative of it.
If you want to go talk macro evolution go talk to someone else, that is baby talk to me.
There is far more than Vitamin C that we have to get externally including all the essential amino acids which lends weight to my original post that we were created with the intent to eat animals for food.
Except that wasn't in your original post at all. You OP didn't say a word about animals.
Pardon my saying so, but for someone who prides themselves on having a superbly logical mind, you're not doing a very good job of making a logical argument for whatever it is you're trying to say. 7 pages in, and I'm still not sure exactly what the basis is for your reasoning. You drop little snippets here and there, and I get the general overview, but I have yet to see a thorough explanation of what the thread is even about. Mostly you just disagree with people who post their arguments; you don't do much to explain your own.
So you have no study at all that supports your claim, but you demand that someone else provide a study to prove the negative of your claim? One rule for you and one for everyone else, is it?
Perhaps a little philosophy 101 lesson related to the burden of proof would be beneficial here. The claim was yours, it is up to you to substantiate it, not for others to prove the negative of it.
Except that wasn't in your original post at all. You OP didn't say a word about animals.
Pardon my saying so, but for someone who prides themselves on having a superbly logical mind, you're not doing a very good job of making a logical argument for whatever it is you're trying to say. 7 pages in, and I'm still not sure exactly what the basis is for your reasoning. You drop little snippets here and there, and I get the general overview, but I have yet to see a thorough explanation of what the thread is even about. Mostly you just disagree with people who post their arguments; you don't do much to explain your own.
Doesn't seen very logical to me.
I stand corrected Albert _the _Crocodile - I presume I didn't say a word about animals in my OP. I'm not checking it to find out but giving you the benefit of the doubt. That is the logical approach here for it would make no sense logically for you to say otherwise.
My comments are typically frustrating to the mind that wants to frustrate
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
