• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Some things I just don't think most of you understand...

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
9,133
5,092
✟325,835.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Maybe you need to study up on nutrition if it makes no sense to you. Clearly some foods are more nutritious then other foods. There are lots of charts for this on the internet. Here is one for the green leaf veg. Why does spinach have more nutrition then iceberg? They both convert light from the Sun yet one seems to be better at it than the other. Animals are more easy to understand. Pigs for example have a more primitive stomach and they are a scavenger so they eat a lot of toxins. The toxins get stored in the fat because the pig has no way to cleanse those toxins out of it's system. Also just fat in general is not good for you. So with animals you can just eat the most lean meat and there is an advantage to that. Yet with Plants it is a little bit more difficult to understand why one plant is more efficient at being nutritious compared to other plants.

17r2lo8kdblygjpg.jpg


.....ummmm...ummm you say I should learn about nutrition and then use a BS made up term like Toxins and claim pigs have no way of removing realy? Really? Wow you don't understand evolution, and you don't understand alot of things heh.

nutritious to who? grass is very nutritious to deer and most herbivores, but it wouldn't do us any good, and every plant evolves different, some have different needs then others, just as animals do, your entire argument is a non-sequitor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhsmte
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yet another definition that separates theistic evolution from creationism.



After you get done preaching, perhaps you can address what I actually wrote?
What you want me to address your definition of creationism. Why? Evolutionists are known to hijack the dictionary. The word Evolution was around long before they decided to hijack it by adding ist or ism. Perhaps you do not realize how much hijink is a part of Evolutionary theory.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
What you want me to address your definition of creationism.

It isn't my definition. It is the definition for the English word that English speakers use as shown by several different dictionaries.

Evolutionists are known to hijack the dictionary.

Right. You aren't the one who is trying to change definitions.

facepalm_227789.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"
Jul 14, 2015
15,273
9,320
52
✟395,486.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
So how is it that the alfalfa evolved to become more nutritious for the ruminates.

It didn't. The ruminants evolved to be able to extract nutrients from the plant. That is not the same as a bee and a flower as both benefit in the equation.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
nutritious to who?
Let me explain this to you more clear. I had some health problems and the doctor put in a stent. After an operation they put you in what they call physical rehabilitation. That is where they teach you about DIET< EXERCISE< STRESS CONTROL. The reason is so that you can deal with the CAUSE of health problems. IF I follow their program chances are I will not have any further complications and I will not need any further surgery, IE I will not need to have any more stents. The insurance pays for this program because in the long run it saves them money to educate people.

When I was sitting through the many classes that the dietitian was teaching on nutrition and the most healthy diet to eat I had some questions about evolution. So I came here and have been trying to get the evolutionists on this board to answer my questions about nutrition and evolution.

The leading cause of death in America is the plaque builds up in the walls of the arteries. They tell me that a low fat diet can be very effecting in preventing the progression of this disease or even reversing the disease. Even if it takes a lifetime to build up enough plaque to cause health problems. Although with the very poor high fat, high sugar, high salt diet in American even Children are staring to show signs of Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes and Cancer is also increasing. All diseases that can be controlled through diet and behavior modification. This is the direction that science and medicine is heading in right now.

My question is, where is the evolutionist? What is their contribution to what medicine and science is doing right now to help eliminate disease and give people a better quality of life.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Right. You aren't the one who is trying to change definitions.
Are you trying to promote the Conflict thesis? What possible advantage can you gain by trying to create a conflict where there is no conflict between religion and science?
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Let me explain this to you more clear. I had some health problems and the doctor put in a stent. After an operation they put you in what they call physical rehabilitation. That is where they teach you about DIET< EXERCISE< STRESS CONTROL. The reason is so that you can deal with the CAUSE of health problems. IF I follow their program chances are I will not have any further complications and I will not need any further surgery, IE I will not need to have any more stents. The insurance pays for this program because in the long run it saves them money to educate people.

When I was sitting through the many classes that the dietitian was teaching on nutrition and the most healthy diet to eat I had some questions about evolution. So I came here and have been trying to get the evolutionists on this board to answer my questions about nutrition and evolution.

The leading cause of death in America is the plaque builds up in the walls of the arteries. They tell me that a low fat diet can be very effecting in preventing the progression of this disease or even reversing the disease. Even if it takes a lifetime to build up enough plaque to cause health problems. Although with the very poor high fat, high sugar, high salt diet in American even Children are staring to show signs of Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes and Cancer is also increasing. All diseases that can be controlled through diet and behavior modification. This is the direction that science and medicine is heading in right now.

My question is, where is the evolutionist? What is their contribution to what medicine and science is doing right now to help eliminate disease and give people a better quality of life.

If you don't know what role evolution plays in medical science, I would encourage you to simply google the topic and learn on your own. You will find a boatload of material to study.

I have an advanced degree in human physiology and have studied cardiovascular disease at the graduate level and some of my professors were cardiologists.

It is true, that certain plaques build up in the vessels that cause heart disease, but there are far more risk factors than simple diet. Furthermore, the more studies that are being done, are starting to see that fat in the diet, is not as bad as we once thought. There are people in other countries, that eat more fat than those in the United States and have lower incidences of heart disease, so there is much more to it than simple diet.

Genetics plays a large role and genetics is the prime driver in HDL levels, which is the good cholesterol who's job it is to get the bad cholesterol (LDL) out of the blood. One can consume a low fat diet and still have low levels of HDL and they will be at more risk, than another person who eats a higher fat diet and his a better ration of HDL vs LDL. Exercise is another key piece, and sedentary lifestyles was finally acknowledged as a major risk factor to heart disease fairly recently, along with;

High blood pressure
Being over weight
Smoking
Stress
Bad cholesterol ratios
Diabetes

If you had to pick one activity that had the most positive impact on the above, it is exercise, since it keeps weight down, increases insulin sensativity, helps control stress and blood pressure and can also have some impact on HDL levels. The right type of exercise for long enough periods of time, also strengthen the heart and cardiovascular system and can actually create additional means of blood flow to the heart, that reduces the risk of a cardiac event.

The main problem in the United States, is we have become more sedentary, with people sitting behind computers all day and we actually eat less fat than decades ago, but consume more sugar, which is the real dietary problem.
 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
9,133
5,092
✟325,835.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Let me explain this to you more clear. I had some health problems and the doctor put in a stent. After an operation they put you in what they call physical rehabilitation. That is where they teach you about DIET< EXERCISE< STRESS CONTROL. The reason is so that you can deal with the CAUSE of health problems. IF I follow their program chances are I will not have any further complications and I will not need any further surgery, IE I will not need to have any more stents. The insurance pays for this program because in the long run it saves them money to educate people.

When I was sitting through the many classes that the dietitian was teaching on nutrition and the most healthy diet to eat I had some questions about evolution. So I came here and have been trying to get the evolutionists on this board to answer my questions about nutrition and evolution.

The leading cause of death in America is the plaque builds up in the walls of the arteries. They tell me that a low fat diet can be very effecting in preventing the progression of this disease or even reversing the disease. Even if it takes a lifetime to build up enough plaque to cause health problems. Although with the very poor high fat, high sugar, high salt diet in American even Children are staring to show signs of Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes and Cancer is also increasing. All diseases that can be controlled through diet and behavior modification. This is the direction that science and medicine is heading in right now.

My question is, where is the evolutionist? What is their contribution to what medicine and science is doing right now to help eliminate disease and give people a better quality of life.

Evolution never had to deal with these things in the past, since the average person died long before most of these diseases took effect.

there have always been children with cancer, diabetes and such, but most of these disease are age diseases. the older you live the better your chances of them effecting you. When your average life was 20-30 years old, diseases that kill around 50 don't get weeded out, and the few that lived that long already stopped having children.

Also many of these are growing due to the ability to get the food that was nescary. Diabetes in the wild is rare because most animals don't have a huge suply of sugar like we do now, nor is it as refined and concentrated, and the few animals that do eat high sugar diets don't live long enough for diabetes to be a big factor.

Remember evolution only cares that you survive long enough to have children, what happens after that isn't weeded out.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Are you trying to promote the Conflict thesis? What possible advantage can you gain by trying to create a conflict where there is no conflict between religion and science?

That depends what type of religious theology one subscribes to.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Remember evolution only cares that you survive long enough to have children, what happens after that isn't weeded out.
The son of a good friend of mine had a total physical breakdown at the age of 32. This was attributed to him eating whatever he wanted to eat unrestrained. They have two very young children and I have no idea how they were able to keep up with them. Now him and his wife have both had bypass surgery so they are starting to be better able to raise their children.

So I see no merit in your suggestion that children do not need parents. In fact I was a single parent for 12 years, so I am well aware of the problems involved when an absentee parent is not involved to raise a child. The longer parents live the better off the next generation is going to be.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Let me explain this to you more clear. I had some health problems and the doctor put in a stent. After an operation they put you in what they call physical rehabilitation. That is where they teach you about DIET< EXERCISE< STRESS CONTROL. The reason is so that you can deal with the CAUSE of health problems. IF I follow their program chances are I will not have any further complications and I will not need any further surgery, IE I will not need to have any more stents.

You will be immortal?

Or will you just be healthier for longer, but still need a doctor at a later date?

My question is, where is the evolutionist? What is their contribution to what medicine and science is doing right now to help eliminate disease and give people a better quality of life.

The annual flu shot is a perfect example. As one virus strain faces herd immunity and starts to dwindle, other varieties of virus who were once low in number can now flourish if they have surface markers that are not recognized by the antibodies that we produce to the vaccine.

New strategies for developing antibiotics are also looking at how bacteria evolve resistance, and looking for antibiotics that are hard to evolve resistance to.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Are you trying to promote the Conflict thesis? What possible advantage can you gain by trying to create a conflict where there is no conflict between religion and science?

I am trying to use English words as they are defined. Why can't you do the same?

Also, it is the creationists who have created a political movement to have science taken out of the classroom, and to have religious indoctrination put into the science classroom in public schools. Creationists are creating a conflict between religion and science. I am more than happy to welcome theistic evolutionists into the arena of science. I also see no conflict between religion and science. The only conflict I see is theists like yourself who have to reject science because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. Your infamous rejection of "mutation theory" is a perfect example.
 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
9,133
5,092
✟325,835.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The son of a good friend of mine had a total physical breakdown at the age of 32. This was attributed to him eating whatever he wanted to eat unrestrained. They have two very young children and I have no idea how they were able to keep up with them. Now him and his wife have both had bypass surgery so they are starting to be better able to raise their children.

So I see no merit in your suggestion that children do not need parents. In fact I was a single parent for 12 years, so I am well aware of the problems involved when an absentee parent is not involved to raise a child. The longer parents live the better off the next generation is going to be.

...what the heck are your talking about? By your friends age, he would already have grandkids a few hundred years ago, this waiting till 20+ to have kids is a modern concept

I never said that kids having parents isn't needed, but back when most only lived till 30-40 years old kids were having children earlier, you also have comunal groups so those that did survive longer would help, and the entire comunity. In our tribal days children were raised by everyone not just two parents.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
By your friends age, he would already have grandkids a few hundred years ago, this waiting till 20+ to have kids is a modern concept
Having parents that live longer should be a selective advantage. At the time of Noah people were living to be 120. Then thanks to evolution people are living shorter lives? Something does not add up.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Also, it is the creationists who have created a political movement to have science taken out of the classroom, and to have religious indoctrination put into the science classroom in public schools.
Oh yeah, right, blame it on the creationist.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Oh yeah, right, blame it on the creationist.

It is the creationists who are requiring Christians to reject science in order to be Christians. It is creationists who are trying to outlaw the teaching of science in public schools. It is creationists who are trying to force religion into public schools under the guise of Intelligent Design.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Having parents that live longer should be a selective advantage.

How so?

One of the strategies that some species have adopted is having the parents die as soon as the young can survive on their own so the parents are not competing with their offspring.

Of course, we need to be aware of the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something could be selectively advantageous is not a reason to actually do that thing. We should confuse an Is with an Ought.

At the time of Noah people were living to be 120.

Santa Claus has flying reindeer.

See? I can make baseless assertions, too.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Or will you just be healthier for longer, but still need a doctor at a later date?
The insurance pays for 36 sessions because it saves them money. That means less need for a doctor, less need for medication and less need for surgery. Half the people that have surgery go to physiotherapy after the surgery. Of those that finish the program half of them follow though to continue to exercise and follow their diet. That means they have 25% that are willing to maintain the program. Still that 25 % saves the insurance company money.

You can count on insurance companys to know what they are doing. If they did not know what they are doing then they would lose money and be out of business. NASA also tends to know what they are doing. When they make mistakes people die and that makes them look really bad.

With Evolution far to often people have opinions that never get substantiated. Like the whole concept of a flat earth it is amazing how much gets taught as fact when it is complete and total myth.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"
Jul 14, 2015
15,273
9,320
52
✟395,486.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
So I see no merit in your suggestion that children do not need parents.

You have completely missed the point. I'm really lost how you interpret it this way. There was no suggestion that children do not need parents.

Totally dumbfounded.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0