How do we make sustainable environments? Is "Evolution" always the most applicable?

[OldWiseGuy]

So, it has nothing to do with spirits then. At least, not the spirits related to religion as usually discussed in this forum.

It absolutely does. The Holy Spirit guides me to make good decisions, for myself and for others. Another difference is that while I and another may arrive at the same solution to a problem I am usually able to carry it out. So the Spirit helps me to find a way to do the right thing, not just think about the right thing.

That said, there is no way I can undertake weed harvesting on our lakes without being arrested.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

One example is that of drinking pure water for health. Scientists generally advise against it. I'm 80 and in very good health (considering) and I've drank pure water for nearly 50 years and have not suffered the ill effects that those scientists predict.

What has that got to do with magical thinking? Unless you're equating 'magical thinking' to 'not knowing what you're talking about'.

You say that you're drinking pure water for health. Normal drinking water has minerals etc. in them which can contribute signficantly to health. E.g. calcium. Is mineral water more healthful? Benefits and side effects

If you're talking about 'pure water' in terms of fully distilled water (some people seem to think that e.g. rainwater is 'pure water') then it can be damaging.

Your claim that you've been drinking pure water for 50 years and you're in good health for your age. However, the warnings against drinking pure water (apart from missing out on useful minerals) are against drinking too much of it. E.g. that if you drink nothing but pure (properly pure) water then because it's highly hypotonic, then that could be harmful or even fatal.

You claim that you've been drinking it and nothing bad has happened to you. Can you actually qualify the type of 'pure' water you have been drinking and more importantly how much of it you've been drinking. As without that information we don't even know if you've been drinking enough of the wrong sort of 'pure' water to know what scientists predict.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What has that got to do with magical thinking? Unless you're equating 'magical thinking' to 'not knowing what you're talking about'.

You say that you're drinking pure water for health. Normal drinking water has minerals etc. in them which can contribute signficantly to health. E.g. calcium. Is mineral water more healthful? Benefits and side effects

If you're talking about 'pure water' in terms of fully distilled water (some people seem to think that e.g. rainwater is 'pure water') then it can be damaging.

Your claim that you've been drinking pure water for 50 years and you're in good health for your age. However, the warnings against drinking pure water (apart from missing out on useful minerals) are against drinking too much of it. E.g. that if you drink nothing but pure (properly pure) water then because it's highly hypotonic, then that could be harmful or even fatal.

You claim that you've been drinking it and nothing bad has happened to you. Can you actually qualify the type of 'pure' water you have been drinking and more importantly how much of it you've been drinking. As without that information we don't even know if you've been drinking enough of the wrong sort of 'pure' water to know what scientists predict.

Steam distilled, charcoal filtered water, 30 oz. per day at most (20 oz. in my coffee). One key to good health is moderation. The amount of minerals in tap water is insignificant, as is the lack of same in distilled water if consumed in moderation.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What has that got to do with magical thinking? Unless you're equating 'magical thinking' to 'not knowing what you're talking about'.

You shouldn't think that I don't know what I'm talking about just because you don't know what I'm talking about.

If we know all there is to know about how and why people think and do certain things why are we still studying it?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Distilled water, 30 oz. per day at most (20 oz. in my coffee). One key to good health is moderation. The amount of minerals in tap water is insignificant, as is the lack of same in distilled water if consumed in moderation.

A male should drink about 3.7l of water a day, and you are drinking about 852ml, or about 23% of your daily water requirement is from distilled water. Note that some of that water consumption may be through food. The potential damage that doctors warn of are if someone drinks all of their water intake as pure water, leading to dilution of the blood, bursting of blood vessels, etc. 23% is quite far from 'all'.

However, 66% of your 'pure' water is in your coffee. If you add coffee to pure water it is no longer pure. See https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/0016-5085(95)90016-0/pdf for the tonicity of coffee. So, you're drinking about 7.6% of your daily fluid intake as pure water. Balanced by drinking drinks of higher tonicity such as coffee.

Furthermore, you claim that the amount of minerals in tap water is insignificant. This is also wrong: Comparison of the Mineral Content of Tap Water and Bottled Waters While it depends on the local water in any location or the source of mineral water, drinking water most definitely can contain nutritionally significant amounts of minerals. Which you'll miss out on if you drink too much distilled water. Whether that's a problem or not will depend on the rest of your diet. But, for many people drinking water provides them with useful nutrients.

So, having looked at your claims in better detail (thank you for the information), it appears that you are wrong and you are not doing anything that contradicts what scientists say.

Hence, your claims are wrong.

You shouldn't think that I don't know what I'm talking about just because you don't know what I'm talking about.

If we know all there is to know about how and why people think and do certain things why are we still studying it?

I have researched what you were talking about, and have confirmed that you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm glad you are doing your homework. Also check out Lake Wingra. The UW also has a lab on it's shore. It is also a mess. They are studying it to observe "how a lake dies" due to hyper-eutrophic conditions. A citizens group, The Friends of Lake Wingra, are constrained to working in the watershed (as are all other citizen groups). They confided to me that they also would like the lake weeds cut and the carp removed but have met "roadblocks" in that effort. I mock them (in a friendly way) that with them for "friends" Lake Wingra doesn't need enemies (they and other such groups suck all the oxygen out of the room). I have been invited to speak to their group but have declined, as they have no influence over the condition of the lake itself.

I don't really see the evidence that this other lake (Wingra) is being observed to see how it dies. I rather see some other evidence that the university, state, and local groups are working together to understand the lake and find ways to improve/restore it.

Here's one link that talks about improvements (only through 2018) that have improved water clarity.

Lake Wingra - Clean Lakes Alliance

Another report of efforts to study and experiment on Lake Wingra. (I don't know if the link will work as it contains a generated code that may have been created by Google for me.)

https://z0ku333mvy924cayk1kta4r1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/33-3-8.pdf

These articles also talk about efforts to remove carp (which may not be native at all from what I read) and weeds. Some of the carp removal efforts were weakened, it seems, by high water levels downstream one year.

Check out the actual management of Lake Mendota by both the DNR and one of the science departments of the UW ( Limnology, Professor Steve Carpenter). The lake is being managed for the production of "trophy northern pike", a species that benefits from a weedy environment. The DNR has authority over inland waters and has the special interest of providing fishing opportunities, often at the expense of most other recreational activities, and of course the general enjoyment of a clean lake. They also work closely with the UW science departments.

Our lakes are beautiful, until they warm up and the invasive weeds, mainly Eurasian Watermilfoil, begin their seasonal take over. This is a national problem, not just a local one here, although those in authority don't seem to think so.

Keep digging if you're interested. The story gets darker the more you learn.

Here's an article from a fishing site that mentions the "intensive management" of Lake Mendota for Northern Pike, but it is not clear what that entails. It does mention that those fish like deep cool lakes, and this is the deepest in the group.

Wisconsin's Powerful Pike Waters

As for the "darkness" of your links, yeah some things weren't perfect and even got worse, but it kind of a reach to call that "dark".

Overall, I really don't see any conspiracies or scientific malfeasance. The lake scientists are to an extent ecologists studying the state of the lakes as external forces change them (runoff, water levels, invasive species) but also do experiments on way the lake could be manipulated. These manipulation experiments seem to be focused on how those changes could be applied to the whole lake and improve it. There are no doubt competing interests among the users of the lakes (boaters, fishers, swimmers, shore users, and water quality users) and of those that might have to change what they do upstream (basically, polluters). The role of scientists are to understand the nature of the system (the lake and its ecology) and the impact that these changes could have. It is then up to policy people, politicians and citizens to make the choices. I hope that you can focus your ire properly on the people that are truly involved in these issues (whether you are right or wrong about their culpability and what could be done to fix things) and leave the "evolutionists", the rest of the scientists, and the "atheists" out of your complaints about Madison-area lake quality issues.

While this has been interesting, I think I'm done with this off tangent back to the original thread...

Now where are we? Let's see this is the creation/evolution forum, not the lake ecology forum. What thread is this? Oh nevermind, it's a "gotts" thread so there is no coherent topic to begin with..

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A male should drink about 3.7l of water a day, and you are drinking about 852ml, or about 23% of your daily water requirement is from distilled water. Note that some of that water consumption may be through food. The potential damage that doctors warn of are if someone drinks all of their water intake as pure water, leading to dilution of the blood, bursting of blood vessels, etc. 23% is quite far from 'all'.

However, 66% of your 'pure' water is in your coffee. If you add coffee to pure water it is no longer pure. See https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/0016-5085(95)90016-0/pdf for the tonicity of coffee. So, you're drinking about 7.6% of your daily fluid intake as pure water. Balanced by drinking drinks of higher tonicity such as coffee.

Furthermore, you claim that the amount of minerals in tap water is insignificant. This is also wrong: Comparison of the Mineral Content of Tap Water and Bottled Waters While it depends on the local water in any location or the source of mineral water, drinking water most definitely can contain nutritionally significant amounts of minerals. Which you'll miss out on if you drink too much distilled water. Whether that's a problem or not will depend on the rest of your diet. But, for many people drinking water provides them with useful nutrients.

So, having looked at your claims in better detail (thank you for the information), it appears that you are wrong and you are not doing anything that contradicts what scientists say.

Hence, your claims are wrong.



I have researched what you were talking about, and have confirmed that you do not know what you are talking about.

Remember that I'm the guy who advocated wearing masks and gloves to reduce the spread of the seasonal flu long before the coronavirus appeared. I was right then and I'm right now.

Your body needs water, which can come from many sources. I drink coffee, milk, eat at least one orange per day, along with a single glass of distilled water. This gives me all the fluids I need. If I drank the 'recommended' amount I'd never leave the bathroom.

The amount you suggest is for unhealthy people that need to constantly flush wastes out of their bodies. If they would improve their health they would need less water. It's the same for the recommended caloric intake. Our digestive systems are so inefficient that more food is needed. As our health improves our digestion become more efficient and we need less food.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't really see the evidence that this other lake (Wingra) is being observed to see how it dies. I rather see some other evidence that the university, state, and local groups are working together to understand the lake and find ways to improve/restore it.

Here's one link that talks about improvements (only through 2018) that have improved water clarity.

Lake Wingra - Clean Lakes Alliance

Another report of efforts to study and experiment on Lake Wingra. (I don't know if the link will work as it contains a generated code that may have been created by Google for me.)

https://z0ku333mvy924cayk1kta4r1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/33-3-8.pdf

These articles also talk about efforts to remove carp (which may not be native at all from what I read) and weeds. Some of the carp removal efforts were weakened, it seems, by high water levels downstream one year.



Here's an article from a fishing site that mentions the "intensive management" of Lake Mendota for Northern Pike, but it is not clear what that entails. It does mention that those fish like deep cool lakes, and this is the deepest in the group.

Wisconsin's Powerful Pike Waters

As for the "darkness" of your links, yeah some things weren't perfect and even got worse, but it kind of a reach to call that "dark".

Overall, I really don't see any conspiracies or scientific malfeasance. The lake scientists are to an extent ecologists studying the state of the lakes as external forces change them (runoff, water levels, invasive species) but also do experiments on way the lake could be manipulated. These manipulation experiments seem to be focused on how those changes could be applied to the whole lake and improve it. There are no doubt competing interests among the users of the lakes (boaters, fishers, swimmers, shore users, and water quality users) and of those that might have to change what they do upstream (basically, polluters). The role of scientists are to understand the nature of the system (the lake and its ecology) and the impact that these changes could have. It is then up to policy people, politicians and citizens to make the choices. I hope that you can focus your ire properly on the people that are truly involved in these issues (whether you are right or wrong about their culpability and what could be done to fix things) and leave the "evolutionists", the rest of the scientists, and the "atheists" out of your complaints about Madison-area lake quality issues.

While this has been interesting, I think I'm done with this off tangent back to the original thread...

Now where are we? Let's see this is the creation/evolution forum, not the lake ecology forum. What thread is this? Oh nevermind, it's a "gotts" thread so there is no coherent topic to begin with..

Thanks for playing along.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Remember that I'm the guy who advocated wearing masks and gloves to reduce the spread of the seasonal flu long before the coronavirus appeared. I was right then and I'm right now.

Your body needs water, which can come from many sources. I drink coffee, milk, eat at least one orange per day, along with a single glass of distilled water. This gives me all the fluids I need. If I drank the 'recommended' amount I'd never leave the bathroom.

The amount you suggest is for unhealthy people that need to constantly flush wastes out of their bodies. If they would improve their health they would need less water. It's the same for the recommended caloric intake. Our digestive systems are so inefficient that more food is needed. As our health improves our digestion become more efficient and we need less food.

The problem here is that you're doing the classical creationist thing.

What has been established through discussion is that you don't even understand the question. You say that scientists (who you conflate with evolutionists) were advising against distilled water but your health showed them to be wrong and you right.

Howevever, in looking through what you write, it is quiite clear that you don't even understand what the scientists were saying, and how your example is utterly irrrelevant

And, when I point out what the real situation is, you've just completely ignored that, and gone on claiming that you are 'right' when you haven't even understood the issue at hand. And that you don't understand that the points you are trying to make are completely irrelevant because of that.

Can you not see the problem? I've bolded the important bit above. Also, you say 'If I drank the 'recommended' amount I'd never leave the bathroom. '. Can you go back and re-read my post and see why that, yet again, is an irrelevant statement to make and shows, again, that you simply don't know what you are talking about. (And this is a really REALLY simple thing to understand.)

This is very similar to what creationists do when they don't understand the first thing about evolution, and then try and discuss their completely wrong view of what it is. And, even when the actual situation and facts are pointed out to them, they just ignore that and continue with their misunderstanding.

That is exactly what you have done with something as simple as drinking water.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The problem here is that you're doing the classical creationist thing.

What has been established through discussion is that you don't even understand the question. You say that scientists (who you conflate with evolutionists) were advising against distilled water but your health showed them to be wrong and you right.

Howevever, in looking through what you write, it is quiite clear that you don't even understand what the scientists were saying, and how your example is utterly irrrelevant

And, when I point out what the real situation is, you've just completely ignored that, and gone on claiming that you are 'right' when you haven't even understood the issue at hand. And that you don't understand that the points you are trying to make are completely irrelevant because of that.

Can you not see the problem? I've bolded the important bit above. Also, you say 'If I drank the 'recommended' amount I'd never leave the bathroom. '. Can you go back and re-read my post and see why that, yet again, is an irrelevant statement to make and shows, again, that you simply don't know what you are talking about. (And this is a really REALLY simple thing to understand.)

This is very similar to what creationists do when they don't understand the first thing about evolution, and then try and discuss their completely wrong view of what it is. And, even when the actual situation and facts are pointed out to them, they just ignore that and continue with their misunderstanding.

That is exactly what you have done with something as simple as drinking water.

Sorry, I should have added two 12 oz. beers to my daily fluid intake. That should put me right up there. I found where you might have gotten 3.7 liters?
Water: How much should you drink every day?

People need much more water if they consume lots of salt. The average American consumes nearly twice their daily needs, thus the need for more water. Overeating also requires more water for proper digestion and elimination.

My final calculation is 2.3 liters (equals 9 glasses of water), which is adequate for me. Also as I do physical work metabolic water also makes up a portion of my water needs.

Edit.

Another rule of thumb that I find reasonable is the "one ounce of water per two pounds of body weight" measure. Using this measure I find that it fits what my daily water/equivalent is exactly. Based on this your 3.7 liter measure would be right for a person weighing 244 pounds, and would be equivalent to 15 8oz. glasses of water.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Remember that I'm the guy who advocated wearing masks and gloves to reduce the spread of the seasonal flu long before the coronavirus appeared. I was right then and I'm right now.

Your body needs water, which can come from many sources. I drink coffee, milk, eat at least one orange per day, along with a single glass of distilled water. This gives me all the fluids I need. If I drank the 'recommended' amount I'd never leave the bathroom.

The amount you suggest is for unhealthy people that need to constantly flush wastes out of their bodies. If they would improve their health they would need less water. It's the same for the recommended caloric intake. Our digestive systems are so inefficient that more food is needed. As our health improves our digestion become more efficient and we need less food.

The average water requirement isn't the amount you should drink, but the total requirement. A significant amount of that is obtained through foodstuffs.

I would suggest that it's the salt and other high-osmolarity contents of the food eaten rather than digestive efficiency that influences water intake (having said that, diabetes can also be a factor).

Just speaking as a human biologist.

 

[Gottservant]

It's not so much the water, per se - but the minerals in the water.

Distilled water has a bad habit of leaving you without electrolytes, if it hasn't been packaged properly.

I think science is basically out of the question, when it comes to advice: how do you properly advise someone, on the assumption that they are changing their alleles to suit a difference wholly dependent on luck?

EDIT: I would still like to see a concrete argument that 'Evolution' is the best theoretical position to take when attempting to create sustainable environments? (Evolution, does not claim to understand how to create the sustainable, only that that which has been sustained will change, in order to optimize existing in that sustainability?)

 

[Shemjaza]

It's not so much the water, per se - but the minerals in the water.

Distilled water has a bad habit of leaving you without electrolytes, if it hasn't been packaged properly.

I think science is basically out of the question, when it comes to advice: how do you properly advise someone, on the assumption that they are changing their alleles to suit a difference wholly dependent on luck?

People don't alter their alleles.

In the theory of evolution, the change of alleles refers to the proportion of each allele found in the total population of the species... not in individuals.

Genetically, we are all basically stuck with what we are born with.

(EDIT: accidentally wrote: "People don't their alleles" not "People don't alter their alleles").

 

[Gottservant]

People don't their alleles.

Case in point. You changed "people don't change their alleles" to "people don't their alleles"?

You are perhaps over emphasizing the negative?

 

[Gottservant]

I think the thing is that 'Evolution' is somehow a prediction that things - that don't die -, prefer to change in ways that don't have a future of dying.

This being the case, sharing that future, has more proclivity for mating, than simply presenting "the vulnerable (vulnerable to change)", as the answer.

The problem is, if every creature predicts the same shared future, the adaptability of Creation as a whole, is hurt - you simply can't have that many creatures claiming to be above the vulnerable and still resonate with the actual difference that is made.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think the thing is that 'Evolution' is somehow a prediction that things - that don't die -, prefer to change in ways that don't have a future of dying.

This being the case, sharing that future, has more proclivity for mating, than simply presenting "the vulnerable (vulnerable to change)", as the answer.

The problem is, if every creature predicts the same shared future, the adaptability of Creation as a whole, is hurt - you simply can't have that many creatures claiming to be above the vulnerable and still resonate with the actual difference that is made.

I'm going to keep saying this: Please actually learn about evolution and what the theory of evolution actually is.
Because every single thing you write about what you think evolution is or what you think it says is just... so wrong.

 

[Gottservant]

If everything that was about to die, gave life to everything that didn't want that death: there would be no substitutional advantage to killing that life (above any other).

This means that you can be warned: of Evolution!

It's up to you, if you want to ignore the warning: just don't fool yourself, if you change the nature of the warning:: you may just be burning the bridge you need to return on!

I'm not saying you can't change the warning, I'm saying when you do, you need to be mindful of the way in which you are changing it - lest you change it in a way that is no longer a warning!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If everything that was about to die, gave life to everything that didn't want that death: there would be no substitutional advantage to killing that life (above any other).

This means that you can be warned: of Evolution!

It's up to you, if you want to ignore the warning: just don't fool yourself, if you change the nature of the warning:: you may just be burning the bridge you need to return on!

I'm not saying you can't change the warning, I'm saying when you do, you need to be mindful of the way in which you are changing it - lest you change it in a way that is no longer a warning!

That's not even slightly how evolution works.
Seriously, PLEASE: learn, actually LEARN, about evolution and what the theory of evolution actually is.
Because every single thing you write about what you think evolution is or what you think it says is just... so wrong.

 

[Shemjaza]

Case in point. You changed "people don't change their alleles" to "people don't their alleles"?

You are perhaps over emphasizing the negative?

How is that a case in point?

I simply missed a word while typing, but you still understood my intent and I was able to correct it.

I think I was emphasising your mistake exactly as much as it needed to be.

I think the thing is that 'Evolution' is somehow a prediction that things - that don't die -, prefer to change in ways that don't have a future of dying.

This being the case, sharing that future, has more proclivity for mating, than simply presenting "the vulnerable (vulnerable to change)", as the answer.

The problem is, if every creature predicts the same shared future, the adaptability of Creation as a whole, is hurt - you simply can't have that many creatures claiming to be above the vulnerable and still resonate with the actual difference that is made.

That does not match anything I've seen from the theory of evolution.

Death can be helpful to evolution. A dead creature isn't a competitor with it's offspring for resources and even with social species, a creature weakened by time, but undying can be a burden on it's offspring as well.

It varies... but the important point is that evolution is not pointed at immortality.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's not so much the water, per se - but the minerals in the water.

Distilled water has a bad habit of leaving you without electrolytes, if it hasn't been packaged properly.

If one is afraid of distilled water a reverse osmosis system is a good alternative. Also most of your electrolytes come from food, so no worries. Our tap water is very hard and tastes terrible, as is common all over. I've been drinking only distilled water for nearly 50 years, no problems yet.