RAW-FOOD Archives

Raw Food Diet Support List

RAW-FOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Anwar J Goins <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Raw Food Diet Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:27:37 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (120 lines)
> Good day, from the tone of your letter I can see that you've done alot of
> assuming, stop, you only make yourself look bad.
>
> > >Arjen, you continue to argue from an evolutionary point of view. I was
> > >discarding this view in my argument.
> >
> > yes, that makes sense.  just discard it.  makes your view the default. ;-)
> >
> Your funny Gary. I won't support the theory if I see holes in it. And not
> just the "layman" sees holes in it.
>
> > > You did not argue me on the fact
> > >that no known process adds to the genetic code of a species and that all
> > >processes which alter the genetic code either damage it or destroy it.
> >
> > the key is "known".
> >
> Yes, that is the key. I haven't read what you posted yet, but I will.
> Thank you for trying to help me know.
>
> > here is a paper that attempts to describe the process.
> >
> > http://bayes.colorado.edu/Papers/rewiring.pdf
> >
> > >As for your transitional creature I'll do some more research on him. I
> > >know that many of the so called transitional creatures were proven to be
> > >false.
> >
> > even after being told about transitional creatures, the creationist will
> > subsequently and conveniently continue to maintain that they do not exist,
> > when in fact they quite clearly do.
>
> Don't lump me with the traditional creationist. I don't believe the
> theory because of the faults I've seen but I may be wrong. Besides
> evolution does not rule out God. I'm only speaking on the merits of
> evolution, God is not factoring in here at all, in my mind it is the
> method by which God brought about our biological diversity. I believe
> that all things can be approached logically and can be understood. Again
> don't lump me together with the traditional creationist. I don't take
> "leaps of faith" or have "blind faith" I examine, use logic, intelligence,
> discernment and prudence. The question is whether we should have faith in
> evolution as a logical and consistent theory congruent with all that we
> observe. It is concerning this that I have rejected the theory, but I'm
> always ready to be proven wrong.
>
>
> > >THERE IS NO KNOWN
> > >PROCESS WHICH ADDS NEW INFO TO THE GENETIC CODE. This is the fact which
> > >impedes the evolution theory
> >
> > see above
> >
> > try this, "there is no known process which supports the position of
> > creationism"  DOES THAT CAUSE YOUR THEORY TO BE "IMPEDED"?
>
> You  should rather think, 'Is there any known phenomenon which would defeat
> the theory of creationism or more importantly that of God.' This is how a
> true scientist
> thinks, with everything he attempts to approach a belief about. Innocent
> until proven guilty.  Even so I would like to know how God created the
> creatures of the world. But I am not afraid of it being a method that may
> be considered far-out, that involves some kind of energy or anything
> else. Like anything else I'll examine the theory and see if it is
> consistent and congruent with the evidences.
>
> > wait, evolution can not be explained to satisfy the layman, so we
> > therefore obviously accept the position that a supernatural being
> > did it by snapping her fingers?  I love it.
>
> Right buddy. Supernatural, no. The essence of nature, yes. Fingers?
> Snapping? Hunh? I'm glad you love it, though.(confused)
>
> > >It is the bias of
> > >scientists against God and religion which makes them come up with their
> > >own religious and mythical inventions for the origin of the world's
> > >species.
> >
> > absurd
>
> Yeah, I expected that.
> >
> > >Evolution needs to be dropped.
> >
> > why?  does it threaten you?  do you have an alternative theory that is
> > better?
>
>  No it does not threaten me. :) I think this is funny how you are trying to
> stereotype me while you are just all wrong. :) You speak as if your
> getting down to some kind of core, like your really stinging me there or
> something. :) It's not that serious, my man.
>
> > >But the meat is still very much alive as is the the internals of
> > >the seed and plant.
> >
> > fruit ripens after picking.
> > meat decomposes after, um, picking...
>
> Well fruit decomposes too. And it depends on if it is ripe or not when we
> pick it. But, then again we call it ripening, but isn't it just a stage in
> its decomposition process?
>
> > >You can slit
> > >my throat but every part of my body is still active just not the one
> > >that worked to protect the whole.
> >
> > not for long...
>
> Another, process is started, still just as lively. Just like when you
> pick the fruit from the tree or the leaf from the plant. It's the same
> thing, guy. Sweet meat, is rotten meat(controlled albeit) and cheese
> making, lacto-fermented foods, yogurt, they are all deeply decomposing or
> rotten foods. Rotten doesn't scare me.
>
> > gary
> >
> Godbless,
> Anwar
>
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2