Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    684
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Bad ass Jack Hanna!

  2. #12

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    54
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    From the paleodiet point of view, wouldn't a vegetarian be someone who can't hunt? :)

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    8,046
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    How is eating today's fruit at all a replica of "what we evolved eating"?

    Never got that one myself.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    8,046
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    A brief skim over some fruit comments:

    Hybridization is common "naturally" in many flowering plants.

    Rootstocks due more for plant life than making any impact on the actual fruit. They also are from closely related plants.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    684
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/JANA%20final.pdf
    http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/AJCN%20PDF.pdf

    these 2 articles should answer your questions Dochtor

    Please let me know wht you think.

    Also, the Paleo diet is hailed by evolutionists as the evolutionary diet

    While creationists view it as the garden of Eden diet

    Fun!

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,290
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    "While creationists view it as the garden of Eden diet"

    I don't understand that at all. If there is no evolution, the animals that existed today also existed in the Garden of Edan. They are mostly not forbidden by dietary laws, and our digestive system could get at all of them, so why the hell wouldn't Adam and Eve have eaten them?

    Edit: assuming Creationist means no evolution, the common definition

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    684
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Originally posted by DJeter1234
    "While creationists view it as the garden of Eden diet"

    I don't understand that at all. If there is no evolution, the animals that existed today also existed in the Garden of Edan. They are mostly not forbidden by dietary laws, and our digestive system could get at all of them, so why the hell wouldn't Adam and Eve have eaten them?

    Edit: assuming Creationist means no evolution, the common definition

    I have no idea what you are talking about, please explain.

    The PaleoDiet is the hunter and gatherer diet

    the last post I put up for Doch has links to peer-reviewed scientific articles that a) show what hunters and gatherers eat (from the 229 remaining groups)

    and b) how we can facsimilate this diet from the foods commonly avialible

    Oh yeh and if that wasn't clear

    you eat meat, seafood, poultry, vegetables, fruits, and some nuts and seeds

    no dairy, legumes, grains, and perhaps yeast and nightshades

    a creationist following the paleodiet views the passages in Genesis literally

    the fruits of the tree of knowledge (tech-nology) is agriculture

    sure enough once we started there was no turning back

    we became cursed to live by the sweat of our brow, plow the earth and eat bread until the end of our days

    Cain and Abel, farmer kills the pastoralist is anthropologically correct

    these groups land use plans are diametrically opposed

    also, this shift earmarked a shift from partnership with nature
    to our attempt to dominate nature

    this dominator model is what subjegated women to men, not God

    and Hunter and Gatherer women are reputed have less pain in child birth than agriculturalists

    also, biblical

    this by the way is the "original sin"

    how can a baby be guilty of sin?

    they aren't guilty of sin insomuch as it is impossible to live a sinless life because the fabric of civilization is built on an agricultral paradigm

    we all polute, consume and live unatturally

    interestingly enough this runs parrallell to the origins of agriculture lore in Peru (Veracocha), Middle East (Osiris), Mexico (Quetzacotl)

    these bearded white dudes were all represented as wearing the plumes of the serpent and were responsible for bringing agricultaral technology to the regions

    on the evolutionary side folks likje the Doch or Michael Descado would put more effort into it than I

    I will say this
    the science is compelling that Paleo is the way we were either designed to eat or evolved through natural selection to eat

    just read the articles on Dr. Cordain's site

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    8,046
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    My comment was actually about the fruit of today (actually looking at some of the fruit nuts sites I see that a lot of people agree that our fruit now is not so good, nor natural).

    As for the other papers (and ignoring your teleological comments from them :D), well yeah. However what was available isn't neccessarily best. Arguments about obesity in adults, heart disease and cancer being evidence of an "unnatural" diet ignore the fact that these things don't typically show up until after you'd be dead under a "natural" diet.

    Oh yeah and anthropologically aren't grains the only reason we are where we are?

    It is always a matter of moderation.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    684
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Originally posted by Dochter
    Oh yeah and anthropologically aren't grains the only reason we are where we are?
    It
    We agree!

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    684
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    oh yeh and I also agree that fruitarians are nuts!

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO