How To Look At Produce

Nutrition
61

Verified by carbon dating?You mean carbon 14 dating.There is carbon dating that shows the earth is young also,written by Curt Sewell.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I will not dispute a million or so years with you. But we have documents that are older than 4000 years old. Architectural structures that are over 4000 years old. Human skeletons that are 4000 years old, verified by carbon dating and other methods. Whole records of civiliations that are older than 4000 years. These are NOT studies or scientific theories, but tangible evidence that is as close to being conclusive as humanly possible. As undisputed by nearly everyone as the fact that the earth is not flat, and there are 3 macronutrients. Never mind…

Cthulhu wrote:
Sure I do.I’m not the only one who believes that.Most christians belive the world is a few thousand years old too(6 thousand or maybe a little more).

No one knows for sure.I’ve seen studies telling us that the world is a billion years old,and others saying it is only a few milion years old.Every year I hear of some new study saying the earth is another million years old.

jsbrook wrote:
You believe the earth is 4,000 years old? You cannot be serious. There are bones from HUMAN skeletons well older than that. There are documented CIVILIZATIONS older than that.

Cthulhu wrote:
How old the earth was? There are studies that say it’s been around for millions of years,and there are some that say billions of years.No one really knows for sure,but I do believe it’s about four thousand years old.I’m not the one who says GMOs are safe,but have no studies showing that they’re healthy/safe.I guess we agree to disagree.

Flop Hat wrote:
That’s a boy. When you know your argument it too weak to defend you can always go with the old grammer or spelling attack. However, going after capitalization is pretty lame. Did you just finish the 3rd grade?

I’m not much at spelling or grammer, but I do work on my English along with my Russian, Pashto, Dari, and Spanish. From your post I can tell that you have no desire to work on your weakness in science, yet you insist on posting pseudo-science garbage continually. You didn’t even have an idea how old the earth was in a previous post. Wake up and start reading a science book. Trust me it’s for your own good.

If you PM me I have tons of basic science websites, skeptic websites, and a good basic sience reading list. If you don’t like critical thinking you can always stop and go back to being a follower.

Cthulhu wrote:
The beginning of a sentence should have a CAPITAL letter(in this case “A”).Maybe you need to read some books on basic English.
[/quote]

62

Although I don’t believe the world to be 4.5 billion years old,I’m open to any information you can show me(or studies) that the earth is that old.
It is interesting wheather I believe it or not.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I will not dispute a million or so years with you. But we have documents that are older than 4000 years old. Architectural structures that are over 4000 years old. Human skeletons that are 4000 years old, verified by carbon dating and other methods. Whole records of civiliations that are older than 4000 years. These are NOT studies or scientific theories, but tangible evidence that is as close to being conclusive as humanly possible. As undisputed by nearly everyone as the fact that the earth is not flat, and there are 3 macronutrients. Never mind…

Cthulhu wrote:
Sure I do.I’m not the only one who believes that.Most christians belive the world is a few thousand years old too(6 thousand or maybe a little more).

No one knows for sure.I’ve seen studies telling us that the world is a billion years old,and others saying it is only a few milion years old.Every year I hear of some new study saying the earth is another million years old.

jsbrook wrote:
You believe the earth is 4,000 years old? You cannot be serious. There are bones from HUMAN skeletons well older than that. There are documented CIVILIZATIONS older than that.

Cthulhu wrote:
How old the earth was? There are studies that say it’s been around for millions of years,and there are some that say billions of years.No one really knows for sure,but I do believe it’s about four thousand years old.I’m not the one who says GMOs are safe,but have no studies showing that they’re healthy/safe.I guess we agree to disagree. Flop Hat wrote:
That’s a boy. When you know your argument it too weak to defend you can always go with the old grammer or spelling attack. However, going after capitalization is pretty lame. Did you just finish the 3rd grade?

I’m not much at spelling or grammer, but I do work on my English along with my Russian, Pashto, Dari, and Spanish. From your post I can tell that you have no desire to work on your weakness in science, yet you insist on posting pseudo-science garbage continually. You didn’t even have an idea how old the earth was in a previous post. Wake up and start reading a science book. Trust me it’s for your own good.

If you PM me I have tons of basic science websites, skeptic websites, and a good basic sience reading list. If you don’t like critical thinking you can always stop and go back to being a follower.

Cthulhu wrote:
The beginning of a sentence should have a CAPITAL letter(in this case “A”).Maybe you need to read some books on basic English.
[/quote]

63

You said, ‘I believe the earth is 4,000 yrs old’ against all logic and 99.9999999% of the evidence out there.

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
I never said I had a study showing that the earth was young.I said there is enough evidence showing that the earth is younger.For example,creationists say that the earth’s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence against evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the earth could not be older than about 10,000 years.

jsbrook wrote:
There is no study that shows the earth is 4000 years old. Show it to me. Post it here.

Cthulhu wrote:
First of all,I never said I was a chirstian.Second of all,they have “evidence” saying it’s less than 4.4 billon years old.Third of all,I said that was my opinion.I neevr said that it was a fact the earth was four thousand years old. This is just another study saying the same old thing.Next year they’ll probably have some study showing us it’s five billion years old.I gues the big bang happened and we evolved from apes at the same time?

Flop Hat wrote:
You must be right the earth is four to six thousand years old. It’s all of the astronomers, geologist, paleontologist, physicist, and biologist that are wrong. It’s not about what you belive, it’s about having proof. Once again you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Scientist have this stuff called “evedince” that backs up their claim of a 4.5 billion year old earth.

There is no proof of a young earth except for some knuckle head who counted the number of “begats” to back to Adam in the old testament. Hummm… the entire body of scientific knowlege Vs young earth cristian couting begats. You must attend an awful school system.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

And here is the real history of the necronomicon. sorry champ.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mnecromicon.html

Cthulhu wrote:
Haha! really?I don’t know what school you go to but I never learned that it was 4.55 billion years old.

I was watching the news a few days ago and they said it was three billion years old.
[/quote]

64

There appears to be a misunderstanding between food that’s been genetically modified through years of selective breeding (including grains, veggies, fruits, livestock), and food that’s been genetically modified in a lab, using genes from other species entirely. The latter is what most people consider to be ‘genetically modified’ even though both are technically genetically modified.

Breeding apples over generations to make a tastier apple is not unhealthy for your body. Putting fish genes in a tomato very well might be.

65

Let’s get back on topic here:

Organic foods have more vitamins/minerals and less nitrates in them than conventionally grown foods. I and others have posted this from studies done in other threads about the difference between organic and conventional.

Besides, organic tastes better than conventional.

66

[quote]HouseOfAtlas wrote:
Let’s get back on topic here:

Organic foods have more vitamins/minerals and less nitrates in them than conventionally grown foods. I and others have posted this from studies done in other threads about the difference between organic and conventional.

Besides, organic tastes better than conventional.[/quote]

I have no doubt that organic has health benefits over conventionally grown foods. It’s a question of degree and whether an individual finds it worthwhile to pay the extra cost

67

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
HouseOfAtlas wrote:
Let’s get back on topic here:

Organic foods have more vitamins/minerals and less nitrates in them than conventionally grown foods. I and others have posted this from studies done in other threads about the difference between organic and conventional.

Besides, organic tastes better than conventional.

I have no doubt that organic has health benefits over conventionally grown foods. It’s a question of degree and whether an individual finds it worthwhile to pay the extra cost[/quote]

It’s definitely worthwhile for apples, the taste difference is amazing.

68

Plus, I KNOW better than to engage with this argument BUT IT PAINS ME that Cthulu is setting up a false conflict between the big bang and evolution.

No scientists are arguing that humans evolving from apes created the universe. The big bang created the universe and manymanymany years later there was evolution. And manymanymany years later there were humanoids. Sheesh.

Going to beat my head against the wall until it stops hurting now.

69

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
HouseOfAtlas wrote:
Let’s get back on topic here:

Organic foods have more vitamins/minerals and less nitrates in them than conventionally grown foods. I and others have posted this from studies done in other threads about the difference between organic and conventional.

Besides, organic tastes better than conventional.

I have no doubt that organic has health benefits over conventionally grown foods. It’s a question of degree and whether an individual finds it worthwhile to pay the extra cost[/quote]

Exactly!

It seems the degree of difference is far overstated and most of the claims appear to be based on questionable science.

I

70

Yes,and I was simply stating my opinion.Not all logic.Like I said,there are plenty of scientists and creationsists that believe the earth is less than 4.5 billion years old.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
You said, ‘I believe the earth is 4,000 yrs old’ against all logic and 99.9999999% of the evidence out there.

Cthulhu wrote:
I never said I had a study showing that the earth was young.I said there is enough evidence showing that the earth is younger.For example,creationists say that the earth’s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence against evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the earth could not be older than about 10,000 years.

jsbrook wrote:
There is no study that shows the earth is 4000 years old. Show it to me. Post it here.

Cthulhu wrote:
First of all,I never said I was a chirstian.Second of all,they have “evidence” saying it’s less than 4.4 billon years old.Third of all,I said that was my opinion.I neevr said that it was a fact the earth was four thousand years old. This is just another study saying the same old thing.Next year they’ll probably have some study showing us it’s five billion years old.I gues the big bang happened and we evolved from apes at the same time?

Flop Hat wrote:
You must be right the earth is four to six thousand years old. It’s all of the astronomers, geologist, paleontologist, physicist, and biologist that are wrong. It’s not about what you belive, it’s about having proof. Once again you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Scientist have this stuff called “evedince” that backs up their claim of a 4.5 billion year old earth.

There is no proof of a young earth except for some knuckle head who counted the number of “begats” to back to Adam in the old testament. Hummm… the entire body of scientific knowlege Vs young earth cristian couting begats. You must attend an awful school system.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

And here is the real history of the necronomicon. sorry champ.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mnecromicon.html

Cthulhu wrote:
Haha! really?I don’t know what school you go to but I never learned that it was 4.55 billion years old.

I was watching the news a few days ago and they said it was three billion years old.
[/quote]

71

Some do and some don’t.Personally,I feel a lot better by eating organic foods.I don’t get sick all the time.There are many people on this website who have said the same thing.So ,to me,paying a few extra bucks at the store is better than paying much more in medical bills.But I guess you’ll get sick less once you begin to lead a healthy life style.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
HouseOfAtlas wrote:
Let’s get back on topic here:

Organic foods have more vitamins/minerals and less nitrates in them than conventionally grown foods. I and others have posted this from studies done in other threads about the difference between organic and conventional.

Besides, organic tastes better than conventional.

I have no doubt that organic has health benefits over conventionally grown foods. It’s a question of degree and whether an individual finds it worthwhile to pay the extra cost[/quote]

72

See,you say the big bang created the universe,but many,many scientists would disagree with you.

[quote]thirstygirl wrote:
Plus, I KNOW better than to engage with this argument BUT IT PAINS ME that Cthulu is setting up a false conflict between the big bang and evolution.

No scientists are arguing that humans evolving from apes created the universe. The big bang created the universe and manymanymany years later there was evolution. And manymanymany years later there were humanoids. Sheesh.

Going to beat my head against the wall until it stops hurting now.[/quote]

73

By the way,how am I setting up a false conflict between the big bang and evolution?Exactly,there was evolution many years later.Some say that a cell floating along in the water happened,some say we evolved from apes.Like I said earlier,there are many scientists who don’t believe the big bang happened either,and have good scientific opinions and theories to answer these questions.That is why it is called “The big bang theory.”

[quote]thirstygirl wrote:
Plus, I KNOW better than to engage with this argument BUT IT PAINS ME that Cthulu is setting up a false conflict between the big bang and evolution.

No scientists are arguing that humans evolving from apes created the universe. The big bang created the universe and manymanymany years later there was evolution. And manymanymany years later there were humanoids. Sheesh.

Going to beat my head against the wall until it stops hurting now.[/quote]

74

Genetically modified can mean either(selective breeding or food thats been modified in labs).Anything that is modified genetically.Like I said,I am not really talking about produce and vegetables that have been modified through years of selective breeding.I’m talking about fruits that have been modified in labs.I agree with you though.

[quote]Jinx Me wrote:
There appears to be a misunderstanding between food that’s been genetically modified through years of selective breeding (including grains, veggies, fruits, livestock), and food that’s been genetically modified in a lab, using genes from other species entirely. The latter is what most people consider to be ‘genetically modified’ even though both are technically genetically modified.

Breeding apples over generations to make a tastier apple is not unhealthy for your body. Putting fish genes in a tomato very well might be.

[/quote]

75

I challenge you to find one scientist who has graduated from an actual university that believes the earth is four thousand years old and has been able to publish in a journal. You will not be able to do it. There is two much of evidence of living, speaking, human beings-not discernable from usin any real way-who were living in sophistocated civilizations before that time. I’m not gonna argue with you about it anymore. But if you cling to your statement it erodes credibility on any position you take on any other possible issue.

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
Yes,and I was simply stating my opinion.Not all logic.Like I said,there are plenty of scientists and creationsists that believe the earth is less than 4.5 billion years old.

jsbrook wrote:
You said, ‘I believe the earth is 4,000 yrs old’ against all logic and 99.9999999% of the evidence out there.

Cthulhu wrote:
I never said I had a study showing that the earth was young.I said there is enough evidence showing that the earth is younger.For example,creationists say that the earth’s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence against evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the earth could not be older than about 10,000 years.

jsbrook wrote:
There is no study that shows the earth is 4000 years old. Show it to me. Post it here.

Cthulhu wrote:
First of all,I never said I was a chirstian.Second of all,they have “evidence” saying it’s less than 4.4 billon years old.Third of all,I said that was my opinion.I neevr said that it was a fact the earth was four thousand years old. This is just another study saying the same old thing.Next year they’ll probably have some study showing us it’s five billion years old.I gues the big bang happened and we evolved from apes at the same time?

Flop Hat wrote:
You must be right the earth is four to six thousand years old. It’s all of the astronomers, geologist, paleontologist, physicist, and biologist that are wrong. It’s not about what you belive, it’s about having proof. Once again you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Scientist have this stuff called “evedince” that backs up their claim of a 4.5 billion year old earth.

There is no proof of a young earth except for some knuckle head who counted the number of “begats” to back to Adam in the old testament. Hummm… the entire body of scientific knowlege Vs young earth cristian couting begats. You must attend an awful school system.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

And here is the real history of the necronomicon. sorry champ.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mnecromicon.html

Cthulhu wrote:
Haha! really?I don’t know what school you go to but I never learned that it was 4.55 billion years old.

I was watching the news a few days ago and they said it was three billion years old.

[/quote]

76

What if you’re not eating all organic foods and you never get sick?

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
Some do and some don’t.Personally,I feel a lot better by eating organic foods.I don’t get sick all the time.There are many people on this website who have said the same thing.So ,to me,paying a few extra bucks at the store is better than paying much more in medical bills.But I guess you’ll get sick less once you begin to lead a healthy life style.

jsbrook wrote:
HouseOfAtlas wrote:
Let’s get back on topic here:

Organic foods have more vitamins/minerals and less nitrates in them than conventionally grown foods. I and others have posted this from studies done in other threads about the difference between organic and conventional.

Besides, organic tastes better than conventional.

I have no doubt that organic has health benefits over conventionally grown foods. It’s a question of degree and whether an individual finds it worthwhile to pay the extra cost

[/quote]

77

There are christian scientists who believe the earth is about six(maybe more)thosuand years old.
But I guess their statements and opinions too erodes credibility?

There is still MUCH to learn about this world and universe.To say the world is 4.5 billion years old would be ignorant because we still have much to learn.Next year we could find some kind of evidence that says the world is eight billion years old,or 8 thousand years old.This world is like a painting in progress.
I’m curious,where are these studies or evidence that says there were races more sophistocated?

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I challenge you to find one scientist who has graduated from an actual university that believes the earth is four thousand years old and has been able to publish in a journal. You will not be able to do it. There is two much of evidence of living, speaking, human beings-not discernable from usin any real way-who were living in sophistocated civilizations before that time. I’m not gonna argue with you about it anymore. But if you cling to your statement it erodes credibility on any position you take on any other possible issue.

Cthulhu wrote:
Yes,and I was simply stating my opinion.Not all logic.Like I said,there are plenty of scientists and creationsists that believe the earth is less than 4.5 billion years old.

jsbrook wrote:
You said, ‘I believe the earth is 4,000 yrs old’ against all logic and 99.9999999% of the evidence out there.

Cthulhu wrote:
I never said I had a study showing that the earth was young.I said there is enough evidence showing that the earth is younger.For example,creationists say that the earth’s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence against evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the earth could not be older than about 10,000 years.

jsbrook wrote:
There is no study that shows the earth is 4000 years old. Show it to me. Post it here.

Cthulhu wrote:
First of all,I never said I was a chirstian.Second of all,they have “evidence” saying it’s less than 4.4 billon years old.Third of all,I said that was my opinion.I neevr said that it was a fact the earth was four thousand years old. This is just another study saying the same old thing.Next year they’ll probably have some study showing us it’s five billion years old.I gues the big bang happened and we evolved from apes at the same time?

Flop Hat wrote:
You must be right the earth is four to six thousand years old. It’s all of the astronomers, geologist, paleontologist, physicist, and biologist that are wrong. It’s not about what you belive, it’s about having proof. Once again you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Scientist have this stuff called “evedince” that backs up their claim of a 4.5 billion year old earth.

There is no proof of a young earth except for some knuckle head who counted the number of “begats” to back to Adam in the old testament. Hummm… the entire body of scientific knowlege Vs young earth cristian couting begats. You must attend an awful school system.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

And here is the real history of the necronomicon. sorry champ.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mnecromicon.html

Cthulhu wrote:
Haha! really?I don’t know what school you go to but I never learned that it was 4.55 billion years old.

I was watching the news a few days ago and they said it was three billion years old.

[/quote]

78

Then that is great.Every single thing I eat isn’t organic,but I try to keep as close to nature as I can.Not everyone is effected in the same way as others. Someone maye have a strong immune system and not eat organic,and never get sick.But they also may not eat much junk food,or not go around a lot of sick people,or do drugs.
However,I’ve not once seen someone who does do drugs,or fill up on beer and eat cheap,processed foods not get sick or not have any health problems before.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
What if you’re not eating all organic foods and you never get sick?

Cthulhu wrote:
Some do and some don’t.Personally,I feel a lot better by eating organic foods.I don’t get sick all the time.There are many people on this website who have said the same thing.So ,to me,paying a few extra bucks at the store is better than paying much more in medical bills.But I guess you’ll get sick less once you begin to lead a healthy life style.

jsbrook wrote:
HouseOfAtlas wrote:
Let’s get back on topic here:

Organic foods have more vitamins/minerals and less nitrates in them than conventionally grown foods. I and others have posted this from studies done in other threads about the difference between organic and conventional.

Besides, organic tastes better than conventional.

I have no doubt that organic has health benefits over conventionally grown foods. It’s a question of degree and whether an individual finds it worthwhile to pay the extra cost

[/quote]

79

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
By the way,how am I setting up a false conflict between the big bang and evolution?Exactly,there was evolution many years later.Some say that a cell floating along in the water happened,some say we evolved from apes.Like I said earlier,there are many scientists who don’t believe the big bang happened either,and have good scientific opinions and theories to answer these questions.That is why it is called “The big bang theory.”

thirstygirl wrote:
Plus, I KNOW better than to engage with this argument BUT IT PAINS ME that Cthulu is setting up a false conflict between the big bang and evolution.

No scientists are arguing that humans evolving from apes created the universe. The big bang created the universe and manymanymany years later there was evolution. And manymanymany years later there were humanoids. Sheesh.

Going to beat my head against the wall until it stops hurting now.

[/quote]

Um you don’t actually know the scientific definition of a theory do you? It is a line of reasoning which is supported by evidence however, being scientists, they don’t assume that they won’t change the theory as differing evidence comes along. I can say we got created from pixie dust but I cannot then claim that this is a scientific theory.

AND AGAIN you are confusing timeframes and trying to claim that we cannot have both cells in water and apes. The initial steps of evolution have to occur for the later steps to happen. THERE IS NO CONFLICT UNLESS YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN TIME.

Which you might not, I really wouldn’t care to hazard a guess at this point.

Walking away from the carwreck of logic at this point.

80

Cthulhu,

Thanks for that inspiring response. I appreciate it.

You’re getting busted on because you are looking 0.01% of the evidence and giving it a greater weight in an arguement than the remaining 99.99%. You are also copping shit because you are taking creationists seriously. You do understand that creationists and the like are mentally retarded and not taken seriously by anyone except themselves, don’t you?

You come off sounding like a brainwashed child. Too bad, because I actually like organic fruit and vege. I think that is what this thread was about it, wasn’t it?