• There were many reasons for the change of the site software, the biggest was security. The age of the old software also meant no server updates for certain programs. There are many benefits to the new software, one of the biggest is the mobile functionality. Ill fix up some stuff in the coming days, we'll also try to get some of the old addons back or the data imported back into the site like the garage. To create a thread or to reply with a post is basically the same as it was in the prior software. The default style of the site is light colored, but i temporarily added a darker colored style, to change you can find a link at the bottom of the site.

Any vegans out there?

Fatcycledaddy said:
Is this the same science that one promoted smoking and had Doctors touting the benefits, or the science that said that eggs would kill us only to change it later, or the science that back in the 70s was worried about global cooling and wanted to spread coal dust over the arctic to melt the ice who have now decided we have global warming? Then again it could be the science that said the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.

Or is this the same science told me I have k9 teeth for eating meat?

Just because science says it does not mean it is always right.

As far as looking at the waist line, I know some fat vegans also. Looking at the waist line tells you if you should cut down on calorie input, not just on meats.
Click to expand...

There was never a consensus on 'global cooling'.. that was a small group of 'scientists' pushing that narrative. Never heard of the coal dust thing. No real scientist would back that.

The nice thing about science is that it will change based on new data and facts. We've come a long way since the 70's. Climate change is fact just as a round earth and evolution.

Science is what allows you to post out here. Science is what allows you to ride a Spyder down the road at 80mph.

Science is self-correcting and therefore more accurate and factual than basically anything.
 
cmbspyderrss said:
There is no denying that we evolved by mostly a meat diet and then our evolution took off once we started cooking it. Vegetables were not added until our brains could understand what happened to the poor animals and people who were the genie pigs for trying that green and multitude of colors of veggies along with that stuff in the ground.

what we eat today and the fact we don't exercise like hunter gathers is a huge reason our spare tires in both men and women are what they are. Shoot, most people won't even walk to the mailbox let alone take the stairs instead of the elevator. Vegetables are a awesome thing there is no denying that. They are popular because they push out all the crap we eat and provide some of the nutrients we need to balance our nutrition intake.

im not saying eat anything you want but eat what your body tells you to eat. If you do that AND exercise all should be good.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a correlation between when early man started eating meat and brain growth, but I don't believe they've concluded that to be the main cause of the brain growth. If eating a lot of meat (which I do) made us really smart then the USA should be filled with brainiacs....

PETA is a nutty group and all vegans should not be judged by the actions of those nuts. I know plenty of vegans that simply choose not to eat animal products and byproducts. They're generally very health people. It's well established that less meat is good for you and more veggies are best. I still hate veggies... but love my meats! Meat production is one of the biggest contributors to climate change. I can't wait for the whole 'lab grown meat' to really take off. That will be the future of meat production. I wonder if vegetarians and vegans will embrace lab meat since no animals will be harmed growing it?

PETA also runs animal kill shelters.

https://www.petakillsanimals.com/proof-peta-kills/#petakills
 
Firefly said:
There was never a consensus on 'global cooling'.. that was a small group of 'scientists' pushing that narrative. Never heard of the coal dust thing. No real scientist would back that.

The nice thing about science is that it will change based on new data and facts. We've come a long way since the 70's. Climate change is fact just as a round earth and evolution.

Science is what allows you to post out here. Science is what allows you to ride a Spyder down the road at 80mph.

Science is self-correcting and therefore more accurate and factual than basically anything.
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009...-ice-in-order-to-prevent-another-ice-age.html
Here is a link to some of the info. I was in a science class when this took place and there were articles in Popular Science, Newsweek, Time magazine, and many other places regarding the subject of coal dust to help melt the ice.
In the same articles it said that the Great Lakes would be desert by the turn of the century. Yes MANY real scientist backed that.

The problem with SO CALLED science now days is that they use flawed data many times as has been proven over and over again. Science should be able to be repeated or replicated, it was never meant to be a conscious of ideas, it was meant to be proven facts that could be replicated with the same results each time.

Whimsical ideas backed up by false data from a computer model is not science, that computer model can be tweaked slightly and a totally new outcome is visible, and no computer models ever come up with the same outcome.

Per ScienceNews for Students:
"In the world of science, the gold standard for accepting a finding is seeing it “replicated.” To achieve this, researchers must repeat a study and find the same conclusion. Doing so helps confirm that the original finding wasn’t a fluke — one due to chance.Yet try as they might, many research teams cannot replicate, or match, an original study’s results. Sometimes that occurs because the original scientists faked the study. Indeed, a 2012 study looked at more than 2,000 published papers that had to be retracted — eventually labeled by the publisher as too untrustworthy to believe. Of these, more than 65 percent involved cases of misconduct, including fraud."

Capture.jpg
 
Last edited:
UtahPete said:
How do you differentiate between the two?
Click to expand...
[FONT=&quot]The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:[/FONT]

  • 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
  • 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
  • 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
  • 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
  • 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
I know that if you have an ignition source that gasoline will burn and if under pressure, with the proper air mixture, will explode. Science tells me that and I can replicate that at any given time.
Science tells me that a low pressure system, and a high pressure system in the weather can guide the storms. It happens with every system, it is replicated, that is science.

The rest is just theory, yes theory is important and ideas are needed, but call it what it is, a theory.
Just like evolution is a scientific theory, it has as of yet been proven. If it was still taking place and we had monkeys that were still evolving into humans or half way evolved it could be proven. But until that so called missing link is found it is nothing more than a theory.
Creation is also a theory, I do believe that theory, however again it can not be proven by science just as evolution can't be proven, so it is a theory.
I believe in science, and scientific theory, but I also no that a scientific theory does not make that theory fact.
 
Fatcycledaddy said:
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. I believe in science, and scientific theory, but I also no that a scientific theory does not make that theory fact.
Click to expand...

What I meant was, when looking at a certain disputed phenomenon, like the correlation between red meat consumption and risk of heart disease, how do you know which argument is based on 'true science' and which is 'junk science'?
 
Going to stay out of the back and forth. Interesting subject--but I predict no winning side. :roflblack::roflblack:

To paraphrase an old military saying: "Eat em if you got em."
 
UtahPete said:
What I meant was, when looking at a certain disputed phenomenon, like the correlation between red meat consumption and risk of heart disease, how do you know which argument is based on 'true science' and which is 'junk science'?
Click to expand...
Again it is theory, not all people who eat red meat have heart disease. Not all humans are the same and different things affect each of us a little differently. My brother who is well over 70 years old, has eaten red meat almost every day of his life and yet his cholesterol is way below average, my wife who eats more vegetables than meat, and rarely eats red meat, she prefers chicken, is on cholesterol meds. I myself am 57 and have a cholesterol level in the high 80 range, I eat red meat several times a week and as the doc puts it, a heart like a horse.
There are other things that come into play also, I have never smokes anything in my life and have never tasted any alcohol except wine at communion. I am sure this plays a part in how healthy I am. At this point I have only had 1 sick day on 15 years.
Some of those people who red meat is a detriment to also smoke and drink to excess, in other words the red meat compounds the problem.

There is a reason they call it Practicing medicine, the way different people respond to any medication can vary widely, the same can be said for the way peoples bodies respond to foods and other things.

Look at the theory on coffee alone, a few years back you should not drink any now it has changed.


Does coffee offer health benefits?

Answers from Donald Hensrud, M.D.

Coffee has been around for a long time and blamed for many ills — from stunting your growth to causing heart disease — but newer research shows that it may actually have health benefits.
Recent studies have generally found no connection between coffee and an increased risk of heart disease or cancer.

In fact, some studies have found an association between coffee consumption and decreased overall mortality and possibly cardiovascular mortality, although this may not be true in younger people who drink large amounts of coffee.
Why the apparent reversal in the thinking about coffee? Earlier studies didn't always take into account that known high-risk behaviors, such as smoking and physical inactivity, tended to be more common among heavy coffee drinkers.
Studies have shown that coffee may have health benefits, including protecting against Parkinson's disease, type 2 diabetes and liver disease, including liver cancer. Coffee also appears to improve cognitive function and decrease the risk of depression.

 
Last edited:
akspyderman said:
Going to stay out of the back and forth. Interesting subject--but I predict no winning side. :roflblack::roflblack:

To paraphrase an old military saying: "Eat em if you got em."
Click to expand...

Old military saying?

Smoke em if you got em is an old military saying. I googled, and can't find anything. I imagine you're referring to c-rations.
 
wyliec said:
Old military saying?

Smoke em if you got em is an old military saying. I googled, and can't find anything. I imagine you're referring to c-rations.
Click to expand...

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by akspyderman Going to stay out of the back and forth. Interesting subject--but I predict no winning side.
roflblack.gif
roflblack.gif


To paraphrase an old military saying: "Eat em if you got em."

The key word here is paraphrase. Smoke em if you got em is where Eat em, if you got em came from. I am talking about critters per the discussion. And, I am guessing you know that now. :roflblack::roflblack::roflblack:
 
Last edited:
Fatcycledaddy said:
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

  • 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
  • 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
  • 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
  • 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
  • 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
I know that if you have an ignition source that gasoline will burn and if under pressure, with the proper air mixture, will explode. Science tells me that and I can replicate that at any given time.
Science tells me that a low pressure system, and a high pressure system in the weather can guide the storms. It happens with every system, it is replicated, that is science.

The rest is just theory, yes theory is important and ideas are needed, but call it what it is, a theory.
Just like evolution is a scientific theory, it has as of yet been proven. If it was still taking place and we had monkeys that were still evolving into humans or half way evolved it could be proven. But until that so called missing link is found it is nothing more than a theory.
Creation is also a theory, I do believe that theory, however again it can not be proven by science just as evolution can't be proven, so it is a theory.
I believe in science, and scientific theory, but I also no that a scientific theory does not make that theory fact.
Click to expand...

Ummm.. in the world of science a THEORY is a basically a hypothesis that has been proven and is accepted as fact....Evolution is one of those. It is proven fact. We have DNA evidence, bones, etc. The DNA is overwhelming.

There is no 'missing link' BTW....

https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/02/28/genetics-provide-powerful-evidence-of-evolution/

These simple photos and explanation end all speculation about human evolution....
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/bill-nye-creationism-evolution/
 
Last edited:
Fatcycledaddy said:
Again it is theory, not all people who eat red meat have heart disease. Look at the theory on coffee alone, a few years back you should not drink any now it has changed.
Click to expand...

I'm not debating any particular issue. What I want to know from you is; how can you distinguish between an argument based on 'true science' and one that's based on conjecture?
 
UtahPete said:
I'm not debating any particular issue. What I want to know from you is; how can you distinguish between an argument based on 'true science' and one that's based on conjecture?
Click to expand...
The answer would vary by issue, so if you are not talking about an issue, you can't answer the question. The reasoning behind the answer would vary per topic.
 
Last edited:
Firefly said:
Ummm.. in the world of science a THEORY is a basically a hypothesis that has been proven and is accepted as fact....Evolution is one of those. It is proven fact. We have DNA evidence, bones, etc. The DNA is overwhelming.

There is no 'missing link' BTW....

https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/02/28/genetics-provide-powerful-evidence-of-evolution/

These simple photos and explanation end all speculation about human evolution....
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/bill-nye-creationism-evolution/
Click to expand...

Here are a few who would disagree with your statement that it is fact and unlike Bill Nye the so called science guy who is not a scientist, they have doctorates in their degrees.
[h=2]Scientists alive today* who accept the biblical account of creation[/h]Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

 
:D I like your impressive list... :clap:
But weren't we talking about something else? :dontknow:

Save the list: the issue of how we got here is bound to come up! :2thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top