Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Fri, Jun-27-03, 08:38
cori cori is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,906
 
Plan: -
Stats: -/-/- Female -
BF:
Progress: 8%
Question Religion, evolution, & low-carb?!?!?!

I'm having a great amount of trouble talking myself back onto a low-carb diet. So I came here for some back up. Does somebody have my back???

Anyhow.... when it comes to major diet plans, I am familiar and have read (if not tried) most of them.

Alot of the argument for LC comes from an evolutionary viewpoint. Don't get me wrong, I'm a smart, educated woman, but I don't exactly believe in evolution. Let's just say I believe in intelligent design. I mean, I believe humans and other creatures have evolved, but I don't buy into the we all came from goo theory. I believe God designed us, put us here.

If you read biblical accounts, man ate everthing. Meat, fruits, vegetables, bread. Granted it wasn't the refined s**t that we call food today, but it was inclusive.

I was just reading the post about low-carb not being sustainable for the "world at large". And it's true. Scientifically speaking, producing meat depletes the earth and it's resources. Not to mention the horrors of pollution and the meat markets.

So I feel all in flux. Science vs. religion??? I have trouble reconciling the stuff in my head. I truly believe that we can choose a diet that will bless our bodies and the earth. But I know the diet that blesses my body (low-carb) doesn't bless the earth. And the diet that truly blesses the earth (vegetarian) does not bless my body. And although I know some of you do it, I have not been able to eat vegetarian low-carb.

This is long and windy. Any input?
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Fri, Jun-27-03, 09:32
Iowagirl's Avatar
Iowagirl Iowagirl is offline
empress of fashion
Posts: 16,339
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 178/161.5/145 Female 5'3"
BF:
Progress: 50%
Location: Iowa
Default

Two words...food chain. The grass grows, the herbivores eat it, the carnivores and omnivores eat them. Granted, we have scewed the ratios somewhat, however I happen to believe human lives take a far greater toll on the natural world than cows.

I also happen to believe evolution and religion need not be incompatible.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Fri, Jun-27-03, 09:48
Zuleikaa Zuleikaa is offline
Finding the Pieces
Posts: 17,049
 
Plan: Mishmash
Stats: 365/308.0/185 Female 66
BF:
Progress: 32%
Location: Maryland, US
Default

Cori
I'm not going to debate evolution with you. But here's some food for thought. No, humans did not eat everything when they were first here. What you ate, what your diet was like depended on where you lived, i.e. Maoris--meat, milk and blood; Eskimos--meat and blubber; Amazon natives--meat and native foods. None of these were big fruit and veggie eaters and none had grain. In fact, grain is a very recent introduction and processed foods an invention of the late nineteenth century. So your reasoning is based on a fallacy.

Also, the vegetables you're thnking of as man's natural diet, a lot of them don't exist in other parts of the world and never did. The vegetables we eat today, for the most part, are very Western culture and new world. There was a study that the varied diet that earlier man ate has shrunk by about 60-70%. In this more varied diet man ate not only more naturally but according to the seasons and what foods were available. A bounty of foods and rich ones were available only on special days. During the middle ages, European man ate mostly meat and unprocessed grains and the grains were sparing.

So pick your spot and you will find that human's natural diet, in that spot, varied greatly from place to place and region to region. That's why I like the Metabolic Typing diet. It explains that humans are one of three metabolic types, carbo, protein and mixed. How well you do on any eating program or diet is determined by which type you are. It also illustrates what moving from their native diets, however spare and leaning toward protein or carbs, to the so called "healthy" diet of the industrial world does to these peoples' health.

I agree that agribusiness as it exists now is not sustainable. However there are other ways to have sustainable agriculture and meat production. It is a nice idealistic stance to take that we should all become vegetarians. However, as it would improve tremendously the health of those of us who are meant to eat that way, it would only deter the health of those who are not.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Fri, Jun-27-03, 10:55
Shellyf34's Avatar
Shellyf34 Shellyf34 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 852
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 222/209/150 Female 5' 6.5"
BF:39%/34.6%/24%
Progress: 18%
Location: Monterey Bay Area, CA
Default

I am not Christian and therefore have no input as to whether we were "placed here" by someone. I am not even going to get into how many times the Bible was rewritten and translated and rewritten and translated, etc. (by men I might add). Who's to say what was actually in "the first edition?"

But I believe that we need to care for our mother (earth) and I try to buy only organic sustainable produce, dairy, eggs and meat. There is plenty available in my area and although it is a bit more expensive (at least the meat is) I feel like I am at least trying to do my part.

If I am correct, didn't Atkins say in NDR that if you can, try and buy organic meats anyway?
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Fri, Jun-27-03, 14:05
Paleoanth's Avatar
Paleoanth Paleoanth is offline
Slothy Superhero
Posts: 12,159
 
Plan: Vegetarian Atkins
Stats: 165/145/125 Female 60 inches
BF:29/25.2/24
Progress: 50%
Location: Tennessee/Iowa
Default

Hey Cori-

Actually in the Garden of Eden-God tells Adam and Eve they are to be stewards of the animals. Not to eat them willy nilly. In Deuteronomy, God specifically tells people not to eat pork. There are lots of conflicting eating messages in the Bible-depending on which quote you choose-that seem to support carnivore eating or vegetarian eating. I am not aure how you would reconcile all that.

I am a vegetarian low carber, but I don't have a problem with other people eating meat. I just choose not to do it. I would think that going free range, hormone free would be the best bet for both you and the earth, though. The more that we all buy those products, the cheaper they will become. Soy is another alternative that can replace meat in a meal even if you don't want to become a vegetarian.

As far as evolution is concerned-I am not going to get into a debate with you about that either-since human evolution is what I do for a living, obviously I accept it. I will say this though, science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive. Actually, science has nothing whatsoever to say about God-he is an untestable hypothesis. We cannot measure him or take his blood or test him-so therefore he is beyond scientific knowledge. Science can only gather knowledge about the world at hand that we can feel and touch and test.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Fri, Jun-27-03, 14:11
Iowagirl's Avatar
Iowagirl Iowagirl is offline
empress of fashion
Posts: 16,339
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 178/161.5/145 Female 5'3"
BF:
Progress: 50%
Location: Iowa
Default

And eat.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Sun, Jun-29-03, 14:57
Lisa N's Avatar
Lisa N Lisa N is offline
Posts: 12,028
 
Plan: Bernstein Diabetes Soluti
Stats: 260/-/145 Female 5' 3"
BF:
Progress: 63%
Location: Michigan
Default More food for thought...

While it's true that the Biblical accounts of diet did include fruits, grains, vegetables and meat it says nothing about the proportions in which those foods were eaten. Was it equal portions of each, heavy on the meat, heavy on the fruits and veggies or heavy on the grains? I'd also like to point out that the "Biblical" diet isn't necessarily a guarantee of good health. Obesity was not unknown even then (take Eli the priest, for example). When mummies from Egypt are examined from that time period, they found evidence of obesity and heart disease and those folks weren't exactly eating Twinkies and Ding Dongs, either. With the exception of grains that could be stored, the fruits and vegetables that were eaten were dependent on what was in season and on what you could grow yourself or afford.
What we do know is that even though all the food groups were eaten, those that ate them also lived a very strenous lifestyle. The average person worked hard from morning to night at physically demanding tasks. They walked pretty much everywhere they went unless you were wealthy enough to own a donkey. Today, most of us don't live those kinds of lifestyles, so it's difficult to apply that type of eating pattern to a culture that is much more sedentary. I could probably get away with eating a lot more carbs than I do if I were to get a job that involved heavy physical exertion for 10-12 hours a day and walked everywhere I went too.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Sun, Jun-29-03, 16:24
cc48510 cc48510 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,018
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 320/220/195 Male 6'0"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: Pensacola, FL
Default

IMHO, grain (with the exception of the Exodus)...was not the main food in the biblical diet. My belief is that fish dominated the biblical diet. In one passage god tells the people to eat bread in the morning and fish in the evening.

He is telling them to load up on carbs before they start working. But, he's also telling them to avoid carbs at night (when they are more likely to store them). The amount of bread they probably ate in the morning was probably burned off by Dinner time.

It is my opinion that grain was a one meal a day thing...not the 6-11 servings the USDA is trying to pass off on us. In addition, the fruits and vegetables found in that region (olives, etc...) of the world are very healthy and contain good fats. It is clear, at least in my mind that while the biblical diet was higher than Atkins in carbs, that is was still relatively high in fat and protein and low in carbs compared to the diet the USDA is pushing on us.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Sun, Jun-29-03, 23:19
alaskaman alaskaman is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 870
 
Plan: Dr Bernstein
Stats: 195/175/170
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: alaska
Default religion, evolution, & low carb

Glad to see everything has remained civil here. I sometimes feel bad that the diet which is so good for me relies on cows and pigs living short miserable lives. As a Christian, I believe that knowledge is part of the Fall of humanity - knowledge of good and evil, life and death. A cat or a wolf just eats, doesn't reflect. We do. Just this evening my sort-of-vegetarian wife was reading some item about how awful commercial meat farming is. We agreed that getting organic, free range stuff, bison, etc. would be so much more responsible. But hey, I'm already spending big bucks on my healhty lc lifestyle, so going to free-range stuff would be a still greater hit to the not very thick wallet. Also, don't forget that a huge area of land cannot raise grains and stuff but can raise beef ( or goats or bison) so the argument for ecological vegetarianism can be disputed.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Sun, Jul-13-03, 15:06
gotbeer's Avatar
gotbeer gotbeer is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 2,889
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 280/203/200 Male 69 inches
BF:
Progress: 96%
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
Default

Without a HUGE amount of doublethink (hypocrisy), religion and science are completely at odds with each other.

They both claim to inform us as to the nature of reality but their claims are contradictory. For example, science has well-established the age of the universe as being in the billions of years, but religion puts that age at about 6000. It cannot be both.

Former Secretary of the Interior James Watt said that we had to hurry up and use up all our natural resources, because Jesus was returning soon, and He'd be pissed if we wasted any by not exploiting them fully. Ludicrous, of course, but also perfectly in line with a non-hypocritical reading of Scripture. A Christian who accepts scientific findings must make a mind-boggling number of cheats and compromises in what she thinks and believes - it is not surprising that an honest Christian, struggling with this knowledge, finds her head spinning.

A Christian geologist, for another example, would be utterly helpless in finding oil deposits without information derived from Physics, Evolutionary Biology, and a host of other disciplines at odds with religious teachings. Prayer won't help you find oil, but Darwin will. Hell, you can't even draw a circle without disproving the scriptures that set the value of Pi as 3.

Jesus may love prostitutes, tax-collectors, and you, but he HATES hypocrisy and hypocrites, and on that last bit we agree.

On the day when the thousands of competing, mutually-exclusive religions unite and reach agreement on teachings that do not contradict the facts of the real physical world, then they will be worthy of scientific consideration. Until then, they have the same value as fairy tales: good for comforting the fears of children, and not much else.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Sun, Jul-13-03, 16:19
cc48510 cc48510 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,018
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 320/220/195 Male 6'0"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: Pensacola, FL
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gotbeer
For example, science has well-established the age of the universe as being in the billions of years, but religion puts that age at about 6000. It cannot be both.


Religous scholars, not religion, directly stated the earth was 6,000 years old. This is based on a literal interpretation of scripture. You cannot always read scripture literally. I find no reason why the earth cannot have been both created by God and be billions of years old.

If the Bible left out years of Jesus' (God's son's) life...why is it so hard to fathom that it is possible that it may also have left out alot more. In addition, the 6,000 year figure was based on modern science. Think about that for a second. Without the modern sciences of Astronomy and Physiology...they could never have put a date on creation. The days/years listed in the Bible were assumed to be Earth years/day...which draws on Astronomy and our understanding of what constitutes a year/day. Could the Biblical day/year be different than our own ???

Quote:
Former Secretary of the Interior James Watt said that we had to hurry up and use up all our natural resources, because Jesus was returning soon, and He'd be pissed if we wasted any by not exploiting them fully. Ludicrous, of course, but also perfectly in line with a non-hypocritical reading of Scripture.


Nothing ludicrous about it. Our earth was designed to give us everything we need. Science says resource A will be used up in a Billion years. But, science never said the world won't end before then. Both could very well be right. That resource could dry up in a Billion years and the world could very well come to an end long before then.

Quote:
A Christian geologist, for another example, would be utterly helpless in finding oil deposits without information derived from Physics, Evolutionary Biology, and a host of other disciplines at odds with religious teachings. Prayer won't help you find oil, but Darwin will.


Physics is not at odds with religion. Physics is how God designed the world to work. It is his method. Where in the Bible does it say that Newton was wrong or that there is no gravity ??? Evolution is the only science at odds with religion.

Scripture is not literal. When God says he made B from A, who knows that there may not have been something in between that was left out of the scripture. Just because the Bible/Torah/Nevi'im/Koran doesn't say it happened, doesn't mean it didn't. Even if we believe in science, who is to say that God/Jesus did not simply violate the laws of science when he performed some act mentioned in the Bible.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Mon, Jul-14-03, 11:50
gotbeer's Avatar
gotbeer gotbeer is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 2,889
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 280/203/200 Male 69 inches
BF:
Progress: 96%
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
Default

So, are you saying that god breaks his own laws capriciously? Do as I say, not as I do? Doesn't that call all "divine" laws into question? Is such an immoral deity worthy of anything but scorn? Ambrose Bierce once defined “prayer” as “a request that the laws of the physical universe be temporarily annulled on behalf of the petitioner, admittedly unworthy.”

One cannot allow religious myths to be tested scientifically if one is unwilling to accept a negative result. Such a challenge to religious authority either ends with damage to the scientist (Galileo, for example) or to the religion (your own denial of the literal truth of scripture, for example, a stance for which the dozens of Southern Baptists I work with would deny you any standing at all in the Xian community).

Physics is completely at odds with religion - according to physics, the earth is NOT the center of creation, it is not flat, it has no corners, atoms can be destroyed, and god's hand was unnecessary at creation, lightning is electriclty (not god's punishment), rainbows are caused by the refraction of light, the Grand Canyon was NOT caused by the Great Flood...

Physics has completely displaced the religious superstitions as an explanation for existence.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Mon, Jul-14-03, 12:22
cc48510 cc48510 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,018
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 320/220/195 Male 6'0"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: Pensacola, FL
Default

Quote:
Physics is completely at odds with religion -


Nope

Quote:
according to physics, the earth is NOT the center of creation,


I'll grant you that one.

Quote:
it is not flat, it has no corners,


Again, this is the literal interpretation part. For example, it says that God stopped the Sun. Some purists claimed that proved the Sun revolved around the Earth. But, you cannot read it literally. When it says the Sun stopped, it means that the Sun appeared to stand still. Whether that was the result of God stopping the Earth or some other means...doesn't matter. You cannot read it literally. If not sure whether there is a passage that would indicate the Earth is flat. But, if there is...it is one of those things that is not literal.

Quote:
atoms can be destroyed,


Where did God say atoms can't be destroyed. I don't think they even knew what an atom was back then.

Quote:
and god's hand was unnecessary at creation,


The Bible says God created the Earth, etc...It doesn't say specifically how he did it. When I want to make something...I don't snap my fingers and its done. Though, God could...he likely has his own methods of doing things. Those methods are the laws of science. But, as always...God can set aside the laws of science and do what he wants. That is what a miracle is.

Quote:
lightning is electriclty (not god's punishment),


Who says electrictity hitting you from the air isn't a punishment. It may seem random to us humans. But, who knows for sure that God doesn't play a hand in where storms go, and who gets struck ???

Quote:
rainbows are caused by the refraction of light,


Again, who says God didn't cause that refraction of light. Science is God's methods.

Quote:
the Grand Canyon was NOT caused by the Great Flood...


That is not in the Bible/Torah/Koran. They didn't even know that Arizona existed in Biblican times. They didn't even know it much later in Koranic times. It seems most of your stuff comes from local myths, not the Bible/Torah/Koran. Alot of Ancient myths (Greek, Roman, Nordic, Japaneese, etc...) are so explicit that they are at odds. The Bible/Torah is not so specific that it is completely at odds with science.

Saying that God created the Earth, etc...is alot less specific (and thus less at odds with science) than saying Isanagi stuck his scepter into the Ocean, pulled it out, and the brine formed the Islands of Japan...and that he then populated it with lesser Gods called Kami.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Mon, Jul-14-03, 18:29
gotbeer's Avatar
gotbeer gotbeer is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 2,889
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 280/203/200 Male 69 inches
BF:
Progress: 96%
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
Default

Quote:
Who says electrictity hitting you from the air isn't a punishment. It may seem random to us humans. But, who knows for sure that God doesn't play a hand in where storms go, and who gets struck ???


Sorry, dude. God doesn't control lightning - but the lightning rod does. You are over 200 years behind the times if this is the level of science you are touting. The following article would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.

Franklin's Unholy Lightning Rod

Written by Al Seckel and John Edwards, 1984


link to article

It is well-known that the Catholic and Protestant churches opposed the scientific theories of Galileo and Copernicus, but did you know they also opposed Benjamin Franklin's lightning rod?

Biblical Meteorology

For centuries, Protestant and Catholic churches, basing their teachings on various texts in the Bible, taught that the air was filled with devils, demons and witches. The great Christian scholar St. Augustine held this belief to be beyond controversy.

St. Thomas Aquinas stated in his Summa Theologica, "Rain and winds, and whatsoever occurs by local impulse alone, can be caused by demons. It is a dogma of faith that the demons can produce winds, storms, and rain of fire from heaven."

Martin Luther asserted that the winds themselves are good or evil spirits. He declared that a stone thrown into a certain pond in his native city would cause a dreadful storm because of the devils kept prisoners there.

Christian churches tried to ward off the damaging effects of storms and lightning by saying prayers, consecrating church bells, sprinkling holy water and burning witches. Lengthy rites were said for the consecration of bells, and priests prayed that their sound might "temper the destruction of hail and cyclones and the force of tempests and lightning; check hostile thunders and great winds; and cast down the spirits of storms and the powers of the air."

Unfortunately, these efforts were to no avail. The priest ought to have prayed for the bell ringer, who was frequently electrocuted while ringing the blessed bells. The church tower, usually the highest structure in the village or town, was the building most often hit, while the brothels and gambling houses next door were left untouched.

One eyewitness to the damaging effects of lightning recorded, "Little by little we took in what happened. A bolt of lightning had struck the tower, partly melting the bell and electrocuting the priest; afterwards, continuing, it had shattered a great part of the ceiling, had passed behind the mistress, whom it deprived of sensibility, and after destroying a picture of the Savior hanging upon the wall, had disappeared through the floor . . ."

Peter Ahlwardts, the author of Reasonable and Theological Considerations about Thunder and Lightning (1745), accordingly advised his readers to seek refuge from storms anywhere except in or around a church. Had not lightning struck only the churches ringing bells during the terrific storm in lower Brittany on Good Friday, 1718?

In 1786, the Parliament of Paris finally signed an edict "to make the custom of ringing church bells during storms illegal on account of the many deaths it caused to those pulling the ropes."

The Heretical Rod

The first major blow against these biblical superstitions about storms and lightning was struck in 1752 when Benjamin Franklin made his famous electrical experiments with a kite. The second and fatal blow was struck later in the same year when he invented the lightning rod. With Franklin's scientific explanations of lightning, the question that had so long taxed the minds of the world's leading theologians-"Why should the Almighty strike his own consecrated temples, or suffer Satan to strike them"-could finally be answered rationally.

Thunder and lightning were considered tokens of God's displeasure. It was considered impious to prevent their doing damage. This was despite the fact that in Germany, within a span of 33 years, nearly 400 towers were damaged and 120 bell ringers were killed.

In Switzerland, France and Italy, popular prejudice against the lightning rod was ignited and fueled by the churches and resulted in the tearing down of lightning rods from many homes and buildings, including one from the Institute of Bologna, the leading scientific institution in Italy. The Swiss chemist, M. de Saussure, removed a rod he had erected on his house in Geneva in 1771 when it caused his neighbors so much anxiety that he feared a riot.

In 1780-1784, a lawsuit about lightning rods gave M. de St. Omer the right to have a lightning rod on top of his house despite the religious objections of his neighbors. This victory established the fame of the lawyer in the case, young Robespierre.

In America, Rev. Thomas Prince, pastor of Old South Church, blamed Franklin's invention of the lightning rod for causing the Massachusetts earthquake of 1755.

In Prince's sermon on the topic, he expressed the opinion that the frequency of earthquakes may be due to the erection of "points invented by the sagacious Mr. Franklin." He goes on to argue that "in Boston more are erected than anywhere else in New England, and Boston seems to be more dreadfully shaken. Oh! There is no getting out of the mighty hand of God."

It took many years for scientists to convince the priests to attach a lightning rod to the spire of St. Bride's Church in London, even though it had been destroyed by lightning several times.

The priests' refusals prompted the following letter from the president of Harvard University to Franklin: "How astonishing is the force of prejudice even in an age of so much knowledge and free inquiry. It is amazing to me, that after the full demonstration you have given . . . they should even think of repairing that steeple without such conductors."

In Austria, the Church of Rosenburg was struck so frequently and with such loss of life that the peasants feared to attend services. Several times the spire had to be rebuilt. It was not until 1778, 26 years after Franklin's discovery, that church authorities finally permitted a rod to be attached. Then all trouble ceased.

A typical case was the tower of St. Mark's in Venice. In spite of the angel at its summit, the bells consecrated to ward off devils and witches in the air, the holy relics in the church below, and the Processions in the adjacent square, the tower was frequently damaged or destroyed by lightning. It was not until 1766 that a lightning rod was placed upon it-and the tower has never been struck since.

Had the ecclesiastics of the Church of San Nazaro in Brecia given in to repeated urgings to install a lightning rod, they might have averted a terrible catastrophe. The Republic of Venice had stored in the vaults of this church several thousand pounds of gunpowder. In 1767, 17 years after Franklin's discovery, no rod having been placed on the church, it was struck by lightning and the gunpowder exploded. One-sixth of the city was destroyed and over 3,000 lives were lost because the priests refused to install the "heretical rod."

The Rod Spared

Such examples as these, in all parts of Europe, had their effect. The ecclesiastical formulas for preventing storms and consecrating bells to protect against lightning and tempests were still practiced in the Churches, but the lightning rod carried the day. Christian Churches were finally obliged to confess its practicality. The few theologians who stuck to the old theories and fumed against Franklin's attempts to "control the artillery of heaven" were finally silenced, like the lightning, by Franklin's lighting rod and the supremacy of the scientific method.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Tue, Jul-15-03, 04:03
dannysk dannysk is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 165
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 297/235/190
BF:
Progress: 58%
Location: Israel
Default

According to quantum physics, whenever we see A going around B, we must also say that B goes around A. (Otherwise the world doesn't work). So in fact science has proven, finally, that the sun does go around the earth.

danny
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Losing my religion? potatofree General Low-Carb 32 Thu, Jan-08-04 12:53
Religion, evolution, & low-carb?!?!?! Qball Test 0 Sun, Jul-20-03 15:16
"Could evolution produce a fitness revolution?" gotbeer LC Research/Media 0 Fri, Jul-18-03 11:40
Evolution, Diet and Health--Eaton Voyajer LC Research/Media 11 Fri, Jul-19-02 14:58


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:41.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.