Saturday, September 6, 2014

My Last Reply to False Accusations and Unscientific Statements


Whether you want to believe in the development of nerves for pleasure, pain, etc. and for those to be naturally selected for better survival and reproductive rates doesn't affect its being a fact.  It makes sense for such things to develop and be naturally selected.  There is no shortage of instances in our time that big changes in evolution have developed more rapidly than usual (though in general, there are small changes over time, which in a longer time span add up to big changes).  There have been plenty of observations of not only helpful mutations, but there have been instances of completely new proteins being developed, species evolving to live in completely different environmental conditions and digesting completely different foods, speciation (evolution of new species that cannot reproduce with the species it evolved from), and development of completely new organs, as well as great changes to organs.

Did the Italian wall lizard (Podarcis sicula) "think" about developing an entire new organ, a cecal valve, so that it could properly digest its new diet on a different island where scientists planted them?  No more than a mammal thought about developing pleasure sensors along the penis/clitoris (same thing in the two different sexes, by the way, as I mentioned before, I read all about this in The Story of V three years ago).  Do bacteria think about evolving so that they can resist toxins meant to kill them?  Did Africans use their brains to think about how they'd like to transform their red blood cells into a sickle-shape in order to resist malaria?  After all, if an African (or African-American) receives two alleles for sickle cell they could die, but if they receive one, they enjoy some resistance to malaria. 

Most humans are still lactose intolerant, to different degrees.  Only a minority of humans are completely lactose tolerant, and it's due to a mutation.  Clearly humans didn't always drink another animal's milk, and it's taking a long time for very many people to evolve complete lactose tolerance.

Did the crickets on Kauai think to themselves, "We need to change our wings," when the flesh-eating parasitoid maggots started eating them from the inside out, because of flies laying their eggs on them?  The flies track the male crickets down from their mating noise.  The males with mutant wings (which were therefore mute) then became populous, and the females on that island starting breeding without approving a courtship song much more than females on the nearby islands where the flies didn't exist.  All this happened very quickly, all observed by scientists. 

Things can be sped up even more by human intervention.  Broccoli, kale, brussels sprouts, cabbage, kohlrabi, and cauliflower all were cultivated from wild mustard.  These plants look extremely different, but by selecting for certain traits, people were able to cultivate them all in a short period of time.

 Then you've got creationists saying opposite things about fossils like Ichthyostega and Acanthostega in order to try to deny its evolution, transitioning from water to land.  Andrew Snelling said it was clear such "amphibians" clearly walked on land with load-bearing legs.  Paul Garner said the "fore and hind limbs" in such species were "difficult to interpret as load-bearing" and "appear to be designed for swimming." 

A scientist recently raised young bichir fish (which have both lungs and gills) in a terrarium and some to compare in an aquarium.  After eight months not only did the land-raised ones walk better, not slip, and held their fins closer to their bodies, their bone structure had actually changed.  I'd be interested to see several generations to see how the DNA changes so that we can actually see the transformation of those fin limbs into bony leg limbs, just as the fossil record shows.

We all just watched a plant documentary that I've had on my watch list for a long time.  I can't recall the name, but it was shown by PBS and discussed plant communication.  Very fascinating documentary.  When discussing the wild tobacco plant, a scientist working in the field noticed a vast number of caterpillars eating the plants and that a few of the plants had their flowers openly bloomed in the day hours.  Normally they bloom at night to let the hawk moths drink the nectar and spread their pollen for them, but those same moths lay eggs on the plants, which hatch the caterpillars.  So a few plants started blooming during the day, and not only that, but the actual shape of the blossoms began to change, and the perfume volatility went down.  The plants started attracting hummingbirds (and as you may insects and hummingbirds are attracted to different plants based on flower shape, color, etc.).  Which tobacco plants do you think would survive better afterward?  The hummingbirds aren't going to lay caterpillar eggs, so those plants would survive better in order to reproduce better.  They'd be naturally selected to go on better, because of the changes they made.  Did the plants "think" about the changes it wanted to make? 

Even if a god is causing evolution (and many, many Christians and other religious believers are now believing this way, based on the evidence of evolution), you still are left with the question of how the god(s) got here.  They'd have had to evolve from a lower form on another planet.  The biggest argument any creationist makes is the low probability of chemicals mixing the right way to make the first simple life form, but they are only left to explain how a far more complex entity came to be, which is far, far more improbable. 

If all these new creations can generate in a species and possibly even change species in order to improve survival and reproductive success, then why can't the same thing happen in the instance of pleasure receptors in the mammalian reproductive system?  Why can't a pain receptor be generated and then subsequently selected as superior when it clearly improves survival and reproduction by causing an organism to avoid things that damage it?  If such things can be OBSERVED by scientists, as I've listed just a few examples, why would pleasure receptors in a clitoris be any different? 


As for humans wiping their butts, it's ironic you bring that up.  I've pointed out to my children several times over the years when they try to eat food without a utensil or fail to wash their hands when they should, that they should be thankful that they're advanced enough and are enabled to properly wash their hands and bodies and stay in an advanced house out of the elements, etc.  I've told them that the animals in the wild aren't able to use warm water and soap or build as advanced structures and don't have as advanced hands so that they can use washcloths and water.  Instead they've got to lick their genitals and anuses and those of their young offspring.  They must bite at fleas, lick their fur, and take shelter in caves or dens.  It's odd, though, that I've had the thankful point-of-view that we are advanced enough to do a better job than animals, but you seem to think the animals are better off, judging by the way you worded your statement.  Is that what you truly meant? You said that humans "have to" wipe, as if we are actually worse off than the animals.  Well, I'm glad we can use wet wipes and showers with water and washcloths and soap.  I'm sure if the poor animals could, they would, but they "have to" lick the dirt off their fur and fecal material from their anuses.  I don't look at our "having to," but we're able to.  The animals don't wipe, not because they don't have to, but they're not able to, so they must lick themselves.  If we were not able to, we'd "have to" resort to something along those lines as well.  Of course, if I was a creator I would have created a system where animals didn't kill each other and there was no waste after eating food, hence no anus to clean.  I'd not create a system of having to deal with snot, menstrual flow, and semen, either.  It's all quite gross, really.


As for the statement that we have "a lot of health problems," I'm not sure on what you're basing that.  Compared to the general population, we're all in spectacular health standing.  My husband's only problem is injured vertebrae, one having been broken in the past, and he was obviously in good enough condition that it healed on its own.  He had two injuries to his back during childhood and one instance in adulthood, and part of his work requires work that puts a strain on it, something you don't know anything about, being in a different line of work.  He's probably doing as well as he is because of the diet I feed my family.  And having taken dietary supplements and receiving chiropractic care and taking extra precautions, he's doing far better now than he was a year ago.  As far as I go, the only health problem that has caused me any trouble is a hormonal imbalance, and I apparently wasn't born totally in balance, because my sister and I both were prescribed hormonal cream as infants.  Obviously that had nothing to do with my diet.  Many women now suffer infertility and other great problems due to hormonal imbalance, as it's very commonplace.

I credit how well I've done to my good diet.  I have been very fertile, having given birth to five children.  I gave birth to all of them at home.  I'm not overweight.  My blood pressure and everything else is optimal.  I don't get dental caries.  Early graying runs in my family, and I've got far less of it at this age than the others who inherited the same issue, and we all believe it's because of my diet.  I've never once come down with influenza in my 32 years of life, and very few people can say that.  Twice I've felt symptoms come on, and my immune system, also with the help of using elderberry, killed it before I succumbed to the illness.  Since I've used organic bioidentical progesterone cream all of my hormone-related problems cleared up, and I'm already taking less than I was taking, and I think I'll soon be able to wean off it, having changed to a vegetarian-transitioning-to-full-vegan diet.   I have not used prescription drugs in well over a decade and don't keep OTC drugs on hand, either.

None of our children have ever had to take pharmaceutical drugs, not even antibiotics (with the exception of one child having anesthesia for surgery to remove a broken tooth's root and another child getting a local for stitches).  Our kids do not get sick as often as the average child, and when they do get sick, they recover quickly.  My oldest, especially, gets mild symptoms and gets over things fast.  He's gotten over the flu in hours as opposed to days, like most people.  His first visit to a dentist wasn't until he was nine years old, and he only had one cavity, which is unheard of in this nation.  Over a quarter of children have one or more cavities by the time they're two to five.  Two of my children have never seen a doctor.  One has only seen a doctor over cuts that needed stitches or glue (two occasions).  The only time I took a child to see a doctor for a medical illness was just recently, and it was because we all got whooping cough (which is highly contagious, so that one is almost guaranteed to get it, unless you've been vaccinated in the past 2-5 years, and even then one may get mild symptoms), and I was worried about my two-year-old.  Many children that age are hospitalized for that illness.  I overreacted, because I was scared.  I had her x-rayed to make sure she wasn't developing pneumonia, and the doctor said her lungs were clear.

Although fifty percent of children get at least one ear infection before their first birthday, only one of my children ever has had an ear infection, and she was two, and I cured it myself in one day with homemade garlic oil.  I could go on and on.  People don't come to me for health advice for nothing.  I don't know any children healthier than mine, and most adults aged the same as my husband and me have serious diet-and-exercise related illnesses and are often on drugs.  So, to summarize, not only do we not have "a lot of health problems" as you falsely stated, it's quite to the contrary that we are all healthier than the average population. 

As for the conceited comment about your looks at your age and implying that we would not look as good, first I do not know what you look like without your makeup and your hair not colored. Makeup can cover a lot, and most men your age do not even wear it, so surely you cannot fairly compare yourself with makeup to the mainstream without it.  Secondly I do, in fact, intend to be doing a lot better and look better, for I intend to have all my original teeth without cavities and do not intend to be overweight.  I'm sure sugar is the root of the problem in both those instances and also the reason for the at least two prescriptions that you told me you take, which, by the way, I know are common prescriptions for those with schizophrenia (which I believe is often caused by excess sugar consumption, and there is plenty of evidence for that), so you might want to keep an eye on that, or the next thing we all may know, you'll have a delusion of grandeur, thinking you're an important "end time" prophet, as is also common in those with schizophrenia. 


Oh, did you change your doctrinal beliefs?  You seemed to imply that those like us are going to be the persecutors of "true Christians" in the "end."  You have taught for many years (and I also agreed) that the Catholic Christian brethren and the Catholic government would be the persecutors.  In my interpretation of scripture before, as I taught in my book on the ten commandments, the Christian government would put anyone to death who did not follow Catholic doctrine, which would include Christians that followed different doctrine, as well as Hindus, atheists, Muslims, etc.  So you see, in that interpretation I'd be persecuted right along with you.  I certainly wouldn't be the persecuting, but rather the persecuted.  Never once before did you teach that atheists and deists would be the persecutors.  You always taught that it would be the Catholic government.  Only when you want to once more twist my words and hurl an attack on me, do you insinuate that it would be non-Christians persecuting Christians.  In that case, you would be lumped in with the Catholics and Protestants.

I also never said that all Christians were against me, nor am I attacking any Christians.  I have plenty of Christian family and friends who love me just the same as always.  I never said all Christians I know are malicious.  No, there are only two that I know who were ever malicious to me, and you happen to be one of them.  I never intended to publicly name you (though of course I intend to show others that the bible is just one more book of myths mixed with truths).  I would never be writing posts like these, if you hadn't started saying false things about me.  When people start saying false things about me, I turn around and use the truth to defend myself and show that the other person is the one with problems.  You've brought it all on yourself with your pride, and you know what the bible says about pride.  "Pride comes before a fall."  That's one of the truths of the bible.

I would have been perfectly happy going on with my life and when referring to you in any way, NOT NAMING you.  And not saying false things. 

It's easy to understand why you and Matt didn't want to take our offer on friendly discussion and even a Skype chat.  It's easy to understand why, immediately following that, you made a post saying that you were making your last "reply" to me and that you were done.  It's easy to understand why you'd want to put it to an end.  You shouldn't have started to begin with.  You bit off more than you could chew.  Not once did either of you give a specific sensical and evidential answer to anything.  Your only repetition was that the answers are all on your website, which of course, isn't true. 


I was always pretty honest with you over the years.  You knew when I disagreed with you, because I usually let you know.  I didn't want to be overwhelmed with disagreements over health issues, so because I felt overwhelmed by your many blog posts, I had unsubbed, and even told you I felt overwhelmed. I only didn't specify why, as it was unnecessary.  The part about you being like all the other COG ministers came more clear only very recently.  I did indeed originally start talking to you, because you seemed different.  It seemed like you wanted to search things out more and didn't desire to be on top of an organization.  But then there were always a lot of things you didn't want to talk about, and pieces of a puzzle were put together over time. 

I didn't say anything about your posting Mercola health information on your blog was a problem.  I have subscribed to his newsletters for twelve or thirteen years now, myself.  The problem I specifically spelled out was your own comments that you added, which overturned the true science of the matter.  One of the examples I gave wasn't even related to a Mercola article, but it was rather your asking my children and others whether they wanted any chocolate-covered blueberries, and after the fact, and a bag was left behind, it was discovered they were candy, not blueberries, but you posted on your blog about how good things like chocolate-covered blueberries are for your health, which is true, but what you had bought and eaten right before posting that were not blueberries and were not good for health.


I do not remember whether there was anything else I wanted to comment about.   But truly, I just am sick of the false accusations and twisting of words, even to the point of sounding like you're changing your doctrinal stance, just so you can attack me.  I would have been more than fine with a friendly discussion of why I came to the conclusions I did.  It's too bad you didn't choose that route, instead.

No comments: