I love this!
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Stop Eating Plants, You Uncaring Vegans!
Many people seem to be worried about vegans eating plants, with memes
such as: “You’re Killing Plants!!!!” sent to vegans on Facebook. I have
been the recipient of several emails with links to articles entitled:
“Plants have Feelings Too,” “Do Plants Think?” and “Plants Can Hear
Themselves Being Eaten.” I do read each article sent to me, and
amusingly, the words in the articles are at odds with their titles!
Within each article it states that there is absolutely no evidence that
plants feel pain, nor do they actually see, smell or hear. It is
important to know that there is no published book or paper in a
scientific journal that makes the claim that plants feel pain.
As most people will not be convinced that easily, I will give the solution to anyone worried about causing plants pain. The answer is to eat more plants! It may seem nonsensical, but here is the explanation: Farm animals consume huge amounts of plants, many more than humans would consume. Eating meat causes more plants to be killed in order to feed those animals. Over nine billion livestock animals in the United States consume seven times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire American population. So to save plants’ lives, eat as closely to vegan as you can. Fill up on starches, and enjoy the many fruits, vegetables, legumes and nuts that are readily available!
It is fascinating to find out what plants can do, as well as what plants cannot do. Plants cannot feel pain because they do not have the equipment to feel pain. People should breathe a collective sigh of relief that farmers all over Illinois are not causing any pain when they harvest corn and soy! Instead, a lot of people will downplay their commonality with pigs due to their great intelligence, yet find articles and videos about plant pain and revel in their “commonality” with plants!
From my experience in dealing with this topic on plants, I have come to the conclusion people are more emotional than rational. They strongly proclaim that they do not care what the experts say, because even when they were young they thought plants felt pain. Perhaps this feeling comes from picking flowers such as dandelions as a child and then feeling guilty by how quickly they wilt and die! Flowers are so beautiful that we transfer our emotions to them, precisely because they give us such good feelings! People do not feel this way toward fungi, although we humans are more closely related to fungi than to plants! There are no Facebook memes about “Screaming Fungi!”
Why are articles written in credible magazines such as Scientific American with titles that suggest plants feel pain? The answer is that articles often have titles contrary to the content to draw in viewers. The same tactic has been used for this article! At some point in each article, however, the author always states that plants have no brain, no spinal cord, no neurons and no nociceptors, and therefore do not have the ability to be able to hear, see or feel pain. One possible reason plants are not equipped to feel pain is because plants are rooted to the ground and cannot move, so there is no need for them to feel pain because they would not be able to get away from it. The purpose of articles giving human characteristics to plants is to show that plants and animals have many traits in common, but the consequences of showing our commonality through anthropomorphism is that the casual readers misunderstand the articles! Worse yet, people use these articles with their misleading titles about plant pain to create an imaginary battle, using plants to try to thwart animals’ rights.
The following is a summary of plant capabilities:
Most plants bloom due to length of daylight known as circadian rhythm. They can sense the sun because they need it to survive, and will turn toward the sun. Responding to light is not the same as seeing by forming images as humans do; when plants bend toward light it is because cells gather on one side of a plant which elongates that side and makes the plants bend. In strong light, a plant can store excess light and use its energy for its own immunity.
There is one plant that is being touted as having a memory, but that memory is more of a response that conserves energy. The mimosa plant uses electric signals to move rapidly, closing quickly in response to danger. If a substance is dropped on it over and over and is not dangerous to the plant, the plant stops closing for that substance, and for up to a month it continues to not close for that substance. This one plant’s response is quite similar to memory, but most scientists still put “memory” in quotes, and admit further studies need to be done. Certainly these pathways can be seen as rudimentary structures similar to humans since we all came from one source originally. However, plants branched off the evolutionary tree very early in the development of life on earth, and progressed in different ways than humans.
Plants produce electrical signals in response to light. An electrical response can travel throughout the plant and it can take a couple of hours to get from the cells on one side of the plant to the other. Some authors call this “memory,” but this is simply slow movement of energy. Plants can transfer signals through roots to each other, and while these distress signals can warn other plants of danger, it is not known whether these signals through roots are intentional or not. Many plants make ultrasonic clicking sounds, so the world is noisier than we realize! The reason we do not hear these clicking noises is because human senses, especially smell and hearing, are weak.
Some plants can feel vibrations, but they cannot hear. Recently an article called “Plants ‘Hear’ Themselves Being Eaten” has been published, but again, the title is misleading. In the article, it simply says that plants react chemically to seal up the area when they are damaged, and they sense vibrations such as the vibrations from insects chewing. It does not mean they actually hear nor does it mean they feel pain.
Plants do not smell either. A few plants sense chemicals and prefer one chemical over the other, but it is not by the sense of smell because plants have no olfactory receptors. “Silent screams” is an example of extreme anthropomorphism for the sake of a catchy title, when the “screams” are simply a chemical released to protect the plant. It is not known whether the chemical is to protect just that plant or other plants as well. Either would make sense from an evolutionary standpoint as a method of protecting a plant or a species. Sometimes the chemical is noticed by bugs that respond by eating their predators, but it could be more of a learned recognition on the bug’s part rather than an intentional signal from the plant to the bug. In all of the instances with plants giving off chemicals, the plant has no idea what it is doing since it has no brain for reflection and acknowledgement.
What about those studies that show plants grow better with music? When analyzing the results, researchers found out the plants grew best to the type of music the researcher likes. Perhaps the researcher takes better care of the plants because he likes the music! Much of the early research on music and plants was not carried out using the scientific method, so these tests did not have merit.
There is a shortened version of a Mythbusters YouTube Video called “Plants Have Feelings” which is often sent to me. It gives a totally different impression about plants than if the entire episode is watched. In the full episode the Mythbuster staff realize they might be recording their own reactions instead of those of the plant, because of the way they hooked up the machine to the plant. Also, a “response” was detected less than 1/3rd of the time, yet on the shortened version it looked like a response was detected every single time. Proper controls were not used for this experiment, yet the short version of the video has been spread to make people think plants feel pain.
Since plants, with all their capabilities, do not feel pain, they make a wonderful and healthy source of food. At some point, a person should start thinking logically and realize that animals, with their highly evolved nervous systems very similar to ours, are the ones who need protection from pain.
Again, the solution to all the worries about plants is to eat more plants. The more you stuff yourself with healthy, energy providing starches and nutrient dense fruits and vegetables, the less room there will be for fatty animal consumption, and more plants will be saved.
As most people will not be convinced that easily, I will give the solution to anyone worried about causing plants pain. The answer is to eat more plants! It may seem nonsensical, but here is the explanation: Farm animals consume huge amounts of plants, many more than humans would consume. Eating meat causes more plants to be killed in order to feed those animals. Over nine billion livestock animals in the United States consume seven times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire American population. So to save plants’ lives, eat as closely to vegan as you can. Fill up on starches, and enjoy the many fruits, vegetables, legumes and nuts that are readily available!
It is fascinating to find out what plants can do, as well as what plants cannot do. Plants cannot feel pain because they do not have the equipment to feel pain. People should breathe a collective sigh of relief that farmers all over Illinois are not causing any pain when they harvest corn and soy! Instead, a lot of people will downplay their commonality with pigs due to their great intelligence, yet find articles and videos about plant pain and revel in their “commonality” with plants!
From my experience in dealing with this topic on plants, I have come to the conclusion people are more emotional than rational. They strongly proclaim that they do not care what the experts say, because even when they were young they thought plants felt pain. Perhaps this feeling comes from picking flowers such as dandelions as a child and then feeling guilty by how quickly they wilt and die! Flowers are so beautiful that we transfer our emotions to them, precisely because they give us such good feelings! People do not feel this way toward fungi, although we humans are more closely related to fungi than to plants! There are no Facebook memes about “Screaming Fungi!”
Why are articles written in credible magazines such as Scientific American with titles that suggest plants feel pain? The answer is that articles often have titles contrary to the content to draw in viewers. The same tactic has been used for this article! At some point in each article, however, the author always states that plants have no brain, no spinal cord, no neurons and no nociceptors, and therefore do not have the ability to be able to hear, see or feel pain. One possible reason plants are not equipped to feel pain is because plants are rooted to the ground and cannot move, so there is no need for them to feel pain because they would not be able to get away from it. The purpose of articles giving human characteristics to plants is to show that plants and animals have many traits in common, but the consequences of showing our commonality through anthropomorphism is that the casual readers misunderstand the articles! Worse yet, people use these articles with their misleading titles about plant pain to create an imaginary battle, using plants to try to thwart animals’ rights.
The following is a summary of plant capabilities:
Most plants bloom due to length of daylight known as circadian rhythm. They can sense the sun because they need it to survive, and will turn toward the sun. Responding to light is not the same as seeing by forming images as humans do; when plants bend toward light it is because cells gather on one side of a plant which elongates that side and makes the plants bend. In strong light, a plant can store excess light and use its energy for its own immunity.
There is one plant that is being touted as having a memory, but that memory is more of a response that conserves energy. The mimosa plant uses electric signals to move rapidly, closing quickly in response to danger. If a substance is dropped on it over and over and is not dangerous to the plant, the plant stops closing for that substance, and for up to a month it continues to not close for that substance. This one plant’s response is quite similar to memory, but most scientists still put “memory” in quotes, and admit further studies need to be done. Certainly these pathways can be seen as rudimentary structures similar to humans since we all came from one source originally. However, plants branched off the evolutionary tree very early in the development of life on earth, and progressed in different ways than humans.
Plants produce electrical signals in response to light. An electrical response can travel throughout the plant and it can take a couple of hours to get from the cells on one side of the plant to the other. Some authors call this “memory,” but this is simply slow movement of energy. Plants can transfer signals through roots to each other, and while these distress signals can warn other plants of danger, it is not known whether these signals through roots are intentional or not. Many plants make ultrasonic clicking sounds, so the world is noisier than we realize! The reason we do not hear these clicking noises is because human senses, especially smell and hearing, are weak.
Some plants can feel vibrations, but they cannot hear. Recently an article called “Plants ‘Hear’ Themselves Being Eaten” has been published, but again, the title is misleading. In the article, it simply says that plants react chemically to seal up the area when they are damaged, and they sense vibrations such as the vibrations from insects chewing. It does not mean they actually hear nor does it mean they feel pain.
Plants do not smell either. A few plants sense chemicals and prefer one chemical over the other, but it is not by the sense of smell because plants have no olfactory receptors. “Silent screams” is an example of extreme anthropomorphism for the sake of a catchy title, when the “screams” are simply a chemical released to protect the plant. It is not known whether the chemical is to protect just that plant or other plants as well. Either would make sense from an evolutionary standpoint as a method of protecting a plant or a species. Sometimes the chemical is noticed by bugs that respond by eating their predators, but it could be more of a learned recognition on the bug’s part rather than an intentional signal from the plant to the bug. In all of the instances with plants giving off chemicals, the plant has no idea what it is doing since it has no brain for reflection and acknowledgement.
What about those studies that show plants grow better with music? When analyzing the results, researchers found out the plants grew best to the type of music the researcher likes. Perhaps the researcher takes better care of the plants because he likes the music! Much of the early research on music and plants was not carried out using the scientific method, so these tests did not have merit.
There is a shortened version of a Mythbusters YouTube Video called “Plants Have Feelings” which is often sent to me. It gives a totally different impression about plants than if the entire episode is watched. In the full episode the Mythbuster staff realize they might be recording their own reactions instead of those of the plant, because of the way they hooked up the machine to the plant. Also, a “response” was detected less than 1/3rd of the time, yet on the shortened version it looked like a response was detected every single time. Proper controls were not used for this experiment, yet the short version of the video has been spread to make people think plants feel pain.
Since plants, with all their capabilities, do not feel pain, they make a wonderful and healthy source of food. At some point, a person should start thinking logically and realize that animals, with their highly evolved nervous systems very similar to ours, are the ones who need protection from pain.
Again, the solution to all the worries about plants is to eat more plants. The more you stuff yourself with healthy, energy providing starches and nutrient dense fruits and vegetables, the less room there will be for fatty animal consumption, and more plants will be saved.
Friday, July 25, 2014
Homosexuality Article (Repeat for Forwarding Purposes)
(IF YOU READ MY PREVIOUS ARTICLE ON THIS SUBJECT, THIS IS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO IT, SO NO NEED TO READ IT AGAIN! I AM POSTING THIS SO IT CAN BE LINKED AND FORWARDED TO SOMEONE.)
I was the person at the Westboro Baptist Church protest who was older and had on a Vegan shirt. That may help identify me. You may all know this information, but it seemed to me, from talking with some people there, that some homosexuals do not know the amount of research that supports the position that homosexuality is epi-genetic and is formed in the womb (given by the very parents who may not accept you)! It's some cool research and I expect all of this information will be 100% confirmed in the future. Meanwhile, see if it makes sense to you! I think information gives peace of mind. Epigenetics is difficult to test in humans because it is not ethical to experiment on a fetus, but models and tests done on animals (as if that is ethical) show that homosexuality can be formed by chemicals before birth. Perhaps you might want forward this to your GLAAD members. This article will show that homosexuality is passed down from the parents and is not a choice. (I would not care if it were a choice, but my writing is an attempt to explain why laws denying homosexuals rights are wrong and are prejudicial or simply from ignorance.) I took all this information from about 12 articles and study abstracts.
ARTICLE ON ROOTS OF HOMOSEXUALITY
I was the person at the Westboro Baptist Church protest who was older and had on a Vegan shirt. That may help identify me. You may all know this information, but it seemed to me, from talking with some people there, that some homosexuals do not know the amount of research that supports the position that homosexuality is epi-genetic and is formed in the womb (given by the very parents who may not accept you)! It's some cool research and I expect all of this information will be 100% confirmed in the future. Meanwhile, see if it makes sense to you! I think information gives peace of mind. Epigenetics is difficult to test in humans because it is not ethical to experiment on a fetus, but models and tests done on animals (as if that is ethical) show that homosexuality can be formed by chemicals before birth. Perhaps you might want forward this to your GLAAD members. This article will show that homosexuality is passed down from the parents and is not a choice. (I would not care if it were a choice, but my writing is an attempt to explain why laws denying homosexuals rights are wrong and are prejudicial or simply from ignorance.) I took all this information from about 12 articles and study abstracts.
ARTICLE ON ROOTS OF HOMOSEXUALITY
INTRODUCTION: There are many ways people are born homosexual, and we
are in our infancy in researching this subject. Conservative websites
downplay the number of gays in the world, because they are trying to discourage
further research into the subject, to hide the results from us. They skew
the results of past tests, claiming that because gene sequencing is the same when
one identical twin is straight and one is gay, then it “proves” it is not
genetic and that’s the end of the story. (Actually, that’s just the
beginning of the story.)
In the studies the word “environment” is used, but the conservative sites
see that word to mean the social environment, when in the experiments the
environment often meant the chemical environment in the womb.
The conservative site never mentions the huge subject of epi-genetics, which
is research that is currently exploding with new information about genes.
Epi-genetics involves epi-markers that are on genes (epi-markers wrap around
DNA and make the decisions for that part of the DNA – whether it is turned on,
turned off, partially turned off and when it is expressed). So even
though the gene sequencing is the same (order of adenine, guanine, cytosine and
thymine), amino acids such as cytosine can be turned on or off depending upon
whether an epi-marker is wrapped around it or not, regulating it.
Parents are the reason babies are gay. Here are two ways fetuses
develop to become homosexual.
1. HARDEST PARAGRAPH TO UNDERSTAND, BUT IT IS COOL! The
embryo gets genes from the mother and father, and the epi-markers that were on
the mother and father’s genes are supposed to be destroyed when the sperm and
egg join to become a blastocyst, so that new epi-markers can be made in the
fetus during development. Every once in awhile, an epi-marker from the
mother or father slips through to the developing embryo. If the father
passed on his epi-marker to a girl embryo, she will develop more masculine
tendencies and be likely to be attracted to women. If she gets a huge
amount of testosterone in the womb, she will get some masculine physical
characteristics, such as more masculine private parts. Now this is
interesting: If a woman passes on her epi-marker which wraps tightly and
suppresses or shuts off the signaling from the developing brain of the fetus to
absorb excess testosterone, the fetus will not absorb it as much. If this
epi-marker from the mother goes to a female fetus, she will tend to grow up to
be very “fit” and fertile and have a lot of babies. They have noticed
that families that have a lot of homosexuals also tend to have sisters and
female relatives who have a lot of babies! Now, if the mother is having a
boy, the fetus gets the pre-natal epi-marker from the mother, and he will tend
to be feminized. He may or may not be gay, depending on the amount of
testosterone that is suppressed and resisted.
If the father passes on an epi-marker from his prenatal genes, the son will
grow up to be a straight man, but if the epi-marker goes to a girl in the womb,
she will most likely be lesbian. He gave her his epi-marker that wrapped
loosely around the DNA that is thus “turned on” and signaled in the brain of
the developing fetus the absorption of a lot of testosterone in the womb.
2. Mothers who have many sons are more likely for each
successive son to be homosexual. The female mother ends up with male chemicals
in her system while pregnant because the male fetus produces H-Y antigens, and
since she is female, those are seen as a foreign substance. She gets them
in her bloodstream and builds up antibodies to fight these male substances, and
then the antibodies can travel across the blood brain barrier to the fetus’
brain and altering sexual orientation.
These antibodies get stronger with each pregnancy and the H-Y antigens of
subsequent male fetuses have a decreased ability to masculinize the brain, thereby
allowing the fetus to be more feminized.
STUDIES
LISTING OF STUDIES
They have so many studies going right now with twins with blood samples,
tissue samples, DNA methylation sequencing (methyl groups attach to cytosine as
epi-markers and can suppress them) and Next Generation Sequencing(very fast
mapping), High Density Resolution Images of the epi-markers themselves and
studying the epi-genomes of semen of fathers of lesbians. There have been
hundreds of studies on rats and primates and plants (because you can’t
ethically pour chemicals on human fetuses). They are currently working on the
International Human Epigenome projects that will map all markers, so results
should become more known to the public soon.
FROM HERE DOWN IT IS EASIER TO UNDERSTAND
***We know from studying rats that exposure to sex hormones in the womb
during a critical period in brain development affects future sexual
orientation. By manipulating hormone levels during this time, scientists can
make rats engage in homosexual behavior later on. So you can see this is
physical!
Not chosen at all.
***In mammals, a group of geneticists altered the sexual preferences of
female mice by removing a single gene linked to reproductive behavior. Without
the gene, the mice exhibited masculine sexual behavior and attraction toward
urine of other female mice. Those mice who retained the gene were attracted to
male mice. Physical!
In a Swedish study, they used an MRI Scanner and discovered that the brain
of a homosexual is symmetrical where a straight man is asymmetrical. A lesbian
brain is like the straight man’s brain, asymmetrical, and the straight woman is
like the homosexual with a symmetrical brain. Physical!
They have measured in “adrenal hyperplasia” where there are high levels of
testosterone in a female, the women are more masculinized with more same sex
attraction. That should prove that chemicals such as testosterone affect
sexuality. Physical!
1. There is more blood flow to the brain of one twin.
2. The nuclei in three parts of the hypothalamus are different in gay
men than in straight, either larger or smaller.
3. The cells and neurons are more densely packed in homosexual
brains than straight men’s brains.
4. The number of nerves in the homosexual brain is more similar to
straight women.
5. Gay men's brains respond differently to a serotonin inhibitor.
6. Lesbians do not blink as much when startled and are the most similar
to straight men. Straight women have a much stronger startle
response. This response is in the limbic system and cannot be
controlled. Totally physical!
7. Gay and non-gay people's brains respond differently two pheromones.
8. Finger length ratios between the index and ring fingers have been
reported to differ, on average, between straight and lesbian women.
9. Gay men and lesbians are significantly more likely to be left-handed
or ambidextrous than non-gay men and women;Hand preference is observable before
birth.
10. Gay men have increased ridge density in the fingerprints on their left
thumbs and pinkies.
11. Length of limbs and hands of gay men (white men only) is smaller, in
general, compared to height.
Can anyone say at this point in reading this information that homosexuality
is not physical and biological?
Monday, July 7, 2014
My Explanation of Cain Being Sent to the Land of Nod
One of my relatives put on my FB page that there were no other people in "The Land of Nod" and that it did not say Cain lived there in the Bible.
This is my answer. I wrote it quickly, but if it is confusing in parts, that is because any justification for the story is confusing!
You are right that Genesis 4:16 says Cain "dwelt in the land of Nod." Of course, some versions of the Bible do not say "dwelt" but say "settled" in the land of Nod, which makes it sound even more like Cain stayed there. (I am answering as if I am taking the Bible’s words seriously.)
The only problem with Genesis 4:16, about Cain living in the land of Nod, is that it is followed by Genesis 4:17, which starts out with the word, “And” as if it is a continuation. “And Cain “knew” his wife and she conceived, and bore Enoch, and he builded a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son Enoch.” So, after going to the land of Nod, a woman was around and of birthing age, and Cain had many people around to build a city.
Some apologists say that Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth. Others simply say that Adam and Eve lived a long time and Eve had daughters who simply were not mentioned. But there is a problem with that: If you follow the story in Genesis, a lot of things happened after Cain left and before Eve had another son, Seth, in Genesis 4:25. No daughters were mentioned for Eve, yet later on, daughters of Enoch’s descendents are mentioned, so the most logical reason Eve’s daughters are not mentioned is that she did not have any, at least up to this point!
Adam was 130 when he had his third child, Seth. Therefore, if Adam and Eve were the first people, when Cain left, there was only Adam, Eve and Cain in the world for a long time, until Eve gave birth to Seth, because Cain was not around and no one else was around to impregnate Eve and they had to wait 130 years before Eve had another child (Seth).
I hope this is not getting too confusing!
Let’s backtrack on the story a bit. In Genesis 4:9. God says, “Cain, where is Abel? What have you done? I can smell blood under the ground.” God apparently does not know that Cain killed Abel. God is supposed to know all, but has to ask questions? But Apologists will say that God is just giving Cain a chance to fess up.
God said Cain will be a vagabond and fugitive for life wandering (Nod means wander) as punishment for killing Abel, so he is not coming back to the Garden of Eden to mate with Eve. Interestingly, before starting out for his wandering life, Cain told God he was afraid he would be killed by everyone he met. This seems to mean there were people out there, but apologists who subscribe to Adam and Eve being the first people claim that “Adam lived to 930 years and he and Eve populated the world. Poor first women in the world, having to give birth over and over! (In reality, half of the babies born died back then from horrid diseases, and the actual life span of men was about 27 years.)
As a solution to Cain being killed by all those people he would meet in Nod, God put a mark on Cain so that anyone who killed Cain would receive 7 times the punishment (notice God did not protect Cain from dying – he only punished those who killed). Apologists will say that Cain and God were talking about the future, and that’s why they talked about “everyone killing him.” There are an awful lot of excuses that have to be made to make this story make any sense at all! (With Founder's Effect, it still does not make any sense.)
Such a convoluted and confusing story should not be how “inspired writing by God” should turn out!
This is my answer. I wrote it quickly, but if it is confusing in parts, that is because any justification for the story is confusing!
You are right that Genesis 4:16 says Cain "dwelt in the land of Nod." Of course, some versions of the Bible do not say "dwelt" but say "settled" in the land of Nod, which makes it sound even more like Cain stayed there. (I am answering as if I am taking the Bible’s words seriously.)
The only problem with Genesis 4:16, about Cain living in the land of Nod, is that it is followed by Genesis 4:17, which starts out with the word, “And” as if it is a continuation. “And Cain “knew” his wife and she conceived, and bore Enoch, and he builded a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son Enoch.” So, after going to the land of Nod, a woman was around and of birthing age, and Cain had many people around to build a city.
Some apologists say that Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth. Others simply say that Adam and Eve lived a long time and Eve had daughters who simply were not mentioned. But there is a problem with that: If you follow the story in Genesis, a lot of things happened after Cain left and before Eve had another son, Seth, in Genesis 4:25. No daughters were mentioned for Eve, yet later on, daughters of Enoch’s descendents are mentioned, so the most logical reason Eve’s daughters are not mentioned is that she did not have any, at least up to this point!
Adam was 130 when he had his third child, Seth. Therefore, if Adam and Eve were the first people, when Cain left, there was only Adam, Eve and Cain in the world for a long time, until Eve gave birth to Seth, because Cain was not around and no one else was around to impregnate Eve and they had to wait 130 years before Eve had another child (Seth).
I hope this is not getting too confusing!
Let’s backtrack on the story a bit. In Genesis 4:9. God says, “Cain, where is Abel? What have you done? I can smell blood under the ground.” God apparently does not know that Cain killed Abel. God is supposed to know all, but has to ask questions? But Apologists will say that God is just giving Cain a chance to fess up.
God said Cain will be a vagabond and fugitive for life wandering (Nod means wander) as punishment for killing Abel, so he is not coming back to the Garden of Eden to mate with Eve. Interestingly, before starting out for his wandering life, Cain told God he was afraid he would be killed by everyone he met. This seems to mean there were people out there, but apologists who subscribe to Adam and Eve being the first people claim that “Adam lived to 930 years and he and Eve populated the world. Poor first women in the world, having to give birth over and over! (In reality, half of the babies born died back then from horrid diseases, and the actual life span of men was about 27 years.)
As a solution to Cain being killed by all those people he would meet in Nod, God put a mark on Cain so that anyone who killed Cain would receive 7 times the punishment (notice God did not protect Cain from dying – he only punished those who killed). Apologists will say that Cain and God were talking about the future, and that’s why they talked about “everyone killing him.” There are an awful lot of excuses that have to be made to make this story make any sense at all! (With Founder's Effect, it still does not make any sense.)
Such a convoluted and confusing story should not be how “inspired writing by God” should turn out!
Sunday, July 6, 2014
Will You See Your Aborted Fetus, Embryo, and/or Blastocyst in Heaven?
One paragraph below is a status I put on my Facebook, and some comments. A few people "liked" it, but one was a friend who had a stillborn child years ago (I don't think about those things when I am inspired on a topic), and I think she took the post seriously instead of with the sarcasm intended. With 7 billion people and no signs of slowing down (not even at 10 billion because people have not taken controlling population growth seriously), I really do not care if fetuses are aborted before 26 weeks. Even though conservatives claim fetuses feel pain at 20 weeks, all they use for justification is reflex and also developing nerve fibers. But the two hemispheres of the brain are not connected yet, so there is no way they can feel pain! All these people who want to prevent abortion should support all forms of birth control, and also they should offer up their homes and take care of the babies that the women do not want to give birth to and pay all hospital expenses. The Right wants to make women slaves to childbirth again. They are nipping away at women's rights all the time. This "sacred" stuff is ridiculous. The word "sanctity" was first used in the 1300s, so this is not a Biblical theme. Yet, the Right and the USA does not rely on facts when enacting their laws anymore. Hence, my post below on Facebook:
"I checked with several sites on the Internet, including Answers in Genesis. Aborted fetuses will make it to Heaven. I can picture them floating around in Heaven in their various stages – some looking like fish fetuses, some like little aliens. Can’t you picture it too?
Just think, some women's fetuses will be waiting for the mothers to reunite with them in Heaven! I wonder what they will say to each other.
If a fetus was forced to develop and then was born as a baby with some painful abnormality which caused it to die, it would be judged when it reached the Pearly Gates; which might just have a worse outcome than terminating the pregnancy when he/she was just a speck. I guess I don’t understand the frenzy to force women to give birth to them."
"I checked with several sites on the Internet, including Answers in Genesis. Aborted fetuses will make it to Heaven. I can picture them floating around in Heaven in their various stages – some looking like fish fetuses, some like little aliens. Can’t you picture it too?
Just think, some women's fetuses will be waiting for the mothers to reunite with them in Heaven! I wonder what they will say to each other.
If a fetus was forced to develop and then was born as a baby with some painful abnormality which caused it to die, it would be judged when it reached the Pearly Gates; which might just have a worse outcome than terminating the pregnancy when he/she was just a speck. I guess I don’t understand the frenzy to force women to give birth to them."
- Comment: If it is true that dead babies get an instant ticket to "heaven", then every Christian mass murderer of children is a "holy" martyr for sending those children to "heaven" before they could be corrupted by the world.Me: Yes, they do get that free ticket. But I think it would be a holy martyr only if the mass murderer claims he did it in the name of God to save them from this world. It's all in the interpretation, you know.
Believe, me, I have heard repeatedly how corrupt our world is, and how awful it is to pay attention to "the things of the world." It's a recurring theme, so in a way, abortion is "saving babies!"
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Fake Meat Controversies Explained
(This is an article I wrote that was posted to my town's online newspaper.)
Why do people have such strong opinions about vegans eating fake meat? The criticisms do not come solely from meat eaters; they also come from fellow vegans! Commonly, people ask:
(A) Why imitate the taste of meat when you say you don’t like meat?
(B) Fake meat isn’t a “whole food,” is it?
I answer:
(A) Most vegans could be happy on a vegan diet without any fake meat, but having it is one more added texture and flavor. Even though mock meat can taste a lot like real animal meat, there is none of the greasy or gamey taste and no gristle.
(B) Sometimes vegans are just in the mood to slap a fake burger on a bun and call it a meal rather than make a bean burger from scratch. Vegans tend to eat a lot of vegetables, fruits, legumes and whole grains, but we do not have to eat them exclusively! We’re just like anyone else; we like variety. The only rule for a vegan is no animal products.
Field Roast Frankfurter – Vegan
Further easing any concern is the fact that many of the main fake meat brands such as Tofurky, Field Roast and Amy’s are not made from ingredients that require hexane!
There are far more potent substances in real meat to worry about. Fats in meat are a serious health hazard as their effects quickly accumulate in the body. Three year olds have striations of fat on their hearts now because of the meat and dairy diet we think is “feeding them right.” We see the results of too much fat with the rise of obesity, diabetes and heart disease. The American Diabetes Association states that a low fat vegan diet is better at reducing heart disease and diabetes than the American Diabetes Association diet. (Re-read that last sentence and let it sink in!)
When critiquing the effects of fake meat on the body, it is important to note the amount that is consumed. It is rare to see fake meat mounded on a plate as a main course. Mock meats are a treat rather than the norm with most vegans.
Phytoestrogens and Soy Protein Isolate
This is a controversial subject and research has shown positive and negative effects from both phytoestrogens and soy protein isolate. Phytoestrogens simply means plant estrogen and soy protein isolate is concentrated soy that is separated from the rest of the plant. Skip the protein powders and high fat protein bars, eat whole foods in general, and these will not be an issue. They certainly are safer than the growth hormones found in factory farmed animals.
Real Meat vs. Fake Meat: The Comparison
Here is a comparison of one of my Field Roast Frankfurters to an Oscar Mayer Hot Dog. I chose my favorite mock meat with the “good brand” of hot dog I ate when I was a meat eater
Field Roast Chili Frank
Filtered water, vital wheat gluten, expeller pressed safflower oil, organic expeller pressed palm fruit oil, barley malt, naturally flavored yeast extract, tomato paste, apple cider vinegar, paprika, sea salt, onions, spices, whole wheat flour, garlic, natural liquid smoke, caraway, celery seed, ground yellow mustard, paprika oleoresin. Contains 0 mg of cholesterol.
Oscar Meyer hot dog ingredients:
mechanically separated turkey, mechanically separated chicken, pork,
water, corn syrup, contains less than 2% of salt, sodium phosphates,
sodium diacetate (fungicide and bactericide), sodium benzoate
(preservative), sodium ascorbate, flavor, sodium nitrite (additive, can
form carcinogenic nitrosamines and trigger migraines).Contains 35 mg of
cholesterol.
“Mechanically Separated” means pureeing or grinding the carcass left
after the manual removal of meat from the bones and then forcing the
slurry through a sieve under pressure. What is in the hot dog includes
bone, bone marrow, skin, nerves, blood vessels in addition to the scraps
of meat remaining on the bones.Conclusion
Hopefully, this article has shown that a little fake meat is not worthy of the huge amount of criticism and ostracism that is given to a vegan who will admit to occasionally eating it!
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Vegans and Fake Meat
This is an article I posted in our local online magazine.
Today we will examine vegan meats, also called faux meat, fake meat and mock meat.
The first vegan meat to discuss is seitan. The biggest controversy is how to pronounce it! Some say “Say–TAN,” hitting the T extra hard so it won’t sound like Satan, but a Japanese man told me it was pronounced more like a southerner would say it, “Sah-ee-tan.” Regardless of pronunciation, making seitan is tricky because it can come out rubbery, but there are people who can conquer it and love homemade seitan. The only seitan I have had success with is when I mail order Bacon Style Seitan Strips by Upton’s Naturals.
Kroger also has faux bacon called Lightlife Smart Bacon. In a sandwich they are great, but don’t expect either one to taste much like real bacon if you are thinking about eating it by itself. Fake bacon has not been perfected yet.
Field Roast is my favorite brand of vegan meat. Country Nutrition carries Field Roast “Celebration Roast” which looks like a small stuffed turkey or pork roast. I have fed it to my husband who eats meat all the time and he finds it tasty.
Country Nutrition also carries Field Roast Frankfurters, which taste similar to a hot dog but are not greasy and are very filling. They have great flavor and are wonderful cut up in casseroles.
Field Roast Italian Sausage has a touch of fennel and has fooled people with its taste and consistency. This cannot be bought in this town; you have to travel to Common Ground Food Coop in Bloomington or mail order it. It is worth it. We do have Tofurky Italian Sausage at Fairview Kroger, and at first it did not warm my heart, but then it made a great comfort food and redeemed itself in a faux sausage, canned artichokes, mushrooms and brown rice casserole.
Fake bacon bits can easily be made using (TVP) Textured Vegetable Protein, a little olive oil and liquid hickory smoke flavoring in a pan on the stove top. I watched a vegan stop eating one of my pasta salads because he thought the bacon bits were real!
Wal-Mart has come through with some products, including Gardein Beefless tips, which are delicious and can be added to stews or stroganoff.
Butler Soy Curls must be mail-ordered, but they taste just like pieces of chicken and are 100% natural, contain the whole soybean, are non GMO and have no chemical pesticides. I picked these out of a creamy dish to show their texture.
Finally, there is the old standby Boca Original Chick’n Meatless Patties. They are great as a mock chicken sandwich or cut up in pasta salads.
There is even a vegan gourmet ordering service at http://www.veggiebrothers.com/. Do click on the link! You will be amazed at how much the mock meats look like meals from an expensive restaurant.
There are more faux meats, but these are enough to show that vegans have many choices available to them. Now that we have discussed local mock meats, we will talk about the controversies surrounding fake meat in my next article.
Today we will examine vegan meats, also called faux meat, fake meat and mock meat.
The first vegan meat to discuss is seitan. The biggest controversy is how to pronounce it! Some say “Say–TAN,” hitting the T extra hard so it won’t sound like Satan, but a Japanese man told me it was pronounced more like a southerner would say it, “Sah-ee-tan.” Regardless of pronunciation, making seitan is tricky because it can come out rubbery, but there are people who can conquer it and love homemade seitan. The only seitan I have had success with is when I mail order Bacon Style Seitan Strips by Upton’s Naturals.
Kroger also has faux bacon called Lightlife Smart Bacon. In a sandwich they are great, but don’t expect either one to taste much like real bacon if you are thinking about eating it by itself. Fake bacon has not been perfected yet.
Field Roast is my favorite brand of vegan meat. Country Nutrition carries Field Roast “Celebration Roast” which looks like a small stuffed turkey or pork roast. I have fed it to my husband who eats meat all the time and he finds it tasty.
Country Nutrition also carries Field Roast Frankfurters, which taste similar to a hot dog but are not greasy and are very filling. They have great flavor and are wonderful cut up in casseroles.
Field Roast Italian Sausage has a touch of fennel and has fooled people with its taste and consistency. This cannot be bought in this town; you have to travel to Common Ground Food Coop in Bloomington or mail order it. It is worth it. We do have Tofurky Italian Sausage at Fairview Kroger, and at first it did not warm my heart, but then it made a great comfort food and redeemed itself in a faux sausage, canned artichokes, mushrooms and brown rice casserole.
Fake bacon bits can easily be made using (TVP) Textured Vegetable Protein, a little olive oil and liquid hickory smoke flavoring in a pan on the stove top. I watched a vegan stop eating one of my pasta salads because he thought the bacon bits were real!
Wal-Mart has come through with some products, including Gardein Beefless tips, which are delicious and can be added to stews or stroganoff.
Butler Soy Curls must be mail-ordered, but they taste just like pieces of chicken and are 100% natural, contain the whole soybean, are non GMO and have no chemical pesticides. I picked these out of a creamy dish to show their texture.
Finally, there is the old standby Boca Original Chick’n Meatless Patties. They are great as a mock chicken sandwich or cut up in pasta salads.
There is even a vegan gourmet ordering service at http://www.veggiebrothers.com/. Do click on the link! You will be amazed at how much the mock meats look like meals from an expensive restaurant.
There are more faux meats, but these are enough to show that vegans have many choices available to them. Now that we have discussed local mock meats, we will talk about the controversies surrounding fake meat in my next article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)