CrossFit Discussion Board

CrossFit Discussion Board (https://board.crossfit.com/index.php)
-   Nutrition (https://board.crossfit.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   Don't believe in Paleo because... (https://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=40807)

Dave Hancock 12-29-2008 02:29 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Amber Mathwig;480499]
Although Taubes book, Good Fats, Bad Fats is quite possibly one of the most difficult reads [/QUOTE]

I think you mean "Good Calories, Bad Calories". Definitely not a "light" read.

Phillip Garrison 12-29-2008 02:29 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Ben Chapman;481129]Ever heard of Ben Stein? He's Jewish and a proponent of ID, he even made a movie about the suppression of it.

That really isn't the point though, You think it's all Christians, I can give you examples of people who believe it that aren't. But that's sort of a rabbit trail to what's being discussed here. Let's try to steer it away from religion again.[/QUOTE]

I've seent hat movie, Ben Stein is an ID proponent, he's a free thinking proponent, he's opposed to any idea not being explored equally by the scientific community. He's not specifically pro ID just anti not supporting alternative theories. Which I applaud.

Phillip Garrison 12-29-2008 02:30 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Dave Hancock;481140]I think you mean "Good Calories, Bad Calories". Definitely not a "light" read.[/QUOTE]

Are bad calories what happens when milk goes bad? :rofl:

Dave Hancock 12-29-2008 02:33 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Phillip Garrisonq;481142]Are bad calories what happens when milk goes bad? :rofl:[/QUOTE]

That depends, do you like cottage cheese. ;)

C James Barton 12-29-2008 02:34 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Frank Dennis;481128]The problem, from a scientific standpoint, is that these theories then make a young earth impossible because of other things we observe in the universe; for mass distribution to be what it is now, for the planets to be where they aren and how they are using nothing but the physical laws of the universe to achieve the current configuration, requires the sort of timeline coherent with evolutionary theory.[/QUOTE]

That's not *strictly* true. The whole universe could have been created three seconds ago, with everyone's memories of the past just fabricated. All the regularities of nature could still be present.

Of course, there's no [I]evidence[/I] for that, but it can't be disproved. It just doesn't usefully explain anything.

The evidence is that the universe is billions of years old, the solar system younger, any life and human life younger yet, and agriculture an almost complete new-comer.

Lurene Grenier 12-29-2008 02:35 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Ben Chapman;481136]Again, not doubting the Paleo diet's efficacy, I actually TRY to follow it as much as I can. I simply doubt the origin[/QUOTE]

Even if we throw out evolution and believe in a 6-day creationist path, we still know that humans didn't start out as farmers, right? Adam and Eve didn't farm. They had to live off of what they had. Humans didn't farm for a long time after eden - hell, how long did adam and eve live?

And God MADE them with eden in mind. To never have to know want or work, and farming is certainly work, so doubtless they'd have had animals and what grew around them naturally - God wasnt giving them sandwhiches to munch on.

So if you doubt evolution, then there'd be no way we could ever adapt to bread. That's almost a better argument for paleo than the evolutionary one :)

Ben Chapman 12-29-2008 02:35 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Frank Dennis;481128]As a specific example:

[URL="http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp"]GPS systems are affected by relativity[/URL] (wfs). The altitude at which satellites orbit is sufficient that the varaition in gravity affects how fast clocks in orbit are ticking vs. how fast they're ticking on the ground. If GPS and communications satellites did not acount for this difference in clock speed, then computer networks would lose time. It's not a huge difference, but it adds up.

This is just one example, but there are many more examples where current models of physical laws make predictions which bear out in how we interact with the universe. Of course, the very nature of science is that when something comes along which doesn't fit our model, the model gets updated. Using a model to describe the universe which had 7 concentric celestial spheres, with Earth at the center, worked just fine until the invention of the telescope.

The problem, from a scientific standpoint, is that these theories then make a young earth impossible because of other things we observe in the universe; for mass distribution to be what it is now, for the planets to be where they aren and how they are using nothing but the physical laws of the universe to achieve the current configuration, requires the sort of timeline coherent with evolutionary theory.

Of course, none of that matters if you believe that God created the universe and the earth is young, and I don't mean that in a disparaging way. If you have faith that there is a creator, then science is irrelevant; just because there appear to be rules in place for how the universe works around us, God by his very nature, as most people concieve him, can suspsend those rules at will and do whatever he wants.

As people have said on this thread before, in neither case can we be completely certain what our ancestors ate. When was the fishing pole invented? How long do you suppose ancient man, if evolution is correct, was eating shellfish he could dig out of the sand on the beach, before he finally could catch things like tuna or cod, and so why are these fish on the menu? Why is it, if creationism is correct, that pork was unhealthy before the coming of Christ, but not afterward? Pigs didn't change... did the universe change around them?

Absolutism is never truth, even things like gravity and the speed of light are variable in certain circumstances. I think the best way to approach the paleo diet, or any diet, or any endeavor which by definition requires personal experimentation, is to learn as best you can what's been done, what the basics are, and then adapt it to your goals as your experience increases.[/QUOTE]

I guess I'm having a disconnect here. You're telling me that because GPS satellites work that somehow also proves evolution? Help me out here. I understand how nuclear decay works, I understand there is empirically tested and sound results for things that are just "theories".

What I do not see is that evolution - in the biological sense - is backed up by this same empirical evidence. It's not something that can be reproduced. No one can run an experiment on a long enough timeline to ever show that dramatic speciation we see in nature can occur as such, the empirical evidence for it is EXTREMELY thin. The question of age doesn't come into question for me so much as the question of the actual randomized speciation. I simply have NEVER been offered evidence where somone has been able to reproduce a biolocial descent with modification on the scale required to arise an entirely new species.

FWIW, using nueclear decay as a proof for dating something still requires that you make certain assumptions; assumptions that you can't possibly know for sure. Such as using a carbon dating method to date a bone based upon the rate of carbon decay, interpolated backwards using matter found in the bone: you have to ASSUME that carbon content of the atmosphere was consistent throughout history, to which there is significant evidence that it wasn't. It is likely that it has been changing.

so despite certain theories being incredibly sound, the proof of something that is slightly related, but completely different still requires that you make certain assumptions about some unknowns. Unknowns that if ever found to be different, would significantly change your results. Are we simply unwilling to consider the idea that some of our original assumptions were incorrect?

Anyone ever heard of String theory or zero point energy? or the idea that MAYBE the speed of light has been constantly getting slower?

I am simply saying that there are possibilities that could refute many findings that we have, and it doesn't make someone an idiot to entertain those possibilities.

Phillip Garrison 12-29-2008 02:37 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=C James Barton;481146]That's not *strictly* true. The whole universe could have been created three seconds ago, with everyone's memories of the past just fabricated. All the regularities of nature could still be present.

Of course, there's no [I]evidence[/I] for that, but it can't be disproved. It just doesn't usefully explain anything.

The evidence is that the universe is billions of years old, the solar system younger, any life and human life younger yet, and agriculture an almost complete new-comer.[/QUOTE]

We can mathematically prove that the earth is more than three seconds old. In fact we can empirically prove it's billions of years old. Unless all we know about physics and math are wrong. But this discussion is going nowhere quickly, and could turn into an ugly religion vs science debate that never works out.

Phillip Garrison 12-29-2008 02:38 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Ben Chapman;481149]I guess I'm having a disconnect here. You're telling me that because GPS satellites work that somehow also proves evolution? Help me out here. I understand how nuclear decay works, I understand there is empirically tested and sound results for things that are just "theories".

What I do not see is that evolution - in the biological sense - is backed up by this same empirical evidence. It's not something that can be reproduced. No one can run an experiment on a long enough timeline to ever show that dramatic speciation we see in nature can occur as such, the empirical evidence for it is EXTREMELY thin. The question of age doesn't come into question for me so much as the question of the actual randomized speciation. I simply have NEVER been offered evidence where somone has been able to reproduce a biolocial descent with modification on the scale required to arise an entirely new species.

FWIW, using nueclear decay as a proof for dating something still requires that you make certain assumptions; assumptions that you can't possibly know for sure. Such as using a carbon dating method to date a bone based upon the rate of carbon decay, interpolated backwards using matter found in the bone: you have to ASSUME that carbon content of the atmosphere was consistent throughout history, to which there is significant evidence that it wasn't. It is likely that it has been changing.

so despite certain theories being incredibly sound, the proof of something that is slightly related, but completely different still requires that you make certain assumptions about some unknowns. Unknowns that if ever found to be different, would significantly change your results. Are we simply unwilling to consider the idea that some of our original assumptions were incorrect?

Anyone ever heard of String theory or zero point energy? or the idea that MAYBE the speed of light has been constantly getting slower?

I am simply saying that there are possibilities that could refute many findings that we have, and it doesn't make someone an idiot to entertain those possibilities.[/QUOTE]

What about bacteria? They display mutation and evolution all the time?

Ben Chapman 12-29-2008 02:39 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Lurene Grenier;481147]Even if we throw out evolution and believe in a 6-day creationist path, we still know that humans didn't start out as farmers, right? Adam and Eve didn't farm. They had to live off of what they had. Humans didn't farm for a long time after eden - hell, how long did adam and eve live?

And God MADE them with eden in mind. To never have to know want or work, and farming is certainly work, so doubtless they'd have had animals and what grew around them naturally - God wasnt giving them sandwhiches to munch on.

So if you doubt evolution, then there'd be no way we could ever adapt to bread. That's almost a better argument for paleo than the evolutionary one :)[/QUOTE]

I don't think we're in disagreement here. I don't eat bread. But I do eat rice, and I do like oatmeal. It's entirely conceivable that people in history ate wild oats and wild rice; even more likely wild corn. If it were wild, obviously it would only account for a very small portion of someone's diet... as it does in mine.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:07 PM.


CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.