published Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012

'Diet is a key to diabetes help' and more letters to the editors

Diet is a key to diabetes help

Re: “Encouragement vs. diabetes” (Free Press editorial, March 28):

Is there a cure for diabetes Type II, and even help in decreasing the amount of insulin necessary for diabetes Type I (child onset), without expensive, risky surgery?

The answer is yes!

Along with refined foods (white flour, white rice, cakes, pastries, refined pasta, etc.), both animal and vegetable fats are more implicated in diabetes than sugar.

Switching to whole grains, and a combination of mainly raw (but also cooked) vegetables and fruit has completely cured Type II diabetes in as little as a few weeks, and has helped Type I diabetics reduce their insulin requirements.

“The China Study,” for instance, is the largest epidemiological study ever conducted and shows a definite relation between the American diet and diseases such as diabetes, cancer and heart disease.

Changing one’s diet is difficult, but if physicians would educate themselves and then their patients, at least giving them the opportunity to choose for themselves, diabetes might become a thing of the past in this country.

Milk, for instance, has long been implicated as a causative factor in Type I childhood onset diabetes (even Dr. Spock stopped recommending cow’s milk for infants and children).

KATHERINE HAUBRICH


Divine creation gives life meaning

There are basically two choices concerning the origin of life. One choice states that life began from nonliving material. The second choice states that life was created by the eternal God.

A textbook currently used at UTC, Biology, eighth edition, 2008, Thompson Brooks/Cole, p.447, states: “How did life begin? Although biologists generally accept the hypothesis that life developed from nonliving matter, exactly how this process, called chemical evolution, occurred is not certain.”

The opening statement from the Holy Bible in Genesis 1:1 is “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

Notice that the scientific text classifies evolution as hypothesis. Notice that the Bible states divine creation as fact. Since no human being was present in the beginning of the universe, whatever we believe about the origin of life on planet Earth must be accepted by faith.

What if the evolutionary hypothesis is correct, and there is no God? The natural conclusion is that we are all just highly developed animals, and doomed to live as such. That concept provides no real meaning to your lives.

What if the Bible is correct, and there is a God? Then life has meaning and significance now and forever.

WILLIAM A. GREER JR.

Hixson


Bessie Smith Strut move a mistake

The mayor’s summary decision to move the Bessie Smith Strut without any input from the M.L. King neighborhood or the community at large is a big mistake. Far from making the city safer, it is a setback for racial harmony that only serves to further divide us.

The Strut has been a uniquely integrated event, fostering an appreciation of African-American culture. The fact that it takes place in the black community, on King Boulevard, in front of the Bessie Smith Cultural Center is integral to the event and sends a message that the city is at least trying to be inclusive when it holds Riverbend.

It also bothers me that the decision was made in a secretive and undemocratic fashion. What chance did opponents have to voice their opinions before the fact? I have never felt threatened or unsafe at the Strut. We bring my 96-year-old mother-in-law, and she is always treated with respect.

It’s amazing that the mayor can ignore 30 years of history and move the Strut by proclamation, but he cannot move the shuttle two lousy blocks to stop at the Bessie Smith Center.

JOHN C. REIS


Strut move marks defeat for our city

Gangs, thugs 1; City Hall, 0.

Moving the Bessie Smith Strut inside the Riverbend gates and fences, accompanied by just about all of Chattanooga’s police force, is the same as admitting the gangs, thugs and random violence win and the mayor and his inept police lose.

What next for Riverbend? Watchtowers, K-9 dogs and searchlights? Moving the fence a few blocks south? No more beer? I suppose they have to let people in carrying guns by Tennessee law?

Or, more practically, why not tear down the fences and let the festival happen, as it started out, all over town, in all venues, with all art forms — like just about every other successful, and as safe as is possible, town festival?

This bunker mentality is ignorant, embarrassing, unsupported by analysis or public input, and Mayor Littlefield’s Strut decision should be reversed. There is no such thing as perfect security, no matter what the police chief claims.

No doubt, with Bonnaroo nearby, this is one way for Riverbend to get national press attention when the Strut happens anyway and opens the door to an independent Riverbend Fringe Festival that no one can shut down.

SID HETZLER

Chickamauga, Ga.


Tea Party support is lacking

Wherefore art thou, tea party support?

While trying to make sense of what the tea party is all about, I find myself wondering what others are thinking or saying about it.

I hear politicians proclaiming themselves “tea party candidates,” but I don’t see many of them coming by to shake hands with tea partyers, or to share a few words of promise for what they plan to do in office.

I wasn’t around for the original Boston Tea Party, but I suspect that it was supported by the community in far greater numbers than ours in the 21st century.

Granted, the present day tea party has a significant number of patriots who seek to improve our lot as citizens of this great country. To be sure, not every American citizen sees the aims of patriots in the same way.

However, the United States Constitution charges and challenges us with the three words that lead into the greatest American document ever written, “We The People ... ”

“Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.” — JFK

LAWRENCE HEADRICK

Tunnel Hill, Ga.


Government should not repair

In response to the article, “Villages’ troubles,” I am so sad for them.

They get a “federal incentive” allowing a $110,000 home for $71,000, then have roofing and plumbing problems and want the government (taxpayers) to pay for the repairs/replacement of these.

I have a house with similar problems. Can I ask the government (taxpayers) to pay for mine, too?

The old saying — “teach a man to fish” — you already have a house that even I cannot afford. Leave the taxpayers out of it.

CANDICE McCALLIE

Lookout Mountain, Ga.

23
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
librul said...

Mr. Greer - your acceptance of fantasy and your willingness to reside behind an iron curtain of ignorance brands you as one lacking the ability, or even the desire, to seek substantive truth.

That is sad.

Fact is, it's almost embarrassing to have to admit how many people like you exist in the world today and to see the effects of their illusory existence in the unnecessary wars, famine, social discord and predatory capitalism which erupt from its demon seed.

April 3, 2012 at 8:33 a.m.
Livn4life said...

Thanks Librul for proving you are anything but liberal. Branding others ignorant who do not take your position shows the blatant hypocrisy of so called libs who cry out for tolerance and understanding and respect for everyone. Why don't you change your name? And while you're at it, look up how many of the modern advancements in education can be traced where, back to some super-scientific progressives? No, they can be traced back to...are you ready...really ready for it librul....to Christian roots. Oh no, those ignorant "many people like you exist in the world", to use your quote began much of the pursuit that has become modern education. But no, all people of faith, are dumb, in fantasy worlds, behind your described curtain of ignorance and not wanting to seek real(YOUR)truth. Sad, that is a word for people who are not open to the possibilities that there might just be something in the world we do not see or scientize(I know in my ignorance I used a non-word,where's your openness now?)which could help us hold out some hope that there is more to life than living, working, rearing a family, being ill, dying and decomposing underground somewhere. You are free to keep on unbelieving. But please think about your labeling(not acting liberal)and degrading people different from you in matters of faith of which you seem to have such great knowledge without ever embracing.

April 3, 2012 at 10:59 a.m.
Plato said...

A lot of people bought into the Tea Party's line in 2010, now 2 years later they see what the result is. No progress, just bull headed obstructionism, most notably the nixing of the $4 Trillion dollar debt reduction plan negotiated by the President and The Speaker and known as The Grand Bargain.

Since then Tea part support has dwindle to the low 30s and their disapproval number has sky rocketed to over 50%.

Good luck in 2012 Tea Party candidates - you'll need it.

April 3, 2012 at 2:02 p.m.
una61 said...

Mr. Greer, The reason that the statement you quoted is at the back of the Biology textbook you cited is because it is not important in studying Evolution, If you want to understand Biology with it's evolution foundation, start at chapter 1. The Bible is a Canon written, edited, translated, and copied by many men over a period of many years based on hearsay (the "Oral Tradition"). The Genesis Myths are simply parables written to illustrate God's wrath against Unbelievers.

April 3, 2012 at 2:57 p.m.
LibDem said...

Mr. Greer, I'm a very old guy who goes out 5 days a week to help people who are in some distress. I'm one of those animals who needs no god to give my life meaning.

(Livn4life, strange that you skipped the Islamic contributions to knowledge.)

April 3, 2012 at 4:14 p.m.
PinkSalmon said...

All I have to say, Mr. Greer, is why are people who call themselvesChristians so mean spiritied and intolerant of others? I've met many people from many different religions around the world, some of no religion at all. Yet I've never met people as mean and filled with hate and condemnation of others than the ones who say they are Christians.

Even when they're performing good deeds and acts of charity, there is some angle to it. Like, Look at me. I'm a good Christian performing God's work, but don't follow us home or back into our neighborhoods. We don't want you there.

April 3, 2012 at 4:43 p.m.
Exusiai said...

Christianity is a religion, based on a book no one was there to witness the events of, and accepted as fact based on faith.

Science is based on "scientific Documents" detailing experiments no one who is reading them today was around to witness accepted as Fact based on Faith.

Science is a religion

Thank you for shopping, have a nice day.

April 3, 2012 at 5:30 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Yeah, right, Exusiai. No one has done any science since Newton and Darwin. Where do you get such goofy ideas?

April 3, 2012 at 6:34 p.m.
librul said...

Maybe an apple fell on his/her head.

April 3, 2012 at 8:06 p.m.
Exusiai said...

"His"

Point is you were not there to witness the experiments, you read the results and you accept them as fact. you do this by an act of faith.

Faith:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof

Now I know what your going to say "the Scientific Document is Proof". and yet you were not there to see these so your only "proof" is a book, written by men, maybe even translated from their native tongue to English.

The Bible is a book, written by men, translated (several times) accepted by faith.

My point is, and sadly its a valid point. Science is as much a religion as Christianity. NO one on this list witnessed the Events in the bible, Nor did we witness the experiments. So We accept them by "faith".

April 4, 2012 at 4:27 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

You clearly have no idea what science is, Exusiai.

April 4, 2012 at 4:42 p.m.
Exusiai said...

lkeithlu you clearly have no idea what "Ironic Sarcasm" is.

April 5, 2012 at 1:54 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I detect no irony nor sarcasm in your post. Only ignorance. Please enlighten me!

April 5, 2012 at 2:35 p.m.
Exusiai said...

Mainly because inflection does not travel through the written word. However I do appreciate you calling me ignorant, simply because I don't agree with your viewpoint. I love how "intelligent" people resort to name calling or bashing of others when their views are challenged.

Here is my Overall point is this:

The majority of people who claim that Christianity is hokum, are the same number of people who accept Science based only on a book they read. Meaning that they accept, by faith alone, that the written text they read is in deed fact.

Personally I do believe in science. The Laws of Physics are one of those things you can't deny. However as a Christian, I also believe that those Laws were set into place by someone higher than us. Because lets face it, there is no way that all of this universe, live in all it's various forms, could have "evolved" without some form of outside influence.

The Laws of Physics state that. An object at rest, tends to stay at rest until acted upon by an outside force.

What outside force caused the big bang? the universe is expanding, but in space an object stays in motion forever, and yet the expansion of the universe is slowing down, this in and of itself defies the laws of physics. Meaning some outside force has had to act upon the expanding universe to slow down its expansion.

I can look at science, and see that there has to be a higher power. Something (and I choose to believe God) put everything into motion.

So I accept by faith that the Bible is, while edited and written by man, based on a overall truth that There is a God, he made us, and he Loved us enough to sacrifice his son for us.

Just as all the science is the same. Anyone who reads a science book accepts the content as fact by faith.

And if Faith is the basis of a religion, then that makes Science a Religion.

April 6, 2012 at 12:29 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

And there you would be wrong about what science is.

The majority of people who claim that Christianity is hokum

something I never did.

However, when supernatural forces are used in a scientific explanation, it is no longer scientific.

Science uses only measurable, physical phenomenon. Science never claims that the supernatural does not exist, only that it lies outside of science. You are free to believe whatever you want, from God to fairies to the Flying Spaghetti monster. You cannot though claim that it is science. Because there is NO physical evidence to support the notion that any of these exist.

Scientific theories are not accepted on faith, other than faith that the people who do the actual work of science are not involved in some massive, world-wide conspiracy to hide reality from the rest of us. If you are a scientist, that notion is so ridiculous that anyone who espouses that is considered a crackpot.

That you don't accept evolution as the ONLY scientific explanation for the diversity of life on this planet is due to one or more of the following:

You are one of the "crackpots" Your religious beliefs cannot be squared with physical reality (which means they are too simplistic) You don't know enough about science. You have not learned enough about evolution. You are not willing to learn about evolution, in spite of many volumes out there written by, yes, scientists of faith.

Evolution is not a theory in "crisis", nor does it have weaknesses. It can be falsified by any piece of physical evidence that it cannot explain. So far, in the MASS of data collected nothing has been found that falsifies evolution.

April 7, 2012 at 12:50 p.m.
Exusiai said...

Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

The Theory of Evolution is just that a theory. And there are gaps and flaws with it as follows:

There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind. [Ranganathan, B.G. Origins?, Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988. p. 19]

Nowhere do we see animals with partially evolved legs, eyes, brains, or various other tissues, organs, and biological structures. [Pg 19-20]

Darwin stated, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" [Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991. p.50]

It does have weaknesses, even Darwin himself said so. So as you can see there is evidence to disprove the theory. I choose to believe in divine creation. It's my choice. It doesn't make me ignorant. It doesn't make me uneducated. It doesn't make me unwilling to learn.

It means I choose to believe that live comes from some higher power than a fish flopping up out of the ocean and learning to walk.

April 9, 2012 at 4:36 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art 5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

You should have read more than the first definition.

There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind. [Ranganathan, B.G. Origins?, Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988. p. 19]

Ranganathan is a mathematician, not a biologist. ALL fossils, indeed, ALL organisms are transitional. This is not a flaw or weakness. See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html. In fact, there has been a fossil (predicted in advance, even) that shows the transition from fins to feet. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

Nowhere do we see animals with partially evolved legs, eyes, brains, or various other tissues, organs, and biological structures.

Actually, we do. A good example is the sequence of whale fossils. See By the Water's Edge by Carl Zimmer.

Darwin stated, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" [Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991. p.50]

First, this book has been thoroughly de-bunked. Second, OF COURSE Darwin knew that information was lacking. He knew nothing about genetics. A lot has happened in the realm of science in the last 150 years.

It's my choice. It doesn't make me ignorant. It doesn't make me uneducated. It doesn't make me unwilling to learn.

It is your choice. It is not your choice to have non-science taught in public school. These arguments DO demonstrate your ignorance of the science, and I hope you ARE willing to learn.

April 9, 2012 at 4:57 p.m.
Exusiai said...

Once again you resort to calling me ignorant because I do not share your beliefs.

If you are incapable of holding an intelligent discussion, without resorting to insults. This concludes our conversation.

April 10, 2012 at 11:45 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Once again you resort to calling me ignorant because I do not share your beliefs.

If you are incapable of holding an intelligent discussion, without resorting to insults. This concludes our conversation.

I addressed your points completely and supported my statements fully. You choose to ignore them. My calling you ignorant on science is not an insult, no more than you calling me ignorant on economics would be, as I am truly ignorant in that and many other topics. You take the easy way out, claiming both being insulted and my "not respecting beliefs" rather than addressing my points. I contend that this is not a difference in "beliefs" as I have no beliefs, but accept the science. So, it's up to you. You can bail or you can keep going.

April 10, 2012 at 11:54 a.m.
Exusiai said...

For the record I am not "Ignorant" of Science, it was in fact one of my favorite subjects, particularly physics and theoretical physics.

You have yet to address one of my earlier points. So I'll repeat it.

Newton's First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force. This we know is a "Scientific Fact"

There is no friction in space. This we also know is a "scientific" fact

The Big Crunch is one theory in which the metric expansion of space eventually reverses and the universe recollapses, ultimately ending as a black hole singularity.

The Big Crunch is a scientific theory that contradicts the First Law of Motion.

Per the first law of motion, an object moving in space would move forever, unless acted upon by an outside force. Therefore it could not possibly stop expanding unless you acknowledge the existence of an outside force. Since the first law of motion says the only thing that could stop the expansion of the universe is an Outside force.

Now I know what your going to say. "It's the density of the universe itself that is causing it to collapse" Well then that would invalidate the First Law of motion, since that is an Internal, not an external force. And if one LAW of physics is bendable and or invalid, that brings into question all of the laws of physics.

April 10, 2012 at 3:16 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

So what does this have to do with Biology and Evolution?

April 10, 2012 at 3:26 p.m.
Exusiai said...

You didn't mention "Biology and Evolution" you said

"These arguments DO demonstrate your ignorance of the science, and I hope you ARE willing to learn."

"And there you would be wrong about what science is"

"You clearly have no idea what science is, Exusiai."

However now that you have mentioned a specific branch of science. It's simple. The Syllogism Method of Logic states if Statement A is true, and Statement B is True, then Statement C must also be true.

Statement A: Evolution is a Scientific Theory Statement B: Scientific Theories Can be proven flawed. Statement C (Conclusion): Evolution is Flawed.

You can throw all the "Theory" at me you want, it will not change my belief that I did not evolve from a monkey. Again, this doesn't make me ignorant, it doesn't make me stupid. It makes me a believer in something higher than myself.

April 11, 2012 at 11:52 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

ignorance of the science

Note the word THE. You are indeed ignorant of biology and evolution, which is what this discussion was about. No one said you evolved from a monkey. Evolutionary theory doesn't claim humans evolved from monkeys. (yet more evidence that you are ignorant of biology). But you have not addressed my points, and I had addressed yours The more you dodge the sillier you look.

Yet another question: in what ways is evolution "flawed"? That is, what makes it less valid than say, gravitation? Be specific. Cites are nice too.

April 11, 2012 at 3:40 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.