[tomdstone]

Re: False Religions And Cults

YAY!!!!1!! fINALLY!!!3!! Now tell us what page the information in question is on, because not everyone has time to read 120 pages.

See pages 38 and 39.

[tomdstone]

Re: False Religions And Cults

Interestingly enough, the only alcoholic beverage which seems to be increasing the breast cancer risk in premenopausal women is beer, as noted on page 33 of the report. I'm not a beer fan, so according to the report you cite, I'm still safe occasionally sipping a glass of Shiraz until I hit menopause.

Some women are post menopausal.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: False Religions And Cults

Here is a link to the report as well a few other links:

http://www.wcrf.org/sites/default/files/CUP_BREAST_REPORT_2017_WEB.pdf

http://www.wcrf.org/int/research-we-fund/continuous-update-project-findings-reports/breast-cancer

https://www.wcrf-uk.org/uk/blog/arti...isk-our-report

Thank you for the links. The first of them is actually useful, as it cites numerous studies, albeit in a painfully oblique way. While it would be much better if you cited specific pages, I was able to search the pdf for "alcohol" and "wine."

The other two links are just for decoration, they are just meaningless assertions without actual data, so I just glanced over them without reading.

What I do not understand, is how did we get from "red wine in moderation is good for your heart" to "alcohol increases breast cancer risk." One, these are two totally different aspects of health, two, in case you haven't noticed, the term "alcoholic beverages" is a very wide category, which includes not just red wine but also other drinks ranging from beer to Cuba libre. Three, I think we have already covered the "in moderation" aspect of it. Practically everything can be bad for you if you eat/drink too much of it. Yes, even water. Just google hyponatremia.

Interestingly enough, the only alcoholic beverage which seems to be increasing the breast cancer risk in premenopausal women is beer, as noted on page 33 of the report. I'm not a beer fan, so according to the report you cite, I'm still safe occasionally sipping a glass of Shiraz until I hit menopause.

Without some sort of documentation, I don't know for certain, the gender or race of anyone on this site. Further, I really don't need to know about it at this point in time.

In this case, please be a sweetie, and try to learn and apply in your subsequent posts the scientific method as explained in the post linked above.

[Didymus Much]

Re: False Religions And Cults

Here is a link to the report as well a few other links:
http://www.wcrf.org/sites/default/fi...T_2017_WEB.pdf...

YAY!!!!1!! fINALLY!!!3!! Now tell us what page the information in question is on, because not everyone has time to read 120 pages.

...http://www.wcrf.org/int/research-we-.../breast-cancer...

Did you even read any of these?

...https://www.wcrf-uk.org/uk/blog/arti...isk-our-report

Ok, now who is Sarah Toule? A REPORTER, NOT A SCIENTIST. Scratch that, not even a reporter (who have standards they're supposed to meet) from what I can find out. A blogger. From a charity, not a research outfit. Dismissed.


As a matter of fact, just who is the "World Cancer Research Fund"? Impressive title, but if I call myself "Emperor" it doesn't make it so.

[tomdstone]

Re: False Religions And Cults

Please pay attention to this:

Mr. Didymus is a white Anglo-Saxon male, so I suppose his word should bear more authority for you than mine.

Without some sort of documentation, I don't know for certain, the gender or race of anyone on this site. Further, I really don't need to know about it at this point in time.

[Didymus Much]

Re: False Religions And Cults

I already said: It is controversial ...

And then you gave a flat-out "No" (giving NO allowance of a possible controversy? NONE) when Ms. de Barriga suggested that you explore the health benefits of drinking red wine in moderation (along with a link from an untrustworthy source that doesn't even say what you claimed it said).

Jeremiah 13:23 seems relevant here.

[tomdstone]

Re: False Religions And Cults

So that claim is dismissed as unsubstantiated, until and unless you dig up the actual report from the WCRF.

Here is a link to the report as well a few other links:

http://www.wcrf.org/sites/default/files/CUP_BREAST_REPORT_2017_WEB.pdf

http://www.wcrf.org/int/research-we-fund/continuous-update-project-findings-reports/breast-cancer

https://www.wcrf-uk.org/uk/blog/articles/2017/05/just-one-alcoholic-drink-day-increases-breast-cancer-risk-our-report

[tomdstone]

Re: False Religions And Cults

• Possible controversies and opposing data are not considered....

I already said:

It is controversial ...

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: False Religions And Cults

No, because according to a report from the World Cancer Research Fund:"'Half a glass of wine every day' increases breast cancer risk".http://www.bbc.com/news/health-39998678

Please pay attention to this:

So that claim is dismissed as unsubstantiated, until and unless you dig up the actual report from the WCRF. It would have been better if the BBC had actually linked to the report in question, instead of simply the WCRF front page (which gives no indication of which of the many links there you have to follow to find the report and more importantly THE DATA THE REPORT IS BASED ON), or even mentioned the name(s) of the author(s) of the report. That should (but probably won't) tell you how much journalistic integrity the BBC has these days.
Spoiler: not much, and less every day.

Mr. Didymus is a white Anglo-Saxon male, so I suppose his word should bear more authority for you than mine.

Also, I have already posted a template how to defend an argument using rational thinking. I will keep referring you to it until you learn how to use it. In the meantime, I cannot argue against you, as you have presented no valid arguments to argue against.

[Didymus Much]

Re: False Religions And Cults

...http://www.bbc.com/news/health-39998678

Just how many times do you have to be told that news organizations are NOT valid sources for anything scientific? They are NOT scientists. They are reporters, who may have NO understanding of the subject material, they just happened to be available when their editor/manager wanted somebody to cover a story.

So that claim is dismissed as unsubstantiated, until and unless you dig up the actual report from the WCRF. It would have been better if the BBC had actually linked to the report in question, instead of simply the WCRF front page (which gives no indication of which of the many links there you have to follow to find the report and more importantly THE DATA THE REPORT IS BASED ON), or even mentioned the name(s) of the author(s) of the report. That should (but probably won't) tell you how much journalistic integrity the BBC has these days.

Spoiler: not much, and less every day.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: False Religions And Cults

No, because according to a report from the World Cancer Research Fund: "'Half a glass of wine every day' increases breast cancer risk".

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-39998678

This is a useful post by you as it exemplifies the basic flaws in your reasoning:

• One result is highlighted over everything else.
• Possible controversies and opposing data are not considered.
• The complexity of an issue is disregarded.

Just to give you some insight into the many aspects to consider, I share with you just one reference (the reference list at the end of the paper will give you many more, check them out if you feel that the authors have misquoted anything!).

• Molecules 2017, 22(2), 292; doi:10.3390/molecules22020292 Wine Flavonoids in Health and Disease Prevention by Iva Fernandes, Rosa Pérez-Gregorio, Susana Soares, Nuno Mateus and Victor de Freitas

In science, one detail does not necessarily falsify all previous results. What about the French paradox and cardiovascular disease? Is it better to have a myocardial infarction than in situ breast cancer? How about cirrhosis of the liver if you avoid the coronary event with red wine? What about breast cancer? Are there opposing views?

Considering the biological activity of those anthocyanins derivatives, only few in vitro studies have been performed demonstrating that anthocyanin-pyruvic acid adducts possess anticancer properties by inhibiting breast cancer cell proliferation and by acting as cell antiinvasive factors and chemoinhibitors

Apparently, there are. In addition (same review), prostate and oral cancers could perhaps be treated/prevented with wine isoflavonoids. Diabetes? Hard to determine. Obesity? Now that would be something, wouldn't it? Many more deaths because of obesity than from breast cancer? What's the consensus then? It is undetermined! That's the point! Based on our current knowledge it is impossible to say at the moment if red wine consumption is more beneficial than harmful and what would be be dosage!

Therefore, a clear vision on the real bioavailability of wine flavonoids is difficult to achieve as there are several pieces of the puzzle that have to be collected and carefully set up together to unravel this matter. Many studies are still required to clarify many of these issues related to the health-promoting properties of wine.

It's the same if you start applying science to prove the Bible or Jesus. The tangible information (extra-Biblical) that we have is not adequate to determine the historical existence of our Savior with certainty. Controversies remain even if you conjure up another name who defends your position. The atheist will produce yet another name who opposes your viewpoint. The existing papyri are less substantial than the records for Socrates of King Arthur, and much less substantial than the records for Haile Selassie being a deity (please, Jesus, do not show this message to Trevor McGregor of this Discussion Board) or Prince Philip. And even if the historical existence of a person (based on available records, we can be relatively certain that Haile Selassie and Prince Philip did or do exist) was verified, should we then believe into his or her deification process?

The uncertainty is enough to make the atheists thrive. Uncertainty breeds alternative explanations. The scientific method can only produce uncertainties regarding Jesus. Only Faith™ can produce certainties. Jesus knew it!

John 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Are you blessed? Your method of mixing selected science with your preconceptions works apparently quite well for you and I can respect you. It requires that you refuse to let all contrary evidence enter your reasoning. The atheist will not respect that.

If we browse the scientific evidence on red wine consumption in an unbiased manner, we discover that its health effects are mostly extrapolations based on in vitro studies on selected isoflavonoids present in the beverage. The data are nor sufficient for a meaningful answer and the balance of different effects on diverse medical conditions make the issue even more complex. If we browse the scientific evidence on the historical Jesus in a unbiased manner, we discover that the evidence is scarce and its reliability has been questioned in an impressive manner. The data are nor sufficient for a meaningful answer. Based on the material we have, it is impossible to tell if Jesus existed.

Based on the Bible, the answer is clear:

Acts 18:28
For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

1 Timothy 5:23
Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

Ergo, no need to browse through the PubMed or Google Scholar.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: False Religions And Cults

You really should tell her/him to read up about the health benefits of drinking red wine in moderation.

No, because according to a report from the World Cancer Research Fund: "'Half a glass of wine every day' increases breast cancer risk".

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-39998678

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: False Religions And Cults

Thank you kindly for your friend request. About being banned, I have already received threats from the moderators about being banned, so if they do ban me I am sure it will not be your fault.

Are you going to ever answer my question posed in my post above, or not?


I apologize for being a pain in the butt, but you started this discussion, so you cannot just ignore it, you have to either present arguments or admit to being wrong.


If you keep silent, I'll take it as an admission that you were dead wrong.

[tomdstone]

Re: False Religions And Cults

I will send you a friend request to show support for your attempts here but I would be dishonest if I did not warn you that many who have become my friends have been banned.

Thank you kindly for your friend request. About being banned, I have already received threats from the moderators about being banned, so if they do ban me I am sure it will not be your fault.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: False Religions And Cults

I doubt it. I think that this is another lie among the many seen on this fraudulent site. I doubt you can back up your claim by giving us the name of one person who is fluent in 12 languages but cannot solve the given equation.

Miss De Barriga may not be a Christian, but she is not a liar and I see no reason why she (or anyone else here) should have to put up with your mindless abuse. I assume you are not familiar with Smith & Tsimpli's The mind of a savant: Language learning and modularity which describes just such a case?

An apology to Ms De Barriga would seem appropriate.

I originally meant it metaphorically, but the example given by Mrs. Lytton-Vassey works perfectly as a more literal illustration.

An apology is not necessary, as making mistakes is part of the learning process.

You still need to explain, however, what is your reason to think that one type of intelligence or skill is better than others.