philh

So there is an objective morality, but Christians disagrees on what it is? Perhaps only you know what it is?

Last night there was a debate at the Natural History Museum entitled “Does Homeopathy work?” Well, it was sold out so why not do it here? Does anyone out there use homeopathic medicine? I think its complete nonsense. Here’s why: Homeopathy was founded by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 1700’s. He noticed that cinchona bark, the source of quinine used to treat malaria gave him similar symptoms than malaria and from that he concluded the first homeopathic law 1The Law of Similars This stated by Hahnemann “similar similbus curentu” that like cures like i.e. what causes the same symptoms as the disease cures the disease. This was based on a set of provings where Hahnemann took various substances and noted the side effects. This was done in a time when no randomised controls had ever been thought of and of course were not carried out. So I see no reason to trust them. Of course there may well be cases where this does hold but to call it a fundamental law is completely without foundation. Sniffing an onion will not cure you of the flu. The Law of Infintesimlas Hahnemann realised that taking quinine gave you a fever so he diluted the substance to get rid of the side effects. He found the more he diluted the more side effects went. I think what was really going on is that he was comparing his medicine with the medicine of the day. The medicine of the day included things like blood letting which would surely make one worse.Diluted no medicine would certainly compare well with a medicine that actually harmed the patient. But he did not see this, instead he came to the utterly ridiculous notion that the more diluted a substance is the higher the potency. This is complete contradiction to all we know of modern chemistry and physics. Homeopathic medicines are diluted in this manner: Take a solution with 1 part medicine to 100 parts water (it may be another dilutant but I will use water here to simplify) , shake it up and you have a 1c potency. Take the 1c solution dilute that so you have 1 part 1c solution to 100 parts water, shake well and you have a 2c solution. Those of you who are good at maths will see this 2c solution is 1 part active ingredient to 10,000 parts water! What are the typical solution in homeopathic remedies? A quick walk to my health food store found the average was 30c , although there were some as “strong” as 200c (there is also an x formula where the dilutant is the ratio of 10 rather than 100). So how dilute is a 30c remedy? We have one part water to 100 million million million million million million million billion parts water. In other words homeopathic medicine is simply water. We know this formally through Avagadros number which coverts atomic mass units into grams but is also a manner of determining how diluted a substance would be before a sample of it would contain no molecules of that original substance as wikpedia sates “For example, the fact that a known number of atoms are in a given amount of a substance is one reason for scientific criticism of homeopathy, in which medicinal substances are often diluted to the extent that a single molecule appears in only one dose amongst the hundreds or thousands prepared, as a simple calculation involving Avogadro's number will reveal.” But one deosnt have to be a chemist to relaise how wrong homeopathy is. You can find out for yourself by taking some alcohol dilute it homepathically and compare it to the original amount of alcohol, which one gets you drunk? I think you will find the homepathically diluted one will do nothing, as it is with all homeopathic medicine. But lets presume that by some amazing mechanism the laws of chemistry and physics don’t apply to homeopathy, could that lead to homeopathy working? No it couldn’t, even if we forget Avagadros’s number and give the homeopaths the benefit of the doubt that somehow there is still an effect from the active ingredient there is still a big problem. Lets suppose we take an active ingredient which we call X and dilute it to the near infinite levels of homeopathy, now chemistry says that there is effectively no x left and so there will no effect. Homeopathy states that there will be an effect of x, but here’s the problem, we do not live in a vacuum. Why does that matter? The reason is simple, the air contains all sorts of things like ,dirt, microbial life, dust, skin particles.etc If the laws of chemistry are wrong and homeopathy is correct then all these things should be just as important as the active ingredient X, in this way the homeopathic doctor will never know what they are giving you. You can’t have it both ways, if infinite dilution is a real effect then all the other tiny microscopic materials in the air will be just as active as the ingredient the homeopath wants to isolate, so he/she can never isolate it. So even if we throw away the laws of chemistry and physics homeopathy still cannot work. What I find really interesting is that when I talk to people about homeopathic dilution most people who use homeopathic medicine have no idea what it is. They were very surprised to learn that homeopathies fundamental principle is so contrary to simple laws of chemistry. On homeopathic bottles you will find a small number that might say potency 30c, but you will find no explanation of what this really means. Seems to me that homeopaths should at least be more upfront and honest about their theories than they reveal to the public.

The idea that Chistrianity leads to any objective or absolute morality is ridiculous. If it were the case then Christians would agree on major moral issues of the day, they dont. You will find Christians on both sides of contemporary issues such as abortion, capital punishment, stem cell researchm, the war in Iraq etc etc. During the slavery debates that raged in the USA in the 19th century many Christians were inspired by their religion to defend slavery. I will quote you an example: "Such were the nature and extent of slavery in the world, when our Saviour appeared, to proclaim "peace on earth, and good will to men"--to preach the glad tidings of salvation to a ruined world--to redeem us from sin and everlasting death, and to "open the kingdom of Heaven to all believers." And how did he regard it? What had he to say of this institution, as he found it existing among the people he came to save? Did he condemn it as anti-scriptural and unjust? Did he enjoin on his disciples an immediate emancipation of their slaves? Did he so much as caution his followers against purchasing them in the future? Not a word, disapproving the practice, ever fell from his lips. "A.E. Miller, Printer to The Protestant Episcopal Society for the Advancement of Christianity in South-Carolina, 1837): So clearly Chrstianity was used as a justification for slavery and its a justification that made perfect sense to some becuase indeed Christ didnt condenm slavery.He could see the fututre, therefore he knew Christian civilisation would keep slaves and he could have condemmed it, he didnt. Since you mention the holocaust let us deal with that issue. What Hitlers own beliefs were are up for debate as he made many contradictory statements on the issue. But what is not at issue is that he used Christinaity as a justification for anti semitsm. This brand of anti semitism had a long history in Germany and it was inspred by A Christian inspired hatred of the Jews for rejecting Chrsit as exemplified by Martin Luther. here's what Hitler himself had to say: ""I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders." But of course Hitler could not have acted alone, so his personal beliefs are not really the point. What is th point is that the Lutherian tradition had planted the seeds of anti semitsm which matured under Hitler. This is what Martin Luther had to say on the Jews: "We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite their murder, cursing, blaspheming, lying and defaming.” "If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews' blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country" "My essay, I hope, will furnish a Christian (who in any case has no desire to become a Jew) with enough material not only to defend himself against the blind, venomous Jews, but also to become the foe of the Jews' malice, lying, and cursing, and to understand not only that their belief is false but that they are surely possessed by all devils." So the grounds for anti semitism were based upon Christianity. The holcaust occured becasue it was based on many centuries of anti semitic thought whihc was roused by fervent believing Chrstians. It is no coincidence that CrystalNacht occured on Martin Luthers birthday. Look at what Goebbels had to say "Christ is the genius of love, as such the most diametrical opposite of Judaism, which is the incarnation of hate. The Jew is a non-race among the races of the earth.... Christ is the first great enemy of the Jews.... that is why Judaism had to get rid of him. For he was shaking the very foundations of its future international power. The Jew is the lie personified. When he crucified Christ, he crucified everlasting truth for the first time in history. " Now how can you tell me Christianity leads to objective morality?

There are nany genocides in the bible commanded by god, so you must agree if the holcaust is absolutely wrong thhen god is absolutley wrong.

The fact that people die for their beliefs only implies that their belief is genuine not that what they believe in is genuine. What makes you think ancient Greek armies didnt die in battle thinking they were martyrs for their belefs? As for eye witnesses, there are no records of even one eye witness. No one knows who wrote the gospels or when theyw ere written so dont even think of calling that eye witness testimony. as for prophecy read Ezekiel 26, 15-21 it prophesis that Tyre will be destroyed and shall never be found again. Infact the Hebrew armies failed to defeat Tyre. They are still failing , it was in the news recently as a battlefield in the recent war in Lebanon. Clearly a failed biblical prophecy.

Perhaps you could reaad my critique of this nonsense movie before you watch it a few more times. I would be happy to continute to debate ti with you. Bascially this movie is total baloney from a ridiculous cult. See my post above as for why.

I dont expect you to know why he chose them. I do expect you to know that he did chose them and the 10 commandments were for them, not for others.

Paj, 2 more things. 1 when you say "I do not believe God causes all bad things to happen" i wonder why that is since it cleary says in the bible that god creates evil. Isaiah 45:6 I form the ligh, and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things" 2 Paj, you paste Josephus in like it’s a fact. You must know most scholars believe it is a forgery. Just think about it for a moment. Josehpus is writing a history of the Jews. If the Jewsih Messiah had actually arrived this would be the biggest thing in Jewish history ever, why then does it only get one paragraph? The answer is obvious. It’s a forgery. Its not just atheists that think this. Chrsitains as well, The Bishop of Gloucester called it “a rank forgery and a very stupid one”, the Catholic Encylopedia says "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." It is eithher ignorance that you paste this passage in as fact or wilful deciet, which is it?

Sorry pasted the worng thing should read: Paj, your analysis of the 10 commandments is full of wholes mate. 1. “Israel was not to worship or call on any of the gods of other nations, but was commanded to fear the one and only true God and serve him alone. We are to love him with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength to much that our love for our parents,” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yep you got it right, Israel; the 10 commandments were given to the Hebrews not anyone else. That is why the Jews call themselves the chosen race; they were chosen to receive the 10 commandments. Your use of the word “we” seems to contradict this. Are you a Jew Paj? I was raised as a Jew so one could make a case the 10 c’s apply to me , I see no reason why they should apply to you, at least within the framework of biblical theology. 2. You shall not make to yourself any graven image. “The prohibition against the worship of other gods required that no image be made of them, nor could anyone make an image of the Lord God himself.” You are adding your own interpretation to that one. The fact is the commandment doesn’t say anything about graven images of other gods, it just says no graven images. In other words, no art. It’s a classic Christian trick , you don’t like what the bible says so you come up with some changed meaning that isn’t actually in the text, “I think what god meant to say was…” 3&4 Yes the Sabbath and gods name was to be kept holy and the penalty for breaking this. Being stoned to death. I suppose you would like this reintroduced? 5 Honor your father and mother Something Jesus was unable to do. As well as being rude to his mother, he also preached “26If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14,26 In Luke 820-21 Jesus is told his mother and brother want to see him what does he say,“21And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it. 6 You shall not kill “This forbids wilful murder or the unlawful taking of life.” What a load of bullshit. Where do you get this from? The commandment does not say this, it simply says though shall not kill, everything else is you or some other theists guess work. Paj , we have gone over this before but I will go over it again with a previous response: “Having spent 8 years in a Hebrew school I can assure the word ratsach means kill, not specifically "intentional killing without cause" as you say. There are many words in Hebrew that mean kill and they are used interchangeably in the Torah. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Take for example Numbers 35 27And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood: here the hebrew word ratsach is used and it very clearly states that the slayer -ratsach- is not guilty. So im sorry your argument falls apart.” 7 You shall not commit adultery Jesus said whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. Again, he sees your thought life. He also encourages us to castrate ourselves “ Matthew 19:12 12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Matthew 19:12 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) Public Domain 12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

I got some coaching from Alchemy at Perris , they may cost a bit extra but they are definitley worth it as they use the in air comms system so they can talk to you whilst flying. I can't reccomend it high enough. Unless you are a serious competitor in rw they can probably coach you in that as well as freefly.

How do you know god is just? Because he or his followers told you?

Now there are quite a few tunnels around the world, I wonder if there is any data on how protiable they are? What sort of revenue do they generate versus operating and initial cost? Anyone know? Or more like anyone prepared to say?

Given that In Chrstian belief god created us and our nature maybe he set the standard too high if everyone falls short?

I have heard many time from religious people that religion is required for morality. The question is often posed to me as a non beliver, why dont I go out and kill if I do not believe in god? My answer is simple, that we have evolved brains that can work out that constant violence is not in our mutual interest. Morality evolves, it has been and will continue to do so. But on a dull day at work with nothing to do I decdied to put something to the test. If as theists claim adandoning god leads to ruin then there should be some direct evidence of this. I decided to corrleate non beliefe with the murder rate in the worlds 15 weaalthiest nations. In order to try and compare like with like I chose the top 15 wealtheist nations in the world, I ignored small banking islands by excluding any nation with less than 1 mio people and ignored countries who were not democracies. This I believe enables us to compare similar socio economic conditions. If the theists are right there should be a high correlation between unbelievers and the murder rate. I used data from Wipedia and average data from http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html what did I get? a negative correlation of -.317. I then thought maybe I can make my results more accurate. After all there is easyly accesible data on gdp per head rates. Its not unreasonbale to assume the richer one is the less likely one is to commit a murder. So I adjusted the crime rates to be wieghted by the differential gdp rates. That way I believe my comparsion is even more "like with like". What did I get then? -.37. So next time a theist says religion is needed for moralty ask them why I didnt get a high positive correlation, indeed why did I get a negative corrleation?

I answered the poll atheist. I don't believ in god becuase there is no evidence for god, no evidence, no belief. End of. Re Faith. I think faith is very dangerous concept. If you believe in things for any reason other than evidence you are openining the truth to be abused, you are opening people up to act irrationally and acts like 9/11 should come as no suprise as a result. Those planes were faith based missiles.

R u seriously suggesting that huge declines in fish stock have little to do with us eating fish? In th last century our ability to catch fish has increased dramatically and no suprise fish stocks have collapsed. Im not suggesting other factors such as water quality are irrelveant but one cannot ignore the huge impact of fisheries. I shall have to point you to a few articles: 1 Cascading Effects of Overfishing Marine Systems Trends in Ecology &Evolution Abstract Profound indirect ecosystem effects of overfishing have been shown for coastal systems such as coral reefs and kelp forests... Overall, the view emerges that, in a range of marine ecosystems, the effects of fisheries extend well beyond the collapse of fish exploited stocks 2 check this from National Geographic: National Geographic News May 15, 2003 Only 10 percent of all large fish—both open ocean species including tuna, swordfish, marlin and the large groundfish such as cod, halibut, skates and flounder—are left in the sea, according to research published in today's issue of the scientific journal Nature. "From giant blue marlin to mighty bluefin tuna, and from tropical groupers to Antarctic cod, industrial fishing has scoured the global ocean. There is no blue frontier left," said lead author Ransom Myers, a fisheries biologist based at Dalhousie University in Canada. "Since 1950, with the onset of industrialized fisheries, we have rapidly reduced the resource base to less than 10 percent—not just in some areas, not just for some stocks, but for entire communities of these large fish species from the tropics to the poles." 3 this from Wikipedia The FAO State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2004 report estimates that in 2003, of the main fish stocks or groups of resources for which assessment information is available, "approximately one-quarter were overexploited, depleted or recovering from depletion (16%, 7% and 1% respectively) and needed rebuilding."[2] Overfishing has depleted fish populations to the point that large scale commercial fishing, on average around the world, is not economially viable without government assistance. By the 1980s, economists estimated that for every $1 earned fishing, $1.77 had to be spent in catching and marketing the fish. Some species' stocks are so depleted that consumers are often unlikely to get the particular species they think they are purchasing, due to a phenomenon called "species substitutions," where less desirable species are labeled and marketed under the names of more expensive ones. For example, genetic analysis shows that approximately 70% of fish sold as the highly-prized "red snapper" (Lutjanus campechanus) are other species. [citation needed] 4 or this form the UN's web site; over 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. The dramatic increase of destructive fishing techniques worldwide destroys marine mammals and entire ecosystems. FAO reports that illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing worldwide appears to be increasing as fishermen seek to avoid stricter rules in many places in response to shrinking catches and declining fish stocks.

yes life adapats, that happens. mass extinctions also happen. Not saying things are that bad but lets all cut back on eating fish, every little bit helps.

What about treated water versus non treated water? My point is not that you would ingest ricin, but to demonstrate that whether something is natural or artificial tells us nothing as to its safety. I certainly dont suggest that because something is processed it is better for you, Just because I dont believe natural =safer/better , doesnt mean I do believe artificial = safer, better. My point is that there is no necessary connection. Im sure there are many examples on natural things that are better than there artfificial counterparts and vice versa, it all proves nothing. The natural =better assumtion is a misconception that seems to me to be based on little if any actual evidence.

"it tends to be, but not because it is more nutricious. It tends to be better for you because it has less pesticides and chemicals in it. " well I think the studies I listed above show thats eithe not true or irrelelvant as the carcinogenic difference is either zero or negligible. As regards to the comment "I definitely live by the theory that the less un-natural things I put in my body the better. " This is something I dont understand at all. Ricin is naturally occuring but incredibly deadly. Untreated water can kill. I think its a mistake to say natural = good , unnatural = bad. This is the common theme I hear so often that i think organic food producers latch on to. "I will say this; I rarely get sick. The last time I had so much as a common cold was more than 4 years ago . I attribute that, be it accurately or not, to an overall healthy lifestyle that includes many organic foods. " I cant remember who said it, but its a great quote"the plural of anecdote is not data". The fact you havent had a cold and eat organic food is irrelevant. If a controlled double blind trial has been done with a control group eating organic food and another group eating conventional food and the control group got less colds , then we might be able to conclude something. Without that we can conclude nothing. Bilvon, re your example of coke, I dont think this is relevant. Coke is a very different substance to water. You are not comparing like with like. Organic carrots versus non organic carrots is a very different comparsion. You seem to be ignoring the scientific data, let me quote you again the study that was reported in New Scentists last week, so this is the most up to date data there is . "A study comparing wheat grown organically and conventionally found that chemically they were virtually indistinguishable. " If they are chemically the same how is one going to be better fo you than the other? Let me quote yet another peer reviewed studies conclusion, this from the Nutritional Research Review "environmental contaminants are equally present in foods of both origins. With regard to other food hazards, such as natural chemicals, microbial pathogens and mycotoxins, no clear conclusions can be drawn, although several interesting points can be highlighted. It is difficult, therefore, to weigh the risks, but what should be made clear to consumers is that ‘organic’ does not equal ‘safe’. If producers adopt proper agricultural practices and consumers maintain hygienic conditions, risks associated with food contaminants can be minimised, regardless of the food’s organic or conventional origin."

On 1) ive been on several web sites that exactly claim that organic food is better for you. I can dig up the links if you want. Or just google top 10 reasons to buy organic and you will find several web sites claiming that. With respect to pesticides I think the point is the carcinogenic content of the pesticicde is lower than most people believe and that the advantage is therefore negligible. Aritificial hormones are not somehting I overly keen on but I believe its perfectly possible to avoid these without requiring organics. As regards to the enviroment impact, I would like to see some real data on that. It may be true but even if it is the lower yields on organic farming may well outweigh that. With an expanding population and reduced space for natural habitats the world does nto need to be switching to a food source that has no health ebnefit and massivley reduced crop yields.

I wonder if the toxicity levels you mention are actually significant or not. After all the impression is definitley created that organic food is better for you and that seems to be wrong. I agree abut buying free range eggs but thats so chickens have better conditons. Im a veggie so think its best not to eat meat at all. As regards the carrots, that was just one example the same is repeated amongst many other food groups, I think that implies a consistent trend.

Are we being ripped off on organic food? I had a bit of a google search and found this: 1 From uk gov food standard agency: http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2003/jun/cheltenham In our view the current scientific evidence does not show that organic food is any safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food. Nor are we alone in this assessment. For instance, the French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA) has recently published a comprehensive 128-page review which concludes that there is no difference in terms of food safety and nutrition. Also, the Swedish National Food Administration’s recent research report finds no nutritional benefits of organic food. The Consumers’ Association in its report in Which? magazine for May 2003 concludes that there is 'no consensus' on reports linking organic foods to health benefits. 2 From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food#Evidence_of_the_benefits_of_organic_food The potential health effects of minute quantities of pesticide residues described in the evidence of benefits section are subject to debate. Modern analytical chemistry is capable of detecting such small quantities of a substance that the meaning of a positive result is difficult to interpret, and many scientists think that such residues are without effect.[31] Pesticides are subjected to a battery of tests before they can be approved by the EPA and "residue tolerances" are established above which produce containing these tolerances cannot be sold. It should also be kept in mind that all substances are toxic at some level.[32] In fact Professors Lois Swirsky Gold and Bruce Ames have shown that 50% of all natural chemicals in food gave a positive test as a carcinogen when tested in rodents, casting doubt on the validity of the test methods.[33]The author Thomas DeGregori argues that at the heart of the organic food movement are feelings of anti-technology and anti-modern science[34] and points out that it is modern science, after all, that has increased the life expectancy of many people and helps to feed the world's growing population. 3 From a conference form the American Chemical Society http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1/feature_pro.html?id=c373e9fe9f15cae18f6a17245d830100 Kava’s literature study revealed that neither organic nor conventional foods consistently won out in the nutrient content competition. Often, differences were small compared with the recommended daily intake of a given nutrient. Small sample sizes often contributed to statistical uncertainty. 4 From the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/906530.stm Independent scientific tests, commissioned by the BBC, found that onventionally grown carrots were free of pesticides. Scientists at the Eclipse Scientific Group laboratory in Cambridgeshire extensively tested carrots that they had bought anonymously from British supermarkets. Three types were examined for pesticide and chemical residues. The carrots tested were: an organic British carrot, an organic carrot from abroad and a conventionally grown carrot. The tests, for more than 40 different pesticide residues known to be associated with carrot production, were negative for all three. Nigel Gillis of the Eclipse Scientific Group said: "I think the public will be very surprised. "Their perception of organic carrots is that they have no pesticides and conventional carrots are riddled with them. "We've shown with this test that that's not the case." Sir John added: "I think the organic industry relies on image and that image is one that many consumers clearly want to sign up to. "However, I do think they should be aware of what they're getting when they pay quite a substantial premium in the shops." 5 http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/Ornamental%20Pesticide%20Bans-green0603.pdf Compare the HERP INDEX(a measure of carcinogency) of caffeince in coffee with pesticicde Caffeine in coffee: 0 .1 Difiocol ( a pesticide) .00002 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/258/5080/261 Rodent carcinogens: setting priorities LS Gold, TH Slone, BR Stern, NB Manley, and BN Ames Life Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, CA 94720. The human diet contains an enormous background of natural chemicals, such as plant pesticides and the products of cooking, that have not been a focus of carcinogenicity testing. A broadened perspective that includes these natural chemicals is necessary. A comparison of possible hazards for 80 daily exposures to rodent carcinogens from a variety of sources is presented, using an index (HERP) that relates human exposure to carcinogenic potency in rodents. A similar ordering would be expected with the use of standard risk assessment methodology for the same human exposure values. Results indicate that, when viewed against the large background of naturally occurring carcinogens in typical portions of common foods, the residues of synthetic pesticides or environmental pollutants rank low. A similar result is obtained in a separate comparison of 32 average daily exposures to natural pesticides and synthetic pesticide residues in the diet. Although the findings do not indicate that these natural dietary carcinogens are important in human cancer, they cast doubt on the relative importance for human cancer of low-dose exposures to synthetic chemicals. 6. From the NEW SCIENTIST http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19225744.900-theres-not-much-thats-special-in-organic-wheat.html If organic food really is healthier for you, it almost certainly has nothing to do with its nutritional content. A study comparing wheat grown organically and conventionally found that chemically they were virtually indistinguishable. "Out of 55 metabolites, only five were statistically different in content," says Christian Zörb of the Federal Research Centre for Nutrition and Food in Detmold, Germany, who led the study team. "Even for those, the difference was less than double between the organic and conventional wheat, and none is known to alter taste or nutritional quality." .

One thing that matters is the style of flying you are doing. If you are flat flying - one thing that will help in particular is the cobra series in yoga. Google image search, cobra , locust , floor bow etc postures. These will help with the back flexibility to maintain an arch. i find back flying v comfortable, but sit flying needs two things in particular. One, wide legs and two strong arms, so focus your stretching on hip flexorsand your strneght training in the arms, esp deltoids. if you fly 45 mins in 1 day you will be very tired. Cross training will help but only to a small amount. best thing you can do is make sure the time is broken up. Do not fly 45 mins in one session, ideally you should fly 2 maybe even 3 sessions with a min of 1 hr break in between. of course it does depend how maany people are rotating with you. Also doing different body positions will help reduce the strain as they use different muscles. good luck and have fun.

"Please explain how the Catholic Church's policy on birth control directly caused the AIDS epedimic in Africa. " Where did I say that I did? you are constructing a straw man argument. What I did say was that 2.8 million people died of Aids last year and many of them were poor Africans who were encouraged not to use condoms by the Pope. To quote "As Bishop J. Ricard pointed out at the conference, “The Church in Africa is growing at an annual rate of nearly 3 percent, a rate unparalleled anywhere else in the world. Today there are 800 million people in Africa; 370 million are Christians; 124 million are Catholics. By 2025, the number of Catholics will increase to more than 228 million. The future of Africa is the future of the universal Church in significant measure.”Aids is now the leading cause of death in Africa and cathcing HIV is a lot less likely with the use of condoms. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to see the devastating affect of Catholicism in Africa. If the US government said it was every citizens patriotic duty to eat fast food every day then I would give it some criticism for the obesity in the USA, it doesnt though. The same cannot be said for Catholics in Afirca. How does Paganism have anything to do with Aids? What are you talking about?