urine roundup
A stream of news on one topic
(1) The development arm of India's biggest Hindu organization said it's almost ready to market a soft drink made from cow urine (with toxics removed and flavor enhanced, they say) for improved health and looks. The organization and its affiliates have touted bovine-number-one for years as a remedy for obesity, cancer, etc. Explains The Times of London: "Cow dung is traditionally used as a fuel and disinfectant in villages, while cow urine and dung are often consumed in rituals to 'purify' those on the bottom rungs of the Hindu caste system." (2) A South American women's fashion designer, Monica Schultz, currently touring the U.S., has been, or will be soon, indicted because a Bolivian woman died after Schultz injected her with human urine for its supposed health benefits (a cause for which Schultz has been stumping for yrs). [Ed.: That's just one more thing wrong with "Intelligent Design" theory: Why in the world would humans be set up to expel urine in the first place, huh? I ask you (rhetorically, please).] (3) The toxicity of urine made the news in Pottsboro, Tex., over the weekend when authorities raided a home containing 22 dogs, and the "home" in this case was the station wagon the "family" was staying in. Authorities noted that the ammonia level was 23 ppm, almost twice the level that causes problems for human breathing. The Times /// Associated Press via Idaho Statesman /// Austin American-Statesman
(1) The development arm of India's biggest Hindu organization said it's almost ready to market a soft drink made from cow urine (with toxics removed and flavor enhanced, they say) for improved health and looks. The organization and its affiliates have touted bovine-number-one for years as a remedy for obesity, cancer, etc. Explains The Times of London: "Cow dung is traditionally used as a fuel and disinfectant in villages, while cow urine and dung are often consumed in rituals to 'purify' those on the bottom rungs of the Hindu caste system." (2) A South American women's fashion designer, Monica Schultz, currently touring the U.S., has been, or will be soon, indicted because a Bolivian woman died after Schultz injected her with human urine for its supposed health benefits (a cause for which Schultz has been stumping for yrs). [Ed.: That's just one more thing wrong with "Intelligent Design" theory: Why in the world would humans be set up to expel urine in the first place, huh? I ask you (rhetorically, please).] (3) The toxicity of urine made the news in Pottsboro, Tex., over the weekend when authorities raided a home containing 22 dogs, and the "home" in this case was the station wagon the "family" was staying in. Authorities noted that the ammonia level was 23 ppm, almost twice the level that causes problems for human breathing. The Times /// Associated Press via Idaho Statesman /// Austin American-Statesman
Comments
These stories are real pissers.
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 02/12/09 at 09:58 AM
Soft Drink CocaPiss!
Rhetorically, Please Sorry Chuck, so such luck!
We expel piss so those of us on the left side of the Atlantic can get mad and those on the right side can get drunk. Of course!
Rhetorically, Please Sorry Chuck, so such luck!
We expel piss so those of us on the left side of the Atlantic can get mad and those on the right side can get drunk. Of course!
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 02/12/09 at 10:03 AM
Royal Cow Cola?
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 02/12/09 at 10:03 AM
I'm sorry....
RC and a cow pie!
RC and a cow pie!
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 02/12/09 at 10:04 AM
Hindu urine cola: piss poor judgement.
Pottsboro, Tx.: So poor they don't have a pot to piss in
Pottsboro, Tx.: So poor they don't have a pot to piss in
Posted by Matt in Florida on 02/12/09 at 10:44 AM
Cow pee: "toxics removed and flavor enhanced" Maybe I'm missing something. The function of urine is to remove toxins from the body. If you remove toxins, what's left? Water? And what does it mean when you "enhance" the flavor of pee? That it tastes even more peelike?
On a related note, in Japan they have a drink called Calpis. When the Japanese pronounce it, it sounds exactly like "cow piss." Seriously. (They also have a drink called Pocari Sweat.)
On a related note, in Japan they have a drink called Calpis. When the Japanese pronounce it, it sounds exactly like "cow piss." Seriously. (They also have a drink called Pocari Sweat.)
Posted by BikerPuppy on 02/12/09 at 11:10 AM
"Cow dung is traditionally used as a fuel and disinfectant in villages"
And to think, I've been using Clorox wipes all this time. I have cats. Can cat poo replace cow dung in the disinfectant field? If so, I've been throwing away a fortune!
And to think, I've been using Clorox wipes all this time. I have cats. Can cat poo replace cow dung in the disinfectant field? If so, I've been throwing away a fortune!
Posted by DownCrisis on 02/12/09 at 12:04 PM
Well put Patty. I was thinking I may have been the only one who thought that here.
Posted by DownCrisis on 02/12/09 at 11:32 PM
Creationism vs Darwinism is solved in my mind by one question:
How long is one of God's days?
How long is one of God's days?
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 02/13/09 at 12:29 AM
handsome bob - Hopefully you are extremely handsome because you don't seem to have any smarts. Behe's own college has this disclaimer on their website about Behe:
While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific.
Richard Dawkins has this to say about Behe:
"He's a straightforward creationist. What he has done is to take a standard argument which dates back to the 19th century, the argument of irreducible complexity, the argument that there are certain organs, certain systems in which all the bits have to be there together or the whole system won't work...like the eye. Darwin answered (this)…point by point, piece by piece. But maybe he shouldn't have bothered. Maybe what he should have said is…maybe you're too thick to think of a reason why the eye could have come about by gradual steps, but perhaps you should go away and think a bit harder."
The truth of the matter is evolution is not a religion. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support evolution. Check out http://www.talkorigins.org/. You can find all kinds of info there about evolution and the evidence of it. I do have to warn you though that the articles are not written in layman's terms so your looks will do nothing for you.
You say:
whereas scientific evidence comes down squarely on the side of most biblical teachings.
then please tell me what you are referring to because I don't see it anywhere in the bible.
Patty, you might think beauty is a sign of god but Dawkins (in his book <u>The God Delusion</u>) shows how what we consider beauty, or created for beauty, is actually a product of evolution. He uses an orchard as an example. Sure it seems that everything is created perfectly for its environment but remember that what we see in nature has "won" the evolutionary battle in that environment, and they won because there adaptations were the best ones for that environment, so of course they are going to seem perfect, or created that way.
Another great book by Dawkins is <u>Climbing Mount Improbable</u>. In it he shows how the arguement against irreducible complexity (Behe's claim to fame) is very possible and has happened over and over. Small steps in evolution can have HUGE effects on how that organism survives. Behe likes to claim that you need a whole eye in order to benefit from it. Dawkins shows how small steps in the evolution of the eye would have been beneficial to the organism.
While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific.
Richard Dawkins has this to say about Behe:
"He's a straightforward creationist. What he has done is to take a standard argument which dates back to the 19th century, the argument of irreducible complexity, the argument that there are certain organs, certain systems in which all the bits have to be there together or the whole system won't work...like the eye. Darwin answered (this)…point by point, piece by piece. But maybe he shouldn't have bothered. Maybe what he should have said is…maybe you're too thick to think of a reason why the eye could have come about by gradual steps, but perhaps you should go away and think a bit harder."
The truth of the matter is evolution is not a religion. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support evolution. Check out http://www.talkorigins.org/. You can find all kinds of info there about evolution and the evidence of it. I do have to warn you though that the articles are not written in layman's terms so your looks will do nothing for you.
You say:
whereas scientific evidence comes down squarely on the side of most biblical teachings.
then please tell me what you are referring to because I don't see it anywhere in the bible.
Patty, you might think beauty is a sign of god but Dawkins (in his book <u>The God Delusion</u>) shows how what we consider beauty, or created for beauty, is actually a product of evolution. He uses an orchard as an example. Sure it seems that everything is created perfectly for its environment but remember that what we see in nature has "won" the evolutionary battle in that environment, and they won because there adaptations were the best ones for that environment, so of course they are going to seem perfect, or created that way.
Another great book by Dawkins is <u>Climbing Mount Improbable</u>. In it he shows how the arguement against irreducible complexity (Behe's claim to fame) is very possible and has happened over and over. Small steps in evolution can have HUGE effects on how that organism survives. Behe likes to claim that you need a whole eye in order to benefit from it. Dawkins shows how small steps in the evolution of the eye would have been beneficial to the organism.
Posted by Madd Maxx on 02/13/09 at 07:41 AM
How did we get from drinking pee to a theological debate?
Posted by Jules in Connecticut on 02/13/09 at 08:28 AM
One more point to make. How life started is NOT evolution or part of evolutionary theory. Evolution doesn't care about how life started, just how it progressed after starting. The beginning of life is called abiogenesis.
Posted by Madd Maxx on 02/13/09 at 08:52 AM
This is quit the stream of ideologies you're in, guys. You should still mind your pees and Qs,lest you piss each other off. That should be your number 1 concern, not showering each other with your golden wisdom.
Posted by kingmonkey in Athens, Ontario on 02/13/09 at 09:23 AM
I've got a legit question(s) for those of you who say that you can believe in God and evolution. I'm serious with this so please stay with me til the end.
The bible clearly claims (2 different accounts) that God created the world in 7 days (6 really but religion claims his day of rest as a creation day). Neither account jives with what the records show meaning they list things being created in a different order than the order that we know things came into existence. In fact the 2 different accounts list different orders of when God created each species.
The creation stories (remember there are 2), IMHO, attempts to explain how things came into existence and how evil came to be. Christianity takes it further to represent the fall of man thus the need for a redeemer.
OK, now, if you accept evolution and believe in God then what god do you believe in? It seems to me that you might claim to believe in God but if you don't take the bible as literal then what are you basing your knowledge of God on? Do you see the creation stories as allegorical? If so, then I ask again what are you basing your knowledge of God on? If the bible isn't literal then it is nothing more then just a book and thus holds no truths about God, or any of its claims for that matter. I think people who want it both ways, evolution and God, don't really believe in God but in a god. Then you would be a deist and none of the bible would matter at all.
Christians have a bigger problem to deal with. As I said, the creation stories attempt to explain man's fall and the need for a redeemer. If the creation stories are just stories then there is no fall of man and no need for a redeemer, making Jesus a moot point.
OK....back to the sick, juvenile jokes I am known for!
The bible clearly claims (2 different accounts) that God created the world in 7 days (6 really but religion claims his day of rest as a creation day). Neither account jives with what the records show meaning they list things being created in a different order than the order that we know things came into existence. In fact the 2 different accounts list different orders of when God created each species.
The creation stories (remember there are 2), IMHO, attempts to explain how things came into existence and how evil came to be. Christianity takes it further to represent the fall of man thus the need for a redeemer.
OK, now, if you accept evolution and believe in God then what god do you believe in? It seems to me that you might claim to believe in God but if you don't take the bible as literal then what are you basing your knowledge of God on? Do you see the creation stories as allegorical? If so, then I ask again what are you basing your knowledge of God on? If the bible isn't literal then it is nothing more then just a book and thus holds no truths about God, or any of its claims for that matter. I think people who want it both ways, evolution and God, don't really believe in God but in a god. Then you would be a deist and none of the bible would matter at all.
Christians have a bigger problem to deal with. As I said, the creation stories attempt to explain man's fall and the need for a redeemer. If the creation stories are just stories then there is no fall of man and no need for a redeemer, making Jesus a moot point.
OK....back to the sick, juvenile jokes I am known for!
Posted by Madd Maxx on 02/13/09 at 12:53 PM
Dumbfounded - I agree that I do assume that (maybe it is my own background with a fanatically religious family who does take the bible as literal and infallible) but that is why I am asking what the God belief is then based on if not the bible.
I think it is just because we are taught to believe in God, at least here in the US, and are scared by what might happen if they don't.
I think it is just because we are taught to believe in God, at least here in the US, and are scared by what might happen if they don't.
Posted by Madd Maxx on 02/13/09 at 02:41 PM
Thanks. I will try looking for that book....but I don't have high hopes for what it will say.
Posted by Madd Maxx on 02/13/09 at 02:42 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Category: