Thursday, November 17, 2005

New Data on Hops

It seems my friends over at Rich O’s may be on to something according to the newest medical research. [FOXNews.com - Health - Researchers: Hops in Beer May Be Healthy]

The flavinoids in certain hops and types of beer may have some antioxidant properties killing those free radicals.

This could possibly reduce the incidence of some cancer.

The study didn’t say how much of the drinks to imbibe so maybe we could do our own clinical study.

7 Comments:

Blogger The New Albanian said...

During my 2004 visit to the Belgian hop growing area around the town of Poperinge, I was told that the fortunes of hop farmers were on the rise, and the acreage "under trellis" increased -- not owing to use in beer, although that had increased, but because half the crop was being purchased by pharmaceutical companies.

Thanks for running this one, HB. I'll join you in that clinical study.

11/17/2005 07:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am ok with the science on both sides. It seems to be the evolutionst and academics are the ones who think they have the monopoly on "science"

I thought we had agreed to disagree, but since you asked, you know I believe that in this area, bias plays a huge role for the many reasons and the many examples previously given.

11/17/2005 03:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brandon, here we go again. Just starting with your first sentence, it is absolutely wrong. For discussion, we will use definitions directly from the dictionary:

Evolutionist:
1. A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin.
2. Advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.

Theory:
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art (music theory)
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action (her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn) b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory (in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all)
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (wave theory of light)
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject (theory of equations)

Science:
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study (the science of theology) b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge (have it down to a science)
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE

Scientific method
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

As has been stated before.

The Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Intelligent Design both attempt to explain what we see in nature. Neither has a starting point that can be proven. The starting point of either theory is one based on a belief system.

Intelligent design does not negate evolution. In fact, it agrees with a lot of what evolution teaches related to changes made within a species. Those changes can be observed and reproduced. Never has there been changes from one species to another and never has there been any empirical evidence to support it.

ID uses different ideas and theories to explain what we see. That is where the two theories diverge.

By the definition of theory above, both of these can explain what we see and both are as the definition above says; SPECULATION.

As one of our blogging friends stated earlier
“HB, when the vast majority of Americans -- I repeat, vast -- voted not with their wallets, but with their ballots to ensure that African-Americans remained classified as sub-human, was that the free market in action?”

Just being in the majority opinion does not make it right. Just because you believe that most academics believe in evolution, does not make it the truth. The facts of the science on either side should stand on their own merit. You continue to show your bias. I am not afraid to place them side by side for evaluation.

11/17/2005 07:47:00 PM  
Blogger The New Albanian said...

Boy, how about them hops.

11/17/2005 09:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brandon, I hope you read the site you referred to. It validates everything I have said. That site admits that the macro-evolutionary theory is just that--congecture. Here are the paragraphs directly from your site. They in no way are proof of anything. It is their theory. Anyone, especially a lawyer, can pick apart these paragraphs piece by piece. It would never stand up to textual criticism.

"Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution." (I agree)

"Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life)." (General descriptive theory,I think is self-explanatory. It is a thought process and not fact.)

"The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa." (No way you can extrapolate genetically related cousins to then all of a sudden becoming a different species. This is pure speculation, conjecture and faith in something other a designer)

"The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact." (This paragraph is just flat wrong. Being considered a fact and being a fact is totally different. Every one of these areas are highly disputed.)

As far as my background, I do have a bachelors in Chemistry and post collegiate work. I know from my work with chemistry, mass spectometry, isotope dating methods, physical chemistry and bio-chem, there are many unanswered questions and disputes on the current data.

I have not used the argument that the majority of people believe it therefore it is true as someone had alluded to in a post. I absolutely do not agree that people's opinion make something a fact.

I do believe in our democracy and believe that our laws are such that if the majority vote a certain way that our system should follow the will of the majority. That still doesn't make it right as we have seen in our history, but it is the way our system works.

11/18/2005 08:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We can disagree on this topic forever. I have read the site as well as dozens of others and books on both sides. Have been involved in real science experiments as well as clinical studies

I know the biases and am willing to admit them on both sides. You are not.

You have your faith based on naturalism and don't seem comfortable admitting it and I do believe in God and am very comfortable admitting it.

11/18/2005 11:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I too encourage people to look at this site as well as others. Be very keen to their wording.

There are so many areas in their terminology as well as their illogical conclusions, it would take hours to go through individually.

I respect your disagreement.

11/18/2005 12:11:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home