Guest guest Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 Mushrooms are fungus. Fungus grows on (feeds upon) dead matter. We are alive .... we thrive on what supports life. The mycotoxins to which you refer, Bryan, are present from the very first mushroom. We are designed to eat plants ... fruits and leaves. Fungi are not plants. The biological taxonomy changed years ago. Mushrooms are not food for humans. Best, Elchanan _____ rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of Bryan Au Sunday, July 08, 2007 10:24 AM rawfood Re: [Raw Food] Bored with raw In moderation they are ok but overtime and if you eat a lot they may increase candida, fungus, mycotoxins in the blood/body, yes they have some benefits, I am not saying don't eat them, I just don't use them, it depends on your goals.... Bryan Au http://www.RawOrgan <http://www.raworganicsavingtheplanet.com/> icSavingThePlanet.com Erin <truepatriot@ <truepatriot%40metrocast.net> metrocast.net> wrote: rawfood@ <rawfood%40> .com, Bryan Au <rawbryan wrote: [...] > I do NOT USE Cashew, Nama Soyu, Corn, Mushrooms and [...] Mushrooms rule! -Erin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2007 Report Share Posted July 9, 2007 I certainly am aware mushrooms are not plants. LOL! I knew a girl in college who wouldn't eat mushrooms due to a religious prohibition against them. I asked her why, and her reasoning was this same they feed on dead things. -Erin http://www.zenpawn.com/vegblog rawfood , " Elchanan " <Elchanan wrote: > > Mushrooms are fungus. Fungus grows on (feeds upon) dead matter. We are alive > ... we thrive on what supports life. The mycotoxins to which you refer, > Bryan, are present from the very first mushroom. > > We are designed to eat plants ... fruits and leaves. Fungi are not plants. > The biological taxonomy changed years ago. > > Mushrooms are not food for humans. > > Best, > Elchanan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2007 Report Share Posted July 9, 2007 I guess mushrooms are the scavangers of the plant world, like catfish are to the fish world, buzzards are to the animal world, etc. Belinda > I certainly am aware mushrooms are not plants. LOL! > > I knew a girl in college who wouldn't eat mushrooms due > to a religious prohibition against them. I asked her why, > and her reasoning was this same they feed on dead things. > > > -Erin > http://www.zenpawn.com/vegblog > > > rawfood , " Elchanan " <Elchanan@> wrote: > > > > Mushrooms are fungus. Fungus grows on (feeds upon) dead matter. We > are alive > > ... we thrive on what supports life. The mycotoxins to which you > refer, > > Bryan, are present from the very first mushroom. > > > > We are designed to eat plants ... fruits and leaves. Fungi are not > plants. > > The biological taxonomy changed years ago. > > > > Mushrooms are not food for humans. > > > > Best, > > Elchanan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2007 Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 What about microbes? In the soil...breaking down (eating) the " dead " matter...providing detritus for plants...which provide us with food... The assertion against mushrooms isn't very convincing. The raw mushrooms I've eaten tasted pretty good. They feed on death? What on earth does not feed on death, either directly or indirectly? BTW, I have seen mushrooms growing on living trees. Mushrooms aren't food for humans? Since Elchanan ISN'T the " DESIGNER, " I believe he is voicing an OPINION, not a fact. I would argue we are designed as opportunists, to adapt to food niches. There isn't real evidence supporting a design to eat fruits and leaves, exclusively. We may be adapting or have adapted to that diet, but claiming we were designed to that diet simply is not true. Or is Elchanan claiming to be the Designer? tev Belinda <MistyBlueTN wrote: I guess mushrooms are the scavangers of the plant world, like catfish are to the fish world, buzzards are to the animal world, etc. Belinda > I certainly am aware mushrooms are not plants. LOL! > > I knew a girl in college who wouldn't eat mushrooms due > to a religious prohibition against them. I asked her why, > and her reasoning was this same they feed on dead things. > > > -Erin > http://www.zenpawn.com/vegblog > > > rawfood , " Elchanan " wrote: > > > > Mushrooms are fungus. Fungus grows on (feeds upon) dead matter. We > are alive > > ... we thrive on what supports life. The mycotoxins to which you > refer, > > Bryan, are present from the very first mushroom. > > > > We are designed to eat plants ... fruits and leaves. Fungi are not > plants. > > The biological taxonomy changed years ago. > > > > Mushrooms are not food for humans. > > > > Best, > > Elchanan > ____________________ The experience of dynamic religious living transforms the mediocre individual into a personality of idealistic power. Religion ministers to the progress of all through fostering the progress of each individual, and the progress of each is augmented through the achievement of all. [The Urantia Book: 1094:1][http://www.urantia.org/] _____________________ http://www.vegconnect.com/ _____________________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Answers - Check it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2007 Report Share Posted July 18, 2007 Elchanan is not the first person (maybe on here) to say that mushrooms shouldn't be eaten by humans. I honestly can't remember where though or I would provide it. I do not see he is claiming to be the designer( seems like a cheap shot). Maybe it is just an opinion, which is fine, you have an opinion that disagrees that is fine too. The problem I have not just with your post is if Elchanan doesn't post something to 'prove; he is correct he is attacked or rude comments are made. You, and many others that post opinions also do not post anything to back it up. I just think you should also be willing to provide some 'back up' for your opinions if you want others to do the same. tev treowlufu <goraw808 wrote: What about microbes? In the soil...breaking down (eating) the " dead " matter...providing detritus for plants...which provide us with food... The assertion against mushrooms isn't very convincing. The raw mushrooms I've eaten tasted pretty good. They feed on death? What on earth does not feed on death, either directly or indirectly? BTW, I have seen mushrooms growing on living trees. Mushrooms aren't food for humans? Since Elchanan ISN'T the " DESIGNER, " I believe he is voicing an OPINION, not a fact. I would argue we are designed as opportunists, to adapt to food niches. There isn't real evidence supporting a design to eat fruits and leaves, exclusively. We may be adapting or have adapted to that diet, but claiming we were designed to that diet simply is not true. Or is Elchanan claiming to be the Designer? tev Belinda <MistyBlueTN wrote: I guess mushrooms are the scavangers of the plant world, like catfish are to the fish world, buzzards are to the animal world, etc. Belinda > I certainly am aware mushrooms are not plants. LOL! > > I knew a girl in college who wouldn't eat mushrooms due > to a religious prohibition against them. I asked her why, > and her reasoning was this same they feed on dead things. > > > -Erin > http://www.zenpawn.com/vegblog > > > rawfood , " Elchanan " wrote: > > > > Mushrooms are fungus. Fungus grows on (feeds upon) dead matter. We > are alive > > ... we thrive on what supports life. The mycotoxins to which you > refer, > > Bryan, are present from the very first mushroom. > > > > We are designed to eat plants ... fruits and leaves. Fungi are not > plants. > > The biological taxonomy changed years ago. > > > > Mushrooms are not food for humans. > > > > Best, > > Elchanan > ________ The experience of dynamic religious living transforms the mediocre individual into a personality of idealistic power. Religion ministers to the progress of all through fostering the progress of each individual, and the progress of each is augmented through the achievement of all. [The Urantia Book: 1094:1][http://www.urantia.org/] ________ http://www.vegconnect.com/ ________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Answers - Check it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 Elchanan repeatedly refers to " Nature's Design " in his posts. This implies knowledge of a Designer, named Nature. Nature is not a designer. " Designer " implies a thinking mind. Please show evidence of this Nature, this thinking mind, designing, planning our evolution, in support of the claim " Nature's Design. " I know of no evidence supporting the existence of this thinking mind, named Nature. The burden of proof falls on the claimant. All my posts are in response to opinions stated as absolute claims. I am not making any absolute claims. Do you understand the difference between the structure of an opinion and an absolute claim? BTW, what tev-claims are you referring to and for which you require supporting evidence? tev Terry Bakhtiari <pablobully wrote: Elchanan is not the first person (maybe on here) to say that mushrooms shouldn't be eaten by humans. I honestly can't remember where though or I would provide it. I do not see he is claiming to be the designer( seems like a cheap shot). Maybe it is just an opinion, which is fine, you have an opinion that disagrees that is fine too. The problem I have not just with your post is if Elchanan doesn't post something to 'prove; he is correct he is attacked or rude comments are made. You, and many others that post opinions also do not post anything to back it up. I just think you should also be willing to provide some 'back up' for your opinions if you want others to do the same. tev treowlufu wrote: What about microbes? In the soil...breaking down (eating) the " dead " matter...providing detritus for plants...which provide us with food... The assertion against mushrooms isn't very convincing. The raw mushrooms I've eaten tasted pretty good. They feed on death? What on earth does not feed on death, either directly or indirectly? BTW, I have seen mushrooms growing on living trees. Mushrooms aren't food for humans? Since Elchanan ISN'T the " DESIGNER, " I believe he is voicing an OPINION, not a fact. I would argue we are designed as opportunists, to adapt to food niches. There isn't real evidence supporting a design to eat fruits and leaves, exclusively. We may be adapting or have adapted to that diet, but claiming we were designed to that diet simply is not true. Or is Elchanan claiming to be the Designer? tev Belinda wrote: I guess mushrooms are the scavangers of the plant world, like catfish are to the fish world, buzzards are to the animal world, etc. Belinda > I certainly am aware mushrooms are not plants. LOL! > > I knew a girl in college who wouldn't eat mushrooms due > to a religious prohibition against them. I asked her why, > and her reasoning was this same they feed on dead things. > > > -Erin > http://www.zenpawn.com/vegblog > > > rawfood , " Elchanan " wrote: > > > > Mushrooms are fungus. Fungus grows on (feeds upon) dead matter. We > are alive > > ... we thrive on what supports life. The mycotoxins to which you > refer, > > Bryan, are present from the very first mushroom. > > > > We are designed to eat plants ... fruits and leaves. Fungi are not > plants. > > The biological taxonomy changed years ago. > > > > Mushrooms are not food for humans. > > > > Best, > > Elchanan > ________ The experience of dynamic religious living transforms the mediocre individual into a personality of idealistic power. Religion ministers to the progress of all through fostering the progress of each individual, and the progress of each is augmented through the achievement of all. [The Urantia Book: 1094:1][http://www.urantia.org/] ________ http://www.vegconnect.com/ ________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Answers - Check it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 Actually scientists repeatedly refer to nature's design, and nature as a designer. Google it and you will find article after article on this. Nature also tends to find a way to recreate and sustain itself. I am perfectly capable of understanding the differnce between an opinion and an absolute claim. If someone makes a 'claim' that you disagree with that is where people have the responsibility to research it on their own. However, if you disagree with a 'claim' or an opinion, that you are going to post, it would be nice to see your supporting evidence also. tev treowlufu <goraw808 wrote: Elchanan repeatedly refers to " Nature's Design " in his posts. This implies knowledge of a Designer, named Nature. Nature is not a designer. " Designer " implies a thinking mind. Please show evidence of this Nature, this thinking mind, designing, planning our evolution, in support of the claim " Nature's Design. " I know of no evidence supporting the existence of this thinking mind, named Nature. The burden of proof falls on the claimant. All my posts are in response to opinions stated as absolute claims. I am not making any absolute claims. Do you understand the difference between the structure of an opinion and an absolute claim? BTW, what tev-claims are you referring to and for which you require supporting evidence? tev Terry Bakhtiari <pablobully wrote: Elchanan is not the first person (maybe on here) to say that mushrooms shouldn't be eaten by humans. I honestly can't remember where though or I would provide it. I do not see he is claiming to be the designer( seems like a cheap shot). Maybe it is just an opinion, which is fine, you have an opinion that disagrees that is fine too. The problem I have not just with your post is if Elchanan doesn't post something to 'prove; he is correct he is attacked or rude comments are made. You, and many others that post opinions also do not post anything to back it up. I just think you should also be willing to provide some 'back up' for your opinions if you want others to do the same. tev treowlufu wrote: What about microbes? In the soil...breaking down (eating) the " dead " matter...providing detritus for plants...which provide us with food... The assertion against mushrooms isn't very convincing. The raw mushrooms I've eaten tasted pretty good. They feed on death? What on earth does not feed on death, either directly or indirectly? BTW, I have seen mushrooms growing on living trees. Mushrooms aren't food for humans? Since Elchanan ISN'T the " DESIGNER, " I believe he is voicing an OPINION, not a fact. I would argue we are designed as opportunists, to adapt to food niches. There isn't real evidence supporting a design to eat fruits and leaves, exclusively. We may be adapting or have adapted to that diet, but claiming we were designed to that diet simply is not true. Or is Elchanan claiming to be the Designer? tev Belinda wrote: I guess mushrooms are the scavangers of the plant world, like catfish are to the fish world, buzzards are to the animal world, etc. Belinda > I certainly am aware mushrooms are not plants. LOL! > > I knew a girl in college who wouldn't eat mushrooms due > to a religious prohibition against them. I asked her why, > and her reasoning was this same they feed on dead things. > > > -Erin > http://www.zenpawn.com/vegblog > > > rawfood , " Elchanan " wrote: > > > > Mushrooms are fungus. Fungus grows on (feeds upon) dead matter. We > are alive > > ... we thrive on what supports life. The mycotoxins to which you > refer, > > Bryan, are present from the very first mushroom. > > > > We are designed to eat plants ... fruits and leaves. Fungi are not > plants. > > The biological taxonomy changed years ago. > > > > Mushrooms are not food for humans. > > > > Best, > > Elchanan > ________ The experience of dynamic religious living transforms the mediocre individual into a personality of idealistic power. Religion ministers to the progress of all through fostering the progress of each individual, and the progress of each is augmented through the achievement of all. [The Urantia Book: 1094:1][http://www.urantia.org/] ________ http://www.vegconnect.com/ ________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Answers - Check it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 On Friday 20 July 2007 11:04, Terry Bakhtiari wrote: > Actually scientists repeatedly refer to nature's design, that is not evidence! What scientists? Post what *they* said! that is evidence. > and nature as a > designer. Google it and you will find article after article on this. Nature > also tends to find a way to recreate and sustain itself. > I am perfectly capable of understanding the differnce between an opinion > and an absolute claim. > If someone makes a 'claim' that you disagree with > that is where people have the responsibility to research it on their own. Only if you think that is the way it should be done. > However, if you disagree with a 'claim' or an opinion, that you are going > to post, it would be nice to see your supporting evidence also. What if the research has already been done to satisfaction? and, perhaps just like you, no one else can honestly remember where they read something! Cute eh? Supporting evidence is only necessary to discredit original evidence. It is quite valid to counter opinion with either opinion or evidence. Evidence may be more convincing. Whatever rules you think you should follow, please go ahead, but it would be nice if you did not try to enforce them on others. neal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 Many reports also denote the benefits of mushrooms. I guess if people notice negative effects, that's one thing. Otherwise, whatever floats your boat. Hygienists are also against sea veggies, which are very helpful to many. So, it's once again whereever you are coming from. There is " proof " on both sides of most arguments. And most proof is really not proof of much, on either side. In terms of natural health, we have to realize that whether it's NH, rawfoods, etc, there are very little studies, period. One of my favorite books is called, " Trust Us - We're Experts " and it's all about this topic. Mushrooms may not be ideal, but many cultures have used them and they are not all sick and dying from it. Some say bananas aren't really a health food. Others say it's a superfood. Ditto for raw cacao. Sea veggies. Lots more. -Erica But I personally don't feel Elchanan is constantly attacked. He makes many extreme claims is all. People are now starting to challenge him on some of his opinions for more than just " his " take, but where and what reports his philosophy was adopted from, since it's made in " absolute " terms. Nobody can be absolute on this stuff, it is all too new. Hence my post above.... Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Answers - Check it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 I've read plenty of science-related articles and am familiar with the term " nature's design " . It is not foreign to me. I don't believe it warrants anything besides a polite inquiry for more information, which I'm sure Elchanan would be glad to provide under such circumstances. Janet rawfood , neal <kneel.pardoe wrote: On Friday 20 July 2007 11:04, Terry Bakhtiari wrote: Actually scientists repeatedly refer to nature's design, that is not evidence! What scientists? Post what *they* said! that is evidence. and nature as a designer. Google it and you will find article after article on this. Nature also tends to find a way to recreate and sustain itself. I am perfectly capable of understanding the differnce between an opinion and an absolute claim. If someone makes a 'claim' that you disagree with that is where people have the responsibility to research it on their own. Only if you think that is the way it should be done. However, if you disagree with a 'claim' or an opinion, that you are going to post, it would be nice to see your supporting evidence also. What if the research has already been done to satisfaction? and, perhaps just like you, no one else can honestly remember where they read something! Cute eh? Supporting evidence is only necessary to discredit original evidence. It is quite valid to counter opinion with either opinion or evidence. Evidence may be more convincing. Whatever rules you think you should follow, please go ahead, but it would be nice if you did not try to enforce them on others. neal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2007 Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 when others ask some for 'evidence' they should also be willing to provide it. That isn't trying to force anyone to do anything only follow the same rules they want others to follow. Why should supporting evidence only be to discredit original evidence? Because you say so? hmmm maybe you shouldn't try to force others to your ways of thinking either neal <kneel.pardoe wrote: On Friday 20 July 2007 11:04, Terry Bakhtiari wrote: > Actually scientists repeatedly refer to nature's design, that is not evidence! What scientists? Post what *they* said! that is evidence. > and nature as a > designer. Google it and you will find article after article on this. Nature > also tends to find a way to recreate and sustain itself. > I am perfectly capable of understanding the differnce between an opinion > and an absolute claim. > If someone makes a 'claim' that you disagree with > that is where people have the responsibility to research it on their own. Only if you think that is the way it should be done. > However, if you disagree with a 'claim' or an opinion, that you are going > to post, it would be nice to see your supporting evidence also. What if the research has already been done to satisfaction? and, perhaps just like you, no one else can honestly remember where they read something! Cute eh? Supporting evidence is only necessary to discredit original evidence. It is quite valid to counter opinion with either opinion or evidence. Evidence may be more convincing. Whatever rules you think you should follow, please go ahead, but it would be nice if you did not try to enforce them on others. neal. Terry Lynn Bakhtiari May God bless you Today and always. www.terrywithpcos.blogspot.com Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Travel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2007 Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 Thanks Erica. I guess I saw it that way because I think a lot of people make what seems to me things that make no sense but I tend to just by pass it and look things up myself instead of 'challenging' it .I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with someone else it just seems at times there is some hostility behind things. School Of Rawk <schoolofrawk wrote: Many reports also denote the benefits of mushrooms. I guess if people notice negative effects, that's one thing. Otherwise, whatever floats your boat. Hygienists are also against sea veggies, which are very helpful to many. So, it's once again whereever you are coming from. There is " proof " on both sides of most arguments. And most proof is really not proof of much, on either side. In terms of natural health, we have to realize that whether it's NH, rawfoods, etc, there are very little studies, period. One of my favorite books is called, " Trust Us - We're Experts " and it's all about this topic. Mushrooms may not be ideal, but many cultures have used them and they are not all sick and dying from it. Some say bananas aren't really a health food. Others say it's a superfood. Ditto for raw cacao. Sea veggies. Lots more. -Erica But I personally don't feel Elchanan is constantly attacked. He makes many extreme claims is all. People are now starting to challenge him on some of his opinions for more than just " his " take, but where and what reports his philosophy was adopted from, since it's made in " absolute " terms. Nobody can be absolute on this stuff, it is all too new. Hence my post above.... Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Answers - Check it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2007 Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 On Monday 23 July 2007 11:05, Terry Bakhtiari wrote: > when others ask some for 'evidence' they should also be willing to provide > it. That isn't trying to force anyone to do anything only follow the same > rules they want others to follow. Why should supporting evidence only be to > discredit original evidence? Because you say so? hmmm maybe you shouldn't > try to force others to your ways of thinking either yes Mom, I'm very sorry. neal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2007 Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 Terry, your response is misleading. There is a difference between saying nature has a design to it and " Nature " is a designer. Most scientists adamantly reject any intelligent design theories. I am not arguing that there isn't a designer. There is no evidence of a mind named nature. Once again the burden of substantiation falls upon the one making a claim, not the other way around. tev Terry Bakhtiari <pablobully wrote: Actually scientists repeatedly refer to nature's design, and nature as a designer. Google it and you will find article after article on this. Nature also tends to find a way to recreate and sustain itself. I am perfectly capable of understanding the differnce between an opinion and an absolute claim. If someone makes a 'claim' that you disagree with that is where people have the responsibility to research it on their own. However, if you disagree with a 'claim' or an opinion, that you are going to post, it would be nice to see your supporting evidence also. tev treowlufu wrote: Elchanan repeatedly refers to " Nature's Design " in his posts. This implies knowledge of a Designer, named Nature. Nature is not a designer. " Designer " implies a thinking mind. Please show evidence of this Nature, this thinking mind, designing, planning our evolution, in support of the claim " Nature's Design. " I know of no evidence supporting the existence of this thinking mind, named Nature. The burden of proof falls on the claimant. All my posts are in response to opinions stated as absolute claims. I am not making any absolute claims. Do you understand the difference between the structure of an opinion and an absolute claim? BTW, what tev-claims are you referring to and for which you require supporting evidence? tev Terry Bakhtiari wrote: Elchanan is not the first person (maybe on here) to say that mushrooms shouldn't be eaten by humans. I honestly can't remember where though or I would provide it. I do not see he is claiming to be the designer( seems like a cheap shot). Maybe it is just an opinion, which is fine, you have an opinion that disagrees that is fine too. The problem I have not just with your post is if Elchanan doesn't post something to 'prove; he is correct he is attacked or rude comments are made. You, and many others that post opinions also do not post anything to back it up. I just think you should also be willing to provide some 'back up' for your opinions if you want others to do the same. tev treowlufu wrote: What about microbes? In the soil...breaking down (eating) the " dead " matter...providing detritus for plants...which provide us with food... The assertion against mushrooms isn't very convincing. The raw mushrooms I've eaten tasted pretty good. They feed on death? What on earth does not feed on death, either directly or indirectly? BTW, I have seen mushrooms growing on living trees. Mushrooms aren't food for humans? Since Elchanan ISN'T the " DESIGNER, " I believe he is voicing an OPINION, not a fact. I would argue we are designed as opportunists, to adapt to food niches. There isn't real evidence supporting a design to eat fruits and leaves, exclusively. We may be adapting or have adapted to that diet, but claiming we were designed to that diet simply is not true. Or is Elchanan claiming to be the Designer? tev Belinda wrote: I guess mushrooms are the scavangers of the plant world, like catfish are to the fish world, buzzards are to the animal world, etc. Belinda > I certainly am aware mushrooms are not plants. LOL! > > I knew a girl in college who wouldn't eat mushrooms due > to a religious prohibition against them. I asked her why, > and her reasoning was this same they feed on dead things. > > > -Erin > http://www.zenpawn.com/vegblog > > > rawfood , " Elchanan " wrote: > > > > Mushrooms are fungus. Fungus grows on (feeds upon) dead matter. We > are alive > > ... we thrive on what supports life. The mycotoxins to which you > refer, > > Bryan, are present from the very first mushroom. > > > > We are designed to eat plants ... fruits and leaves. Fungi are not > plants. > > The biological taxonomy changed years ago. > > > > Mushrooms are not food for humans. > > > > Best, > > Elchanan > ________ The experience of dynamic religious living transforms the mediocre individual into a personality of idealistic power. Religion ministers to the progress of all through fostering the progress of each individual, and the progress of each is augmented through the achievement of all. [The Urantia Book: 1094:1][http://www.urantia.org/] ________ http://www.vegconnect.com/ ________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Answers - Check it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.