bennyboy # 779 Wrote:I think this is actually good support for my point-- as humans we see ourselves as much more advanced than monkeys. But much of that great intellect we possess gets subjected to the process of seeking and fulfilling our monkey instincts. We as men are basically like monkeys masturbating in a zoo-- but with much better resources.

Speak for yourself bennyboy. Quite frankly I would rather have a realistic view of the world and my place in it than have the delusion that I am somehow "above nature' and


..... yes...you are no better than monkeys masturbating in a zoo. Your resources are limited though

(February 14, 2014 at 10:24 am)enrico Wrote: You are very funny boy.
According to atheism the changes came because our species made those changes in the past so we inherit what we are now.

Wrong. Atheism doesn't say that, science says that. Yet again, you show that you don't understand the theory of evolution.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: This dogma is as bad as the religious dogmas in which people get the manna from the sky.

This shows that you don't understand the scientific process at all. You see, with scientific theories, they are often changed to account for new evidence. With religious dogmas, nothing is ever changed despite new evidence.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: Have you ever got something for free?
Don't tell me the usual bullshit boy.

Oxygen, a newspaper, a lollypop. The list could go on and on.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: Are you telling me that we have the same digestive system, the same quantity of hydrochloric acid to break down the meat that we sweat through our tongues that we hunt during the night that we have sharp claws and powerful jaws?
Gee, the last time i looked myself in the mirror i must have seen a monster!

I'm telling you we share similarities. Do you know what that word means? Similarities with both carnivores and herbivores.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: Idiot.
Our small incisor and canine teeth are not design to kill and brake the raw meat down........

I didn't say that, idiot.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote:

......like an omnivore.

And I'll say once again enrico, posting pictures and sharing your opinion on them is not evidence. Show me one scientist who agrees with you. Link one peer-reviwed, scientific article that supports what you say. You can't? Oh yea thats right, because no one agrees with you, because you are wrong.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: If this is the case that you salivate at the sight of raw meat then you ruin all your natural feeling.
It is like a smoker or a junkie that feel that smoke or drugs are good for him.
It is only when you are free from unnatural way of life that you are able to judge what is good and natural and what is bad.
Unfortunately you f...... up your sense of good and bad.

Once again, I want you to link us to a peer reviewed, scientific article that agrees with what you say.

Eating meat and taking addictive drugs are nowhere near the same thing at all. The effects of drugs such as nicotine and tobbaco on the brain have been well documented. Do some research, look up the pleasure pathway and dopamine receptors. But of course you won't, you are an ignorant fuck with a superiority complex.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: Eh, boy why don't you tell me why out of 2000 people with cardiovascular diseases only less of 10 i found to be vegetarians in the last 24 years that i worked in medical situation?

Stop ignoring my replies enrico, we have been over this. Shall I repeat what I said before? Vegetarians are much much much less common than regular people. 10 out of 2000 people (or so you say) is actually not far off being representative. And even if you were right, you would have to prove scientifically that meat was the cause of cardiovascualr disease in these people, something you have completely failed to do. And BTW, i'm pretty sure everybody is sceptical that you work in any proffession to do with medical expertise, unless you work in homeopathy.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: The fact that everybody disagree with me doesn't mean a thing.
They also disagree that God exist so what?

Not everybody on this forum disagrees that god exists. But its not just everybody on this forum that disagrees with you. Its every scientist in the world. Science disagrees with you. Now if you think you are right, in order to convince anybody, you are going to have to provide evidence. Maybe conduct your own research, a case study or an experiment maybe? But of course you won't do that, you are far to lazy and stupid to pull anything like that off.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: One more point is that when you spew dung your friend will keep quite in order not to humiliate you any further like when you said that in the past omindis or man was probably eating carcasses.

Right, so your evidence that I was wrong about that is that no one corrected me? Right......Do you even think before you type your answers, fucking idiot. I would link you to the right articles that support my point about scavanging carasses, but you wouldn't read it.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: How man can have the same acids and digestive system as a hyena or a vulture?
Even a carnivore like a lion can not deal rotten meat.

You misunderstand me. I didn't say 'rotten meat' I said a 'carcass'. As you would know if you actually researched anything you talked about, meat can keep for at least a day in the right conditions and it has been theorized that early man would scavange on the kills of other predators.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: This is the perfect comparison.
The fact that you find difficult to DIGEST this analogy it means only that you lost your natural way of judging. (as i already mention above.

And as I have already said, you have absoltely no evidence for your 'hypothesis' which means, I and everybody else, are going to dismiss it.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: The quantity and the quality as well.
If you try to tell your rotten ideas to someone expert in medicine you would be lucky if they don't spit in your face and kick you out their environ.

My rotten ideas? Enrico, i'm curious. Have you ever talked to a real doctor? Or a biologist? Have you ever told them what you believe? And if so, did you actually listen to what they said?

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: In his book The Origin of Man he tells us:
"Although we know nothing for certain about the time or place that man shed the thick hair that covered him, with much probability of being right we could say that he must have lived in a warm country where conditions were favourable to the frugivorous way of life which, to judge from analogies, must have been the way man lived."

Ah, I see how you could misinterpet that. It comes down to (once again) your fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. This 'man' that Darwin is talking about, is not a homosapien. It isn't a human being. There were plenty of hairless apes, different species and subspecies. In order for you to be right, you're going to have to prove that darwin was talking about homosapiens. And at any rate, whether we evolved from herbivores is irrelevant, we are arguing over the fact that humans today are omnivores. And even if darwin actually meant what you are saying, so what? He lived hundreds of years ago. Science and knowledge have increased since then.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: Get lost little ignorant prick.
You show me the evidence that man body-mind is build to be omnivore i i will cover you in pure gold.

So i'm guessing you completely ignored me when I told you exactly where to find the evidence. Remember when i told you to look on google scholar? Did you do that? I don't think you did.
I'm not going to link anything here because that would be way too much work for me but i will tell you where to look. Go on google scholar, and read the articles about teeth in animals, also research digestive systems of carnivores, herbivores and omnivores.
This is such a well documented area of biology with a countless amount of evidence to support it, you are going to need a lot of gold. Good luck, not that I expect you to do any of what I just suggested....

---

(February 14, 2014 at 10:24 am)enrico Wrote: There has never been a time....at any point in recorded history......in which people have not been picking their nose so what?
Does this mean that it is natural to pick the nose or eating meat?

Yea, pretty much

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: People who eat meat don't give a damn about morality.

I guess thats why 6 billion people are all killing, raping and stealing......oh wait.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: Mad cow disease is not natural.

And how did you come to that conclusion?

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: Your guessing has no real foundation.

Except that one little annoying thing that you don't like: science.

(February 14, 2014 at 11:03 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:

bennyboy # 779 Wrote:I think this is actually good support for my point-- as humans we see ourselves as much more advanced than monkeys. But much of that great intellect we possess gets subjected to the process of seeking and fulfilling our monkey instincts. We as men are basically like monkeys masturbating in a zoo-- but with much better resources.

Speak for yourself bennyboy. Quite frankly I would rather have a realistic view of the world and my place in it than have the delusion that I am somehow "above nature' and


..... yes...you are no better than monkeys masturbating in a zoo. Your resources are limited though

I'm trying to call it like it is, and to find the balancing point around which all these kinds of arguments revolve. I think the heightened emotions that come up with regard to these issues shows that instincts are getting paired off against each other: the pleasure putting compassion first (self-righteous pricks, I think you'd say) vs. the pleasure of consumption (selfish, insensitive pricks, la ban dien would probably say).

You talk about a "realistic" view of the world, but that's just a euphemism for "shit, and will never stop being shit." It's pretty obvious by the state of the world that instincts that work well on a local level (greed, aggression, etc.) are completely fucking the world. But you are ignoring the fact that a better future isn't real until it is made so. I prefer a future where bald, belligerent monkeys stop fucking up the world and try to live IN it. You stick up for the aggression, for the right to selfish overconsumption at any cost, to the benefit of members of our species no matter what the effect on others. This is understandable-- it's part of evolution. But we also have the ability to look around and guage our effect on the world. And right now, it's not a very good one. THAT is facing reality-- the world sucks, and it's sucking more and more, and it is people's insistence on behaving badly that is making it so.

As for your position in nature: this is a mistaken view. We are instrinsically a part of nature, whether we decide to make changes in our world views and behaviors, or not. The question is whether the part of nature called "humanity" is going to follow the path of irresponsible overconsumption and maltreatment of the world, or wake up and realize that we are part of a process, and that the whole process should be respected, not just those processes that bring us the immediate benefit of tingling pleasure neurons.

(February 14, 2014 at 11:35 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(February 14, 2014 at 11:03 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Speak for yourself bennyboy. Quite frankly I would rather have a realistic view of the world and my place in it than have the delusion that I am somehow "above nature' and


..... yes...you are no better than monkeys masturbating in a zoo. Your resources are limited though

I'm trying to call it like it is, and to find the balancing point around which all these kinds of arguments revolve. I think the heightened emotions that come up with regard to these issues shows that instincts are getting paired off against each other: the pleasure putting compassion first (self-righteous pricks, I think you'd say) vs. the pleasure of consumption (selfish, insensitive pricks, la ban dien would probably say).

You talk about a "realistic" view of the world, but that's just a euphemism for "shit, and will never stop being shit." It's pretty obvious by the state of the world that instincts that work well on a local level (greed, aggression, etc.) are completely fucking the world. But you are ignoring the fact that a better future isn't real until it is made so. I prefer a future where bald, belligerent monkeys stop fucking up the world and try to live IN it. You stick up for the aggression, for the right to selfish overconsumption at any cost, to the benefit of members of our species no matter what the effect on others. This is understandable-- it's part of evolution. But we also have the ability to look around and guage our effect on the world. And right now, it's not a very good one. THAT is facing reality-- the world sucks, and it's sucking more and more, and it is people's insistence on behaving badly that is making it so.

As for your position in nature: this is a mistaken view. We are instrinsically a part of nature, whether we decide to make changes in our world views and behaviors, or not. The question is whether the part of nature called "humanity" is going to follow the path of irresponsible overconsumption and maltreatment of the world, or wake up and realize that we are part of a process, and that the whole process should be respected, not just those processes that bring us the immediate benefit of tingling pleasure neurons.

I just love the way you jump to assumptions about me, and attempt to lay blame where it is not warranted.

Stop trying to reinvent the toothbrush. The world is a wonderful place....and THEN you add people. Like you.

OK

Let us go through this. You want clarity? The only way I know how to do this is to go through each point (ad nauseum)

So, shall we start with your geographical location? Canada, wasn't it? So how long is your growing season in Canada?

(February 12, 2014 at 12:14 pm)StoryBook Wrote:

(February 12, 2014 at 11:02 am)enrico Wrote: You guys contradict yourself.
Most of you believe in evolution but evolution take his time to make changes.
To turn a carnivore into omnivore and a omnivore into a veg. it may take some million of years.
Now considering that ominids and humans have all the charaterisics of veg. then we can come to the conclusion that we have been veg for at least a million of years.
The evidence is there.
1)Ominids skulls and teeth have all the characteristics of veg. eaters.
2) Man does not salivate at the sight of raw meat.
3) The human digestive system can not deal with meat.
There are other reason but these would be non physical reason so i avoid to talk about them.

Clearly you do NOT know the difference between a carnivore, omnivore, herbivore, or a vegan and vegetarian. Using "veg" to describe your argument in attempt to tell us that we are not omnivores just shows how ignorant you are.

It is not just skulls and teeth(which you suck at reading,I may add) that tell us what an animal is. It is also digestive enzymes, digestive tract length, and digestive structures and functions. Here is a "simple" explanation..

Carnivores- Have enzymes to digest meat and to kill bacteria on raw meat. This is why dogs and cats can eat raw meat and not get sick. They have short digestive tracts. Meat is much easier to break down then plants thus the shorter digestive tract. Have sharp canines and molars to rip meat.

Omnivores- Have enzymes to break down both plant and meat. Have sharp canines but “flatter” molars the carnivores. Have Longer digestive tracts than carnivores but shorter than herbivores.Digestive structures varies between species, allowing some of them to be either more carnivorous or more herbivorous.

Herbivores- Have enzymes to break down plants. Have long digestive tracts because breaking down plants takes longer. Some herbivores are ruminants, meaning that they have a four compartment stomach to help break down plant material. Teeth are flat surface to grind plants and make them easier to digest. Some have canines that may be used for fighting.

You are very silly girl.
If you look at my previous posts you will not find much differences between your copy and paste information and my analysis.
However i do not agree with the fact that you put the man on the omnivore list and that the digestive system of a carnivore is shorter just because the meat is easily digested.
The reason why it is shorter is because the meat goes bad very quickly so beside having a shorter digestive structure they must also have strong hydrochloric acid.

Don't pretend for a second that you know anything about the digestive system

(February 14, 2014 at 11:20 am)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(February 14, 2014 at 10:24 am)enrico Wrote: You are very funny boy.
According to atheism the changes came because our species made those changes in the past so we inherit what we are now.

Wrong. Atheism doesn't say that, science says that. Yet again, you show that you don't understand the theory of evolution.

Ok. so it means that all atheists guys that said that don't know what they are talking about.
Now let us hear the official version from you.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: This dogma is as bad as the religious dogmas in which people get the manna from the sky.

Quote:This shows that you don't understand the scientific process at all. You see, with scientific theories, they are often changed to account for new evidence. With religious dogmas, nothing is ever changed despite new evidence.

That is funny.
One minute ago you make a clear distinction between atheism and science, now you kneel in front of the altar of science.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: Have you ever got something for free?
Don't tell me the usual bullshit boy.

Quote:Oxygen, a newspaper, a lollypop. The list could go on and on.

Not really.
To get oxygen you must make the effort of breathing so it come at the cost. As far as everything else there always be a catch.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: Are you telling me that we have the same digestive system, the same quantity of hydrochloric acid to break down the meat that we sweat through our tongues that we hunt during the night that we have sharp claws and powerful jaws?
Gee, the last time i looked myself in the mirror i must have seen a monster!

Quote:I'm telling you we share similarities. Do you know what that word means? Similarities with both carnivores and herbivores.

Yeah , we all go to the toilet sometime.

Quote:And I'll say once again enrico, posting pictures and sharing your opinion on them is not evidence. Show me one scientist who agrees with you. Link one peer-reviwed, scientific article that supports what you say. You can't? Oh yea thats right, because no one agrees with you, because you are wrong.

Idiot.
What more evidence you want other then see how different we are?
Can we kill pray with our canine?
Can we swallow pieces of meat without chewing like carnivore and omnivore?
Do we have the same hydrocloric acid like carnivore and omnivore?
Do we salivate at the sight of raw meat?
No, no, no, no, no, no so get use to it.


Noooooooooooooooooooooooo.

(February 15, 2014 at 10:02 am)enrico Wrote: Ok. so it means that all atheists guys that said that don't know what they are talking about.
Now let us hear the official version from you.

The only thing that atheism means is: the lack of belief in god. Nothing more at all. Nothing else is attached to it. However, most atheists will use science to explain the world as the scientific method is the best, most accurate and reliable way of figuring out how the world works.

(February 15, 2014 at 10:02 am)enrico Wrote: That is funny.
One minute ago you make a clear distinction between atheism and science, now you kneel in front of the altar of science.

So you agree, science is not dogmatic?

(February 15, 2014 at 10:02 am)enrico Wrote: Not really.
To get oxygen you must make the effort of breathing so it come at the cost. As far as everything else there always be a catch.

Not sure what your point is here but you are right. That free lollypop wasn't actually free because of those calories burned by reaching for the lolly, unwrapping the lolly and then sucking and licking said lolly.

(February 15, 2014 at 10:02 am)enrico Wrote: Yeah , we all go to the toilet sometime.

You really are just burying your head in the sand.

(February 15, 2014 at 10:02 am)enrico Wrote: Idiot.

Oh look, he can't find a scientist that agrees with him, or a scientific article either. Why do you think that is?

(February 15, 2014 at 10:02 am)enrico Wrote: What more evidence you want other then see how different we are?

Once again, your opinion is not evidence.

(February 15, 2014 at 10:02 am)enrico Wrote: Can we kill pray with our canine?

No we cannot, I have already explained why but you seem to just phase out whenever evolution is involved. The reason we cannot kill prey with our canine teeth is because we didn't evolve to. As the lions main weapon was its jaws and teeth, ours was our opposable thumbs and hands.

(February 15, 2014 at 10:02 am)enrico Wrote: Can we swallow pieces of meat without chewing like carnivore and omnivore?

Yes we can swallow meat without chewing it. It might be more difficult and we won't get as much nutrients out of it but it is possible. I don't know where you got the idea that omnivores and carnivores don't chew their food. Sure snakes swallow their prey whole and many toothed whales and dolphins only use their teeth to grip onto their prey. But carnivores such as lions have specialised molars designed to slice meat up into digestible portions. They chew their food.

(February 15, 2014 at 10:02 am)enrico Wrote: Do we have the same hydrocloric acid like carnivore and omnivore?

So for you to believe that we are omnivores, we would have to have the exact same stomach acid as every other carnivore and omnivore. Well in that case, you will never believe we are omnivores because we don't have identical stomach acid. We are different species after all. Do you honestly expect a bear to have the same stomach acid as us? And what about between all the different species? Their stomach acid isn't identical, does that mean that they aren't carnivores or omnivores? Not that any of this matters as a difference in stomach acid doesn't prove anything. In fact, it doesn't even mean anything.

(February 15, 2014 at 10:02 am)enrico Wrote: Do we salivate at the sight of raw meat?
No, no, no, no, no, no so get use to it.

Yes and no. Some people do and some people don't.

(February 15, 2014 at 7:46 am)enrico Wrote:

(February 12, 2014 at 12:14 pm)StoryBook Wrote: Clearly you do NOT know the difference between a carnivore, omnivore, herbivore, or a vegan and vegetarian. Using "veg" to describe your argument in attempt to tell us that we are not omnivores just shows how ignorant you are.

It is not just skulls and teeth(which you suck at reading,I may add) that tell us what an animal is. It is also digestive enzymes, digestive tract length, and digestive structures and functions. Here is a "simple" explanation..

Carnivores- Have enzymes to digest meat and to kill bacteria on raw meat. This is why dogs and cats can eat raw meat and not get sick. They have short digestive tracts. Meat is much easier to break down then plants thus the shorter digestive tract. Have sharp canines and molars to rip meat.

Omnivores- Have enzymes to break down both plant and meat. Have sharp canines but “flatter” molars the carnivores. Have Longer digestive tracts than carnivores but shorter than herbivores.Digestive structures varies between species, allowing some of them to be either more carnivorous or more herbivorous.

Herbivores- Have enzymes to break down plants. Have long digestive tracts because breaking down plants takes longer. Some herbivores are ruminants, meaning that they have a four compartment stomach to help break down plant material. Teeth are flat surface to grind plants and make them easier to digest. Some have canines that may be used for fighting.

You are very silly girl.
If you look at my previous posts you will not find much differences between your copy and paste information and my analysis.

It was not copy and paste,I wrote it because I went to school for animal science and took animal nutrition classes. I'm also studying to be a vet tech and we have to learn about the digestive systems of animals.

Quote:However i do not agree with the fact that you put the man on the omnivore list and that the digestive system of a carnivore is shorter just because the meat is easily digested.
The reason why it is shorter is because the meat goes bad very quickly so beside having a shorter digestive structure they must also have strong hydrochloric acid.

We have hydrochloric acid, it isn't as much as carnivores but we do have a lot. You know why, because we are omnivores. Open a biology book you idiot.