Enrico, here's a list some of the errors you are making:
1) appeal to authority-- Darwin. Darwin could think whatever he wanted about humans, but it takes actual research, not just a clever mind, to arrive at meaningful results.
2) false analogy-- human body vs. cars. Ancient cars have not been found with traces of kerosene around their fire-pits. 6/7 cars don't have a craving for kerosene even though it involves kerosene suffering.
3) argumentum ad nauseam-- you keep repeating the same "evidence" and ideas, without providing any actual evidence. Saying it againt won't make you more right. Linking recent studies, and quoting important passages, will.
4) unsupported assertions-- humans can't digest meat. Bullshit-- 6 billion people in the world are processing meat all the time as part of their diet.
5) non sequitur-- if humans have the physiology of vegetarians, then humans should not eat meat.
1) appeal to authority-- Darwin. Darwin could think whatever he wanted about humans, but it takes actual research, not just a clever mind, to arrive at meaningful results.
2) false analogy-- human body vs. cars. Ancient cars have not been found with traces of kerosene around their fire-pits. 6/7 cars don't have a craving for kerosene even though it involves kerosene suffering.
3) argumentum ad nauseam-- you keep repeating the same "evidence" and ideas, without providing any actual evidence. Saying it againt won't make you more right. Linking recent studies, and quoting important passages, will.
4) unsupported assertions-- humans can't digest meat. Bullshit-- 6 billion people in the world are processing meat all the time as part of their diet.
5) non sequitur-- if humans have the physiology of vegetarians, then humans should not eat meat.
