doG

You know better. It doesn't work that way here. If you state some claim as fact it is your burden to back it up, not someone elses to refute you. Yes, you've posted a recommended list of dietary requirements that provides no sources for them, particularly the fats and proteins we use animal sources for. I'm not particularly arguing in favor of red meat either. OTOH, I've noticed a number of articles in searching this topic where athletes have turned back from a meat free diet to add poultry and/or fish to their diets to get the energy and stamina they weren't getting from a meat free diet which made me wonder, what diet is optimal for us and is there truly a meat free diet that meets that need. I suspect humans could probably survive on beans, bread and water alone but should they? Is there a reason we should not use our ability to maximize our health, even if it means farming animals to do so?

You can't do the work over until you've done it the first time. No where here has there been proof posted that a vegan diet meets all of the dietary needs of humans. Claimants need to provide their own proof. None of those sites provide proof that all dietary needs can be met with a meat free diet, only that you can get some protein in your diet from alternate sources. Now, can you provide a link to any peer reviewed work that shows that humans can get everything they require for optimal health from a meat free diet?

Hold on now. You don't make claims here and then tell others to do your work for you to prove your claim. You made the claim then you prove it. Secondly, you avoided the question asking if a vegan diet is optimal. It's not enough that we can just survive on a meat free diet but can we do so without loosing any of the benefits of a diet that includes meat? If it takes meat to be all that we can be I see no reason to be less than we can be.

Can you support that claim with evidence? Are there any consequences of a meat free diet? What diet is optimal? Are there advantages to diets that include meat that humans cannot get from a meat free diet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1nsEtjqPg8 ...enough said!

I wonder if that is an evolutionary remnant since most bat species they are related to are omnivores or carnivores. Are the canines in humans also an evolutionary remnant? Sure we could. Are you implying we could get the protein we need from this rye in place of cows?

Are you suggesting we could make our own feed from grass instead of using cows to convert grass into a feed we can consume? Obviously we could consume grass directly but our own digestive system is not nearly as efficient as the cows in converting it to a protein.

A point of view to consider. Humans are naturally part of the food chain. Is it more ethical for an ever growing population to support that population with food from the wild or to supply itself with food it has raised for the purpose? Also, why would a herbivore evolve with canines? It would seem the very existence of canines in humans would make them omnivores over herbivores.

Science is a search for the truth based on the facts. religion is about claiming the truth regardless of the facts.

Perhaps you should revise your definition to coincide with the standard definition of science.

Because theists keep showing up here saying we should believe as they do sans supporting evidence. There needs to be a place for them to post and to hear why we won't believe as they do sans evidence.

No, it is the BIOS that does that. Once the BIOS hands over control to the OS then it is too late to enter the BIOS setup routine.

Note: I said it's possible, not that it has. I have drawn no conclusions about the beginning of the universe, if there was one. I am still open to all possibilities. I am not open to giving up the search for truth and simply declaring 'god did it'. That approach is for quitters.

Why? The existence of the universe is only evidence of the existence of the universe, nothing more, nothing less. It is not evidence that there was even a beginning since it's possible the universe has existed for eternity. That said, it is not evidence for a first cause of any kind and is certainly not evidence for the existence of any god.

Life is a biological term. It would corrupt the meaning and usage of the word to apply it to anything that is not biological.

We are omnivores just like any other omnivore in the animal kingdom so why should we not consume the diet we have evolved to consume? Why is this even a question about ethics at all?

Theorizing there was a creator is one thing, declaring there was one is another. Theists have zero evidence to support any conclusion of a creator. Yes and no. You can't lump all atheists together because they are really just non-theists. But most non-theists are non-theists because the are not willing to draw a conclusion with evidence, something scientists require. Theists on the other hand want you to buy their story as fact without any burden of proof so they are not scientists at all.

Why? Even chickens have feelings and we slaughter them by the millions. The same could be said for just about all animals that man consumes. Are animal feelings a reason not to kill and eat animals?

That's not evidence of a cause, only that the universe exists. You might as well claim that since the universe exists it must have been conjured up by leprechuans. The point you seem to be missing between theists and scientists is that theists want to conclude there was a creator while scientists just want to theorize how it might have happened without drawing conclusions. Theists want to declare the truth without looking for it and scientists want to look for the truth before declaring it.

That's not a valid argument. A rabid wolf is a living thing too and just might have feelings as well. Should we avoid killing any living thing just because it might have feelings?

That just means we need to do a better job at it. We should breed and raise them in such a way that we can harvest both the meat and the methane.

Holy cow, thanks for the laugh. That's the funniest post I've seen today.

The bible is a hearsay book written by MAN and is no evidence of anything. Please tell us where there is any credible evidence to support a belief in god that is a work of god, not one of mankind's storybooks. P.S. You cannot use the bible as evidence to support the bible itself as evidence.

There is no evidence that anything doesn't exist. None for Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, leprechauns, unicorns, fire breathing dragons, etc.. Are you trying to say we should believe in everything until someone can prove it doesn't exist?

So, the bible is not evidence of anything anyhow. Please tell us, is god omnipotent or not and please cite something to support that claim if you think it is.