Moontanman

Putting people to the sword for not believing is religions thing, the only thing that keeps Christians from renewing this little part of their "belief system" is secular law. Until christianity was gelded during the enlightenment not being a christian was a dangerous way to live... Your beliefs rule your actions, believing in things that are true will result in actions that reflect reality, believing in things that are false leads to actions that reflect what you want to be true. When what you want to be true is dictated by by bigoted, misogynist, homophobic, murderous, genocidal, bronze age goat herders.. I mean what could possibly go wrong? Reality has no obligation to make anyone happy... Since this is being driven by the religious right maybe you should rethink this.. Religion is not about grey, religion is all about everything being black and white, no grey areas allowed! What type of smarts would that be?

I'm not sure understand it either.

Genesis is the start and from then on everything the Bible says about the natural world can be shown to be wrong. From the account in genesis of a six day creation of everything just the way it is today to Noah's flood and the animals two by two, to allowing farm animals to mate in front of striped sticks to make the offspring striped.

Reality is not reflected in the Bible, for a person to believe the Bible and science requires interpretational twists of both. If you take the Bible at face value one of the first things that should stand out is that nothing.. and I mean nothing, the Bible asserts about reality that can be tested is true. Why should we believe in any of it? Without interpretation the Bible does indeed contradict evolution.

While I agree with the spirit of what you are saying I'm not sure I understand the idea of the BB being somehow part of evolution. Sounds a bit like the creationist 7 steps of evolution. Can you clarify a bit?

Don't let PETA find out, they are one of the big backers of Veganism and are about as truthful about veganism as they are about their goals around hunting, fishing, pets and farm animals. Eating meat is a controversial issue in many circles but the issue is complex and is not easily broken down into black and white sections. I see you are already a member of my unauthorised version of PETA, hang in there!

No, in fact i have my doubts about two brothers being able to have a child no matter how much sex they have...

That doesn't give you the right to hijack the thread, I would be the first to stand up and say the eating of more plant products is a good thing but humans are not herbivores, we are omnivores and that trait is a big part of how we became human. We traded long complex intestines that were used to digest plants for short intestines that could digest meat and yes raw meat but cooking might have been a catalyst toward even bigger brains than the shorter meat digesting intestines allowed.

I would suggest you read the OP again my friend..

Then you are hijacking the thread dude, this thread is about veganism, not vegetarianism...

No, hydroponics is not just very expensive the things you can grow with it are also limited. Hydroponics are being used widely to grow lots of very expensive crops of limited energy density. Growing fish along with the plants help these figures quite a bit but it's not what we are talking about is it? I read it, it was quite one sided, being a official research paper doesn't give it the power of the word of god dude.

They like the nightlife, they like to boogie! Sorry I couldn't help it. I know this is true of deer, hunting pressure has driven them to a largely nocturnal lifestyle in much of their range... not to mention the whole boogie factor..

Hydroponics? Really? Have you ever grown anything legal hydroponically? Do you know why this question is relevant? No more rude than contant baseless assertions backed up by a fluff piece. This is not an issue that is one dimensional, far too many sides have to be examined and things like cutting down forests to grow crops, rice, one of the largest world wide crops being a very poor choice for the environment is a big factor. Your "link" doesn't deeply address much of the environmental factors involved or the problems of energy density of food. Back at you dude... PETA forever!

Yes! beat me to it! Much of our meat is grown in areas where farming vegetables is either impractical or the land is unsuitable for anything but raising meat animals. Humans cannot eat grass, brush, or trees. Growing plants in areas like deserts or areas with a growing season that is too short precludes growing crops but meat animals do well in these places. This is not a right/wrong issue and eating vegan in a healthy way is expensive eve now. Bring up the number of people looking to eat vegan the prices go up faster than production of suitable veggies. Are you going to suggest we raise our children vegan next? Children do not do well on vegan diets, their caloric needs are higher, babies and toddlers have died when raised on a strict vegan regime. Humans are not vegetarians, veganism is an option that has only been possible in the last few thousand years, before that we ate meat, lots of it. Humans are healthier eating some meat at least. We evolved to eat meat, we exchanged a digestive system that could effectively digest plants for a more meat based diet so we could support larger brains. Even our closest relatives, chimps, eat meat... unless you are going to say insects don't count and they do hunt, kill, and eat small animals including other primates. http://theconversation.com/is-a-vegetarian-diet-really-more-environmentally-friendly-than-eating-meat-71596 https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/veganism-environment-veganuary-friendly-food-diet-damage-hodmedods-protein-crops-jack-monroe-a8177541.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/health/vegetarian-diet-conversation/index.html https://qz.com/749443/being-vegan-isnt-as-environmentally-friendly-as-you-think/

I think we have two questions to answer there, will veganism be necessary and or is it morally superior. It's late and i have to get some sleep but I'll try to dig up the numbers that show that being vegan uses more land to feed even less people than we currently use. The moral basis for veganism is questionable as well but possibly more because morals are subjective and i see no objective way to say eating meat is immoral.

I'd hate to think how mortifying it would be to get an award from the same people who thought Mother Teresa deserved one...

You cannot be so naive to think that food costs in India are in anyway similar to those in the US or that india doesn't have a very high rate of malnutrition...

You forget that quite a bit of land is not suitable for the growing of food crops, humans cannot eat grass nor can we eat many of the things we feed our animals. Veganism, and I do remember your thread, would require a huge amount of land be farmed to grow amounts of things that simply cannot be grown in enough amounts to feed everyone. Yes some of us can currently, if we want, eat only plants but it's very expensive to do so. I would starve to death if I had to only eat plants, I can't afford the cost, we simply cannot grow enough complete foods to feed the entire planet or even a small portion of it...

I'd have to ask why you would think veganism would be necessary or moral...

Depends on your religion and how seriously you take ancient holy books really. A large number of people seem to have no problem with it...

If not a water wold then how about an ice locked moon like Europa? Instead of digging down they could dig up! the surface of Europa is connected to the surface via subduction of ice, that ice contains oxygen created from Jupiter's radiation belts. Enough in fact by some estimates the oceans of Europa should have as much or more oxygen than our own oceans. Could octopi be a colonization effort from Europa that went wrong? More importantly could such under ice creatures manage to break through to the surface in a useful way?

The need to control women is a huge problem in our society, why would a strong, confident, intelligent man want a weak, stupid, submissive woman to have his children. Kinda like eugenics in reverse.