This frozen chicken “had a rich, emotional life.”

[RitzBitzz]

Our hospitals are full of meat eaters because ... ?

What will all you healthscam workers do if/when people stay healthy ?

They, just like the private banksters, big oil, the military industrial complex ect. all have a strangle hold on your life's resources.

They, do not want us to know how easy it really is to free ourselves from their 2000 year old reign.

Want milk ? Drink your mom's !

The mother stops producing milk after a while so I think I will stick to cows.

[1714826103]

1714826103

[1714826103]

1714826103

[1714826103]

1714826103

[1714826103]

1714826103

[1714826103]

1714826103

[protokol]

Haha these militant veggies are pretty funny. It's natural and healthy for us to eat meat, the canine teeth in my mouth prove it.

Rape is also natural. Doesn't prove anything.

While rape does happen in the natural world (humans/apes/dolphins etc), we have not evolved to exhibit traits designed to facilitate rape specifically. However we have developed traits to specifically eat and digest meat, such as our teeth. Therefore I don't think it's a fair comparison.

Actually our teeth are not evolved to eat meat and almost all mammals have canine teeth so this argument is completely invalid in any case. Also we have a lot of digestive similarities with animals that are herbivores.
Just wanted to point out that misconception.

OK, I've done some reading and it seems that yes, some mammals do have canine teeth so that argument is not as valid as I first thought. However, some of these mammals may have evolved from recent carnivores, whereas we probably evolved from recent herbivores, such as Australopithecus. So it could be a case that either these mammals have not lost the canines yet, or they use them for another function, such as fighting or tusks for display.

Our digestive system as a whole has most certainly evolved to be omnivorous, not vegetarian. The human digestive tract is shorter than that of herbivores, and we have lost the function of the appendix to digest cellulose.

Our ancestor Australopithecus had a big large intestine, and large flat teeth to munch and digest vegetation. Later, this species moved to the plains and began to eat meat, many scientist believe this was where our anatomy began to evolve to process meat more effectively. Meat is a more concentrated form of energy, our ancestors would gain energy more efficiently by spending an hour eating meat rather than 5 hours eating berries.
There is also evidence that, more recently in history (1.8m years), our ancestors discovered how to cook meat, which is easier still to digest.

Therefore, due to natural selection, our guts got smaller and we saved energy in digestion, enabling us to be more successful in survival.

There is a lot of evidence that the introduction to meat eating enabled our ancestors to evolve bigger brains, and therefore able to spend less time foraging and more time to develop social structures. This would have progressed the species' intelligence.

Many scientists believe that it is no coincidence that Humans are the most intelligent species, and also the only ones to cook their food.

C'mon you guys. This topic is serious. Stop turning it into as religion by suggesting that something evolved.

OK you bloody god-botherer, so now Evolution Theory is a religion, as well as Atheism... Please leave your ideas about the definition of religion out of unrelated threads, you're free to spout that nonsense in threads about religion.

[BADecker]

Haha these militant veggies are pretty funny. It's natural and healthy for us to eat meat, the canine teeth in my mouth prove it.

Rape is also natural. Doesn't prove anything.

While rape does happen in the natural world (humans/apes/dolphins etc), we have not evolved to exhibit traits designed to facilitate rape specifically. However we have developed traits to specifically eat and digest meat, such as our teeth. Therefore I don't think it's a fair comparison.

Actually our teeth are not evolved to eat meat and almost all mammals have canine teeth so this argument is completely invalid in any case. Also we have a lot of digestive similarities with animals that are herbivores.
Just wanted to point out that misconception.

OK, I've done some reading and it seems that yes, some mammals do have canine teeth so that argument is not as valid as I first thought. However, some of these mammals may have evolved from recent carnivores, whereas we probably evolved from recent herbivores, such as Australopithecus. So it could be a case that either these mammals have not lost the canines yet, or they use them for another function, such as fighting or tusks for display.

Our digestive system as a whole has most certainly evolved to be omnivorous, not vegetarian. The human digestive tract is shorter than that of herbivores, and we have lost the function of the appendix to digest cellulose.

Our ancestor Australopithecus had a big large intestine, and large flat teeth to munch and digest vegetation. Later, this species moved to the plains and began to eat meat, many scientist believe this was where our anatomy began to evolve to process meat more effectively. Meat is a more concentrated form of energy, our ancestors would gain energy more efficiently by spending an hour eating meat rather than 5 hours eating berries.
There is also evidence that, more recently in history (1.8m years), our ancestors discovered how to cook meat, which is easier still to digest.

Therefore, due to natural selection, our guts got smaller and we saved energy in digestion, enabling us to be more successful in survival.

There is a lot of evidence that the introduction to meat eating enabled our ancestors to evolve bigger brains, and therefore able to spend less time foraging and more time to develop social structures. This would have progressed the species' intelligence.

Many scientists believe that it is no coincidence that Humans are the most intelligent species, and also the only ones to cook their food.

C'mon you guys. This topic is serious. Stop turning it into as religion by suggesting that something evolved.

OK you bloody god-botherer, so now Evolution Theory is a religion, as well as Atheism... Please leave your ideas about the definition of religion out of unrelated threads, you're free to spout that nonsense in threads about religion.

When are you jokers going to wake up and see that evolution as it stands now is one of two things. It is either religion, or it is sci-fi. Why? Because the amount of evolution that has been proven to exist is relatively small.

There is NO proven evolution process that takes inanimate material to life. In fact, the theory for it isn't complete. The evolution that has been scientifically proven has so many holes in it in this way, that we don't even have a complete working "scenario" whereby evolution could become life. Lot's of ideas. Some reasonable theories. But no start to finish scenario where all the parts have been proven. Not really even close. Not even complete start to finish theory.

However, if we had a working scenario, then we still would have to prove that it was the one that happened. Probably by the time somebody DOES come forward with a complete, working flow of evolution, there will be several such working flows, all of them diametrically opposed to each other, as to how evolution could have happened - gone from inanimate to life. The one that is the truth (if somebody even has the right one) will still need to be proven that it is the one that really did happen. We might totally need a time viewer for that.

The point is, those who believe that evolution is truth based on the evidence so far, hail it in a form that at least approaches religion (certainly isn't philosophy). The rest of us call it science fiction. Wake up.

[Buffer Overflow]

Haha these militant veggies are pretty funny. It's natural and healthy for us to eat meat, the canine teeth in my mouth prove it.

Rape is also natural. Doesn't prove anything.

While rape does happen in the natural world (humans/apes/dolphins etc), we have not evolved to exhibit traits designed to facilitate rape specifically. However we have developed traits to specifically eat and digest meat, such as our teeth. Therefore I don't think it's a fair comparison.

Actually our teeth are not evolved to eat meat and almost all mammals have canine teeth so this argument is completely invalid in any case. Also we have a lot of digestive similarities with animals that are herbivores.
Just wanted to point out that misconception.

OK, I've done some reading and it seems that yes, some mammals do have canine teeth so that argument is not as valid as I first thought. However, some of these mammals may have evolved from recent carnivores, whereas we probably evolved from recent herbivores, such as Australopithecus. So it could be a case that either these mammals have not lost the canines yet, or they use them for another function, such as fighting or tusks for display.

Our digestive system as a whole has most certainly evolved to be omnivorous, not vegetarian. The human digestive tract is shorter than that of herbivores, and we have lost the function of the appendix to digest cellulose.

Our ancestor Australopithecus had a big large intestine, and large flat teeth to munch and digest vegetation. Later, this species moved to the plains and began to eat meat, many scientist believe this was where our anatomy began to evolve to process meat more effectively. Meat is a more concentrated form of energy, our ancestors would gain energy more efficiently by spending an hour eating meat rather than 5 hours eating berries.
There is also evidence that, more recently in history (1.8m years), our ancestors discovered how to cook meat, which is easier still to digest.

Therefore, due to natural selection, our guts got smaller and we saved energy in digestion, enabling us to be more successful in survival.

There is a lot of evidence that the introduction to meat eating enabled our ancestors to evolve bigger brains, and therefore able to spend less time foraging and more time to develop social structures. This would have progressed the species' intelligence.

Many scientists believe that it is no coincidence that Humans are the most intelligent species, and also the only ones to cook their food.

C'mon you guys. This topic is serious. Stop turning it into as religion by suggesting that something evolved.

OK you bloody god-botherer, so now Evolution Theory is a religion, as well as Atheism... Please leave your ideas about the definition of religion out of unrelated threads, you're free to spout that nonsense in threads about religion.

When are you jokers going to wake up and see that evolution as it stands now is one of two things. It is either religion, or it is sci-fi. Why? Because the amount of evolution that has been proven to exist is relatively small.

There is NO proven evolution process that takes inanimate material to life. In fact, the theory for it isn't complete. The evolution that has been scientifically proven has so many holes in it in this way, that we don't even have a complete working "scenario" whereby evolution could become life. Lot's of ideas. Some reasonable theories. But no start to finish scenario where all the parts have been proven. Not really even close. Not even complete start to finish theory.

However, if we had a working scenario, then we still would have to prove that it was the one that happened. Probably by the time somebody DOES come forward with a complete, working flow of evolution, there will be several such working flows, all of them diametrically opposed to each other, as to how evolution could have happened - gone from inanimate to life. The one that is the truth (if somebody even has the right one) will still need to be proven that it is the one that really did happen. We might totally need a time viewer for that.

The point is, those who believe that evolution is truth based on the evidence so far, hail it in a form that at least approaches religion (certainly isn't philosophy). The rest of us call it science fiction. Wake up.

Mention evolution and it doesn't take long for the angry Christians to start their hand wringing. LOL

There is NO proven evolution process that takes inanimate material to life.

Observe how he deliberately changed the theory of evolution so that meant something that it doesn't.
Theory of evolution says nothing of the origin or point of evolution. It describes how new species come into existance.

[protokol]

^^Yep, he's totally close-minded and incapable of taking on any information - I've explained to him a couple of times that evolution and the emergence of life itself are 2 different things, yet he still doesn't distinguish them.

Doing so wouldn't even violate his beliefs/ethics, so I don't know why he doesn't learn. I don't think I've ever seen him admit he was wrong, ever.

 

[Wilikon]

New Zealand legally recognises animals as 'sentient' beings

A change to New Zealand law has recognised what pet owners and scientists have known for years - that animals have feelings.

The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, which passed its final reading on Tuesday, states that animals, like humans, are "sentient" beings.

"To say that animals are sentient is to state explicitly that they can experience both positive and negative emotions, including pain and distress," said Dr Virginia Williams, chair of the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee.

"The explicitness is what is new and marks another step along the animal welfare journey."

The bill also bans the use of animals for the testing of cosmetics.

Dr Williams said the legal recognition of animal sentience provided a stronger underpinning of the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act.

Nelson SPCA manager Donna Walzl said the changes were "wonderful".

"It's great to finally see it brought into legislation. It's awesome."

She said pets that came to the SPCA's attention often exhibited human-like emotions.

"You can see that they do have separation anxiety and that's showing emotion. It's almost a human emotion," she said.

"It's the same with the animals that we see that are neglected and have real, true animal welfare issues. They suffer for it. You can see it in their eyes. It's quite sad, really."

A submission on the bill by SPCA Auckland said a declaration of sentience was needed "because most New Zealand law treats animals as 'things' and 'objects' rather than as living creatures".

Walzl said she hoped that recognising animals as sentient beings would add "more weight" to abuse and neglect cases in court.

"Hopefully there will be some sterner penalties out there and that obviously creates a bigger deterrent for people to do those things."

The bill also provides for a penalty scheme to enable low-to-medium level offending to be dealt with more effectively, and gives animal welfare inspectors the power to issue compliance notices, among other measures.

New Zealand Veterinary Association president Dr Steve Merchant said the bill greater clarity, transparency and enforceability of animal welfare laws.

"Expectations on animal welfare have been rapidly changing, and practices that were once commonplace for pets and farm stock are no longer acceptable or tolerated. The bill brings legislation in line with our nation's changing attitude on the status of animals in society."

The bill was introduce to parliament by primary industries minister Nathan Guy in May, 2013.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/68363264/New-Zealand-legally-recognises-animals-as-sentient-beings

[protokol]

New Zealand legally recognises animals as 'sentient' beings

Bolt to the head. No pain, just delicious tender meat. Circle of life bitches, kudos to the human race for getting to the top of the food-chain.

[BADecker]

New Zealand legally recognises animals as 'sentient' beings

Bolt to the head. No pain, just delicious tender meat. Circle of life bitches, kudos to the human race for getting to the top of the food-chain.

This is it. Animals may have and exhibit intelligence. But no animal attempts to advance his own reasoning or life-style beyond what is built into him - instinct. Only human beings have the ability to extend their intelligence into all kinds of new regions.

In New Zealand, under common law, if you own the animal, you can eat it. If you subscribe to formal citizenship rather than simple domicile, you might get governmental flack. And if you don't know how to stand as a man/woman in common law, you might lose in court. But if you know how to stand, you win.

[BADecker]

Haha these militant veggies are pretty funny. It's natural and healthy for us to eat meat, the canine teeth in my mouth prove it.

Rape is also natural. Doesn't prove anything.

While rape does happen in the natural world (humans/apes/dolphins etc), we have not evolved to exhibit traits designed to facilitate rape specifically. However we have developed traits to specifically eat and digest meat, such as our teeth. Therefore I don't think it's a fair comparison.

Actually our teeth are not evolved to eat meat and almost all mammals have canine teeth so this argument is completely invalid in any case. Also we have a lot of digestive similarities with animals that are herbivores.
Just wanted to point out that misconception.

OK, I've done some reading and it seems that yes, some mammals do have canine teeth so that argument is not as valid as I first thought. However, some of these mammals may have evolved from recent carnivores, whereas we probably evolved from recent herbivores, such as Australopithecus. So it could be a case that either these mammals have not lost the canines yet, or they use them for another function, such as fighting or tusks for display.

Our digestive system as a whole has most certainly evolved to be omnivorous, not vegetarian. The human digestive tract is shorter than that of herbivores, and we have lost the function of the appendix to digest cellulose.

Our ancestor Australopithecus had a big large intestine, and large flat teeth to munch and digest vegetation. Later, this species moved to the plains and began to eat meat, many scientist believe this was where our anatomy began to evolve to process meat more effectively. Meat is a more concentrated form of energy, our ancestors would gain energy more efficiently by spending an hour eating meat rather than 5 hours eating berries.
There is also evidence that, more recently in history (1.8m years), our ancestors discovered how to cook meat, which is easier still to digest.

Therefore, due to natural selection, our guts got smaller and we saved energy in digestion, enabling us to be more successful in survival.

There is a lot of evidence that the introduction to meat eating enabled our ancestors to evolve bigger brains, and therefore able to spend less time foraging and more time to develop social structures. This would have progressed the species' intelligence.

Many scientists believe that it is no coincidence that Humans are the most intelligent species, and also the only ones to cook their food.

C'mon you guys. This topic is serious. Stop turning it into as religion by suggesting that something evolved.

OK you bloody god-botherer, so now Evolution Theory is a religion, as well as Atheism... Please leave your ideas about the definition of religion out of unrelated threads, you're free to spout that nonsense in threads about religion.

When are you jokers going to wake up and see that evolution as it stands now is one of two things. It is either religion, or it is sci-fi. Why? Because the amount of evolution that has been proven to exist is relatively small.

There is NO proven evolution process that takes inanimate material to life. In fact, the theory for it isn't complete. The evolution that has been scientifically proven has so many holes in it in this way, that we don't even have a complete working "scenario" whereby evolution could become life. Lot's of ideas. Some reasonable theories. But no start to finish scenario where all the parts have been proven. Not really even close. Not even complete start to finish theory.

However, if we had a working scenario, then we still would have to prove that it was the one that happened. Probably by the time somebody DOES come forward with a complete, working flow of evolution, there will be several such working flows, all of them diametrically opposed to each other, as to how evolution could have happened - gone from inanimate to life. The one that is the truth (if somebody even has the right one) will still need to be proven that it is the one that really did happen. We might totally need a time viewer for that.

The point is, those who believe that evolution is truth based on the evidence so far, hail it in a form that at least approaches religion (certainly isn't philosophy). The rest of us call it science fiction. Wake up.

Mention evolution and it doesn't take long for the angry Christians to start their hand wringing. LOL

There is NO proven evolution process that takes inanimate material to life.

Observe how he deliberately changed the theory of evolution so that meant something that it doesn't.
Theory of evolution says nothing of the origin or point of evolution. It describes how new species come into existance.

Notice how he doesn't know that the formation of life from inorganic materials is part of the standard evolutionary process. However, no-one has proven that the things that are called evolution in the sense that BO is saying, are not simply programed-in methods that living creatures have for adapting to climactic and other conditions.Science simply hasn't become that capable, yet.

[Buffer Overflow]

Haha these militant veggies are pretty funny. It's natural and healthy for us to eat meat, the canine teeth in my mouth prove it.

Rape is also natural. Doesn't prove anything.

While rape does happen in the natural world (humans/apes/dolphins etc), we have not evolved to exhibit traits designed to facilitate rape specifically. However we have developed traits to specifically eat and digest meat, such as our teeth. Therefore I don't think it's a fair comparison.

Actually our teeth are not evolved to eat meat and almost all mammals have canine teeth so this argument is completely invalid in any case. Also we have a lot of digestive similarities with animals that are herbivores.
Just wanted to point out that misconception.

OK, I've done some reading and it seems that yes, some mammals do have canine teeth so that argument is not as valid as I first thought. However, some of these mammals may have evolved from recent carnivores, whereas we probably evolved from recent herbivores, such as Australopithecus. So it could be a case that either these mammals have not lost the canines yet, or they use them for another function, such as fighting or tusks for display.

Our digestive system as a whole has most certainly evolved to be omnivorous, not vegetarian. The human digestive tract is shorter than that of herbivores, and we have lost the function of the appendix to digest cellulose.

Our ancestor Australopithecus had a big large intestine, and large flat teeth to munch and digest vegetation. Later, this species moved to the plains and began to eat meat, many scientist believe this was where our anatomy began to evolve to process meat more effectively. Meat is a more concentrated form of energy, our ancestors would gain energy more efficiently by spending an hour eating meat rather than 5 hours eating berries.
There is also evidence that, more recently in history (1.8m years), our ancestors discovered how to cook meat, which is easier still to digest.

Therefore, due to natural selection, our guts got smaller and we saved energy in digestion, enabling us to be more successful in survival.

There is a lot of evidence that the introduction to meat eating enabled our ancestors to evolve bigger brains, and therefore able to spend less time foraging and more time to develop social structures. This would have progressed the species' intelligence.

Many scientists believe that it is no coincidence that Humans are the most intelligent species, and also the only ones to cook their food.

C'mon you guys. This topic is serious. Stop turning it into as religion by suggesting that something evolved.

OK you bloody god-botherer, so now Evolution Theory is a religion, as well as Atheism... Please leave your ideas about the definition of religion out of unrelated threads, you're free to spout that nonsense in threads about religion.

When are you jokers going to wake up and see that evolution as it stands now is one of two things. It is either religion, or it is sci-fi. Why? Because the amount of evolution that has been proven to exist is relatively small.

There is NO proven evolution process that takes inanimate material to life. In fact, the theory for it isn't complete. The evolution that has been scientifically proven has so many holes in it in this way, that we don't even have a complete working "scenario" whereby evolution could become life. Lot's of ideas. Some reasonable theories. But no start to finish scenario where all the parts have been proven. Not really even close. Not even complete start to finish theory.

However, if we had a working scenario, then we still would have to prove that it was the one that happened. Probably by the time somebody DOES come forward with a complete, working flow of evolution, there will be several such working flows, all of them diametrically opposed to each other, as to how evolution could have happened - gone from inanimate to life. The one that is the truth (if somebody even has the right one) will still need to be proven that it is the one that really did happen. We might totally need a time viewer for that.

The point is, those who believe that evolution is truth based on the evidence so far, hail it in a form that at least approaches religion (certainly isn't philosophy). The rest of us call it science fiction. Wake up.

Mention evolution and it doesn't take long for the angry Christians to start their hand wringing. LOL

There is NO proven evolution process that takes inanimate material to life.

Observe how he deliberately changed the theory of evolution so that meant something that it doesn't.
Theory of evolution says nothing of the origin or point of evolution. It describes how new species come into existance.

Notice how he doesn't know that the formation of life from inorganic materials is part of the standard evolutionary process. However, no-one has proven that the things that are called evolution in the sense that BO is saying, are not simply programed-in methods that living creatures have for adapting to climactic and other conditions.Science simply hasn't become that capable, yet.

I believe BADecker is referring to Abiogenesis where life began from nothing.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Yes, correct, there is no proof of evolution, that's why we call it a theory. Obviously. 

[BADecker]

Haha these militant veggies are pretty funny. It's natural and healthy for us to eat meat, the canine teeth in my mouth prove it.

Rape is also natural. Doesn't prove anything.

While rape does happen in the natural world (humans/apes/dolphins etc), we have not evolved to exhibit traits designed to facilitate rape specifically. However we have developed traits to specifically eat and digest meat, such as our teeth. Therefore I don't think it's a fair comparison.

Actually our teeth are not evolved to eat meat and almost all mammals have canine teeth so this argument is completely invalid in any case. Also we have a lot of digestive similarities with animals that are herbivores.
Just wanted to point out that misconception.

OK, I've done some reading and it seems that yes, some mammals do have canine teeth so that argument is not as valid as I first thought. However, some of these mammals may have evolved from recent carnivores, whereas we probably evolved from recent herbivores, such as Australopithecus. So it could be a case that either these mammals have not lost the canines yet, or they use them for another function, such as fighting or tusks for display.

Our digestive system as a whole has most certainly evolved to be omnivorous, not vegetarian. The human digestive tract is shorter than that of herbivores, and we have lost the function of the appendix to digest cellulose.

Our ancestor Australopithecus had a big large intestine, and large flat teeth to munch and digest vegetation. Later, this species moved to the plains and began to eat meat, many scientist believe this was where our anatomy began to evolve to process meat more effectively. Meat is a more concentrated form of energy, our ancestors would gain energy more efficiently by spending an hour eating meat rather than 5 hours eating berries.
There is also evidence that, more recently in history (1.8m years), our ancestors discovered how to cook meat, which is easier still to digest.

Therefore, due to natural selection, our guts got smaller and we saved energy in digestion, enabling us to be more successful in survival.

There is a lot of evidence that the introduction to meat eating enabled our ancestors to evolve bigger brains, and therefore able to spend less time foraging and more time to develop social structures. This would have progressed the species' intelligence.

Many scientists believe that it is no coincidence that Humans are the most intelligent species, and also the only ones to cook their food.

C'mon you guys. This topic is serious. Stop turning it into as religion by suggesting that something evolved.

OK you bloody god-botherer, so now Evolution Theory is a religion, as well as Atheism... Please leave your ideas about the definition of religion out of unrelated threads, you're free to spout that nonsense in threads about religion.

When are you jokers going to wake up and see that evolution as it stands now is one of two things. It is either religion, or it is sci-fi. Why? Because the amount of evolution that has been proven to exist is relatively small.

There is NO proven evolution process that takes inanimate material to life. In fact, the theory for it isn't complete. The evolution that has been scientifically proven has so many holes in it in this way, that we don't even have a complete working "scenario" whereby evolution could become life. Lot's of ideas. Some reasonable theories. But no start to finish scenario where all the parts have been proven. Not really even close. Not even complete start to finish theory.

However, if we had a working scenario, then we still would have to prove that it was the one that happened. Probably by the time somebody DOES come forward with a complete, working flow of evolution, there will be several such working flows, all of them diametrically opposed to each other, as to how evolution could have happened - gone from inanimate to life. The one that is the truth (if somebody even has the right one) will still need to be proven that it is the one that really did happen. We might totally need a time viewer for that.

The point is, those who believe that evolution is truth based on the evidence so far, hail it in a form that at least approaches religion (certainly isn't philosophy). The rest of us call it science fiction. Wake up.

Mention evolution and it doesn't take long for the angry Christians to start their hand wringing. LOL

There is NO proven evolution process that takes inanimate material to life.

Observe how he deliberately changed the theory of evolution so that meant something that it doesn't.
Theory of evolution says nothing of the origin or point of evolution. It describes how new species come into existance.

Notice how he doesn't know that the formation of life from inorganic materials is part of the standard evolutionary process. However, no-one has proven that the things that are called evolution in the sense that BO is saying, are not simply programed-in methods that living creatures have for adapting to climactic and other conditions.Science simply hasn't become that capable, yet.

I believe BADecker is referring to Abiogenesis where life began from nothing.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Yes, correct, there is no proof of evolution, that's why we call it a theory. Obviously.  

Implementing the word "Abiogenesis" is simply a recent way that evolutionists have attempted to split up evolution theory, because they are having such a difficult time proving any of it exists. How many years has it been, now, since Darwin?

[BADecker]

I am totally NOT against the idea of some group of scientists actually finding a possible method or complete scenario or complete flow regarding evolution. While I am not actually hoping for it, I certainly wouldn't mind if somebody found a complete way that evolution could have happened, from the start of inorganic to life, to the life that we have today. In fact, I would like it if several of these methods were found.

It would prove that God had created mankind so great that they could even find out how to make life evolve. Of course, then there would be the problem of proving that evolution actually did the job, and not God.

[Buffer Overflow]

I am totally NOT against the idea of some group of scientists actually finding a possible method or complete scenario or complete flow regarding evolution. While I am not actually hoping for it, I certainly wouldn't mind if somebody found a complete way that evolution could have happened, from the start of inorganic to life, to the life that we have today. In fact, I would like it if several of these methods were found.

It would prove that God had created mankind so great that they could even find out how to make life evolve. Of course, then there would be the problem of proving that evolution actually did the job, and not God.

Tell you what, why not rewrite the bible (which is okay because it's been done before) and add a bit of evolution into the story line.
You can then fully believe the theory 100%.

[BADecker]

I am totally NOT against the idea of some group of scientists actually finding a possible method or complete scenario or complete flow regarding evolution. While I am not actually hoping for it, I certainly wouldn't mind if somebody found a complete way that evolution could have happened, from the start of inorganic to life, to the life that we have today. In fact, I would like it if several of these methods were found.

It would prove that God had created mankind so great that they could even find out how to make life evolve. Of course, then there would be the problem of proving that evolution actually did the job, and not God.

Tell you what, why not rewrite the bible (which is okay because it's been done before) and add a bit of evolution into the story line.
You can then fully believe the theory 100%.

Of course the Bible has been completely rewritten, many times. Before the making of the printing press, that was the only way to spread the Bible, write it. Since we have printing presses these days, and since one can actually print it on his home computer printer, why would I want to waste my time rewriting the Bible?

Once there is very much evidence, a thing can be considered proven. Because of the evidence, God has essentially been proven, as has the Bible. Examining the history of how the Bible came into existence might be a bit difficult - so that you can see the evidence, that is. But the evidence for God is all around us and has been shown in a big way at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

You can't see the evidence if you don't look.

[Wilikon]

I am totally NOT against the idea of some group of scientists actually finding a possible method or complete scenario or complete flow regarding evolution. While I am not actually hoping for it, I certainly wouldn't mind if somebody found a complete way that evolution could have happened, from the start of inorganic to life, to the life that we have today. In fact, I would like it if several of these methods were found.

It would prove that God had created mankind so great that they could even find out how to make life evolve. Of course, then there would be the problem of proving that evolution actually did the job, and not God.

Tell you what, why not rewrite the bible (which is okay because it's been done before) and add a bit of evolution into the story line.
You can then fully believe the theory 100%.

The Bible does not mention darwin's theory but I would (personally) read this as if a man was trying to explain to an ant what the fabric of life was 'coming from', atomic dust particles:

By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”


Are we really all made of stardust?


That will be it as far as my Sunday's teaching...

 

[BADecker]

I am totally NOT against the idea of some group of scientists actually finding a possible method or complete scenario or complete flow regarding evolution. While I am not actually hoping for it, I certainly wouldn't mind if somebody found a complete way that evolution could have happened, from the start of inorganic to life, to the life that we have today. In fact, I would like it if several of these methods were found.

It would prove that God had created mankind so great that they could even find out how to make life evolve. Of course, then there would be the problem of proving that evolution actually did the job, and not God.

Tell you what, why not rewrite the bible (which is okay because it's been done before) and add a bit of evolution into the story line.
You can then fully believe the theory 100%.

The Bible does not mention darwin's theory but I would (personally) read this as if a man was trying to explain to an ant what the fabric of life was 'coming from', atomic dust particles:

By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”


Are we really all made of stardust?


That will be it as far as my Sunday's teaching...

 

Earth dust, like the stars are.

[Wilikon]

"Vegan Feminist" Professor Asks Women to Stop Getting Naked to Support Veganism

The Vegan Feminist Network, which says its mission is to "eradicate oppression from the Nonhuman Animal rights movement and improve inclusiveness through dialogue and educational resources," has warned women to stop stripping off their clothes in favor of veganism.

The article, titled Dear New Vegan, was written by Corey Lee Wrenn, who teaches Sociology at Colorado State University. In the piece, Ms. Wrenn explains to women what they might experience now that they've decided to stop eating meat or animal products.

"You may start to realize that being vegan is one thing, but being vegan and female-identified is another one altogether," she writes. It continues later, emphasis hers, "If you decide that simply being vegan isn’t enough and that you want to get involved with activism, you are going to come up against more male violence."


If you become an activist, Ms. Wrenn details, you have to be careful of male vegans, as they "control" the movement. And let's face it, the article says, "You might start to think that getting naked for the cause is “liberating.”"

But you need to be careful. Wrenn warns, "It may not be men directly telling you to get naked (women are in on it, too), but the patriarchal norms of the movement have created an environment where women are simply expected to become sex objects “for the animals.”"

If you start wanting to take off your clothes, "woah, stop." You need to "think again," Ms. Wrenn writes. She continues (emphasis theirs), "Consider also that only thin, white, cis women are allowed to “empower” themselves for other animals, and that turning men on sexually is not the same as turning men on to veganism. Empirical research shows that facilitating the oppression of women does not challenge the oppression of other animals."

At the end of the piece, Wrenn adds, "P.S. If you are a woman of color, that’s a whole extra set of challenges. As a white woman myself, I can’t speak to the depth of these challenges, but I can tell you that the vegan movement can be a really nasty “color blind” place at times."

http://www.thesocialmemo.org/2015/07/vegan-feminist-professor-asks-women-to.html


--------------------------------------------------------
Is eating female plants a sign of patriarchy oppression? Should light skin fruits and vegetables check their privilege before getting eaten?

[notbatman]

Hitler was a vegetarian.

[miki77miki]

This is a joke right? Because it's pretty funny.

[BADecker]

"Vegan Feminist" Professor Asks Women to Stop Getting Naked to Support Veganism
 

Yes! Stop getting naked you Vegan Feminists. Plants don't taste as good when they are in shock!