Topic: This frozen chicken “had a rich, emotional life.” - page 8. (Read 21178 times)

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Here we go again - "cows & cows & cows" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FavUpD_IjVY.

UC Berkeley Students Protest For Cows’ Rights On Mother’s Day: “Dairy Cows Are Raped” For Milk…






Mother’s Day held special significance this year for an animal rights group at UC Berkeley and other Bay Area activists, who claim that exploiting the breast milk of “another’s mother,” namely a calf’s, is unfair and disrespectful.

On May 10, the Berkeley Organization for Animal Advocacy (BOAA) at UC Berkeley protested the consumption of mother cows’ milk at Andronico’s Community Market and Safeway, two dairy and meat-selling grocery markets in the San Francisco Bay area.

A group of about 20 students and alumni marched through the grocery markets consecutively, chanting lines such as “animals feel pain, just like us,” and holding signs that read “dairy cows are raped and forcibly impregnated” and “dairy cows are exploited for their breast milk.”

“Every time you drink the milk of a mother cow, there is a baby calf who isn’t,” BOAA organizer Reilly Gardine said in the group’s press release.

“There is no humane way to forcefully impregnate a cow and separate her from her baby, only to steal her milk,” Mike Harvey, another BOAA organizer, said in the press release.


http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6505

Why healthy eating may be the new eating disorder: Raw food and paleo dieters 'at risk of a dangerous obsession with nutrition'




Orthorexia nervosa is the term coined for the 'health food eating disorder'

Sufferers may be 'plunged into gloom' by eating a piece of bread

They may become anxious about when their next superfood hit is coming

Exaggerated focus on food can be seen in raw, clean and paleo dieters


Orthorexia nervosa, the 'health food eating disorder', gets its name from the Greek word ortho, meaning straight, proper or correct.

This exaggerated focus on food can be seen today in some people who follow lifestyle movements such as 'raw', 'clean' and 'paleo'.

American doctor Steven Bratman coined the term 'orthorexia nervosa' in 1997 some time after his experience in a commune in upstate New York.

It was there he developed an unhealthy obsession with eating 'proper' food.


'All I could think about was food,' he said. 'But even when I became aware that my scrabbling in the dirt after raw vegetables and wild plants had become an obsession, I found it terribly difficult to free myself.

'I had been seduced by righteous eating.'

Bratman's description draws parallels with many modern dietary fads that promise superior health by restricting whole food groups without a medical reason or even a valid scientific explanation.

Raw food followers might meet regularly to 'align their bodies, minds and souls' by feasting on 'cleansing and immune-boosting' raw foods.

Such foods are never heated above 44˚C, so 'all the living enzymes in the food remain intact'. No gluten, dairy or 'sugar' is allowed.

Clean eaters may follow similar regimes, removing gluten, dairy and even meat from their diets.

You might overhear a discussion about 'superfood green smoothie' recipes after a yoga class that also happened to 'cleanse your gall bladder'.

And finally, around the corner, paleo pushers may 'beef up' together with a Crossfit class, followed by a few steaks.

Again, with paleo, there is no gluten – or any grains for that matter – and no dairy or other such 'toxins' are allowed.

There is a blurry line separating 'normal' healthy eating and orthorexia nervosa, but one way to define the condition is when eating 'healthily' causes significant distress or negative consequences in a person's life.

They may be 'plunged into gloom' by eating a piece of bread, become anxious about when their next kale, chia or quinoa hit is coming, or eat only at home where 'superfood' intake can be tightly controlled.

Such behaviours can have a significant impact on relationships with family members and friends, let alone on their mental health.

Orthorexia nervosa is not a clinically recognised eating disorder but researchers have developed and tested questionnaires in various populations to get an idea of its prevalence.

Italian researchers developed the ORTO-15 questionnaire in 2005, with a cut-off score below 40 to signify orthorexia nervosa.
 
Scores above 40 can still signify a tendency to pathological eating behaviours and/or obsessive-phobic personality traits.

Questions include: 'Does the thought about food worry you for more than three hours a day?' and 'Do you feel guilty when transgressing your healthy eating rules?'

Using this questionnaire and cut-off value of 40, another Italian research group reported a prevalence of orthorexia nervosa of 57.6 per cent, with a female-male ratio of two-to-one.

However, using a cut-off value of 35, the prevalence reduced to 21 per cent.

Most studies have been conducted in population sub-groups that may be at increased risk for orthorexia nervosa, such as health professionals.

Again using the ORTO-15 and a cut-off value of 40, the prevalence of orthorexia nervosa in Turkish medical doctors was 45.5 per cent, in Turkish performance artists it was 56.4 per cent (81.8 per cent in opera singers to 32.1 per cent in ballet dancers) and in ashtanga yoga teachers in Spain, 86.0 per cent.

Using another questionnaire, the Bratman Test, 12.8 per cent of Austrian dietitians were classified as having orthorexia.

You can test your own tendencies towards orthorexia nervosa using this Bratman test here and access support services via the National Eating Disorder Collaboration page and Body Matters Australasia.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3033325/Why-healthy-eating-new-eating-disorder-Raw-food-paleo-dieters-risk-dangerous-obsession-nutrition.html

I still think that the chicken would have a richer, more emotional life after being eaten. Of course, better even still if it were eaten alive.

 

Sure doesn't offend me.  What you want to eat is exactly what you should eat and what you will eat.   I do the same. 

You can also eat a bus, 100 hot dogs in a minute, or drip lemon juice into your eyes, if that's what floats your boat.  Ladder of power and all that.   

Ok so what i gatheres so far is that i cant eat meat, i cant eat veggie, than please tell me what i can eat ? Its a pretty simple answer for this question in nature, where there is an obvious ladder of power, and humans are on very top. So if tigers in jungle can eat a gazelle, why cant i eat a pig? or are all those tree huggers saying the whole nature is wrong, but theyre right.
I eat what i want , when i want, and im sorry if that offends anyone, but it is as it is.

cheers

You are welcome

 

Boo yeah.  Thanks!!  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yw5Mf9RlW0

Do Plants Respond to Pain?

Scientists conduct a plant experiment that may make you rethink those veggie burgers.

Kinda on topic here, not reflecting the views of Wilikon per se,  but I happened to come across this while the thread was up, so blah blah blah why not link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JkT9cJrgKc

From the Upcoming Album "Hatchets and Broccoli"

 

Not exactly on topic here, nor reflecting the views of Hashman per se,  but I happened to come across this while the thread was up, so hey hey hey why not link. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJkQb0nuUGA

What does it matter? After the Great Flood at the time of Noah, where only the 8 people of Noah and his family survived in the ark, God formally gave mankind the right to eat meat. The only rule about it was that they wouldn't eat meat with its blood still in it.

Many people pick on this idea of draining the blood out of the meat, as a flaw in the religious side of the meat-eating idea. They suggest that nobody can get every last blood cell out, so the meat-eaters will be disobeying God at least a little by eating any meat. They also say that God's commands are contradictory regarding this.

Such people don't realize that, while a strict law was the rule of thumb before the Flood - people were much more mentally able in pre-flood days; they didn't need a Bible to remember what God was all about - God realized that people were failing through gradual entropy. He realized that never again were they going to be able to keep the strict laws. So, He gave them the semblance of strict laws, so that they could obey within their abilities, showing reverence for God in their hears, minds, and spirits where it really counts. He had it in mind already back then what He was going to do to save them without strict obedience - Jesus.

At a later date, the People of Israel asked God for strict laws - at the time God gave the Ten Commandments through Moses on Mount Sinai. God was pleased that they would ask for such a thing, since He is essentially a God of strict legality - that's why Jesus had to die for the sins of the world. God gave the people of Israel the mental makeup so that they had the ability to keep the strict laws if they only would try. That is why, even to this day, Jews are very clever in their dealings. Their cleverness came from God so they could obey His strict laws.

The story behind that guy is another glaring example of how little we really know about our ancient past as some/many of their accomplishments are unmatched and/or can't be explained, to this very day. eg. mathematics, engineering, astronomy ect.

Humanity's addiction to flesh and blood started out very much the same as that junkie's first dose of crack, meth, ect., eons ago.

The Garden of Eden was a butcher shop. The red apple, a slab of bloodied meat.

Thank you Pythagoras!