Not really man. Human intestines, stomach and processing proteins reveal otherwise.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/should-humans-eat-meat-excerpt/
As you can see, plenty of evidence all over the place :)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Sure, eating meat is a choice, but what I am saying is most evidence points towards red meat causing colon cancer whether processed or not, and there are many scientific articles on whether the human body was designed more for being a herbivore as opposed to a carnivore. But then again that particular part of science is the one with the most questions, ironically, whether it's about the brain or body, most sciences on the human condition is speculative. We can't even cure the common cold... but the attainment of knowledge is getting there.
Truth is not democratic. Meat doesn't cause problems. Nothing does. The problem is always the quantity not the nature of food.
there are zero studies for this. please do try to find one.
viruses such as cold have evolved along us. They are part of us. We just get flares of them much like some people get with herpes. We can't "cure" it because of the "stealth" nature of the virus to remain almost undetectable from our immune system.
I'm going to say again when it comes to food, a lot of the science is skewed by lobbyists.... as stated in the original post so it's a waste of time for us to "argue" on that. Does that make sense?
"viruses such as cold have evolved along us. They are part of us. We just get flares of them much like some people get with herpes. We can't "cure" it because of the "stealth" nature of the virus to remain almost undetectable from our immune system."
Curing the body of viruses is not impossible. One day we may indeed come up with the cure for the common cold, I am just saying we obviously aren't there yet. ;) When I say "cure" I mean if you catch a virus that causes a cold there may be a medicine in the future that gets rid of it within say an hour... it's very possible and likely in the future.
//I'm going to say again when it comes to food, a lot of the science is skewed by lobbyists.... as stated in the original post so it's a waste of time for us to "argue" on that. Does that make sense?//
ok so, you can't make an argument either way. everyone has their own agenda.
yes. everything is possible i guess.
"ok so, you can't make an argument either way. everyone has their own agenda."
when it comes to food that is precisely the point that I made in my original posting.
besides as I said in my original post, a lot of the "science" regarding food and meat is skewed by lobbyists... please see original post. I really don't believe in most "evidence" out there on that topic because it can and has been skewed for the profit motive. But when it comes to "Flat Earth" or "Climate Change" there is no profit motive... the motive is knowledge and in the case of "Climate Change" the motive is the survival of life on this planet.
There is massive profit actually in Climate change politics. pushing "renewables" instead of fossils is a multibillion dollar industry.
So you would like to stay with forms of energy that are 100s of years old as opposed to progressing towards newer and cleaner forms of energy that don't pollute the earth? If we have that ideology for the rest of the things in life we would still be riding horses and not have invented anything else for transportation. Technology advances and usually leads to better and more efficient forms of energy etc. It's a positive thing if newer forms of energy are profitable, and in fact as of recently they are showing to be more profitable than older forms like coal for example... but coal dug it's trenches first... and it is fighting to survive. *had to make some typo edits
Not really. I am just saying that the transition and allocation is more about money rather than "saving the environment". Heck Obama was the greenest guy ever and still tanked all the environmental initiatives. It is mostly about lobbying.
yes and so far nuclear energy is the most efficient and less dangerous than all the rest. alternative energies cover only 3 % of the total global needs. there is way too much hype with very little to show.
"yes and so far nuclear energy is the most efficient and less dangerous than all the rest."
Please tell that to the folks over at Fukushima... there will probably be way better forms of energy than nuclear in the very near future... @kyriacos it was great debating with you... I have to get to work on some stuff though, thanks for the debate! (Sorry for all the typos in my posts was posting very quickly and multitasking) Have a good one!
exception to the rule means nothing.
There are way more people dying from exposure to chemicals in factories that make solar cells.