HOME | DD

Pupaveg In reply to rarkorn [2018-12-17 01:09:36 +0000 UTC]

Actually every herbivore can digest small portions of meat. That doesn't mean they're designed for it. And the same applies to humans. See Milton R MIlls MD's graph here  from his paper, 'The Comparative Anatomy of Eating' and decide for yourself how closely humans resemble bears, pigs, foxes, and other omnivores. This explains why meat clogs our arteries and feeds several dietary diseases, such as heart disease, kidney disease and dietary cancers, unlike say a lion. 

Also, most people are not allergic to soy, nuts, legumes and wheat. Only a very small percentage is. And it is very unlikely to be allergic to all four, and even if someone is (by having leaky gut syndrome, which can be cured btw) those products are not required in a healthy balanced vegan diet. There are plenty of nut-free, soy-free, wheat-free and legume-free recipes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

rarkorn In reply to Pupaveg [2018-12-17 01:31:37 +0000 UTC]

"small portions of meat"

people can eat plenty of meat with every meal of the day and be perfectly healthy, there's a pretty big difference

that chart doesn't do anything to disprove literally anything that i just said, and all the sources i've read about the supposed difference in risk for heart disease and cancer between vegan and non vegan diets have been described as minimal at best, and in fact people who eat fish are at even lower risk for cancer than vegans. on the other hand, it is pretty dang common for vegans to be more at risk for bone related diseases due to a lack of calcium. this is some blatant cherry picking of information to try to act like being vegan is about anything more than your own personal preferences.

say what you will about "most people" not having allergies, but at around 5% of the population, that's still many millions of people who cannot live a healthy life on a purely vegan diet. also, it's not really THAT unlikely to be allergic to more than one of those things, about a third of people with food allergies are allergic to more than one thing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Pupaveg In reply to rarkorn [2018-12-17 11:42:26 +0000 UTC]

All sources about the harmful actions of animal products are based on peer-reviewed studies and research, whereas the opposite claims are literally based soley on industry-funded propaganda. So who is truly cherry-picking studies, just to continue their old habits? There is a reason why the longest living populations are those who are plantbased (such as the Adventist Vegetarians and plantbased Buddhists) while meat eating cultures heart disease and dietary cancers are our number 1 killers. What you're doing is on par with claiming that smoking is healthy because the cigarette industry says so in their studies, while ignoring the peer-reviewed studies and papers of the Surgeon General and W.H.O. who state the opposite.

Also, there are plenty of vegans with allergies (myself included, having multiple ones), so saying that 5% of the population can't be plantbased because of allergies literally makes no sense. No one is allergic to everything except corpse and the breast milk of another species (the latter which is even absurd and unnatural to consume as an adult human in the first place).

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

rarkorn In reply to Pupaveg [2018-12-17 11:45:46 +0000 UTC]

i mean no? that's literally just not true lmao

like none of what you just said is true at all

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Pupaveg In reply to rarkorn [2018-12-17 11:56:52 +0000 UTC]

Whatever makes you sleep at night.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

rarkorn In reply to Pupaveg [2018-12-17 12:01:16 +0000 UTC]

you say that as if there's any reason to be bothered about this

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

pokemonsonicgirl123 In reply to HairMetalDinos2002 [2019-10-10 15:54:36 +0000 UTC]

Survival, for one thing. Like, what every last living thing does, anyway.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Pupaveg In reply to HairMetalDinos2002 [2018-07-21 18:34:05 +0000 UTC]

If you read though human history, you'll see that humans started eating meat when other food became scarce. It was an act of desperation. But even after the ice age passed, and there was plenty of food available again, humans still continued to do it out of habit. It got worse after WWII, when the gov started subsidizing the meat industry to make meat affordable for everyone, at the expense of trillions of innocents beings' lives and the planet.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

HairMetalDinos2002 In reply to Pupaveg [2018-08-09 05:42:37 +0000 UTC]

Also, since you stated that Humans are herbivores, I guess it makes a meat eating diet pretty much of a social construct as the concept of Race is(Keep in mind that race doesn't biologically exist, it's a social construct).

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

HairMetalDinos2002 In reply to Pupaveg [2018-07-21 18:57:33 +0000 UTC]

So basically people started eating meat around 20,000-10,000 years ago, long before writing came into existence.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Pupaveg In reply to EmanuelTheodorus [2017-12-16 10:50:18 +0000 UTC]

Yes, that's true. I don't see what it has to do with our closest relatives the Bonobos, who are frugivores, though.

By the way, why do you keep making brand new accounts every time for the sole purpose of commenting on my page? I find this a bit pathetic...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

EmanuelTheodorus In reply to Pupaveg [2017-12-16 11:26:44 +0000 UTC]

I just discovered your page yesterday, so I decided to join Deviantart.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Pupaveg In reply to DerArchaeopteryx [2017-11-24 13:16:10 +0000 UTC]

What is Omnivore?

Omnivore is designed and adapted to eat both plants and animals as their primary food source. Omnivore should be borned with or develop everything it needs to be able to obtain it´s food (claws, powerful jaws). The body of omnivore should be producing the chemistry needed to effectively metabolize the food ingested. Both animal and plant foods should be appealing to all senses in it´s fresh, whole raw state.

Human is considered omnivore mainly because he eats everything. However there is a big difference between doing something and be designed and adapted to do something.

Humans are able to eat almost everything by using technology. Would it be possible to be human omnivore in nature? We have no speed to chase down any animal. We don´t have claws to tear it apart. We don´t find eating fur, leathers, blood, guts appealing. Especially in their raw state as every other omnivore does eat it´s prey.

We are only able to eat animals when someone kills them for us. Then we have to cook it. Have you ever tried eating cooked meat without any salt or spices? I tried that. Absolutely no taste whatsoever. So we have to use salt, spices and herbs. No omnivore has to do that in order to make a piece of meat appealing. You don´t like the taste of meat. You like all the salt, spices, garlic, onion and herbs that are creating the flavour. Otherwise you would spit it right after tasting it.

If you want to call human omnivore because he eats animals by using technology to make it edible than you should call him bird because he is able to fly by using technology. Or what about fish?

If we would have adapted to eat animal products you wouldn´t see the skyrocketing rates of osteoporosis, heart disease, cancer and other problems correlated with the animal products intake.

Every single omnivore and carnivore who is designed and adapted to eat animal products is able to secrete enzyme called uricase. This enzyme breaks down uric acid to be readily eliminated. Primates and Humans do not secrete uricase and therefore toxic uric acid which is in animal products will be intoxicating our bodies. This results into
calcium-urate crystals formations which concentrate in joints. These deposits lead to arthritis, gout, rheumatism, bursitis, and lower back pain.

The Uric acid is also highly acidic for our body. Our body has to maintain homeostasis. If our blood Ph moves out of the range of 7.35 - 7.45 we die. When you absorb acid forming animal products, your body has to buffer this acidity by alkaline minerals, mainly calcium. It is no wonder why people end up with osteoporosis when they were eating acid forming aminal produts few times a day for their whole life.

Atherosclerosis is the most common deadly degenerative disease. According to Harpers Biochemcistry:

"The pig, rabbit, monkey and humans are species in which atherosclerosis can be induced by feeding cholesterol. The rat,dog, and cat are resistant."

Your body can produce enough cholesterol and cannot efectivelly excrete excessive dietary cholesterol. If you will feed yourself with dietary cholesterol than you can expect consequences.

Editor in chief of the American Journal of Cardiology William C. Roberts MD states:

"Because humans get atherosclerosis, and atherosclerosis is a disease only of herbivores, humans also must be herbivores."

Human are unable to synthesise vitamin C. This characteristic is unique to herbivores including primates. Vitamin C has just 30 minute half-life in blood, therefore humans must regularly eat foods containing vitamin C to maintain a significant pool. Fruit is abundant in vitamin C! 

Animal products are abundant in protein which may be good for properly designed and adapted omnivores and carnivores but humans need very little protein compared to these animals. When humans grow the most? As babies right? Well, human milk contains "only" 6% of calories coming from protein.

When the protein intake is excessive then your body must eliminate it because we cannot store protein. Excessive protein is eliminated through kidneys which is not really efective process and they can eliminate only certain amount of protein. If the amount is too overwhelming to kidneys you can get kidney stones.

The great taxonomist and botanist who established the modern scientific method of classifying plants and animals Carolus Linnaeus said:

“To say that humans have the anatomical structure of an omnivore is an egregiously inaccurate statement.”

“Man’s structure, internal and external compared with that of the other animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables are his natural food.”

Dr Alan Walker anthropologist at John Hopkins University, using the most modern electronic microscopic equipment,states:

"Preliminary studies of fossil teeth have led to the startling suggestion that our early human ancestors (Australopithecus) were not predominantly meat-eaters or even eaters of seeds, shoots, leaves or grasses, nor were they omnivorous. Instead they appear to have subsisted chiefly on a diet of fruit. Every tooth examined from the hominids of the 12 million year period leading up to Homo Erectus appeared to be that of a fruit-eater." 
- NY Times, May 1979

In the book "Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators and Human Evolution" Ph.D. Robert W. Sussman, professor of anthropology at Washington University in St. Louisin argues with popular theories and proves that early humans evolved not as aggressive hunters, but as prey of many predators.

Ph.D. Susan Krebs-Smith, research nutritionist at the National Cancer Institute in Bethusda Maryland:

"Our ancestors consumed three or more times the amount of plant foods we do, about nine daily servings of fruits and vegetables versus the average American of three or four"

The best solution would be to follow your species specific diet as other animal does. What is species specific diet? Well, it is the diet to which you are anatomically and physiologically designed and adapted. We as humans are frugivores like other primates. Frugivore diet is based on fruits, vegetables and limited amounts of nuts and seeds if desired. 

I am not ready with my comics that go into detail. If you're interested in the sources, come back later.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

HairMetalDinos2002 In reply to Pupaveg [2018-08-02 09:50:02 +0000 UTC]

"You don´t like the taste of meat. You like all the salt, spices, garlic, onion and herbs that are creating the flavour. Otherwise you would spit it right after tasting it."

So in other words, the so called "taste of meat" is actually a complex and diverse combinations of different herbs and spices.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Pupaveg In reply to HairMetalDinos2002 [2018-08-02 10:52:28 +0000 UTC]

It tastes like shit otherwise, that's for sure.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DerArchaeopteryx In reply to Pupaveg [2017-11-24 14:32:38 +0000 UTC]

Okay thanks but could you also address my points instead of just hammering back, please?

What is an omnivore?
1. "designed"
2. What the hell does "borned" mean? I am gonna assume born
3. You don´t need to repeat yourself
4. Claws, when you yourself mentioned in the graphic that there are omnivores with blunt hooves...
6. Sense appeal is sometimes removed or adapted by upbringing. This is why in some cultures, men find breasts attractive, while in others they are into heels or underwear. None of those are naturally attractive. In terms of diet, we can see this for example with various arthropods (in the west, almost every arthropod is considered unappealing, except crustaceans and regionally Locusts).

Why is Human considered to be Omnivore?
1. Maybe you should change that to "(...)are Humans (...) Omnivores?"
2. You just asserted something here without actually... I mean I guess the next points cover it more but it still looks a bit jarring

Are Humans Natural Omnivores?
1. I don´t think "knives" and "technology" is synonymous 
2. Humans don´t have speed, but they have more endurance than most animals and are very good at tracking animals down. And given the fact that they can snack on the hunt without wasting much time (and, more modernly, carry water around) means that humans are essentially that one slow moving horror game monster, except they don´t stop chasing you once you get out of the area.
3. You don´t need much of claws to kill something that already died from exhaustion.
4. "We don´t find fur, leathers, blood, guts appealing" You know that sausages, Blood sausages and other such things exist, right?
Furthermore, while humans don´t like the hide of larger animals, most small consumable animals only come plucked, not skinned.
Additionally, I doubt that even the most superpredatory carnivore likes having it´s mouth filled with hair, but that one might just be me.
5. As mentioned above, we can kill animals without using tools. And even if not, there´s no shame in being a scavenger
6. Oh, I am sorry. I wasn´t aware every meal has to taste as if you were dining in a french restaurant. Before humans overspiced everything, how our food tasted probably wasn´t a priority. And even then, chances are you are just being used to spice because, well, we use spice. Saying that we can´t eat meat because it doesn´t taste spicy is like saying we can´t eat carrots because they are just dirty roots; or that we can´t eat maize because it´s just corny grass.
7. Flying isn´t a bird thing. Multiple Insects and Bats do it too; while Pterosaurs once did it too.
8. What about fish? You didn´t finish the thought and now this bit just looks retarded. Which it would be anyways even if you finished tho...
8a. Cladistically speaking, humans could be counted as fish.
8b. Humans can swim and dive without using technology.
8c. Again, not everything that swims is a fish. Out of only mammalia, we have whales and sirens. There are also multiple reptiles, a few amphibians and countless non-vertebrates that spend their entire life in water. A lot more animals live a large portion of their lives in water. And almost every animal can swim (the exceptions mostly being apes).

Did we Adapted to Eat Animal Products? -Human Omnivore
1. Okay, you need more sleep
2. That is excessive intake. Everything gets dangerous in excess, including water. 

Uricase - Omnivore Biochemistry
1. "Every single one" Only Sith deal in absolutes
2. Uric acid is urinated out of the body. It´s a component of Urine. You know. That thing you urinate and don´t store in your body if possible. That thing.

Atherosclerosis - Human Omnivore
1. I am not an expert on this, but from what I remember, Atherosclerosis is a genetical thing that not all humans have. Albeit I do admit I could´ve gotten this one mixed up.

Vitamin C - Human Omnivore
1. What a strange thing, an omnivore that eats plants.
2. Also, aren´t primates originally insectivores...?

Excessive Protein Intake - Human Omnivore
1. Again, that is an excessive amount. 

What Experts have to Say? Taxonomist Carolus Linnaeus
1. Yes, what a great and modern source that is very knowledgeable in modern biology 
2. Alan Walker: Note that he said chiefly. As I pointed out, while meat is a part of the human diet, it is a minor part. 
3. Robert W. Sussman: I hope he didn´t put it like that to promote "a-omnivorism"; because smaller predators routinely get hunted and eaten by larger ones. Being a predator doesn´t mean you can´t be prey. Furthermore, being a predator doesn´t mean you have to be aggressive; to the contrary, the most aggressive animals tend to be herbivorous. Note that I am arguing against your representation of Sussman, since I haven´t read his book; not his book itself.
4. Americans are notorious for eating unhealthy; while I doubt that our ancestors ate as much per serving as we do today, so I am not sure how to even take this one. However this doesn´t really change my position much, given that it is "humans are omnivores that should mostly eat plants and add meat once in a while". 

Human Omnivore - Solution
1. Replace "frugivore" with "omnivore" in multiple places so it isn´t wrong
2. It seems like you assert that all primates are frugivorus. You know that isn´t the case? Only quite few primates are frugivores, most are omnivores. A good chunk are insectivores and multiple (like Gorillas and Geladas) are even true herbivores.
3. Would have been fun following that diet plan in the African grasslands without dying from malnutrition. Granted, it is possible now, but it is no less natural than eating meat thrice a day.

Also, this isn´t a comic, this is a chart. One that was pretty much pretty wrong, too. Also, if you researched this, it should´ve been easy to just add in the sources then instead of searching for them after this was finished. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Pupaveg In reply to DerArchaeopteryx [2017-11-27 09:43:16 +0000 UTC]

I have replied to you about this in my other comment. I don't have the time to type out thousands of sources on DeviantArt at the moment, but I will add them when the comic about this subject is finished.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DerArchaeopteryx In reply to Pupaveg [2017-11-27 18:59:16 +0000 UTC]

Why do you keep dodging me  

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Pupaveg In reply to DerArchaeopteryx [2017-11-15 16:42:53 +0000 UTC]

Our closest relatives are Bonobos. They are frugivores.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DerArchaeopteryx In reply to Pupaveg [2017-11-15 18:41:36 +0000 UTC]

1. Aren´t Bonobos just as closely related to us as chimps are...?
2. That doesn´t mean we have to have the same diet. For example, most bears are omnivores. However, Polar bears are almost purely carnivorous, the traditional cave bears were herbivorous and finally, sloth bears are insectivorous.
3. Also, as far as I know, Bonobos eat insects, too. They certainly eat less meat than chimps, but they are still omnivores.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Pupaveg In reply to DerArchaeopteryx [2017-11-17 11:31:10 +0000 UTC]

1. I have a comic about that in the next book. It's not done yet, but I'll put it on DA once it is, so check back later.
2. These are both bears though. Biologically, humans still have zero in common with omnivores.
3. See point 1.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DerArchaeopteryx In reply to Pupaveg [2017-11-17 15:48:10 +0000 UTC]

1. That just delays the- Nevermind
2. To the first half: Them both (I listed three bears but well) being bears is the goddamn point
    To the second half: Yes? We do? We have so pointy front teeth, we can digest meat and plants, we have forward facing eyes and we behave quite similar to other omnivores?
3. As with point 1 that doesn´t really answer me

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Pupaveg In reply to DerArchaeopteryx [2017-11-17 17:57:06 +0000 UTC]

We've got canine teeth 
Even if we had massive fangs, it wouldn't justify killing animals for the enjoyment of eating their dead bodies. It is proven time and time again that we can live on a plant-based diet in great health, so the shape of our teeth puts us under no obligation to kill. But if we look at this argument more closely - firstly there are animals with far bigger canines than us who eat a plant-based diet, like primates and rhinos and so forth. Secondly, our own "canines" are only named that way because of their position and biological classification in our jaw. They have no similarity at all with true canines which actual carnivores have like lions. They are of no use in biting through raw animal hide, especially not that of a living creature.

We can digest meat
Every herbivore can digest small portions of meat. That doesn't mean they are biologically designed to do so. The same applies to humans. I can understand why you might believe that we're omnivores (I was once there, too), but if you look at any basic anatomy chart, you'll realize it's not true (seriously, look at the chart in the original post. What part of us is "omnivorous"? None! The only way to come to the conclusion of humans being omnivores is to cherry-pick certain (behavioural) traits and ignore the bulk of it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DerArchaeopteryx In reply to Pupaveg [2017-11-17 21:19:15 +0000 UTC]

-Canines
I said "pointy front teeth". Incisors are in the front too; and they are also quite pointy for an alleged fruggivore. Unlike, say, rhinos and hippos who have oddly large canines; our canines and incisors are of similar length.  Furthermore, we also have oddly grindy molars and an odd fondness of roots and mushrooms for a fruggivore, might I add.
I would also like to point out that our ancestors had larger teeth, which got smaller with the jaw as the brain grew in size. So now we might not be capable of biting through hide; however, chances are we used to be.

-Meat
Okay, humans not being omnivores is ridiculous at first; them being fruggivores is even more ridiculous at second. First of, almost everything (as I pointed out elsewhere) can technically be considered omnivorous. Humans however really seem to be true omnivores. After all, we survived quite well in numerous areas where fruits were rare (like the African Grasslands and later deserts, the Eurasian Mammothsteppe, Boreal Forest and Tundra and finally also beaches, floaty bits on the open sea and so on and so forth. The only reason we have so many traits of fruggivores is that we 'evolved' from fruggivores into omnivores. 
Also, I would like to point out that your post is a biased and unscientific source. My own bramble here might be too; but being a hypocrite doesn´t make my point less true. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Pupaveg In reply to DerArchaeopteryx [2017-11-19 13:48:50 +0000 UTC]

It's been scientifically proven that frugivores use their teeth to defend themselves. They, combined with our long digestive tract, are simply not designed to chase after zebras and rip them apart. And why do you think humans humans being frugivores is ridiculous? I mean, we biologically have literally every frugivorous trait in existence and zero omnivorous ones. And common sense says that we're closer related to ape species than to wolves, bears and raccoons, you know. Humans may be behavioural omnivores, but certainly not biologically designed to do so. By your logic, our digestive tract and teeth should have gotten even larger by now, since the amount of meat we're consuming has been increasing drastically. It didn't though. Instead, animal products clog our arteries and give us heart disease, diabetes, cancer and many other diet-related diseases.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DerArchaeopteryx In reply to Pupaveg [2017-11-19 15:04:09 +0000 UTC]

It´s been scientifically proven that anything with large teeth uses teeth to defend itself. It´s also been scientifically proven that human teeth are complete shit in a defensive situation so that must mean that we are terrible fruggivores. It´s also been scientifically proven that there are fruggivores without teeth (Birds, Beetles and the Elderly) which scientifically proves that you pulled at least part of this out of your ass.
True that, we do have only one type of teeth and the inability to process meat and hard plant matter, which makes it quite obvious that we are fruggivores. Silly me. The fact that we can´t taste umamy should´ve really given that one away.
Also, I love how you keep using the term "biological design", as if that was a thing.
Furthermore, I would also like to mention that "eating certain stuff" is a polyphyletic trait? I mean, look at filtrators for example. We have stuff like Whales, Flamingos, Manta rays, Basking and Whale Sharks, multiple small fish, a few seals (sometimes) and from the fossil record also Pterosaurs, various Bony fish and Anomalocarids, just to list the most striking ones. None of these animals are closely related, but they all feed on the same stuff; small biomass-bits in the water. They also all have quite close relatives who feed on other stuff (mostly meat). 
I also would like to point out that omnivores aren´t carnivores. Even if so, there´s a lot of carnivores who aren´t much better in mouthsize than we are (cheetahs being among the big ones); however we also know that we have invented cutting tools quite early, so large teeth aren´t really necessary for eating anymore, anyways... And even if. We can chew through thick hide once the animal is dead (albeit it may take a while) or even partially skin it using our arms (or bystanding carnivores).

Also I love the implication that in carnivores, only the teeth are the ones chasing prey. I am now imagining a set of teeth chase a Deer while a toothless tiger just sits nearby and watches and it´s the funniest thing I´ve imagined all day.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Pupaveg In reply to DerArchaeopteryx [2017-11-24 13:13:07 +0000 UTC]

I think you might be interested to read this:  www.scribd.com/doc/94656/The-C… 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DerArchaeopteryx In reply to Pupaveg [2017-11-24 14:41:39 +0000 UTC]

Oh, well done, almost exactly the same thing but written by somebody else

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Pupaveg In reply to ireju [2017-11-01 14:33:49 +0000 UTC]

Thank you! I hope so, too! ^^

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Pupaveg In reply to Dinoeater345 [2017-10-27 16:59:31 +0000 UTC]

Thanks for telling me. I will fix the links asap! As for the last question: please check out the videos on top of the page; the other links are part of its content, and it also talks about Adventists.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Dinoeater345 In reply to Pupaveg [2017-10-27 23:05:39 +0000 UTC]

ah okay not sure if you know this we Adventists have maintained an advocation for health change diet for 2 main reasons

oh and a little warning this will contain some of my religious beliefs. not sure what your beliefs are but if you are not to keen on religious (especially biblical) topics then I recommend to stop reading. but if you don't mind gaining gaining a bit of knowledge of the beliefs of others then I'll gladly share what I know ^-^    

1.) because in genesis it says that the diet meant for humans was basically a vegan diet. first it was fruits and seeds then after sin entered the world he added the herbs of the fields. because after sin entered the world disease and stress etc would become greater. So herbs and vegetables are basically the medicine god meant for us.

2.) we believe that Ellen g white (one of our founders) was a prophet of god. she died on 1915 and was an advocating a vegan lifestyle while she was alive. she said in one of her books:

"The time will come when we may have to discard some of the articles of diet we now use, such as milk and cream and eggs; but my message is that you must not bring yourself to a time of trouble beforehand, and thus afflict yourself with death."

somehow she knew that things would get worse in the animal industry.

here is a book which has a collection of her quotes talking about health if you are interested:
m.egwwritings.org/en/book/384.…

so for over a hundred years our denomination has been talking about health reform but unfortunately there are many adventist churches nowadays which have forgotten one of our fundamental teachings and people who still don't want to listen. and Christians had the bible for how long? and many still want to ignore it or just don't know it since it isn't the main topic for sermons in the other denominations.

we have a few men who talk about health though. and the lecture series that made my family become vegan was this one: amazingdiscoveries.tv/c/7/Life…

I think it does have a few references to the bible. but it's mostly about health and the science behind it. so you might still be able to enjoy it even if you are not christian.

and the reason I found the link about the deer eating bird interesting is because in the bible it says that all animals were basically vegan before sin but after sin when everything started dying. All those animals basically had to adapt to the new environmental changes or die. so the current carnivores (in our belief) in the beginning most likely had a particular diet but when those died of they changed. or it could also be that the earth wasn't giving enough nutrients as well. for example adult mosquitoes happily feed on nectar or other plant stuff. but when the female needs to lay eggs they suck on the blood on animals because they need more nutrition. now if the food source they had before was different and gave them the nutrition needed to lay eggs then they wouldn't need to suck on the blood of animals.

this video touches upon this topic: amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/10…

It talks about animals and their diet although it's mainly a evolution vs creation video just a warning.

anyways this is getting way too long. better cut it off here.


so out of curiosity what's your story about becoming a vegan? (if you would like to share)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Pupaveg In reply to Rebel-Rider [2017-10-26 09:28:19 +0000 UTC]

Did you watch the videos?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rebel-Rider In reply to Pupaveg [2017-10-26 14:01:29 +0000 UTC]

No. Does it mention pigs?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Pupaveg In reply to Rebel-Rider [2017-10-27 17:05:36 +0000 UTC]

It goes into the subject of this submission.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0