Vegetarian - Page 14
 
 

       The Horse Forum > Life Beyond Horses > General Off Topic Discussion

Vegetarian

This is a discussion on Vegetarian within the General Off Topic Discussion forums, part of the Life Beyond Horses category

    Like Tree53Likes

     
    LinkBack Thread Tools
        11-26-2011, 07:56 PM
      #131
    Trained
    I've eviserated enough rumenant animals to know that they are pretty much separate organs. I also worked for many years in a beef processing plant and the rumens went down one chute and the omassums and abomassums went on for further processing. It's not one stomach with four chambers as much as it's four digestive organs in one system.
         
    Sponsored Links
    Advertisement
     
        11-26-2011, 07:57 PM
      #132
    Banned
    Nonetheless, by definition, they only have one stomach.
    Posted via Mobile Device
         
        11-26-2011, 08:09 PM
      #133
    Banned
    My foster mother and father (I will refer to them as my parents for the purpose of this post.) are vegetarians. My mom a vegan and my father is a gluten free vegetarian. They refer to me as a "veggie cheater" because I am mostly a vegetarian, although I do enjoy meat sometimes. So really I am not a vegetarian at all. I don't try to act like I am one because I am not. I eat meat.

    But I totally understand why people are vegetarians. It makes total sense to me, and if I didn't enjoy the taste of meat, I, too, would be a vegetarian. In most cases I will side with the vegetarians in a debate- unless they're stating facts that are not necessarily true. It is healthy. There is no essential nutrients that a meat eater has that a vegetarian doesn't. My mom doesn't eat a single thing that comes from an animal. Nothing. And she runs marathons. She's run the Boston Marathon 4 times. She travels to Europe and runs marathons... I don't remember the last time she was sick. And she's a teacher- and if you know anything about public schools, you know that they're FILLED with germs. So saying that being a vegetarian or vegan or whatever is not healthy is a load of BS. That's just something people say to "justify" eating meat- when in fact its not something that you need to justify. They like broccoli, you like tenderloin. No big deal. No one is forcing you to change your diet, so who cares?
    Posted via Mobile Device
         
        11-26-2011, 08:19 PM
      #134
    Yearling
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SarahAnn    
    . They refer to me as a "veggie cheater" because I am mostly a vegetarian, although I do enjoy meat sometimes. So really I am not a vegetarian at all. I don't try to act like I am one because I am not. I eat meat.
    This is why I prefer to avoid labels in all things.
    I rarely enjoy the taste of meat.
    I used to imagine I could smell ham rotting.
    And the more chemistry and biology classes I took, the worse it got.
    I eat eggs almost daily and I enjoy them. I rarely drink milk, and I don't like cheese.
    I eat sushi...and maybe once a month, I have a steak.
    I'm not a vegetarian...I'm not really much of a meat eater either...and when I do eat it, I pick at it and give most of it to someone else.
    There isn't really a label for that, not a good one. ;)

    On another note, I tried being vegan after watching "Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead". I can't do it. It's a good concept, but my stomach was ill the entire time.
         
        11-26-2011, 09:43 PM
      #135
    Started
    I get why people are vegetarians, and being a hunter I like to know where the deer I am eating came from and what was in it. Acorns and grass and leaves to but it basically.
         
        11-28-2011, 10:53 AM
      #136
    Weanling
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bubba13    
    I am a Biologist, actually, but that doesn't mean I'm above running to Wikipedia to confirm a point.

    Being a biologist, I don't see how you can look at evolution as a fact. If you really take a step back and think about life and even the idea behind evolution, it doesn't make sense. Since evolution was supposed to have happened over millions/billions of years, how would a species benefit from the useless beginnings of things we have today. Like say, eyes or ears. Please tell me how a hole in the head where the ears are, would benefit a creature who could hear no sound. Or little sound. All it would be, in theory, is a vessel for bacteria, ect. Would the idea be that sound was more useful to avoid predators? And that the offset would be that the predators would kill far less of the creatures than the bacteria, ect that the hole let in? Like I said earlier, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God. Also, since you have been educated in this subject, please provide one verifiable example of CROSS SPECIES evolution. Sure, you'll bring up viruses but you already stated that there is a dispute as to whether or not they're even alive. Since all evolution didn't happen during the single cell phase of life, there must be an answer. After all, it's been stated that apes and humans have a common ancestor. Surely it doesn't go back to the swamp. :)
         
        11-28-2011, 12:39 PM
      #137
    Banned
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bearkiller    
    Being a biologist, I don't see how you can look at evolution as a fact.
    I look upon very few things as fact, so don't put words in my mouth. "Well didst thou speak, Athena's wisest son: 'All that we know is, nothing can be known." - Lord Byron

    That said, all of our current knowledge does point to evolution, regardless of the very origins of life, and there is pretty much no evidence for any alternative theory. Which leads to the logical conclusion, "until proven otherwise...."

    Quote:
    If you really take a step back and think about life and even the idea behind evolution, it doesn't make sense.
    But it does, really, and it's the only (current) explanation that makes sense. Unless you want to side with the Scientologists and say aliens put us here.

    Quote:
    Since evolution was supposed to have happened over millions/billions of years, how would a species benefit from the useless beginnings of things we have today. Like say, eyes or ears. Please tell me how a hole in the head where the ears are, would benefit a creature who could hear no sound. Or little sound. All it would be, in theory, is a vessel for bacteria, ect. Would the idea be that sound was more useful to avoid predators? And that the offset would be that the predators would kill far less of the creatures than the bacteria, ect that the hole let in?
    Don't discount and criticize things you don't understand. We already went through this with the eye. You've got to look at how simpler organisims hear. They don't have a "hole in the head." Take the case of fish: They have Weberian ossicles (the equivalent of our maleus/incus/stapes) connected to the swim bladder that allows them both to sense vibrations and to hear. Functions similar to our ear, but probably actually more sensitive, and structured rather differently.

    All the good articles I can find are by payment only. So if you've got $20 to blow, Google the search terms and read to your heart's content about the evolution of the ear as evidenced in the fossil record.

    To tide you over, here are some crappy ones:
    From Jaw to Ear: Transition Fossil Reveals Ear Evolution in Action: Scientific American
    Our ears once breathed [evolution of ears]
    Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Quote:
    Like I said earlier, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God. Also, since you have been educated in this subject, please provide one verifiable example of CROSS SPECIES evolution.
    Darwin's Galapagos finches.

    If you're asking for one within your lifetime, sorry, but changes take far too long. You yourself admit that it requires millions or billions of years for a new species to occur....so considering that evolutionary theory is only 150 years old, you're just not going to see any noticeable differences in that time. It all has to be retrospective, but phylogenetics (DNA/protein similarities) and the fossil record confirms the cross-species changes. Or how about fish again? Take two bodies of water, very close to one another, but with no overland connections and no ease of access for swimming fish. They're essentially isolated populations.

    We've got this scenario down here in the Ozarks. In one drainage basin, you've got the duskystripe shiner:



    And in the other, you've got the bleeding shiner:



    The two fish are practically indistinguishable. They occupy the same niche. Genetically, they are nearly identical--but not quite. And there is no cross-breeding, and has not been for some time....so the last common ancestor was when the two groups split, and now you've got two species where before there was one. Bleeding and Duskystripe Shiners, by David L. Hall

    Quote:
    Sure, you'll bring up viruses but you already stated that there is a dispute as to whether or not they're even alive. Since all evolution didn't happen during the single cell phase of life, there must be an answer.
    Oooh, pick me pick me!


    Over 13,000 views on YouTube and plenty of grateful high school students. Plus extra credit in my Genetics class for a two-hour over-Thanksgiving project with three good friends. Mission accomplished. Of course, it makes a little more sense if you watch it on YouTube and read the video description.

    Quote:
    After all, it's been stated that apes and humans have a common ancestor. Surely it doesn't go back to the swamp. :)
    Nope. Goes back to the ocean, more likely.
         
        11-28-2011, 12:45 PM
      #138
    Yearling
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bearkiller    
    Being a biologist, I don't see how you can look at evolution as a fact.
    Are you serious?

    Thank you, Bubba for being here and having the patience for this. Not only did I not sleep last night, but I am in class all day today and don't have time for the full biological/anthropological perspective.

    @Bearkiller: education is key to removing ignorance And not just one article, read lots. And learn how to sift through statistics so you can see when the statistics are listed erroneously.

    ...
    8 am calculus + no sleep = grumpy demonwolfmoon =(
         
        11-28-2011, 02:08 PM
      #139
    Weanling
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bubba13    
    Unless you want to side with the Scientologists and say aliens put us here.
    That of course brings up the issue of where the aliens came from LOL



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bubba13    
    Don't discount and criticize things you don't understand. We already went through this with the eye.
    Right, but you never gave an answer (that I saw) as to why an animal would just randomly have light sensing cells, ect. Or why, when alot of these things would be more of a hinderance than a help in early stages of evolution, they would continue to develope them.




    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bubba13    
    If you're asking for one within your lifetime, sorry, but changes take far too long. You yourself admit that it requires millions or billions of years for a new species to occur....so considering that evolutionary theory is only 150 years old, you're just not going to see any noticeable differences in that time.
    I was using the times as expressed by evolutionists. I myself believe the earth is only 10-15 thousand years old.




    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bubba13    
    Genetically, they are nearly identical--but not quite. And there is no cross-breeding, and has not been for some time
    The idea that this is evidence is just crazy and goes to my point that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God. How does anyone know there hasn't been any cross breeding? Did they drain the lakes and rivers in the area completely and leave them dry for long enough to kill and/or collect ALL of the fish? Including pools, ect? Of course not. So the idea that there hasn't been any cross breeding is based on a complete faith that they didn't miss any fish during their "study". There have been species of cut throat trout declared extinct, only to find a river with them in it some time later.


    As stated earlier, I didn't really want to get into a discussion on evolution because there is little to be gained from it. I appreciate your point of view but really don't understand it. It's got the huge problem of where life came from originally.


    Demonwolfmoon, I am completely serious. I also would invite you to never call me ignorant again. "Education" in our country is a complete joke. It should be called indoctrination. Anyone who questions anything or doesn't think like the rest, is ridiculed.
         
        11-28-2011, 02:25 PM
      #140
    Yearling
    Bearkiller: education even within the system can be self directed. Of course you can also choose to ignore evidence and formulate your own theories... Not backed by study or peer review.

    I question everything. Many a professor has broken into a raw sweat at my aggressive lines of questioning. I'd be glad to take that invitation when you prove me wrong!! Later tonight I shall sift through some studies and copy paste for educational purposes.
    Posted via Mobile Device
         

    Thread Tools

    Similar Threads
    Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
    Anyone here a vegetarian? Blondehorselover Rider Wellness 43 11-17-2011 02:43 PM



    All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:56 AM.


    Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
    Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
    Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0