No, a small percentage of your arguments are the work of respected scientists who are working within their field of expertise. You have a smattering of true science work, amongst a much larger body of opinion by activists. Just because a cardiologist says that humans are herbivores because they lack a seminal vesticule does not mean he is right simply because he is a cardiologist. If he looked at a CAT scan/blood work and said something like "you have X heart problem" then he would have automatic credibility. But he doesnt know more about evolutionary science than anyone else.

Strong dense bones in a prehistoric society means lots of meat eating.

Funny... most of the cave drawings I have seen depicted the hunt. Also, there is still a living Native American tradition to draw some that supports large amounts of hunting for example.

Also, there are plenty of "doctors" who have strong opinions about various things.. and are wrong all the time. Again, you are really misusing the actual data from actual respected scientists working in their field.. and trying to pass off the opinions of other people , and the opinions of people working outside their field as fact.

Doctor says "eating too much meat is bad for you" I say "ok, yeah makes sense".

You say " since doctor said eating too much meat is bad, I say eating absolutely no meat is even better and its proven by science - just ask the doctor"

I say " I call bullshit".

Last edited by Derid; 07/24/12 07:31 AM.
For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)