About an hour ago, I had a very friendly debate with one of my co-workers about humans being frugivores. As we got deeper and deeper into the discussion, he stated that since he believes in creationism and therefore does not think comparing ourselves to animals containing similar DNA/digestive systems as us is a valid argument to prove our genetic make-up is designed to eat a diet void of animal products.
I have never debated with anyone who does not believe in evolution, so I was at a loss for words, as most of my arguments are comparing our biological makeup to primates.
Rather than dismiss his opinion entirely, I want to have some "valid" arguments to present him with. He said that if I can find articles/studies about a human consuming an omnivorous diet in comparison to a human eating a frugivorous diet (something based in the past, to therefore exclude the recent changes/additions to the meat and dairy humans consume for example antibiotics, hormones etc) and which human is the healthiest, in terms of longevity, nutritional needs, functionality, physical/mental performance etc., then he will take a more serious look.
Its extremely hard arguing with someone who doesn't believe in the scientific FACT of evolution, but I am very determined to show him this is the right way for humans to eat. If any of you have any information/links that contain any information like this, I would greatly appreciate it!
As a believer i defend my eating habits with the Bible. all you have to do is find evidence that they will accept.
see Genesis 1:29-30
it works on my family :)
Question for you: "
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the excessive mental stress and discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, and/or values at the same time. This stress and discomfort may also arise within an individual who holds a belief and performs a contradictory action or reaction. For example, an individual is likely to experience dissonance if he or she is addicted to smoking cigarettes and continues to smoke despite believing it is unhealthy."
Do you agree with this definition from the link you posted? If so, it specifies different "magnitudes of dissonance". I am not convinced that her coworker has any more cognitive dissonance than the original poster, or anyone else for that matter. You seem to agree with this?
If said person is logical and capable of making a decent argument, etc. Try debating evolution a few times, maybe you'll sway them, after all, no right minded person, exposed to significant amounts of evidence, can support creationism, especially young earth creationism, over evolution.
That's a bit harsh to say that I am not a right minded person due to my faith. I respect your opinion, but don't go around and assuming that everyone is in certain category just because they believe in something you don't.
Katya, nobody is trying to insult you personally, but what you might want to realize, that trusting a scientific evidence is not the same as believing in a mythical story that doesn't have any hard cold stone evidence. In this world where faith begins, logic and reason ends.
Definition of faith: 1) complete trust in someone or something; 2)strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Definition of logic: 1) reasoning conducted or assesed according to strict principles of validity. 2) a particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference.
Logic=/=faith. In fact, as you may see by the definitions, they are polar opposite.
You might be a preaty reasonable and logic person in many respects (c'mon, you're vegan, that's pretty f@cken reasonable), but straight up believing in myths is not logical by the definition. You don't have to stop believing, but when something is proven to be untrue due to absolute lack of validity, proof and evidence, don't be offended and say that you are being put into a category. As a whole, religion is a hold up to a progression of science, because most popular religions today undermine education and science because knowledge and critical reasoning exposes the religious indoctrination for its lies. I am not gonna touch social side of issues, because this post will get a bit too long and i think i already said enough.
Not cool, dude. You just basicly copyied most of my comment and instead "religion" put Darwinian evolution "unproven (unprovable) theory" (whatever that means) instead. How about to be a bit more mature and have something of your own to say instead of mocking me. I really don't take it personally, it takes way more than that for me to bother, but I honestly expect more from somebody on this forum.
As many people might, I think you are misunderstanding the word "theory", and it's not a "guess", just to be clear.
Definition of the scientific theory - a theory that explains a scientific observation. Theory - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory".
Theory of evolution is not absolutely the same as Darwin had it during his discovery. Evolution itself is not a fact but it is factual. It had years of research for scientists to improve it and perfect it. It might still not be as perfect as it can be, but it is the best and most accurate answer there is right now. If you or anyone wishes to ignore the legitimacy of the scientific theory of evolution, it doesn't make it any less so.
If you would choose to respond to this, please be mature and have something of your own to say. Try to be objective and making sense. For example, "Knowledge and reason expose the unprovable theory of Darwinism as the indoctrination of propaganda that it truly is." That sentance didn't make any sense. And where the hell did you get this "unprovable theory" from? What is your definition of "unprovable theory" and what evidence do you have that a scientific theory of evolution is "unprovable"? And how does it make it ok to believe in a myth of human spontaneous creation by a supposed Devine being. Creationism "theory" has been scientificly debunked a long time ago. Science has already proved that Earth is billions of years old, opposed to 6000 years old as suggested in the bible (I'm pretty sure bible sais that it's arround 6000, feel free to correct me on that number if I am slightly mistaken). I can get into more detail on creationism if you would desire. Just let me know.
At what point exactly was I hateful or bigoted towards you or any other? I only have stated the observations and facts. If you dislike what you are seeing as it might offend your faith, that's fine, but I was trying to be objective and was expecting at least some attempt in return. If I wasn't informative or objective enough, as I have stated in my last comment, I can get into much more detail if you are willing to listen, otherwise the conversation between you and me doesn't really matter and should be discontinued.
Thank you Craig. :)