Given what I know of Arabian cultures of the time, and of modern uses and care of farm animals in non-industrial cultures, I could see the Pig thing. Trichinosis, as earlier suggested, or even feed types.
Cattle are most often feed with grass in such cultures today, while pigs are often fed grain - they are used as a method of preventing the rot of the grain while in storage. The pigs eat the grain, which stores the grain's calories in a from which is less likely to go bad over winter. The pig acts as a storage copntainer for the calories in the grain.
However, this dietary difference effects how the bodies of the two species are built. The grain-fed pigs tend to have much higher bad cholesteral levels, and very low Omega-3 fatty acids (so often a buzz-word these days). grass-fed beef, however, is much healthier for humans. The animals' role in the culture, and therefore their food source, may be effecting how they effect humans when they become food. This may in turn effect how that culture percieves the animal on a basic level.
I would be interested in studying the chemical composition of domestic animal bones from that area and time period, and compare the makeup with the list of "unclean" animals not fit for eating.
PM: in reference to you God must exist arguments, specifically the "ontological' one.
The four sided triangle. You attempt to prove the existence of God by saying that the definition of the word God defies any chance that he doesn't exsist. Just like a four-sided triangle doesn't exist. The four-sides of the FS triangle would violate the rules of what a triangle is, making it no longer a triangle, and therefore not a FS triangle.
In all honesty, it's a good argument. I hadn't thought of it before. It took me a few seconds of consideration before it broke down.
You argue that a four sided triangle cannot exsist. This is because triangle do exsist, and match the definition of the word triangle. by adding another side, you violate the definition of the labal, causing it to no longer apply to the object in question. And object *which exists*.
You cannot use the saem argument to prove God, because there is nothing that exsists outside of the concept of God that it is comparable to. As with the FS triangle, you have a previously defined geometrical shape to work off of, you need a concept of being, defined outside of your argument, to use as a starting point for this analogy. You do not have such a concept; you do not have a proven no-God to build off of. In order to use this logic to prove the existence of God as you defined it (him being the triangle), you first need to prove the thing that he isn't (the FS triangle).
Until then, all you have is a word. If that word, and the being it represents, cannot exist without that being's presence, then I would argue that evolution must exist as well, because there is a word to describe it.
I am educated to MASTER DEGREE in international Economics, thank you very much.
I am glad for you. That must have required a great deal of work, and it represents a great achievment. It says nothing about your level of education, though. That requires your ability to use the knowledge gained during schooling in a real world setting. In this case, the lack of your knowledge about evolution means that you have no place as a debator on this topic. your degree in economics only grants you the ability to be a learner in this discussion.
That said, If I have a discussion about international economics, I would love to hear your comments on it; given that you have more knowledge on the subget than I.
