But if we were, then not only would I have to not draw conclusions, but you would have to show some evidence for your wild claims.

What wild claims? Well lemme see:
  1. The actual number of "bad men" is extremely low. Strange. I've known far more than my share if that is the case. My impression is that men are bad about as often as women. Infidelity in men is as high or higher than it is for women, and there is a reason that when divorce laws were eased, most divorces get asked for by women.
  2. I always find it fascinating when athiests reject biology when it is convenient, and invoke "special human dispensation" when convenient. And when would that have happened in this thread? At worst I disbelieved your unsupported assertions about biology. But the fact that you assert it doesn't make it biological fact. Convince me that your opinions are actual fact, and I'll respond appropriately. But until you do, they remain only your opinions.
  3. It is very easy to say, Things should be like this! It is very hard to demonstrate that, though. Not at all, it's called statistical correlation, and all that is needed is to collect and arrange vast amounts of data. It is clear that you understand physics far better than the social sciences. As soon as you get into normative statements about what society is better than another you get very complex questions about methodology. How do you define "better"? What questions do you ask, and do they bias situations? How do you collect your data? And so on. Heck, Bill Patient and I couldn't even agree on how to define whether or not the middle class saw their income go up or down through the 80's. And level of income is a far simpler and more concrete question than, "healthier lifestyle" is!


Now to second Hugh, you are sick and stressed. Take a break. Come back when you are in better shape, and we can talk then.

Cheers,
Ben