Posted on 03/10/2009 10:32:03 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The journal New Scientist has recently run an article called Born Believers: How your brain creates God (especially in hard financial times)1… Towards the latter end of the article is a disclaimer that ‘All the researchers involved stress that none of this says anything about the existence or otherwise of gods.’ However, the tenor of the article, including the title, militates strongly that the author’s preferred reality is that, yes folks, “your brain creates God.”
The article initially suggests that “God” is created in our brains as a result of “an evolutionary adaptation that makes people more likely to survive”. However it then points out that this theory is not accepted by many in the evolutionary community. Blithely over-riding this hiccup, it then launches into an alternate, conflicting theory that “religion emerges as a natural by-product of the way the human mind works”...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
>>New Scientist is the functional equivelent of “The New Republic”<<
That’s an odd argument - that topics should be banned from news discussion if they come from a site you equate with Free Republic.
I simply stated that crevo debates should be in religion, not news activism, and have been relentlessly attacked for it.
Check out the replies to the newest post if you think I’m wrong..
And I guess you’re just not that into “free speech” as a “god given right”
Attacked? nah, just corrected.
That would be you projecting yet again.
Very simply - I was accused by metmom and others of being multiple previous and current members of this site. I was accused of this multiple times despite the complete and total lack of evidence.
And I never used the word persecuted.
No you didn't "simply" do any such thing...and playing the victim doesn't wear well.
The Bibles I have read speak against lying and spreading rumors - seeing that you appear to have no problems with those behaviors I assumed that you used a Bible different than most.
Did you read his post? Focus on the part about denying the existence of God and the debating of that topic - seeing as how I have not denied or debated the existence of God what was I to think?
Yes - a live.com search will pull up some of it. Remember the ice ages took some time to start and then end. Species adapted to the ice then adapted yet again when it left.
Notice he spews idiocy like "evo jihad", then says he's the one being relentlessly attacked.
Liberals project alot.
It takes 4 posts to fully vent your “young earth” spleen and wrap it in an holier than thou shroud.
It just numbs the mind.
I went ahead and did a search on ice age. One article appeared on the ice age and the human diet. Something about less plant food and smaller portions of meat.
Another article about Canadian clay after the ice age.
Other results turned up ice cream and aging.
In any case, I read the article about diet. The Doctor who wrote it says that meat eaters have space between their teeth. That is why a lion does not need a toothpick. He says our prehistoric ancestors at fruits and vegetation from the ground. According to our teeth. Also, he says our intestinal track reflects that of a plant eater and not a meat eater. And our stomach has 20% less acid then meat eaters do. Other differences are our saliva glands. Meat eaters don't have to pre digest their food. Our glands reflect the glands of plant eaters.
He says we turned to meat during the stone age and last ice age. Also, he says that we have developed disease from eating meat. So, according to this article on alive, I am not getting where our bodies evolved to eat meat since the last ice age. This article says our bodies are rejecting meat and we should go back to a plant diet.
I still don't get it. I know, I am slllloooowwwww. :-)
Don't you believe that, Kiddo.
We were meat all along.
LOL
I should have said tht they turned to eating meat...
LOL
He's not the one advocating that crevo threads be put into the Religion Forum where discussion is somewhat restricted.
"I am not trying to spark a debate, just an understanding. How do evolutionist account for ice ages. I mean, if we evolve according to our environment, wouldn't the mastodon shed it's fur and adapt to it's new environment when the planet warmed? Wouldn’t we see more evidence of animals evolving from cold weather animal to warm weather animals? And there have been several ice ages. Therefore, wouldn't there be some evidence of animals growing ‘cold weather gear’ and shedding cold weather gear?"
Animals cannot evolve quickly enough to respond to climatic variation. They can only modify their diets, their behavior, or perhaps migrate.
In the end, none of these may be adequate as a survival stratagem, and the animal may simply perish. This is not done without a struggle. Animals, more so than we, believe in "whatever gets you through the day".
The dietary variations of large herbivores, beavers, and deer are not the Bambi innocent munchings you may have learned about.
Further, just as there are wild variations in such things as human body hair and size differences, animals under climatic or food availability pressures may be able to respond more quickly than expected due to existing natural variants that may produce more or less thickness or coloration of fur, just as the ermine does in an annual modification.
In general, because a furry animal depends more on food resources than on the weather, climatic variation forces changes in diet more than it would be instrumental in driving the animal to grow longer or shorter fur.
The *your Bible* comment was not made to me, but do the dhue.
Why are you ASSuming that the Bible I read is different from others based on HIS post?
He only considers it unsubstantiated rumor.
Those of us who suspect think that there’s plenty of evidence.
Now I want to ask this: After all of these years of eating meat, wouldn't our bodies evolve wider teeth, an intestinal track that process meat better, a stomach with more acid, and saliva glands that adhere to meat eaters? Instead, our bodies can get heart disease from eating to much red meat.
From an evolutionary viewpoint, humans are omnivores; neither strictly vegetarian nor carnivorous.
The key, as you may perhaps be intimating, is in our dentition. We have incisors and molars for dealing with roots and grains, but we also have, (drum-roll please), canines.
Just from this survey, it would appear that we are “intended” to consume a modest amount of meat, during at least some times, perhaps of hardship, but that most of our diet should not be “fast food”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.