I just have one question. Not intended to fight with anyone. But...Paleo is based on the fact that we are still the same creatures with the same nutritional needs as we were thousands and thousands of years ago, correct??? So, um, how does evolution fit in here??? If we have really "evolved", then that doesn't make sense. Again, I am not on a religious agenda here...I am completely comfortable and happy with my religious stance and will not be convinced otherwise, but again, how do the two of those mesh with your theory??? I am in the middle of the road, so to speak, with my Paleo thinking and the other stuff. I, by NO MEANS, think we evolved, boy it's hard to not continue on this, lol, at least as far as nutritonal needs are concerned, so again, how do you equate firmly believing in evolution AND Paleo??? Doesn't make sense to me at all.
And just so you know, I don't think man has evolved from ANYTHING, and neither has his nutritional needs. You have to pick one side of the fence...or not, I guess. But the fence part does not make sense to me AT ALL. Pick one or the other, I guess I would say.
Love,
Bren
Using any excuse to push creationism doesn't scare me, but it does annoy me,
so i don't really care if I annoy *you*.
Free speech is great and I am not saying put those people in jail. I am
suggesting that perhaps posting that particular article that included those
ignorant comments was in bad taste.
I am also not sure that the paleo forum is the place where you're going to
convince people that evolutiontion is a myth being that it is the basis for
the research involved.
Zack
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 9:01 PM, william <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> zack passman wrote:
>
>> The twisted truth on any side scares me.
>>
>
> Using any excuse to push evolution does not scare me, but it does annoy.
>
>
> What *really* scared me about this
>
>> article was the racial bigotry included in the comments.
>>
>> Surprise! When he says free speech he is not kidding.
> Off topic anyway.
>
> William
>
|
