Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Medical Express: First direct evidence that babies react to taste and smell in the womb

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A study led by Durham University’s Fetal and Neonatal Research Lab, UK, took 4D ultrasound scans of 100 pregnant women to see how their unborn babies responded after being exposed to flavors from foods eaten by their mothers.

Researchers looked at how the fetuses reacted to either carrot or kale flavors just a short time after the flavors had been ingested by the mothers.

Fetuses exposed to carrot showed more “laughter-face” responses while those exposed to kale showed more “cry-face” responses.

First direct evidence that babies react to taste and smell in the womb
A 4D scan image of the same fetus (as in the laughter-face baseline image) showing a laughter-face reaction after being exposed to the carrot flavour. Credit: FETAP (Fetal Taste Preferences) Study, Fetal and Neonatal Research Lab, Durham University.

Their findings could further our understanding of the development of human taste and smell receptors.

The researchers also believe that what pregnant women eat might influence babies’ taste preferences after birth and potentially have implications for establishing healthy eating habits.

The study is published in the journal Psychological Science.

Humans experience flavor through a combination of taste and smell. In fetuses it is thought that this might happen through inhaling and swallowing the amniotic fluid in the womb.

Mothers were given a single capsule containing approximately 400mg of carrot or 400mg kale powder around 20 minutes before each scan. They were asked not to consume any food or flavored drinks one hour before their scans.

Facial reactions seen in both flavor groups, compared with fetuses in a control group who were not exposed to either flavor, showed that exposure to just a small amount of carrot or kale flavor was enough to stimulate a reaction.

“Previous research conducted in my lab has suggested that 4D ultrasound scans are a way of monitoring fetal reactions to understand how they respond to maternal health behaviors such as smoking, and their mental health including stress, depression, and anxiety.

“This latest study could have important implications for understanding the earliest evidence for fetal abilities to sense and discriminate different flavors and smells from the foods ingested by their mothers.”

The researchers say their findings might also help with information given to mothers about the importance of taste and healthy diets during pregnancy.

They have now begun a follow-up study with the same babies post-birth to see if the influence of flavors they experienced in the womb affects their acceptance of different foods.

Medical Express

These findings seem to support the conclusion that the unborn are alive and human. But does the flavor of carrots make you smile?

Comments
Asauber: There’s no point in trying to have a conversation with you about anything other than prog rock. I guess that's true if you're just going to avoid addressing moral issues where you claim to have the higher ground. We could have actually addressed some real issues. But you bailed. Too bad.JVL
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
JVL, There's no point in trying to have a conversation with you about anything other than prog rock. Andrewasauber
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
VL at 203, If God guided a process involving the development of life, then Darwinian processes as described in Biology textbooks don't exist. The process is controlled infallibly by God. But most people were not exposed to that in school. "Dog whistle" is a fake term created by The Global Cabal of Relabelers and Repackagers. All such "new" words/terms automatically go on my Words to Never Use List. The job of the Cabal is to give people the illusion they are living in "the future."relatd
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
I'm pretty sure you know what dogwhistle means, relatd. The dogs in this cases are those ID supporters who believe that anyone who supports the basics of evolutionary theory is a materialist, and who reject all those, such as theistic evolutionists (to name one viewpoint), who accept the science in the context of their theistic viewpoint. Accepting the science of evolution, with a proper understanding of the limits of what that means does not equal materialism, but "Darwinian viewpoint" is a dogwhistle that reaches the ears of such ID supporters.Viola Lee
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
Asauber: Don’t cast your pearls before swine. Are you the swine then? Why won't you commit to a stance? You claim to have the grounded, solid moral and ethical standard. And when I ask you to apply that standard to a particular, simple situation you punt. Why is that?JVL
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
JVL, Don't cast your pearls before swine. Andrewasauber
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
VL at 199, dog? What dog? Where is the dog?relatd
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
FYI: "“Darwinian worldview” is code/dog whistle for materialism.Viola Lee
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
@195 First of all not an oxymoron “Darwinian worldview” is not a phrase that contradicts its self and you’ve been on this site long enough to know what it is referring to, so you are nitpicking just like you did when you argued the DNA is not code it’s an organic compound, being literal to the point of silliness.AaronS1978
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
Asauber: It could. Are you asking my to judge LCD’s Christianity negatively based on 3 sentences about the way atheists behave? Based on the Christian doctrine please.JVL
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
Now a debate about "love." What is "love" today? Sex with whoever? True sacrificial love is about truth. Those who know this cannot accept falsehood, ever. “These people who are always talking, reading, and thinking about sex are like singers who think more about their larynx than about singing. They make that which is subordinate to a higher purpose so all important that the harmony of life is upset.” - Fulton J. Sheen, Victory Over Vice “Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it. It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin. Real love involves real hatred: whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the sellers from the temples has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth.” - Fulton J. Sheenrelatd
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
...Darwinian worldview...
Oxymoron alert! Darwinian evolution is a biological theory, not a worldview.Alan Fox
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
VL at 174, Another one who judges God. The "human condition" is based on right and wrong. Children are taught right and wrong. We, meaning human beings, don't make it up as we go along. There are strict limits.relatd
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
"do you think his opinion exemplifies a true Christian worldview?" JVL, It could. Are you asking my to judge LCD's Christianity negatively based on 3 sentences about the way atheists behave? This is boring, JVL. Andrewasauber
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Asauber: LCD is allowed to have an opinion. Quit whining. Of course he is. But you didn't answer my question: do you think his opinion exemplifies a true Christian worldview? As a moral-less, unethical, materialistic, Darwinist who can't possibly understand what true love means I'm curious whether or not the comment made was a loving, caring sentiment.JVL
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
"Do you think the comment made by LtComData (162 above) came from a loving and caring worldview?" JVL, Your idea of a loving caring worldview might be completely distorted. LCD is allowed to have an opinion. Quit whining. Andrewasauber
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
Those who are anti ID, defend an alternative. My guess is they can't because there is no alternative. I have never seen one based on evidence, logic and reason. But they will try to take shots at anything they can that is associated with ID. They live for the gotcha. But that's all they have, an occasional objection while they ignore everything else. They defend ID with every comment they make that does not address the obvious.     The real issue is why this incoherent behavior? jerry
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Bornagain77 & Asauber: Do you think the comment made by LtComData (162 above) came from a loving and caring worldview?JVL
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
"Seriously, the distain you show for other human beings is appalling." Says the man with his illusory moral feet planted firmly in mid-air.
Why Alex Rosenberg — and a Number of Other Philosophers — Are Wrong Just about Everything A Commentary on Scientistic Reductionism - Massimo Pigliucci - 2019 Abstract There is a pernicious tendency these days among some philosophers to engage in a “nothing but” attitude about important questions. According to this attitude, consciousness, volition, reason, and morality are “illusions,” “nothing but” the epiphenomena of specific neural processes. Alex Rosenberg is a particularly good (though by no means the only) illustration of this problem,,,, https://journal.equinoxpub.com/JCH/article/view/18516
bornagain77
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
"the distain you show for other human beings is appalling" Seriously, JVL. Typos and trolling. Andrewasauber
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: “the New Testament” can ground and explain the existence of love. I guess you didn't get that memo. Seriously, the distain you show for other human beings is appalling. You claim to be firmly rooted in love and kindness but you seem incapable of exhibiting such sentiments. Do you think the comment made by LtComData above was loving or caring?JVL
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
VL: "I am not a “Darwinian”" I guess that is as close as I am ever going to get from VL, as to an honest confession, that the Darwinian worldview cannot explain the existence of love and the 'human condition'.bornagain77
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
You don’t discuss. You just push the buttons and regurgitate your talking points
But the talking points are ignored. As I said in my comment just above and the linked comment, the obvious is never addressed. Anytime this happens, the comment cannot be answered or is inane. Acquiesce is usually an admission of truth. It is often an admission that something was nonsense and not worth replying. Which is it here? Instead a negative accusation is thrown with no basis other than wordiness. Aside: I agree long comments are less likely to be as effective as short ones. Thomas Sowell was the master of short comments to the point. Yet, he literally wrote millions of words. Aside2: it seems that some want to win the day by having their misinformation rule the day. The strategy to do this is to claim the truth is misinformation. No better example of this are the national political debates.jerry
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
BA writes to me, "So thus VL, directly contrary to your belief that the Darwinian worldview has no trouble whatsoever explaining the existence of love and the ‘human condition’," That is not what I said. Also, as I have told you many times, I am not a "Darwinian" in the way you use that term. You don't discuss. You just push the buttons and regurgitate your talking points. I stand by my condemnation.Viola Lee
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
Here is a quote from a review of Thomas Nagel's book, "Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False", that gets my point across beautifully, "Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath"
The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt: Neo-Darwinism insists that every phenomenon, every species, every trait of every species, is the consequence of random chance, as natural selection requires. And yet, Nagel says, “certain things are so remarkable that they have to be explained as non-accidental if we are to pretend to a real understanding of the world.” ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. https://www.sott.net/article/260160-The-Heretic-Who-is-Thomas-Nagel-and-why-are-so-many-of-his-fellow-academics-condemning-him
And again, if it is impossible for you to live your life consistently as if your atheistic worldview is actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is, but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.
Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. – per answers for hope
bornagain77
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true. But many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly—and repetition has been accepted as a substitute for evidence. Thomas Sowell
Where does the evidence point? Not to a natural origin of our world and humans. Repetition is used to diminish the obvious. All have the evidence but most do not use it. Instead a large percentage repeat nonsense over and over. Aside: bad things will always happen. That appears to be by design. This creates doubt. Is this also by design? As to those against ID https://uncommondescent.com/cosmology/from-iai-news-how-infinity-threatens-cosmology/#comment-766067jerry
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT
JVL, "One wonders what you were born again into. It certainly seems to have little to do with the New Testament." LOL, that is precisely my point, "the New Testament" can ground and explain the existence of love. Darwinism cannot even begin to explain the existence of love. Yet you have failed to grasp that exceedingly simple point. More ironically still, you have proved my point for me. You want to hold me morally accountable for simply asking a Darwinist why he loves his daughter instead of treating her as his Darwinian worldview actually entails, i.e. as a 'meat robot'?, And yet in order to hold me morally accountable for my supposed moral transgression, you are forced to reach over into the New Testament, instead of using your own Darwinian worldview, in order to try to argue that I have supposedly failed to live up to the moral standard of loving my neighbor as myself. Yet, as with love, your Darwinian worldview simply can't ground morality. In fact, Darwinism is 'at war' with Christian morality. As Sir Arthur Keith noted shortly after WWII, “the (moral) law of Christ is incompatible with the (moral) law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.”
“for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy.,,, Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.” – Sir Arthur Keith, (1866 — 1955) Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons – Evolution and Ethics (1947) p.15
i.e. Darwin’s theory is not only amoral, i.e. blind, pitiless, indifferent, but, with its emphasis on the strong exploiting the weak for survival, it is downright ANTI-moral.
“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
Adolf Hilter himself, (whom I think even atheists will agree was a psychopath of the first order), directly echoed Charles Darwin’s words when he stated, “Nature,,, wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.”
“A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.” – Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf – pg 248
As should be needless to say, wiping out the weak to give place to the strong is directly opposed to the primary Christian ethic of the strong looking after the weak. i.e. altruism
Matthew 25:34-40 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
Of note,
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos – video https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276
bornagain77
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT
Stop talking to people who are not listening: https://youtube.com/shorts/1HBdAdtqNTMSandy
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT
LtComData: I wouldn’t trust anything what atheists say. They are completely immoral persons. Conversations with atheists are a waste of time , better use this precious time of our life to talk with God or people who need us. while it doesn't surprise me that you say such heartless and unloving things I am even more dismayed than the only ones who outright called you on it were the unmoral, unethical atheists/materialists/Darwinists. You people can't even practice what you preach. Where is that grounded moral viewpoint? Why do you let such statements stand? Bornagain77: And why do you not just heartlessly treat your daughter like the biological machine, i.e. the meat robot, that she actually is under your Darwinian worldview? One wonders what you were born again into. It certainly seems to have little to do with the New Testament.JVL
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT
Viola Lee claims,
(BA77) is unable to have a broad perspective about other ways of understanding the human condition. Human beings love, and that loves flows from our common human natures, not from our “worldview”. Atheists and members of all sorts of religions all love for the same reasons, and with equally validity.
But alas VL, that is exactly the point, the Darwinian worldview is suppose to explain every facet of what it means to be human. Yet. besides not being able to ground and explain the existence of love, the Darwinian worldview cannot ground and explain the existence of the quote-unquote 'human condition' and/or our "common human natures". As Richard Dawkins himself explained, in the Darwinian worldview, there is at bottom ",,no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
i.e. Love simply does not exist in the atheist's Darwinian worldview! Likewise, the 'human condition', and/or our "common human natures', simply does not exist within the Darwinian worldview. As Logan Paul Gage explains, in the Darwinian worldview, there is no human nature since "Man, the universal, does not really exist." And there is "no human nature".
Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage Excerpt:,,, In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms. Denial of True Species Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes: “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,, The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow. What About Man? Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,, https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f
Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, and thus with their implicit denial of the immaterial realm altogether, simply leave everything that is truly important about what it really means to be human on the cutting room floor. As Adam Sedgwick scolded Charles Darwin himself, “There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly.”
From Adam Sedgwick – 24 November 1859 Cambridge My dear Darwin, Excerpt: ,,, There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro’ final cause , link material to moral; & yet does not allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, & our classification of such laws whether we consider one side of nature or the other— You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.,,, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml
Everything that is important, and that can be said to truly differentiate us from all the other creatures on earth, and that truly makes us human and not animals, is immaterial in its foundational essence, and character and therefore it is simply impossible for Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, to ever truly explain how humans, and/or the 'human condition', came about. As Dr. Michael Egnor explains, “Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, (love), and an endless library of abstract concepts.,,, It is in our ability to think abstractly that we differ from apes. It is a radical difference — an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference. We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. Our difference is a metaphysical chasm.,,, Systems of taxonomy that emphasize physical and genetic similarities and ignore the fact that human beings are partly immaterial beings who are capable of abstract thought and contemplation of moral law and eternity are pitifully inadequate to describe man.”
The Fundamental Difference Between Humans and Nonhuman Animals – Michael Egnor – November 5, 2015 Excerpt: Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals. Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different — ontologically different — from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,, A human being is material and immaterial — a composite being. We have material bodies, and our perceptions and imaginations and appetites are material powers, instantiated in our brains. But our intellect — our ability to think abstractly — is a wholly immaterial power, and our will that acts in accordance with our intellect is an immaterial power. Our intellect and our will depend on matter for their ordinary function, in the sense that they depend upon perception and imagination and memory, but they are not themselves made of matter. It is in our ability to think abstractly that we differ from apes. It is a radical difference — an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference. We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. Our difference is a metaphysical chasm. It is obvious and manifest in our biological nature. We are rational animals, and our rationality is all the difference. Systems of taxonomy that emphasize physical and genetic similarities and ignore the fact that human beings are partly immaterial beings who are capable of abstract thought and contemplation of moral law and eternity are pitifully inadequate to describe man. The assertion that man is an ape is self-refuting. We could not express such a concept, misguided as it is, if we were apes and not men. https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/the_fundamental_2/
So thus VL, directly contrary to your belief that the Darwinian worldview has no trouble whatsoever explaining the existence of love and the 'human condition', the existence of love and the 'human condition' presents an insurmountable problem for Darwinists that they never be able to give an adequate explanation of.bornagain77
September 29, 2022
September
09
Sep
29
29
2022
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 8

Leave a Reply