In all hunter-gatherer societies that existed well into the last century, no diseases of modern man were found and some of these societies also included a separate class of seniors, who lived to very ripe old ages. In caveman days, early deaths were due to accidents, infections and childbirth. No evidence has ever been found that any of them had diabetes, obesity, arthrities, tooth decay that is now prevalent in our society in people under the age of 30. In fact, in autopsies done on our young soldiers that died in battle within the last 20 years, blocked, plaque filled arteries were found in seemingly healthy, active, fit young men and women.

Regarding exclusive meat eating, several hunter-gatherer societies existed exclusively on meat and fish, because there was nothing else available in the far north.

So... the bones of Australopithecenes and early Homo species are a figment of paleoanthropologists' imaginations? That's quite a conspiracy they're pulling on us.

Good point Hellistile but I still think there is a world of difference between eating meat/ fish only when you can catch it and eating meat/ fish that you caught in the supermarket on the way home!

You stated you visited Indonesia and saw the hunter-gatherers spending at least a minimum 4 days of hard hunting of monkeys to feed their families even though they raised chickens and pigs. Obviously they considered the effort worth it. They could have supplemented their diet with vegetables, fruits, grains, rice, etc. but they felt it important enough to go to all that effort. It's time for us to realize that meat and fat is very important to the human-animal and the rest is just there to break the monotony. Those Hunter-Gatherers in Indonesia have got it right.

Hmmm... has anyone else been able to read the entire article? When I click the link, it takes me to the ediets sign-up page.

There are many scientists that have come to realize the truth of Creation and have admitted that most of the skeletons they supposedly found were actually created from tiny fragments of bone from apes. They'd find a tooth and claim it was from this or that 'pre human' and create an entire skeleton of what they think they looked like. Same goes for most of the dinosaur fossils they 'found'.
They have yet to find a real skeleton.

Quinadal: This thread was not put here to debate your literal belief in the bible. If you would like to discuss that topic, you should start a thread in "off topic" or "lounge"

Quinadal, we won't force our beliefs on you if you don't force your beliefs on us. I feel that everyone is free to believe what they want. But let's keep the religion debate off this thread.

Truce. Now back to discussing the way humans are designed to eat.

Are you referring to Cro-Magnon, or earlier humans? What is your source, and do you also have information about average life expectancy of early humans?

Outlaw? Hrm. I guess that if you're that turned on by another rehash of low-carb lore, then enjoy. Put seeds in the ground, fire up the oven, and catch the killer. Where are the gardeners who change the way the world plants tomatoes? Or the cooks who change the way the world bakes cupcakes? And I'm very glad their aren't as many murderers in the world as there are in Dashiell Hammett's world.



Oh Banting. I'm pretty glad then that Atkins jumped on that bandwagon. Although it probably wasn't much of a bandwagon, since Banting had been out of print for a century before Atkins came along.

And I know you don't mean to compare Atkins to Banting, mostly because Atkins had the benefit of a 100 years of science over Banting, and if we compare the two, Banting had no idea why low-carb worked, whereas Atkins knew, and told us, why it did. Atkins gave us so much more than Banting, the Letter on Corpulence is now just an interesting historical curio.

I'm very sure that the current crop of new low-carb authors have nothing new to offer, or else they might actually MENTION how their plan differs from the established, old-school low-carb authors. Since they don't mention how, ever, I doubt there's much to be had in their books.

Now the new stuff on cycling carbohydrate, that's pretty interesting. (I prefer to cycle my carbohydrate on a yearly cycle as opposed to a weekly or daily basis, but hey, I'm a total caveman.) Give us your information, not someone else's in a new, expensive package.

I've been surfing this thread...and here's my 2 cents...

On one hand "Cro-Mag" man is said as if it is fact that he existed; in the next post plead to keep "religion" out of the discussion when in fact they both take faith...the difference is that the bible is the most indepenently verified historical document we humans have...thats fact...as opposed to Darwins "theory" of natural selection is just that; a theory and there is no direct evidence to support it...that's also fact....we as school children were taught this as fact for the last 35 years which it is not.

Here are just a few of the interesting quotes from world renown scientists:


Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."

bob

Westerner: There is a hunter-gatherer thread in the War Zone that lists links of Paleo sites. Please feel free to avail yourself of them.

Caveman: I was not attacking Atkins per se, just using him as an example stating that there has been a lot of research into low-carbing before Atkins arrived on the scene. Isn't it amazing that Banting discovered that low-carbing worked even though he did not have the advantages that we, have today. But his "meager" research started the ball rolling. Putting him down because he did not have the means to state why, does him a disservice. The ball was picked up by others, like MacKarness, Wolfgang Lutz, Atkins, etc. All this research eventually ended up in various low-carb plans, all of which work for a lot of people. If you think that we have learned all there is to know about low-carbing, health, nutrition and nutritional medicine, then by all means, do not pick up another book on the subject.

rpavich; to quote my own journal:

"Evolution is the means through which humans were created. Knowing science only makes the miracle of creation even more amazing and awe inspiring. Believing in evolution does not interfere with my belief in God (I was raised Catholic) It makes me even more humbled by the beauty of God's artistry. So there!"

Believing in evolution (or any other scientific facts) does not mean that a person is an athiest -- all of those scientists you quoted obviously understand scientific facts and that there is a Higher Power responsible for creating it all. I believe in evolution and in God -- they are not mutually exclusive beliefs. Dawin made keen observations about God's methods!

We're just talking.

It's interesting you say that, I went to a Catholic schools through all of my schooling, and they taught us all of Darwin's theories in Biology. It was treated as fact.

Even now as an atheist I can see that the two beliefs do not exclude eachother.

Just because it is said that god created humans doesn't mean it didn't take a while.(and it would seem we're still a work in progress )

pat.