Sentences with phrase «modern humans were not»

At the time of this event, Doug was a student of evolutionary biology, and he became curious why modern humans were not developing — physically and mentally — with the same ease as their early human predecessors.

If additional evidence is found to support the claims, however, this could mean that anatomically modern humans were not the first members of the genus Homo to arrive in the New World.

«This study provides indirect support to the idea that Middle Palaeolithic Hominins, probably Neandertals, were able to consume fish when it was available, and that therefore, the prey choice of Neandertals and modern humans was not fundamentally different,» says Hervé Bocherens.

He and his colleagues argue that today's better understanding of the pace of evolution, human adaptability and the way the mind works all suggest that, contrary to cartoon stereotypes, modern humans are not just primitive savages struggling to make psychological sense of an alien contemporary world.

Not exact matches

After several years of research, in 2011 De Brouwer launched Scanadu, a start - up he believes can be instrumental in solving one of modern health care's major flaws: that humans rely too heavily on the expertise of doctors and not nearly enough on data.

That doesn't mean that every kid growing up in the suburbs of Dallas will succeed — far from it — but it does mean you have access to the tools modern humans need to be economically competitive.

Not only does this suggest modern humans might have been stepping tentatively into Europe and getting friendly with Neanderthals long before the wave of migration that led to today's population, it shows Neanderthals were more diverse than we thought.

With the recent discovery of anatomically modern humans evolving 100,000 years earlier than previously estimated, it's not out of the question that our ancestors did a lot of moving about.

Well before modern genetic engineering technology was around, humans found ways to tweak the DNA of plants by zapping it with chemicals or radiation — resulting in crops that are not considered GMOs.

Fiber optics technology is a marvel of human ingenuity, not to mention physics and design, and with it comes high - capacity digital communications for a modern age.

«Modern waste to energy recovery facilities that are designed and operated in accordance with current stringent regulations do not adversely impact human health or the environment,» asserted Sarah Foster a founding member of Maryland based scientific research and consulting firm, CPF Associates.

Meaning that modern primates all have a common ancestor, not that all humans were once monkeys.

Could it have been god telling us how to protect ourselves from disease, germs, and bacteria?Couldn't you see a scientist from today's time, going back to the bible days, and trying to explain, the things we as the human race didn't know till modern times?

It doesn't matter to me whether this is «correct» exegesis — either the Bible finds some way of adapting to the modern notions of morality, or it gets left by the wayside on the ever growing dung - heap of rejected holy texts of human history — in my opinion, that's the historical moment we are currently faced with.

I agree with your post, Mr. Stephens — insofar as I believe that a cobbled - together patchwork of Bronze Age myths that sanction slavery, genocide, human sacrifice, and child murder should not be arbitrarily invoked as the sole determinate for notions of morality in the modern world.

By extension, evolving from less advanced life forms is distasteful to those same individuals, as that necessitates a point in evolution at which humans are not really humans at all in the modern sense, which then brings up problems such as «do slugs go to heaven?»

Ancient religions should welcome the political achievements of modernity while calling modernity to open its windows and doors to a world of transcendent truth and love: ``... the great achievements of the modern age» the recognition and guarantee of freedom of conscience, of human rights, of the freedom of science and hence of a free society» should be confirmed and developed while keeping reason and freedom open to their transcendent foundation, so as to ensure that these achievements are not undone....

It's unique among modern religions in that human sacrifice:» (Jesus) is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.»

And Socrates» paradoxical statement in Plato's Apology that «not out of money does virtue arise, but out of virtue money and all other goods for human beings, both private and public» - a passage that has given modern scholars fits for generations - underscores the self - sufficiency of the virtuous individual.

It does not describe said individuals and their posterity, ancient or modern, as of less worth, or value as human beings than any other group.

One understanding of human nature common to the modern era sees man as standing both above and outside nature (after Descartes, as a sort disembodied rational being), and nature itself as raw material — sometimes more pliable, sometimes less — for furthering human ambition (an instrumentalist post — Francis Bacon view of nature as a reality not simply to be understood but to be «conquered» and used to satisfy human desires).

Looking at society from a modern perspective, there seems to be very little reason not to maximize human happiness, as long as it hurts no one.

First, its premisses concerning society and modern man are pseudoscientific: for example, the affirmation that man has become adult, that he no longer needs a Father, that the Father - God was invented when the human race was in its infancy, etc.; the affirmation that man has become rational and thinks scientifically, and that therefore he must get rid of the religious and mythological notions that were appropriate when his thought processes were primitive; the affirmation that the modern world has been secularized, laicized, and can no longer countenance religious people, but if they still want to preach the kerygma they must do it in laicized terms; the affirmation that the Bible is of value only as a cultural document, not as the channel of Revelation, etc. (I say «affirmation» because these are indeed simply affirmations, unrelated either to fact or to any scientific knowledge about modern man or present - day society.)

On the Crusades — «not the proudest moment in Christian history but nor were they the childish caricature of modern Western guilt and certainly not that of contemporary Muslim paranoia» — he goes into some detail to describe not only the background and the geopolitical state of things, but also the realities of human behaviour, both good and bad.

Disputed questions about the nature of Christ's divinity or the details of human salvation are not ancient quarrels that modern Christians ought to forget.

Heidegger's presentation of the possibilities of human existence suggests that they are applicable to man as such, and not, say, only to modern European man.

The problem may not be with rights per se, whose articulation is invaluable to our conception of modern republicanism (and may even help more fully articulate what is true about Christian morality), but with an interpretation that takes rights as the whole of moral discourse and therefore, understands the abstract Lockean individual to be a comprehensive account of the human person.

In agreement with most nonteleological expressions in the liberal political tradition, this theory affirms that rights articulate a universal or natural moral law; but, against the persisting weight of the modern natural law tradition, the universal right to general emancipation is not bound to the assertion that human rights are independent of any inclusive good.

To speak of sexual undertakings in the way implied by the traditional marriage rites of the churches is to deny people access to a basic human good from the start and for reasons that are difficult if not impossible for modern people to grasp.

The scope of human life was radically narrowed — and is to this day in countries that have not experienced modern economic growth.

Nevertheless, while acknowledging that this notion of freedom in its individualistic extreme can not remain uncriticized, we must also assert that the sense of personal human dignity is very much a feature of any modern definition of human existence and can not be facilely discarded.

Just as ridiculous is the post modern response of «they cant change» - which if true would mean that any addiction or sin would be unchangeable despite the facts humans change all the time and I am NOT speaking of through Christ.

In the West, human freedom has not, of course, always been understood in terms of individual autonomy (cf. the thought of St. Augustine and John Calvin on this point); and there is some evidence that the modern individualistic understanding of freedom is fundamentally responsible for some of our present cultural difficulties.

to devin, at this point of our existence or civilization, our consciousness has reach a point of complexity that God in His will, wanted us humans now to implement it through our evolved modern wisdom.that we have to all unite and focus our concern and attention to the greatest challenge of our existence, which is survival, Its not the rituals or praising Him, or outwardly expressing our belief or love for Him, but our positve contribution to the good of humanity.

Maybe modern science is wrong and the world really is only 6,000 years old... maybe God created primates to turn into humans, and the first to become man was Adam... maybe the Big Bang theory was God on the first day creating the heavens and the universe... the fact is, I don't know.

I don't consider myself «postmodern» or «emerging» but most of the postmodern / emerging philosophy and theology I have read is a reaction against a modern philosophy and theology which overemphasized «the many» (the human ability to figure things out on our own), and as a result, is not too humanistic, but is almost excessively spiritual.

«Did you say souls are imaginary and do not exist in direct contravention of modern human psychology which says it does?»

There are four types of evil of which the modern age is particularly aware: the loneliness of modern man before an unfriendly universe and before men whom he associates with but does not meet; the increasing tendency for scientific instruments and techniques to outrun man's ability to integrate those techniques into his life in some meaningful and constructive way; the inner duality of which modern man has become aware through the writings of Dostoievsky and Freud and the development of psychoanalysis; and the deliberate and large - scale degradation of human life within the totalitarian state.

Also in the face of the ecological disaster created by the modern ideas of total separation of humans from nature and of the unlimited technological exploitation of nature, it is proper for primal vision to demand, not an undifferentiated unity of God, humanity and nature or to go back to the traditional worship of nature - spirits, but to seek a spiritual framework of unity in which differentiation may go along with a relation of responsible participatory interaction between them, enabling the development of human community in accordance with the Divine purpose and with reverence for the community of life on earth and in harmony with nature's cycles to sustain and renew all life continuously.

It is this one - sidedness we have to correct because we do not want to give up the human achievements of the modern period.

One of the proud towers of the modern world is confidence in reason — not in the human power for reason (the ancient world celebrated that power) but rather the powers...

To him, this Kingdom was not located in another place called heaven or in a future millennium, but could best be described in modern terms as a level of consciousness in which one recognized the immanence of God in human life and the interconnected, interacting, interdependent nature of the entire human species.

This situation is witnessed to by the fact that the only metaphysical issue where there is a virtual consensus among mainstream twentieth century Catholic thinkers, apart from the reality of human subjectivity mentioned above, is the claim that the discoveries of modern science should not have a significant influence upon metaphysics.

I appreciate that St Thomas didn't get everything right - no mere human being ever could; I also agree that a theological synthesis in the light of modern science is desirable.

The problem of modern man is not that of finding deliverance from the unseen powers of evil, or from the burden of guilt, but is the search for meaning in human existence.

If «nature» is taken as the modern word for creation, then human beings are part of nature, not outside it.

And finally, it's the tendency of modern and liberal thinkers to be weak on personal love, on those human experiences that can't be reduced to contract and consent but which make life worth living.

Gaudium et Spes chose to confront modern - day atheism by referring to Christ, not only as the centre, but as the fulfilment of what it means to be human.

Indeed, most cultures in human history have generated no such marvel as the modern scientific movement, and even in our own culture, scientifically oriented as it is supposed to be, most people accept the benefits of technology and use the vocabulary of science but do not in fact choose to abide by the disciplines that alone make scientific productivity possible.

With respect to the problem of power in relation to human sexual differentiation, I am not concerned to defend either traditional or modern versions of the roles of men and women, or to deny or affirm their distinctive natures, regardless of whether these differences are understood to be inherent or culturally derived.