"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
Carl Sagan
"If you were depressed after learning and being exposed to the cosmic perspective,
you started your day with an unjustifiably large ego. You thought more highly of yourself than in fact the circumstances deserved"
39 comments:
Some thoughts:
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2020/02/a-part-of-something-bigger.html
I like Tyson when he talks science. But he is an atheist and his philosophical meanderings reveal this. His idea that when we feel "small" in comparison to the Universe and this makes us dejected that we should view ourselves from a perspective that makes us feel "big" is purely materialistic. What he states doesn't mean anything and materialists, of all people, should know that.
Moreover, if some materialists were dejected over their size in comparison to the Universe they have overlooked the elephant in the room. And that is their lives are utterly meaningless, just churning chemical reactions, so why should they care about anything.
The other point I take exception to is the idea that somehow earth's relative position in the Universe is profoundly significant. The ancients used to believe earth was at the center of the Universe. Who cares? Now we know that it is not. Who cares? Whether the Universe is geocentric or inflationary is a valuable scientific fact but does nothing to inform us about the ultimate meaning of life - even for materialists.
What hypocrisy for Tyson, who's ego is the first thing you notice when he starts to expound his vast wisdom and knowledge to the lowly populace. He's taken Sagan's throne as the current high priest of TV's 'scientific' story tellers, trying to explain away our Creator.
He has the most unlimited "faith" (while ignoring real science) that the highly tuned (26 cosmological constants) infinite Universe came from nothing. Then he has to ignore one of the fundamental laws of biology, bio-genesis, that all life has to come from preexisting life. Evolution offers no clue (except a scum pond and lighting) (sounds like DC) to deal with the impossible origin of life.
All the millions of examples of extreme design all around you have to be ignored, blinded this 'experts" ego. (a huge ego he doesn't see). This pompous "science" super star couldn't begin to design any kind of life form, especially at the cellular level.
He can explain where all the visible energy in the universe came from and has no clue what "dark energy" of "dark matter" is. It's called dark because they don't know.
So, Mr. Tyson, look in the mirror and ask "mirror, mirror on the wall, who has the biggest ego of them all". You'd be looking at him.
“The real problem of humanity is the following: we have paleolithic emotions; medieval institutions; and god-like technology.
nck
nck said...
“The real problem of humanity is the following: we have paleolithic emotions; medieval institutions; and god-like technology"
That's exactly right NCK.
"The Stone Age is the longest period of human history, lasting from 2.6 million years ago to about 5,000 years ago. It is also the period of human history that is the least well known relative to later time periods. Relatively little seems to have changed in the daily lives of people living in this period compared to the last 5000 years, but the changes that did take place were profound since they were the changes that made humanity what it is today.
The Paleolithic represents most of human history, about 2.5 million years, and involves multiple human species . The technology of the Paleolithic developed very slowly, changing very little until about the past 50,000-100,000 years when technological innovation began to accelerate."
https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/stone-age-0012559
We just happen to live in the very still small slice of human time where all we see around us is relatively new to our experience. We have not yet caught up to all we are learning and the pace at which we are learning and applying it. It takes a toll as well which is reflected in the unique problems that plague us mentally, emotionally and even spiritually with the constant quest for "truth" and "what's it all about?" Ultimately we are going to have to learn to depend on ourselves and cooperation with others to survive I imagine.
Like most sociopaths, on a power trip, Neil deGrasse Tyson is a sexual predator. Just like HWA/GTA were. Oftentimes, here on this page, the question is posed about whether or not a positive philosophy come from such diseased behavior, such as the Armstrongs. Can the same be said here as well?
Tyson Sexual misconduct allegations (from Wikipedia)
During November and December 2018, accusations of sexual misconduct were raised against Tyson by four women.[115][116][117] Thchiya Amet El Maat accused Tyson of drugging and raping her while both were graduate students at UT Austin in 1984.[118] Katelyn Allers, a professor at Bucknell University, alleged Tyson touched her inappropriately at a 2009 American Astronomical Society gathering.[119][120]
She had a tattoo of the solar system which went from her arm to collar bone and said he was looking for Pluto.[121] Ashley Watson, Tyson's assistant on Cosmos, alleged Tyson made inappropriate sexual advances on her in 2018 which led her to resign from the position days later.[119][120] In what Tyson described as a Native American handshake, he held her hand and looked her in the eye for ten seconds. When she left, he told her he wanted to hug her but would rather not in case he wanted more.[121] A fourth anonymous woman alleged Tyson made inappropriate comments to her during a 2010 holiday party at the American Museum of Natural History.[115]
821
There is never any sense in talking with those who filter their world and others in the way you do. It is a common view and safe place of retreat for many, especially those threatened by new information or that which disrupts well established and hardened views.
To me, you confuse ego for credentials, an absolute love for teaching and the ability to engage others to listen and ask their questions.
I suspect you are not all that curious about the world you find yourself in and have very hardened and set beliefs that will always be defended and never examined. Of course I could be mistaken.
An Evangelical Guru or Biblical Scholar in the literalist or creationist camp, would not appeal to me any longer no matter what they said having addressed, for myself, those issues and explanations they cling to. So I get your perspectives. But they won't serve you in the long run if you really want to learn about your world and accept that it might be a lot different than you and I were taught as children by any church.
We all come in a box of others making. Most seem never to even examine the box they came in much less step outside of it. It is those who step outside the boxes they came in that bring us more knowledge, more light and more possibilities than when we first believed and stayed put as if we lucked out and ended up, of all things, in the exactly true and right box there could ever be right out of the gate. It's a miracle! :)
Pathetic deflection Tonto, but not to worry! Dr Tyson is a man after Galileo's, Newton's and Edwin Hubbell's own heart so it's all good. Not to mention, but as well as, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence M. Krauss, Michio Kaku, Alan Guth, Neil Turok, Andrei Linde, Brian Greene and Brian Cox's , all of whom I am sure are above reproach, which of course, is necessary for their studies and skills to be valid.
You sound like Dave Pack who dismisses Albert Einstein, "who had wild hair", and a few other faults. Or Aron Ra, who is his own man to the scorn of the insecure here but could bury anyone in his own way of explaining the facts of evolution and the misconceptions that apologists have about those who do not believe and why.
DD wrote: If you were depressed after learning and being exposed to the cosmic perspective, you started your day with an unjustifiably large ego. You thought more highly of yourself than in fact the circumstances deserved"
My Comment: In reading the Posting and comments I find myself wondering why the Post was made and what the Poster is trying to accomplish. It appears to me the Poster assumes that "cosmic perspective" will cause people who have a large ego to be depressed. It is not mentioned but I assume it is the belief that God contributes to a large ego. That may not be what was meant but I find "cosmic perspectives" will not depress those who have a Biblical Christian Faith. A persons life will find peace and joy when they put their trust in an invisible God and the gift of life that comes through accepting Jesus as the governing factor in their Life. I am fully aware of all that is being promoted regarding the universe and the cultures of today, but there is nothing that would improve the life I have lived as a Christian believer.
Tonto,
Herbie's perverse, incestuous pedophilia have a direct bearing on his teachings about morality (e.g. "God Speaks Out on 'The New Morality'" and "The Missing Dimension in Sex") and whether or not he met the qualifications of a minister/elder/apostle of Jesus Christ. While I don't mean to minimize or dismiss the allegations of misconduct against Dr Tyson, it is not the same thing - he hasn't made any claims to being a religious leader or authority. Moreover, the accusations are not relevant to the points which he makes about science in general and cosmology in particular. The question is: How do we address the facts/information which he presents? How do we reconcile the real scientific evidence which he presents with our religious beliefs? Are the two mutually exclusive? Whether or not he's a sexual predator doesn't provide any answers to these questions, or any evidence that his conclusions are flawed or incorrect.
There's tens of millions of scientists on the face of the planet, yet they can't design the simplistic life form. Yet all the vegetation and creatures on this planet supposedly just magically appeared without a designer.
PS how many 'programing steps' are there in a seed?
1140 said "My Comment: In reading the Posting and comments I find myself wondering why the Post was made and what the Poster is trying to accomplish. It appears to me the Poster assumes that "cosmic perspective" will cause people who have a large ego to be depressed. It is not mentioned but I assume it is the belief that God contributes to a large ego. That may not be what was meant but I find "cosmic perspectives" will not depress those who have a Biblical Christian Faith"
The posting was made as a bit of in between before the next specific to the Church of God dramas get posted. Every show has to have its commercials and one can either go potty during them or switch channels until the main program returns. First of all the quote is not mine. Nothing in the simple posting implies that God contributes to a large ego. You read too much into a simple observation about the nature of our ever expanding knowing about the Cosmos and two very different reactions to it.
Many if not most Christians look at all we have learned about the Universe, and not by inspiration mind you, and say "See how great our God is" That's fine but to me that is just an apologetic needed to account for the fact that we finally have figured out that humans are not the center of anything and as Sagan notes, "we have not been given the lead in the cosmic drama." Our knowing about the size, age and origins of the Universe, and perhaps there are multiple ones, makes the Judeo Christian God ever more small and unnecessary in our explanations of everything. The gaps are ever shrinking and squeezing the life out of Bible literalism.
Anyway, not to stray. I think of people we know like Dave Pack, Gerald Flurry, James Malm, albeit a bit player, Bob Thiel, another bit part player and hear how great, unique and right they are as they work for God. Think of it! Pack and Flurry and perhaps even Thiel see themselves spoken of in the scriptures. That is insane. They can take all the titles they want or be the end time whoever but it is bullshit and there is not one iota of truth in it. It is their religious ego that has them by the balls to see themselves as such. I guarantee you, NOTHING of what they predict or of who they think they are will come to pass. They will live, make fools of themselves and their groupies.
It is ego and the self absorb mind that runs their show and deceives them into making themselves mean what nothing ever meant them to be and they are not. HWA was plagued by it and look at the mess he started
And Tonto, be reminded that we have here on Banned straight, gay, multiply married and divorced, other atheists and agnostics as well as some in the splinters who you regularly communicate with and listen to if not agree with without dismissing them here because they had real life experiences, made mistakes or drew conclusions from their own journey through religion different from yours. So the "But Neil sinned, therefore.." baloney is just that. He is one of the worlds foremost experts in Cosmology and loved by millions for his enthusiasm and teaching approach tot he sciences. He also is a bit of a philosopher understanding what he does and that's ok too as the Universe will turn anyone into one if only they step outside the box
DD wrote: "Dr Tyson is a man after Galileo's, Newton's and Edwin Hubbell's own heart so it's all good. Not to mention, but as well as, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence M. Krauss, Michio Kaku, Alan Guth, Neil Turok, Andrei Linde, Brian Greene and Brian Cox's , all of whom I am sure are above reproach, which of course, is necessary for their studies and skills to be valid."
I don't think this argument means much. How do we know who wins? Is it whoever cites the longest list of partisan scientists?
The men cited by DD above deal in meta-science (when addressing the origins and future of the Universe) rather than cosmology based on empirical findings. Alan Guth developed the current and popular Inflationary Theory and he is up front about saying it is speculative, for example.
All we really have empirically are the Observable Universe, some trends we can extrapolate and some evidences like cosmic microwave background (CMB) and fine-tuning. The latter argues overwhelmingly for a Creator. Fine-tuning can only be assailed by the existence of a multiverse which is, again, only meta-science.
This does not affect the essential direction of Tyson's argument. The Observable Universe is big beyond imagination. It is humbling to consider it if you believe in God. If you are an atheistic materialist, the size of the Universe doesn't make any difference. It could be infinite or infinitesimal. It's all just meaningless stuff.
PS All I'm saying Tonto is that if one only listens to those who have not done wrong things, live counter to how someone else does or has to filter people through one's own shoulds and musts, should nots or must nots, before they achieve credibility, you'll learn nothing ever from anyone.
Dennis incorrectly describes Neil deGrasse Tyson as
one of the worlds foremost experts in Cosmology
Tyson is a highly skilled communicator, and has a knack for bridging the gap between arcane science and popular understanding. However, his academic career was very ordinary (he even flunked out of one PhD program before completing another), and his doctoral work was in astrophysics, not cosmology. Astronomers and physicists who do science for a living don't express great respect for his intellect or his research skill, but even at UT where he flunked out of the PhD program he was noted as an exceptional lecturer in front of undergraduate classrooms. Tyson is one of the world's foremost communicators in astrophysics, but he has often taken the Richard Dawkins path of acting like an expert outside of his actual field, which earns him the ire of serious scientists.
Dennis, I understand your points. However, many on here dismiss HWA/GTA because of their obvious and revealed scandalous behaviors too, and use this as an ad hominen evidence to do so.
You said...
"if one only listens to those who have not done wrong things, live counter to how someone else does or has to filter people through one's own shoulds and musts, should nots or must nots, before they achieve credibility, you'll learn nothing ever from anyone."
So my real question then to you Dennis is , does that apply to the Armstrongs too? I personally reject their credibility. How do they fit into your credibility "meter" is really the gist of my inquiry.
Also, there is a limit to ones ability, or societies ability to be as libertine as you are proposing. When does ones behavior become so onerous that they indeed lose the privilege of being any kind of a mentor, even in an arena separate from that arena?
Dennis
My take on Tonto's comment is that if a scientist is immoral, his/het impartiality on topics related to morality, such as evolution, is questionable. It's different with the hard sciences such as pure physics and chemistry since there is no incentive to lie. So Einsteins or Newtons short coming are irrelevant, plus their conclusions can easily be proved or disproved by peer review.
Beware of city slicker science Pharisees!! They are wolves in sheep's clothing.
PS would you buy a used car from Tyson?
My Comment in my in 11:40 AM I was questioning what you expected to add to the people reading your Post and the comments people made. I agree there is a lot of information from sources that are destructive, abusive, questionable, self serving , etc. I do not agree with the idea that human life plays insignificant role in the universe. It is illogical to think that human life evolved from nothing or that human life can rule the universe. This is the reason human life looks for a higher form of life. Having said that the next step humanity needs to focus on is the development of system that will allow the diversity of human life to be unified in its role in the universe. To me that is the foundation of the Christian Faith even though it has a long way to go yet.
Tonto said "You said...
"if one only listens to those who have not done wrong things, live counter to how someone else does or has to filter people through one's own shoulds and musts, should nots or must nots, before they achieve credibility, you'll learn nothing ever from anyone."
So my real question then to you Dennis is , does that apply to the Armstrongs too? I personally reject their credibility. How do they fit into your credibility "meter" is really the gist of my inquiry.
I SUPPOSE IT WOULD IF THEY WERE CORRECT IN THEIR VIEWS OF SCRIPTURE OR INSPITE OF IT ALL IT WAS THE TRUE CHURCH AND THERE WAS A BOARD OR SOMETHING THAT ENFORCED ACCOUNTABILITY ON THE ARMSTRONGS WHICH THERE WAS NOT. IF HWAS AND GTA WAS DISMISSED FOR THEIR PERSONAL PROBLEMS THAT IS A SYSTEM THAT WORKS. I ALSO BELIEVE IN APOLOGIES ACCEPTED. NOW LETS DO BETTER AND GET ON WITH IT. HOWEVER THAT SYSTEM WAS BUILT ON HWAS SO WAS INCAPABLE OF SELF CORRECTING OR THEIR BEING ACCOUNTABLE TO ANYONE AND GOING ON SUCCESSFULLY WITHOUT THEM.
I SEE IT THE SAME WAY I WOULD IF I HEARD THE APOSTLE PAUL GO ON AND ON ABOUT HOW BAD HE VIEWED HIMSELF, DID NOT DO WHAT HE SHOULD AND DID DO WHAT HE SHOULDN'T ETC. I'D WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT WAS THAT HE WAS DOING THAT HE FELT HE HAD TO KEEP HIMSELF AND BEAT HIMSELF LEST HE FALL AWAY ETC. ULTIMATELY HWA , TO ME, AND WCG ALONG WITH THE BIGGER PICTURE OF BIBLE LITERALISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM FAILED. MY PERSONAL WCG EXPERIENCE OPENED ME UP TO ANSWERING FOR MYSELF THE QUESTION THAT KNOWING THE BIBLE FAIRLY WELL RAISED FOR ME PERSONALLY IN MANY WAYS.
I MYSELF WAS NOT ABLE TO NAVIGATE THE DEMANDS OF MINISTRY AND BIBLICAL "MUST BE" EITHER. THE MINISTRY IS A RATHER UNFAIR POSITION TO PUT ANYONE IN. I KNOW A NUMBER OF CURRENT MINISTER TYPES WHO STRUGGLE WITH THEIR OWN DEMONS AND MEMBERS OF COURSE TOO. THE "BECOME YE THEREFORE PERFECT, (MATURE OR WHATEVER) AS YOUR HEAVENLY FATHER IS PERFECT IS SOMETHING I HAVE NEVER SEEN IN ANYONE MUCH LESS MYSELF EVER.
TONTO: "Also, there is a limit to ones ability, or societies ability to be as libertine as you are proposing. When does ones behavior become so onerous that they indeed lose the privilege of being any kind of a mentor, even in an arena separate from that arena? "
I'm NOT PROPOSING LIBERTINE ANYTHING. IN OUR CULTURE, ONEROUS BEHAVIOR DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT YOU DO. IN MINISTRY IT IS PRETTY TIGHT AND NOT MANY FALSE MOVES ARE ALLOWED. ROCK STARS ARE MUCH MORE FREE TO BE LIBERTINE, LOVED AND TOLERATED IN ALL THEY DO BECAUSE NO ONE HAS EXPECTATIONS FOR A ROCK STAR. POETS AND WRITERS ARE GIVEN THE SAME SLACK IN PERSONAL LIVES. I BELIVE, OF COURSE I DO, IN LAW AND ORDER BUT PERHAPS CREDIT TOO MANY WHO DON'T DESERVE IT WITH THE ABILITY TO USE THEIR COMMON SENSE AND DO UNTO OTHERS PROPERLY. THAT KIND OF NAIVETE' ON MY PART HAS BITTEN ME MORE THAN ONCE.
I SUPPOSE TOO THE WHEN ENOGH IS ENOUGH LIES WITH THE STUDENT. IF ONE DOESN'T LIKE TYSON THERE ARE MANY OTHERS WHO WOULD TEACH THE SAME EVIDENCE FOR THE TOPIC WHO DON'T HAVE BAGGAGE OR AT LEAST NONE THAT ANYONE IS AWARE OF. SAME WITH RELIGIOUS TEACHERS. I CAN LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCE FOR THE THEORY AND NOT WORRY ABOUT THE PERSONAL LIFE OF THE TEACHER MORE EASILY IN A SCIENTIFIC FIELD THAN IN A RELIGIOUS ONE FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. PRACTICING WHAT ONE PREACHES IS MORE A FUNCTION OF RELIGION THAN EXPLAINING WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE OR HOW THE UNIVERSE SEEMS TO WORK.
THROWING BABIES OUT WITH BATHWATER MAYBE APPLIES.
Anonymous said...
PS would you buy a used car from Tyson?
Tyson doesn't sell used cars. He's an astrophysicist. I'd attend a seminar, lecture or class taught by him in his chosen field any day.
I was a fan of Dr. Tyson's long before he was ever mentioned here. Always found his programs on PBS to be fascinating. Like all good teachers, he has the gift of making the learning experience memorable.
BB
Alan Watts explains the contradictions of the saint/sinner problem pretty well in "This Is It"
"Especially deplorable is the kind of person who might be called the extreme mugwump--the one who has his extremities very far out on both sides of the fence. that is, for example, the common scandal of the saint-sinner, the individual who appears in public as the champion of the spirit, but who is in private some sort of rake.
Very often his case is not so simple as that of the mere hypocrite. He is genuinely attracted to both extremes. Not only does social convention compel him to publish one and suppress the other, but most often he himself horribly torn between the two. He veers between moods of intense holiness and outrageous licentiousness, suffer between times the most appalling pangs of conscience. This type is, indeed, especially common in clerical and academic circles, just because these vocations attract highly sensitive human beings who feel the lure of both extremes more strongly than other.
Only in the artist is this duplicity more or less accepted, perhaps because beauty is the one attribute shared in common by God and the Devil.... It is thus that for our society, the artist (star, celebrity, musician etc) is kind of a harmless clown, an entertainer from whom nothing is expected save proficiency in the realm of the irrelevant, since his function is taken to be no more than decoration of surfaces. For this reason the artist can get away with a private life that would be scandalous for the priest or the professor."
"This Is it" Alan Watts pages 116-117
What is interesting to me, is that the Bible states that God made Man in his image. In reality, we have made God in our image.
What advantage is there for an immortal being making and controlling the universe in being shaped like a man?
Why would he have a tabernacle tent?
If the universe was created by an outside agent, then I am guessing that it is nothing like the God of the Bible.
Sorry to break in and go off topic, but I thought this was major:
Bob says he replaced the old curtains!
This is insane.
A character assassination for disagreeing with someone's line of work.
Would Tonto stop for a missed red traffic light when a transgender person alerts him too it??
Tonto's true feathers will color read soon if he judges people and their accomplishments and talents by perceived misdeeds. Would he stop using Tupperware if he found something on the founder of that organisation's.
As a matter of fact does he refuse to use I phone because Steve Jobs was more unpleasant than HWA to be around or did not see his children very much (if you were just a mediocre judge/scientist/manager) ? Are those reasons to use Android?
I don't even know why I am responding to such logical fallacy.
Is Pres Kennedy less inspiring to an entire generation because they did not know his flaws? Are the tourist stupid to visit the pyramids since the pharaoh was a noted dictator? Is Versailles not a work of art, yet payed for by exploited peasants and built by a man whose face rotted because of "relations with a certain woman?
Nck
HWA and GTA's immoral behavior disqualified themselves (via Biblical standards) as "bishops" and although they have used verbal sleight of hand and semantics to backpedal their way out of Deut 18:22, it is plain that they did indeed speak presumptuously things that the Lord had not spoken. So their life's work has rightly been called into question.
On the other hand, Dr. Tyson's alleged immoral behavior did not in any way disqualify him as an astrophysicist. If you are a lady, you might want to avoid parties at which he is present.
Me Too, a trend of our times, has led people to blackball and repudiate the life work of sexual predators. Is that really a bad thing? Many of the targets of Me Too were very talented and trusted. I used to really enjoy Tavis Smiley's PBS program.
On the other hand, at AC we were taught that classical music was more Godly than rock n roll, even though many of the composers had mental health issues and were kinky sexually. Unfortunately, WCG/HWA fostered many double standards.
BB
Here's an extensive list of ignorant people according to some on this blog. I guess it's a good thing that we have these bloggers to straighten us out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
Thus, Tyson must have been kicked off PBS! (like Charlie Rose & Garrison Keillor)
Good, I cant stand him!
Any theory of the universe will satisfy Dennis, as long as it can be passed off as science and make Herbites look ignorant.
Brainless Benjamin.
Pop cosmology is only slightly more intelligent than the pop culture it is aimed at.
If any of you are interested in some general education, there are a lot of good documentaries on Amazon and Netflix.
One of the more interesting things I learned was our gut has about 300 million neurons - the same as a cat or dog - and influences our brain constantly.
Then there is our microbiome which not only processes some of our food, but also influences us. They had one amusing example of a microbiome in some mice that makes them like cats - who then eat them - and absorbs their mircobiome which prefers cats.
So if you have a gut feel for something, maybe it is your second brain telling you what to do.
DennisCDiehl said: “It is thus that for our society, the artist (star, celebrity, musician etc) is kind of a harmless clown, an entertainer from whom nothing is expected save proficiency in the realm of the irrelevant, since his function is taken to be no more than decoration of surfaces. For this reason the artist can get away with a private life that would be scandalous for the priest or the professor.”
Beware those men. The jokers and the tricksters and the clowns. They will laugh us into hell!
TLA said...
Then there is our microbiome which not only processes some of our food, but also influences us. They had one amusing example of a microbiome in some mice that makes them like cats - who then eat them - and absorbs their mircobiome which prefers cats.
So if you have a gut feel for something, maybe it is your second brain telling you what to do.
**********
So this adds an entirely new dimension to the divine diet of avoidance of unclean meats to me now🤔
TLA
Of cats and dogs.
I like that for a movie script.
I heard the use of the pill has hormonal effects too.
It seems that female users get attracted to men they would otherwise deem smelly, unattractive or obnoxious.
This must have an effect when they stop the pill to get pregnant and discover who they really married. Anyway it seems women discover that anyway when they get pregnant as evidenced by the curses and spells casted during the birthing process.
Anyway. Some people really are "pigs" or "snakes"...... Some are sweety pies.
Nck
"They had one amusing example of a microbiome in some mice that makes them like cats - who then eat them - and absorbs their mircobiome which prefers cats."
TLA, would you please share that link? I've searched "microbiome" "cat" and "mice" but can't find it.
Thanks
km
Found this. Very interesting.
https://www.viome.com/blog/whos-really-control-how-your-gut-microbiome-impacts-your-mental-health
Post a Comment