The answer is given by the authors previously cited.
Jeff
The answer is given by the authors previously cited.
Jeff
Well my daddy did a lot of traveling in his day, could be. Lots of folks beside me have black blood LOL
mike
That OK we knew you could not answer that question, nobody can. LOL
mike
Jeff is starting to sound like Joey....
So you're cutting Chuck lose, and going for a longer timeline for earth? It's a step.
If there's been no evolution, how do you explain vestigial organs, including men's nipples? Are they God's mistakes?
That doesn't follow. Having make and female (sexual reproduction, in other words) speeds up the evolutionary process by allowing greater genetic variability in the offspring.
Your argument is like saying "how can you believe in a perfect God when people have useless parts like an appendix?"
The two don't have anything to do with each other.
You are missing the point, if it is evolution of the primeval slime why would a male a female ever have evolved? Ever changing sells, splitting would be the only thing needed to create another or a new evolved species. There would be no need for "eggs" to be fertilized. Why would there be DNA?
mike
The point seems to be you don't have a clue as to what DNA is, or does.
I think you don't understand what I'm referring to by the term 'evolution'. You seem to think that Darwinian evolution is based on the idea that life sprung spontaneously from the earth in direct opposition to Biblical creationism. That wasn't Darwin's point at all.
Evolution by means of natural selection is silent on the ultimate origin of life. It is merely a proposed mechanism by which existing living things gradually give rise to new species over time. It is quite possible to embrace the ideas of natural selection and the existence of a Creator. Darwin didn't say where life came from, he just proposed a mechanism to explain how it changed.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required