[Jack O'fagan]

So a quick question for you. You say that first of all there were rocks, then the rocks turned into some basic life form.
This basic life form then starting reproducing itself and got more complex. Then you say it split into male and female and then they reproduced that way from then on. What made that happen? Genetic mutation? It only works with fully formed male and female genitals that can produce sperm and eggs. It also needs a womb. A bit of each doesn't work. Slow development doesn't work. Genetic mutation that produces just a male doesn't work. Genetic mutation that produces just a female doesn't work. If the timing is out by one generation is doesn't work. If the 'bits' don't fit it doesn't work.

Did a simple animal that previously reproduced itself mutate in one generation as a fully formed male and female? If not how did it happen?? Do you know or are you just working on faith?



Here's a clue. The answer is below,


Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

YIC

Jack

[MitzaLizalor]

The evolutionist substitutes the word "gender" for "sex" in order to deny God's Majesty and His Perfect Plan For Salvation.

Sex = male and female. . . (boy/girl man/woman boar/sow)
Gender = masculine and feminine. . . (some languages have masculine or feminine nouns)

They are not the same thing. A man can be "feminine" but is still male.

God tells us about the effeminate, and there are many examples of how they to be treated in His Law. The Bible tells us that God's Law is good.

I Corinthians 6:9-10
I Timothy 1:8-10

The heathen secularist cannot distinguish. He thinks that if he is "feminine" he is therefore "female" and can demand "gender re-assignment" at the taxpayers' expense.

This piece gives a glimpse into the mind of one such abomination.

The Guardian is a well known hot-bed of left-wing sociopaths, but even they could not deny the emotional swamp which is the "transgender" mind. The expression primeval slime immediately springs to mine.

GUARDIAN

In that study a control group is mentioned (there wasn't one). It would be unethical to provide one, according to Mr Bellringer.

Urological surgeon James Bellringer, who has performed more than 200 sex changes over the past four years, claimed that trying to carry out research that involves studying a control group of transsexual patients who were denied hormones and surgery would be unethical.

What The Guardian did not reveal is the actual suicide rate among those who did undergo the mutilation procedure. It would not be politically correct for them to do so, it would deny the Marxist agenda they are beholden to, challenge the Darwinism they so adore. In their future dystopia there will be only simian squabbling such as we see today in every mahommaden land. Upon denying God - whether one worships the moon or one's own genitals, Mr O'fagan - insanity would seem to be only certain outcome. Perhaps you could confirm whether that is correct?

[Zechariah Smyth]

Brother Jack, you won't get a logical or Biblically-sound reply because there is NOT one.

I imagine if you were to put the average Jesus-hating atheist liberal under a dose of sodium pentathol you would get something like "Charles Darwin took a time machine and using Harry Potter's wand and some Tinkerbell dust he magically modified the cosmic gloop into male and female gloops."

Those crazy jackals will believe ANYTHING.

(1 John 4:1) "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

Yours in Christ,

Z. Smyth

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Every species having males and females would have to have evolved a compatible male and female close enough in time for them to mate. For just one species, it's improbable enough; for every species, the probability is so low as to be effectively zero.

[Bobby-Joe]

One just has to look at the female gender with with draw backs; excessive weight gain, passive personality, permanently juvenile looks to realize that only God could have created such a thing as a punishment. I mean if evolution was true woman would be 7ft and have natural body armor plus spikes to protect their babies. Not be soft and squishy.

[Redeemed Papist]

Originally Posted by Bobby-Joe

One just has to look at the female gender with with draw backs; excessive weight gain, passive personality, permanently juvenile looks to realize that only God could have created such a thing as a punishment. I mean if evolution was true woman would be 7ft and have natural body armor plus spikes to protect their babies. Not be soft and squishy.

If evolution was true then everything would have evolved to be inedible and poisonous and spiky by now anyway. It's just daft.

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Jack O'fagan

This basic life form then starting reproducing itself and got more complex. Then you say it split into male and female and then they reproduced that way from then on. What made that happen? Genetic mutation? It only works with fully formed male and female genitals that can produce sperm and eggs. It also needs a womb. A bit of each doesn't work. Slow development doesn't work. Genetic mutation that produces just a male doesn't work. Genetic mutation that produces just a female doesn't work. If the timing is out by one generation is doesn't work. If the 'bits' don't fit it doesn't work.

I'm sure secularists will use this problem somehow to justify anal sex. They can't seem to get their minds off of it.

[MitzaLizalor]

Originally Posted by Billy Bob Jenkins

I'm sure secularists will use this problem somehow to justify anal sex. They can't seem to get their minds off of it.

Like this: if evolution (& survival of the "fittest") were true -- I would not exist. We would be a hybrid Neanderthal/Sapiensis tyranny ruled by the most obnoxious alpha-specimen (whether male or female) and look out when the next one comes along!!!!!!!!!!!!

How unlike the Perfect Love of our Creator

BBC

Scientists claim that the first human baby could be born from a transplanted womb within three years.
[Professor Mats Brannstrom, presenting his work at the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology annual meeting in Madrid] says that it may even be technically possible one day to transplant a womb into a man, and use hormone injections to allow a pregnancy to succeed.

[Jack O'fagan]

COME ON EVOLUTIONISTS!!

Isn't even one of you man enough to try and answer the question??

Was it like this?

Creature one. What the hells this down here, I'm a freak!!

Creature two. Damn! I got something down there as well but mine sticks out!!

Creature one. I'm really upset about this, I'm getting emotional.

Creature two. Me too, give my a big hug.

Creature one. Oooooohhhhh!!

Creature two. OOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhhhhh, yeh baby!!!!!!!!!


Come one evolutionists, lets have the answer. I can only assume you don't know. Your silence is deafening.

YIC

Jack

[Pastor William Nathaniel Sampson]

Praise Jesus! Brother Jack is absolutely right. These are the things that scientists can't answer!

[MitzaLizalor]

Originally Posted by Jack O'fagan

Come one evolutionists, lets have the answer. I can only assume you don't know. Your silence is deafening.

and after - how many million years do they say it's been? - they still can't tell the difference

I Peter 2:15

[Fleabitten Wolf]

We studied it a bit in cellular biology. So I'll have a go at it.

like you said, there were rocks, then water. Uni-cellulars started to run around and eat each other and reproduced themselves by creating identical copies of themselves. The very first multicellular being was a plant i believe ( an organism living by photosynthesis) which came from a cell eating another without killing it they lived together in synthesis. a bunch of years later, different cells had different purposes (some to nourish the organism, others to reproduce for instance). i believe thats where it came from.

[Fleabitten Wolf]

anyway thats they thought us in college. a better question yet would be where do emotions come from? the is far more farfetched than the one regarding the gender

[Trent Harvey, Jr.]

Originally Posted by Fleabitten Wolf

anyway thats they thought us in college. a better question yet would be where do emotions come from? the is far more farfetched than the one regarding the gender

14 posts in a day from unsaved trash....Will a mod please infract this guy for spamming?

[Fleabitten Wolf]

Originally Posted by Trent Harvey, Jr.

14 posts in a day from unsaved trash....Will a mod please infract this guy for spamming?

yeah seriously. look how unreasonable i am!

on a very serious note, it is interesting to note that females knew that their place was in the kitchen even at a unicellular level. nature truly is a godsend. litterally

[Jack O'fagan]

Originally Posted by Fleabitten Wolf

We studied it a bit in cellular biology. So I'll have a go at it.

like you said, there were rocks, then water. Uni-cellulars started to run around and eat each other and reproduced themselves by creating identical copies of themselves. The very first multicellular being was a plant i believe ( an organism living by photosynthesis) which came from a cell eating another without killing it they lived together in synthesis. a bunch of years later, different cells had different purposes (some to nourish the organism, others to reproduce for instance). i believe thats where it came from.

So bits of plants turned into male and female animals, oh, I've got it now.


Hi Grandma! smile for the camera.

[Fleabitten Wolf]

Originally Posted by Jack O'fagan

So bits of plants turned into male and female animals, oh, I've got it now.


Hi Grandma! smile for the camera.

it was an aquatic plant, i cant remember of the name. i say plant because it was using photosynthesis to feed itself (chloroplasts) but i think it was a multicellular protist. hang on lemme get my old blasphemic satanic notebook. i think im mixing stuff up. i studied in french so the terms are pretty different.

and technically, that plant would be both your grandma AND grandpa since prokaryotes possess both sex.

an abomination!

[Fleabitten Wolf]

errr... what am I saying. prokaryotes didnt have a gender, they just split themselves up to reproduce. eukaryotes had different cells meant for different things, such as having a male and female gonades.

ok i got it. found the notebook. i got mixed up pretty bad. first there were prokaryotes, which didnt possess a sex. then (their theory) is that one of em ate another but instead of digesting it, they went in a symbiotic relationship (symbiosis) and they created the first cell ever to have a nucleus (1.2 billion years ago, blasphemy). from then on, it started having a whole bunch of different parts like mitochondrias. thats when they started to concieve sexually. their male gonade would meet the female gonade and thats pretty much how it started.

hermaphrodite cells. yup, thats where we come from according to them.

[sonjay]

Hi guys. This is a pretty detailed explanation.
http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/20...ex-evolve.html

To make it short, it started with bacteria swapping genetic information in unfavorable conditions (because the higher chance of mutation might give them an organism capable of surviving) and then progressed to creatures that reproduced sexually exclusively!

Glad to be of assistance and may the blessings of god be upon you!

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Originally Posted by sonjay

Hi guys. This is a pretty detailed explanation.
http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/20...ex-evolve.html

To make it short, it started with bacteria swapping genetic information in unfavorable conditions (because the higher chance of mutation might give them an organism capable of surviving) and then progressed to creatures that reproduced sexually exclusively!

Glad to be of assistance and may the blessings of god be upon you!

Dear Monkeyworshiper;

Can you back any of that up with Scripture?

YIC,

--Pastor Ezekiel