Science and Sex and Evolution
June 15, 2006
My wife was especially amorous last night, up for some steamy romance. Of course, I wanted no part of it, for all my thoughts were of science. Specifically, science and sex and evolution.
Because if the evolutionists are right, somewhere in our primordial chain, we must have switched from amoeba reproduction (asexual) to bird n bees reproduction (sexual) Somewhere, one blob, or if further along in the chain, one critter, became a guy, and at the same time, another blob or critter became a girl. It must have been at the same time in order to procreate.
The astute person will have noticed that when gay couples desire children, they always adopt ready-made babies, they do not produce their own.
The evolutionist folk will tell us that any specific mutation is a one in a googozillian chance. Not very likely at all, yet ……give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, and one of them will eventually write the complete works of Shakespeare! All the dopey monkeys who only scrawl obscenities don’t count, because natural selection ensures that only the good mutations stand. If something seems a little fishy with that argument, never mind. Let it stand for now.
For we are not dealing with one one-in-a-googozillian mutation, but two, each complementary to the other. It’s no good to have a guy without a girl or a girl without a guy.
But that’s not all! In fact, we are dealing with three such mutations which must occur at the same time. For the urge to mate also must also be present. Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it will happen. It is possible to pick each others’ noses, for instance, but no guy ever bought flowers hoping his sweetheart would give a green light in that regard. (So far as I know)
How does evolution stand in the face of such nonsense? In spite of scientific endorsement, this is the theory which requires blind faith. Adam and Eve seems dead sober pragmatism in contrast.
Nicely done.... i expected more comments in reply...
Posted by: BeReasonable | June 18, 2011 at 01:36 AM