Can a child survive on its own, seeing it has no mother to care - Mother- or nurture the living thing to growth.

Actually, you can't argue its an adult, cause it grew, from being a child, so the question still remains. What's the chances of a little thing surviving without anyone to care or direct it. At least, its not smart enough to engage in trial and error or survival of the fittest at that tender age, so what do you say

Cc Felixomor, sciencewatch, adepeter2027, Mhizzaj, Hahn, Seun, obinna58, hopefullandlord and co

am i blind or nobody is seeing it?

Just drink sniper when u die ask baba God.....

Interesting

GodsMopol:
Can a child survive on its own, seeing it has mother to care - Mother- or nurture the living thing to growth.

Actually, you can argue its an adult, cause it grew, from being a child, so the question still remains. What's the chances of a little thing surviving without anyone to care or direct it. At least, its not smart enough to engage in trial and error or survival of the fittest at that tender age, so what do you say

Cc Felixomor

Hehehe.
This is just one of the millions of questions that kills the scam called evolution.
Darwin who started the fraud knew nothing about DNA, if he had, he would have been more cautious.

There are many more of such questions.
Those who study the human body and its development know that for humans to effectively develop, many systems have to develop simultaneously otherwise there is no survival.
A baby's heart and respiratory system for example must start developing around the same period with support from maternal circulation or else the baby will be die in utero.


And these processes are carefully timed like a programmed time bomb, regulated by DNA

But evolutionist wants you to believe that there was once a first baby animal who came from fish.
Rubbish.

Just ask any evolutionist, which part of human DNA is responsible for the evolution to our next stage.
And you will know that there is nothing scientific about it. Its as good as a religion.

felixomor:


Hehehe.
This is just one of the millions of questions that kills the scam called evolution.
Darwin who started the fraud knew nothing about DNA, if he had, he would have been more cautious.

There are many more of such questions.
Those who study the human body and its development know that for humans to effectively develop, many systems have to develop simultaneously otherwise there is no survival.
A baby's heart and respiratory system for example must start developing around the same period with support from maternal circulation or else the baby will be die in utero.


And these processes are carefully timed like a programmed time bomb, regulated by DNA

But evolutionist wants you to believe that there was once a first baby animal who came from fish.
Rubbish.

Just ask any evolutionist, which part of human DNA is responsible for the evolution to our next stage.
And you will know that there is nothing scientific about it. Its as good as a religion.

Loooooool, I just remembered either Hahn or Adepeter2027 created a similar thread back then

folashade96:
am i blind or nobody is seeing it?

It better be a vision



Are you born again and filled with the Holy Ghost

Acts 19:
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Samsimple:
Just drink sniper when u die ask baba God.....

The Bible already told me all I need to believe

GodsMopol:


Loooooool, I just remembered either Hahn or Adepeter2027 created a similar thread back then

I have never created any thread relating/related/similar to evolution.

It's funny how some criticise evolution yet can't even use God to explain how everything came about.

They can't use god to explain anything

adepeter2027:
It's funny how some criticise evolution yet can't even use God to explain how everything came about.

They can't use god to explain anything

Actually, they use god to explain EVERYTHING!

GodsMopol:
Can a child survive on its own, seeing it has no mother to care - Mother- or nurture the living thing to growth.

Actually, you can't argue its an adult, cause it grew, from being a child, so the question still remains. What's the chances of a little thing surviving without anyone to care or direct it. At least, its not smart enough to engage in trial and error or survival of the fittest at that tender age, so what do you say

Cc Felixomor, sciencewatch, adepeter2027, Mhizzaj, Hahn, Seun, obinna58, hopefullandlord and co

Scientists say the expression. "Dont behave like a stupid monkey, points to truths about evolution.
It makes sense that the stupid ones refused to take the evolutionary step to become human.

I have proof that a microscopic Amoeba can evolve into a Strawberry tree.

ScienceWatch:
Scientists say the expression. "Dont behave like a stupid monkey, points to truths about evolution.
It makes sense that that stupid ones refused to take the evolutionary step to became human.

I have proof that a microscopic Amoeba can evolve into a Strawberry tree.

I never saw that

A small cell becoming the whole world

GodsMopol:


I never saw that

A small cell becoming the whole world

OH Yes. I admire evolutions careful planning. It decided to engineer the seasons so the Strawberry tree can take regular breaks.

adepeter2027:
It's funny how some criticise evolution yet can't even use God to explain how everything came about.

They can't use god to explain anything

I admire the evolution because I love Sea food. Evolution is a genius, it positioned the Moon perfectly to aid the survival of sea life.

If scientists were give the task of planning where to place the Moon and to program it's behaviour, there would be no sea-food and therefore no Atheists, because they claimed to have evolved from fish.

ScienceWatch:
OH Yes. I admire evolutions careful planning. It decided to engineer the seasons so the Strawberry tree can take regular breaks.

Adepeter2027 and 1sharon, even hopefullandlord must hear this

In the 1930s, paleontologist Otto Schindewolf concluded that the missing links in the fossil record were not really missing at all, but rather were never there in the first place! Schindewolf proposed that all the major evolutionary transformations must have occurred in single large steps. He proposed, for example, that at some point in evolutionary history, a reptile laid an egg from which a bird was hatched! ( ) This bizarre notion was championed in 1940 by geneticist Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California at Berkeley. Like Schindewolf, Goldschmidt resigned himself to the fact that true transitional forms were not found despite over a hundred years of searching for them, and that evolutionary theory would simply have to accommodate this fact.

Goldschmidt sought to advance Schindewolf’s notion of evolution through single large steps by trying to imagine a plausible mechanism for it. He suggested that the answer might lie in what are known as embryological monsters, such as the occasional birth of a two-legged sheep or a two-headed turtle. Goldschmidt conceded that such monsters rarely survived very long in nature, but he hoped that over a long period of time some monsters might actually be better suited to survive and reproduce than their normal siblings. ( ) Goldschmidt named this monstrously hopeless speculation the “hopeful monster theory.” Since there was not even the slightest shred of evidence to support the hopeful monster theory, it was dismissed with derision by almost all evolutionists of his time. But Goldschmidt was quick to point out to his critics that there wasn’t the slightest evidence for their gradual evolution either!

The hopeful monster theory would have joined the “recapitulation theory” in the scrap heap of abandoned evolutionary speculations were it not for Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge. In 1972, these influential evolutionists resurrected the long-discredited hopeful monster theory and gave it a more respectable name: “punctuated equilibrium.” This theory speculates that the intermediate stages in the evolution of organisms do not appear in the fossil record because these transitional organisms were short-lived, extremely unstable species which, as luck would have it, quickly evolved into stable species. Thus, the evolution of any organism is characterized by long periods of equilibrium (no evolutionary change) during which time many offspring, and thus many fossils, are produced—punctuated by relatively rapid bursts of evolution that left no fossil record. In the May 1981 issue of Discover magazine, Gould explained that “two outstanding facts of the fossil record— geologically sudden origin of new species and failure to change thereafter”—actually “predicted” this new evolutionary theory!

Source: https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/hopeful-monsters-of-evolution/

This question is the biggest problem in philosophy, nobody has any conclusive answer. It's called the Chicken and the egg allegory.

The first thing that evolved wouldn't even be a child or adult in the first place,it'll just be an imperfectly self-replicating chemical cocktail along the lines of Pre-RNA or pre-DNA molecuLes.

Living things that evolved from then on and fit linnaeus classification scheme would be children from an elementary sense,if I were to start answering the question from there,and would have already inherited the means to survive,if they didn't,we wouldn't be here,or didn't descend from them but daughter stocks that did survive.

GodsMopol:
Can a child survive on its own, seeing it has no mother to care - Mother- or nurture the living thing to growth.

Actually, you can't argue its an adult, cause it grew, from being a child, so the question still remains. What's the chances of a little thing surviving without anyone to care or direct it. At least, its not smart enough to engage in trial and error or survival of the fittest at that tender age, so what do you say

Cc Felixomor, sciencewatch, adepeter2027, Mhizzaj, Hahn, Seun, obinna58, hopefullandlord and co

Your topic says FIRST LIVING THING......... not human, correct?

Answer this before we proceed.

GodsMopol:


I never saw that

A small cell becoming the whole world

Word has it that a single cellular organism was the master-mind behind the accidental crash
of two mis-fit/badly behaving planet that crashed near the Nevada desert USA. Rumor has it that Scientists have named this brilliant single cellular organism, Amoeba and is openly worshiping it as a god.

GodsMopol:


I never saw that

A small cell becoming the whole world

You are right Sir, After the master-mind Amoeba randomly released its beta version 1.011 DFNA into the first load of celestial rubble, an extremely intelligent random change occurred that is still baffling modern scientists.

Beta version 1.011 DFNA + Celestial rubble = DNA

Living beings who are anthropomorphic didn't start with human beings, but with the gods so we can't start a topic of a baby first growing to an adult or an adult first giving birth to a baby. It would sound weird to draw a picture of baby Yahweh and baby Allah with baby Vishnu and their numerous siblings in nappies, crawling about in an empty world

OtemSapien:
Living beings who are anthropomorphic didn't start with human beings, but with the gods so we can't start a topic of a baby first growing to an adult or an adult first giving birth to a baby. It would sound weird to draw a picture of baby Yahweh and baby Allah with baby Vishnu and their numerous siblings in nappies, crawling about in an empty world

Very good Sir, So then the first brilliant, accidental single cell Amoeba also created all the gods you refer to, without the nappies of course.

Pictures can help us, so please draw some pics and post it here.

OtemSapien:
Living beings who are anthropomorphic didn't start with human beings, but with the gods so we can't start a topic of a baby first growing to an adult or an adult first giving birth to a baby. It would sound weird to draw a picture of baby Yahweh and baby Allah with baby Vishnu and their numerous siblings in nappies, crawling about in an empty world

Very good Sir, So then the first brilliant, accidental single cell Amoeba also created all the gods you refer to, without the nappies of course.

Pictures can help us understand your very advanced concepts of creation, so please draw some pics and post it here.

OtemSapien:


Amoeba isn't God Almighty who created Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Mazda, Moloch, Odin, Mother Earthus(Gaiai), Atum etc. And when God Almighty made the gods and goddesses, they did not grow in stature. It was the beings made by the gods that grow in stature with the exception of the anakims. There are passages of the Doctufos of truth where this is mentioned.

Interesting. A picture paints a thousand words ..... I am waiting on some drawings from you.

ScienceWatch:
Interesting. A picture paints a thousand words ..... I am waiting on some drawings from you.

sorry to disappoint I'm no good painter.

OtemSapien:


Amoeba isn't God Almighty who created Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Mazda, Moloch, Odin, Mother Earthus(Gaiai), Atum etc. And when God Almighty made the gods and goddesses, they did not grow in stature. It was the beings made by the gods that grow in stature with the exception of the anakims. There are passages of the Doctufos of truth where this is mentioned.

Stop adding Atum to the list

ScienceWatch:
You are right Sir, After the master-mind Amoeba randomly released its beta version 1.011 DFNA into the first load of celestial rubble, an extremely intelligent random change occurred that is still baffling modern scientists.

Beta version 1.011 DFNA + Celestial rubble = DNA

Is this assertion wrong?

The assertion that, for every reaction, there is/was an action.

ScienceWatch:
Word has it that a single cellular organism was the master-mind behind the accidental crash
of two mis-fit/badly behaving planet that crashed near the Nevada desert USA. Rumor has it that Scientists have named this brilliant single cellular organism, Amoeba and is openly worshiping it as a god.

Hulala, that's the bomb

A cell surviving the Nevada desert with the temperature there, oooooooh, that cell is worth worshipping

GodsMopol:
Can a child survive on its own, seeing it has no mother to care - Mother- or nurture the living thing to growth.

Actually, you can't argue its an adult, cause it grew, from being a child, so the question still remains. What's the chances of a little thing surviving without anyone to care or direct it. At least, its not smart enough to engage in trial and error or survival of the fittest at that tender age, so what do you say

Cc Felixomor, sciencewatch, adepeter2027, Mhizzaj, Hahn, Seun, obinna58, hopefullandlord and co

If you can identify the starting point of a circle... Then you will get an idea of the answer...

We humans think time and life generally is a straight line that has beginning to end...

Nah... Life is a circle... Birth and Death lives in the same place...the beginning and end sits in one place...

Think people...think!