jerrymack

By looking at mans short self recorded history through his ancient texts and engineering feats, what can be gleaned from those things to determine our intelectual rate of change over the last 5,000 years! I dont recall anyone making a claim of man having any quantitative inteleictual gains in that time, or any physical gain for that matter beyond anecdotal strides that diet and diseease wouldnt account for. What is an average rate of change for mankind? How many iterations would it take to effect such an outcome? Its my understanding that change occurs across many millions of years through 100,000s of generations. I would think that would be the case for us to be able to mutate and then propegate those changes in light of our vast complexity. So here is my accusation against evolutionsts, while they claim that evolution is a 'million year' process, they at the same time cavalierly cram modern mankind into a last moment 'thousand year' time frame! Essentially, they are comfortable with the notion that the unintentional process of the evolution of man is a much faster process than of mankind intentionally propegating and using knowledge to his advantage! Odd it is that a 'vestigal tail' is mutated away at a rate 500 times faster than men learning how to cut and stack rock or to milk a cow instead of eating it!

Again, Im not advocating Creation but have never really heard of this subject being discussed.

My point is my question, thanks.

Whether you are for or against Zimmerman or undecided, answer the question below at face value, in other words don't talk about tangent subjects or issues. thanks;

Martin was 17 years old, 5'11"tall and weighed 158 pounds. He was wearing sweats and tennis shoes. He was athletic, was recently on a football team and sported a 'six-pack' stomach.

Zimmerman was 30 years old, 5'-7" and weighed 185 pounds. He was wearing jeans and work/hiking boots.

Martin was on foot while Zimmerman was in his truck on the phone at an unknown distance away from Martin when Martin began to run(per the police audio)

The question is, "Do you believe that Zimmerman could have touched Martin in a 24 hour game of tag"?

An unborn and developing human baby is in fact a physical assemblage of atoms and specific molecules necessary for its function. Whether by conscious design or by some natural process the baby is a real structure formed from the available elements of this earth. I don't think that this is a false choice or a misrepresentation.

Where do these elements come from? I would think that it's clear that the mother ingests food and water and the baby receives through its umbilical cord these elements as building blocks so to speak. One can also assume that the mother might very well be the source of the specific molecules relieving the baby of creating these molecules itself from raw materials.

This begs the question, "by what force, by what method, by what attraction are the individual atoms and molecules placed into their respective locations?" Could it be that there are 'builder' cells that procure specific atoms or molecules and travel a distance to a specific location and place the material?

Or could it be that raw materials course through the baby in volume and these molecules are attracted to their end location? What does science say? Does it address this mechanical assembly process?

Thank you.