Evolution versus Creation

[catholic_man]

Evolution versus Creation

I wanted to start this thread to poll my friends and find out what all my FactNet brothers and sisters think.

I believe in the Big Bang theory. God said it and BANG!!! It happened!!!

[bluewater2]

I believe in the "It has always been here so not need for a creator" theory.

[catholic_man]

BW2,

So if it was always here then does that mean there was no beginning?

If is was always here then why?

[observer]

Hi Catholic Man. The universe is a mysterious place, and it may be that there are multiverses, with each universe growing like bubbles on another on and on in an unimaginable realm where there is no time. Hard for us to imagine; but that is a possiblity. The "big bang" might have just been one bubble universe expanding off of another, with "big bangs" happening continuously, over and over again with no beginning and no end. Time may not even exist. We, as humans, are limited in our awareness, as I'm sure you know. Perhaps we will never know the whole "truth" of how it all happened, is happening and will happen. Maybe there is no "truth" other than what we imagine. Who knows? I don't. Do you?

[catholic_man]

Observer,

One thing is for sure, I wasn't around when it began and I most likely won't be around when it ends...physically in this body of mine anyway.

Even most atheist would agree that there was always SOMETHING! Some will even agree that there was always ENERGY that existed that formed the universe. As a Christian, I contend that this SOMETHING...this ENERGY...is GOD!

As I saw in another post, others from other religions all give God a different name. However, there must be a REASON for our existence. I am not closed-minded enough to say that there isn't life on other worlds. The universe is a big place, so from my perspective God must be even bigger. My thought is why would God create life on earth ONLY? I'm sure we would be a little boring for him over time.

I'm not saying that aliens are in my backyard http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/uhoh.gif, but I do think that God's wisdom and ability far outweighs my puny mind and armstrength.

I think of this situation: My dog and I both sit down and look at the TV. I understand what the newscaster is saying about the weather and the snow. However, the dog may or may not make out the images on the TV and the sounds. However, she will most likely not have the understanding at all that I do. That variation between me and the dog, in my opinion, is MUCH smaller of a gap as the difference between us and God.

I believe that God creates with purpose, but for those out there who do believe in God...do you believe that God uses evolution as a means? And if so, then to what extent?
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/smile.gif

[observer]

Ah, CM, you ask a significant question. What is the reason for our existence? That would probably result in hundreds and hundreds of postings from dozens of forum members. Personally, I don't know why I exist. Is there anything in the Bible that explains why we exist? Some Bibleheads will say that we are here to chose between Satan and God in a free-will universe that will end up in our either being deposited in a Lake of Fire forever, or in Heaven with God in eternal bliss. I don't know if that's true or not, it just sounds like a theory with no objective proof, based on one of many interpretations of a book that has as many meanings as there are people who read it.

As far as your dog is concerend, perhaps she is communicating with you all the time but you just don't understand how to interpret it. Animal communicators say that cats and dogs send images to us telepathically, and they are baffled why we don't understand what they're trying to tell us.

Fine, you believe that there is a "god" who "creates with purpose." What do you base this on? Me, I don't know if there is a god or not; I don't see any evidence of any of those mythic beings that are portrayed in the Bible such as Jesus or angels or Satan or devils. They just seem to me to be mental constructs, ideas that are in the mind having no reality beyond the psyche. If you can point to Jesus in this objective world that we live in and say to me "Hey, look over there...it's Jesus," and I can see what you do, then I will entertain the idea that this Messiah being might be real. Otherwise it's all just a bunch of stories passed down for thousands of years that prabably have some pretty good moral teachings contained in them like how I should not kill, harm, lie to or steal from anyone.

But your guess is as good as mine as to why we are here. You may be right and I may be wrong. I may be right and you may be wrong. We both may be wrong. We both may be right. There may be no "we." To admit that we don't know is the first step towards wisdom.

[catholic_man]

Observer,

Yes, I always ask questions and am very inquisitive. There is alot I would like to know, but I side with faith in my quest and thirst for understanding. Knowing something is okay, but understanding is alot better.

I see your viewpoint; your view sounds more 'agnostic' than it does 'atheistic', since you mentioned that you COULD believe. You don't sound like you've made up your mind but are open to evidence.

From my viewpoint of faith, I see it this way:
If I am right that heaven exists, then I will know if I am right. But if heaven does NOT exist, then I will never know that I am wrong!

On the flipside, someone who does not believe that heaven exists (and also treats people horribly)will never know that they are right. But they would definitely know if they were wrong. That's not a chance I am willing to take. Of course, my faith goes much deeper than that since it revolves around love.

But, back to the original question...evolution or creation? Sure there are going to be those posting here that are heavy on one or the other and others who are in a gray area with a big '?'

You are absolutely right...we cannot say that we know it all! There is alot that we may never know.

[catholic_man]

Observer,

Funny what you said about dogs and cats and telepathy. I still think they are nowhere near our level of intellect, however there have been times when the dog has sensed things that I didn't. Interesting! I haven't really thought about that...in fact this morning she ran around the house in a craze. My wife asked her if she needed to go out and potty or if she needed more dog food or water. The dog's body language was no at each question. Finally she realized that our son was in our bed. She immediately jumped up into the bed and started licking him on the face early this morning.

She was in a craze, because she didn't see him in his bed like she is used to. She was concerned because she never saw him leave the house. I do believe that animals are capable of primary emotions.

[hillariousharry]

Isn't it possible that both creation and evolution go hand in hand? Who's to say that God didn't use the evolutionary theory as His handiwork in creating the world?

I have always accepted the Genesis account. Previously dogmatic about it being literal. And still do....but more openminded as to how I might interpret it now. Nothing wrong with that I say - didn't God give me a mind to question rather than accept everything without daring to query ( I spent too long in a Xian set up where too much questioning was frowned upon ..lol)

John

[catholic_man]

John-HH,

I agree, questioning is always a healthy thing. I, too, was brought up to have faith without questioning details. However, I am an anal-retentive personality when it comes to wanting to understand the environment around me. It is this deep level of questioning that lead me to become a Catholic. I didn't fear asking the questions not only of what is IN the bible, but the circumstances AROUND it.

I think a healthy dose of questioning can bring about a much deeper intellectual and spiritual relationship with the creator and a greater appreciation for life. This respect for life, whether Catholic, Christian, atheist or whatever is so vital in what I call the 'natural law'.

I am sometimes indecisive on my thoughts toward executing hardened criminals. Life is sacred and sometimes we may have to take a life to save others. This is tragic but very real in our world. On one hand I was glad to see Saddam brought to justice, yet on the other hand I am sad that the condition of our world came to that.

I am pro-life for the same reason. In this case all of these developing infants are precious and deserve a chance to live since they are innocent, regardless of the guilt of those who gave them life.

[hillariousharry]

Kindred spirits CM....I was brought up in pentecostalism ( Assemblies of God - England)...after many years I escaped ) - lol.

( I meant "kindred spirits"in terms of where the anal retentive style of questioning both led us...you went into the Church..and I came out ...out of organised Xianity I mean..but we arrived at the same place, ie. a deeper faith and greater understanding) ...does that make sense. lol. Oh dear what if any of my former church acquaintences see this...think of the labelling ( backslider, liberal). Who cares...what I put up with was not real living...just banged up in a religious system which to some measure I regarded as mild brain washing.

On a serious note though CM..what all that did to me...severe health problems which took years to sort out...the repurcussions of being unable to think properly for oneself can be frightening.But my heart remained in tact!!( although the brain went through a dodgy period.lol)

The last 10 tens years of my life have been the happiest of my adult life....and guess what?? even though I am not connected to any organised church fellowship, my faith is in tact....

It seems sad for me to have to say the above, because really church fellowship should be a wonderful support and time of enjoyment in our lives ( and I qualify..irrespective of denomination etc etc).

But it had to happen for my own sanity and for my family's too!!

I'll let you have a copy of my book when complete, "dare to question" - supportive yet challenging which I guess may help to fill what I call a vacuum within the Xian literary market!!

Sorry CM...I must pause..feel that I'm getting into waffling mode...but then just meself...all from the heart.

Take care,

John (HH)

(Message edited by hillariousharry on December 30, 2006)

[hillariousharry]

sorry - pressed send message twice. lol

John (HH)

(Message edited by hillariousharry on December 30, 2006)

[granite]

catholic man: Your Pharisitic church is largely to blame for the promotion of evolutionary philosophy!

THE SABBATH, A MEMORIAL UNTO THE CREATOR!

Someone has said, "I have a good memory, but an even better forgettery." In our sinfulness and frailty, we human beings are subject to forgetting things in the process of time, including the things of Elohim (God). Psalm 78:39 says He remembered them, but verse 42 says they remembered not Him. Scripture therefore is filled with many things that were done or made to be memorials.

The Sabbath was given to mankind at the close of creation by Yahweh God as a memorial of His creative power (Genesis 2:1-3). That is, He sovereignly chose it to be the thing whereby man would be linked to God by a weekly day of rest. And not just any day, but the seventh day, whereby man's loyalty to his Creator would be tested, and as a mark of man's sanctification (Exodus 31:13; Ezekiel 20:12). It begins at sunset on Friday, and ends Saturday evening (Genesis 1:5; Leviticus 23:32).

The Sabbath is not Jewish! The Messiah did not say it was made for the Jew; He said it was made for MAN! (Mark 2:27) It was made for man 2000 years before the first Israelite was born! The Sabbath was observed by the faithful prior to Sinai (Exodus 16:27-30). The phrase, "son of man" in Isaiah 56:2 , literally reads in the Hebrew text "the son of Adam." Further proof that God intended that all men should keep the Sabbath is seen in verses 6-8 . This passage indicates that Adam enjoyed God's Sabbath along with his family. Did not the patriarchs need a day so they could rest just like anyone else, and for worship, too? Who is there that would say they believe Noah and his family worked on building the ark seven days a week? No, God did not sanctify the Sabbath for his own benefit.

The Sabbath was then reiterated by God to Moses as a part of His moral law, written in stone with His finger, with a specific penalty imposed for disobedience (Exodus 31:14-15). A very few specific restrictions were added concerning gathering manna and sticks to kindle fires, which we observe by ceasing from our usual daily labors, but do not enforce in the literal sense with penalties (Hebrews 7:12). These added laws could not give life ( Galatians 3:21). From the law we are therefore able to learn that Sabbath-keeping itself cannot bring salvation to anyone.

In the heart of the Ten Commandments we read, "Remember the Sabbath...." Not something new, for how could they recall what they had never heard of before? This is a two-fold command for both rest and work, with an explanation attached. It lets us know that to disparage it or to observe some other day instead of the seventh, is to move us away from the only foundation to protect us from the onslaughts of atheistic, humanistic, evolutionary, thinking in denying the Creator God.

The Fourth Commandment was NOT changed at Calvary, the resurrection, or any other time! Nor do we now have "The Nine Commandments," as some seem to be teaching. (If only nine were perpetual, why were ten graven in stone?) Under the New Covenant with "separation of Church and state," the death penalty for Sabbath-breaking (along with blasphemy, idolatry, adultery, and often even murder, too) is not enforced today. Nevertheless, the divine penalties are still in force, and will be meted out to the Romish whore and her Protestant daughters (Revelation 17:5) for adultery with the world, names of blasphemy against Yahweh, murder of His saints, and for laying impious hands on the Fourth Commandment, as well! (Ezekiel 22:26, 31).

[granite]

Why did the Roman Catholic "Church" in the Fall of 1996 officially endorse evolution? That question can be answered by the day she observes. Does she observe the seventh-day Sabbath, which is the memorial of creation? Of course not. At the council of Laodicea in the mid-360s she actually outlawed obedience to the Fourth Commandment, and executed Sabbatarians during the Dark Ages! She declares her authority apart from Scripture to switch the day of rest and worship, to the first day of the week. That is just like human nature because God said to work six days and then rest; man wants to take his rest day first and then work!

The real question, however, is this: Why must the leading (i.e., mis-leading) Protestant and so-called "radical" Anabaptist groups follow her treacherous example? As usual, the mainline churches are out of line with God's Word! They are like children running away from home, but carrying a picture of their mother in their pocket!

The Messiah arose on Saturday evening, yet most groups teach an "Easter" Sunday resurrection and a Good Friday crucifixion, thus nullifying the sign of the prophet Jonah in Matthew 12:40. That was the only sign given of the true Messiah! No one but Satan could be the author of such confusion. Truth is on the scaffold, and wrong is on the throne. It has been said that truth is so precious that it must be surrounded by bodyguards of lies.

John 5:18 does not say that the Messiah broke the Sabbath. He disobeyed the Talmud, but not the Torah! In other words, He broke only the Pharisees' man-made rules or "by-laws" which they had added to God's Word. He had no "anti-Sabbath attitude"! He merely corrected the abuses. Otherwise, how could a lawbreaker have become our Savior? He would have been a sinner, and unable to save even his own self! Furthermore, He worked every Sunday and is to be our example - for the Scriptures command six days of labor, not five, as our popular culture practices (see Ezekiel 46:1).

Sunday sacredness was nowhere supported or implied by John, Luke or Paul. The folly of applying the Sabbath law to the first day of the week was left for a later age. Look at Isaiah 58:13 and Matthew 12:8 to see what Yahweh's holy day is and of which day He says He is the Lord. There are at least 64 New Testament references to the Sabbath. Where did He ever say that that was to change? In fact, from the Savior's own words, we see that He came for no such purpose, and He warned us against even thinking such a thing (Matthew 5:17). Note this well: The first thing recorded in the Bible is work done on Sunday! (Genesis 1:1-5).

Isaiah 66:23 is a prophecy that proves which day God wills for both Jews and Gentiles to honor Him (see also Matthew 24:20). Exodus 31:13-16 says it is a sign for the children of Israel, but Isaiah 56:6 says it is for Gentile converts who love God also. One example of that is the Church at Antioch in Acts 13:42-44 . Why is there no "change" spoken of here to these Gentiles? Obviously the next day was Sunday. Wouldn't that seem like a convenient time for Paul to instruct these Gentiles to keep Sunday (which the Baal-worshipping heathens were already doing!) and to come back the next day to hear him preach? But Paul told the Gentile converts to follow him as he followed the Messiah. Paul's manner (Acts 17:2) was the same as the Messiah's custom (Luke 4:16), and he waited until the next Sabbath to come back.

[granite]

(part 3 of 3)

Revelation 1:10 depicts the Sabbath in particular as a day for the blessing of spiritual revelation. Many have testified of the physical, mental, and spiritual benefits, which they have reaped from heeding Yahweh's command in this area.

Making "the LORD's day" to be Sunday is a bald-faced lie, firmly established by the dictate of the Roman emperor in A.D 321. It comes branded with the mark of paganism, and christened with the name of the sun-god, then adopted and sanctified by the Papal apostasy and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to Protestantism (Jeremiah 16:19). The Reformation could have broken the back of the Catholic system had they followed through in this area at that time.

Hebrews 4:9 tells us the Sabbath rest is one safeguard against unbelief. Yes, mankind does seem to need help to be able to believe God! Even those Bible believers who are most zealous for the cause of a literal creation week will continue to unwittingly aid the causes of Romanism and Darwinism by upholding their long-cherished tradition. They claim that Sunday is in honor of the resurrection, yet we have already proven this to be a fallacy. Paul did not agree with that either, for he said the symbol of the resurrection is not a day of the week, but according to Romans 6:4 , it is water baptism when properly administered.

The Pharisees added to God's Word, and the Pope takes away. They are both on the devil's team! Paul forbids us from being "spoiled" (robbed) by men's traditions (Colossians 2:8, 16, 18, 22). Yet Rome must have the rule over them for they have obeyed the commandment of the emperor Constantine in accepting a counterfeit, forwarded the cause by upholding blue laws, and dishonor their Creator by trampling His Sabbaths underfoot! This is the very reason world judgment is about to happen again: "The earth is defiled . . . because they have changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant" (see Isa 24:1-6). Yahweh has no regard for obedience to human precepts, which do violence to His truth. Let us take heed that it be not said of us as it was of those religionists of old.

"In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Mark 7:7). Salvation is promised only to those who will to do His will, for "love" without commandment-keeping and obedience is no love at all (Hebrews 5:9; Revelation 14:12, 22:14; Matthew 7:21, 22:37).

REVELATION 18:4-5 , "COME OUT OF HER, MY PEOPLE. THAT YE BE NOT PARTAKERS OF HER SINS. AND THAT YE RECEIVE NOT OF HER PLAGUES. FOR HER SINS HAVE REACHED (reeked!) UNTO HEAVEN. . . " (NOTE - This is a reference to the tower of Babel).

http://www.biblesabbath.org/sabbathmemorial.html
tracts@juno.com

[observer]

Granite, what day do you celebrate as the birth of Jesus, and why?

[granite]

observer: I have answered your question in the proper place, the Christmas thread under the subthread I created, "Should the Birth of Christ Be Celebrated?"

[eptcog]

I got a nice wacth. The hands and all the other parts all came together and began working on thier own. no one or nothing helped in this process. it just evolved. Now you and me both know that this watch had a creator just as you I and everthing else have a creator. It takes more faith to belive in evol. than it does to believe in god. Talk to him he will respond to you and lead you into knowledge and understanding. Jesus wants to be part of your life. but he will not force himself on you. he will nudge and tug at your heart for a period of time. He won't knock forever so you do need to attempt to seek him why he is tugging. hey for some of you it may be to late. I pray it isn't so.

[observer]

I don't wear a watch; besides, they cost money. Some people like very expensive watches, as a show of wealth and status...while others wear a cheap Timex because it keeps good time. Conductors wear pocket watches. I had a talk with the maker of an expensive watch one time, but he had nothing of interest to say. He kept tugging at my sleeve and nudging me, and it made me very uncomfortable. I had to tell him to bugger off and leave me alone. I was lucky to get out of that watchmaker's store in one piece.

So I walked away, and stood quiet in a clearing and listened. I was told all I needed to know.

[hillariousharry]

Evolution and creation may be truly intervowen...God may have been responsible for His creative work through the evolutionary process.

A tall order I dont think!

Perhaps the above solves the whole question!!

HH

[inkorrekt]

Evolution was an explanation given by the atheist Darwin. Why would God use this for anypurpose?

[ba2]

One should not try to defend their faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous. It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6,000 years old.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth– no explanation as to how God did this or how life was actually created. Through science we get some plausible answers. For example: God may have caused a “Big Bang”

2. Later God molded the earth to separate the sea from the land. The continents started drifting. God brought in some lower life forms from somewhere but God doesn’t try to explain how it was done or where it came from– it doesn’t matter.

3. Still later, God starts an evolutionary process and starts creating new life forms, probably through some sort of DNA manipulation.

4. During the 6th period of time (day 6) many higher forms of animal life are created, again probably through some form of DNA manipulation. Later in this period, mankind is created, again through some form of DNA manipulation.

Since everything living may have been created through DNA manipulation, this explains way there is such a strong commonality in the DNA structure across species.

5. God ceases his work during the 7th time period. .

6. Some millions of years after that 7th period of time, God creates Adam, again through some DNA manipulation taken from the existing mankind. He places Adam in a garden. This is the origin of the Hebrew culture. Later by using DNA taken out of Adam’s rib, God created Eve.

The rest is history.

[genesis_truth]

Ba2,

Old earth is not a plausible theory. God created the bible to be understood by even children so you would think that generally when God says something (generally being the only witness in these early years) then he generally means what he says. Earth created in 7 normal days as indicated in the Hebrew language. The words, "Sola Scritura" ring nicely I believe.

I hear a lot of the time that creation is not literal because it can't explain how the world began, how God did it. Maybe that is because He is God and that for Him it simply means just opening His mouth and saying what he wants created. I do not believe that Old Earth theory or evolution come close to adequately explaining how the universe etc came about.

[ba2]

Do you think the stars are still hovering a few miles above our heads? Do you believe the earth is flat? I don’t, and I don’t believe the earth is only a few thousand years old either. But I will probably never convince you of my belief, no matter what anyone says, just as you could not convince me of yours. I will simply restate my point:

One should not try to defend their faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous. It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6,000 years old.

You are free to believe what you want my friend.

[fatherofaking]

what about the possibility of man being only 6000yrs old?

[pro610]

Genesis,
The Church Fathers did not always take the literalist view of Scripture. There is a whole school from Clement of Alexandria (with Origen as his prime student) that delved into allegory readings of Scriptures. St. Augustine himself wrote a whole book on the Literal interpretation of Genesis, saying it was acceptable to read the Creation account in a spiritual sense - not taken literally. St. Thomas Aquinas ALSO noted, while referring to other Fathers, that it could be seen that animals evolved and changed by noting nature. Thus, it would be incorrect to say that the Church looks ONLY to the literal view of Scriptures. Example? There are numerous interpretations of the Song of Songs - and very few of them (none, I'd think) see it as an erotic love story...

Something like The Virgin Birth can NEVER be disproved by scientific means. We will NEVER have such empirical evidence. However, modern science CAN tell us that the earth took longer than 6 literal days to form, through EMPIRICAL means. By scientific study, we find evidence of rocks that are greater than 6000 years old. God is the God of nature as well as Scripture. HE does NOT lie. Thus, either our INTERPETATION of Scripture is incorrect, or science is incorrect. I think their is ample evidence to hold that science is correct - BUT - the Church does NOT make an infallible declaration one way or the other. One is able to hold, with clear conscience, either view
Catholic,s are not held to the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, scientifically speaking. However, it IS inerrant in that what God wanted to say was infallibly said. Apparently, God wasn't telling us that the earth was created in 6 literal days, but something else. God was using a creation story to pass along information about Himself and man, about how HE created the universe out of love, and so forth.

Scientists can figure out the age of materials using various means that can be duplicated over and over. Through such experimentation, they can "surmise" that a rock is a particular age. I am not aware of anything that has cast doubt on the age of the universe - at least it is over 10 billion years old. Even if science was wrong, say only one billion, that still forces us to re-consider our view on the scientific claims of the Scriptures. I personally don't think God is trying to tell us the date of the earth, but using a story, similar to a fable, that explains particular spiritual truths of His love for man and His creation of the universe out of nothing.
If I am wrong, that the earth is actually 6000 years old, how will this effect my spiritual growth and life in Christ? Frankly, it is a big ado over nothing. By refusing to countenance the earth's old age, you are merely making Christians look like foolish anti-science superstituous people. Until the evidence shows the contrary, it is more feasible to consider the creation story as a vehicle to tell God's plan of WHY He created us, and not HOW He created us.

[fatherofaking]

Something like The Virgin Birth can NEVER be disproved by scientific means. We will NEVER have such empirical evidence.

actually i think that science is willing to accept the possibility in the rarest of circustances.

if i remember correctly a mammal of some sort just had a virgin birth.

i don't have the source handy but i am not making this up.

[pro610]

FK
""if i remember correctly a mammal of some sort just had a virgin birth.""

Was it in National Enquirer ;-)

I,m not talking about in vitro fertalization-clearly in vitro was not around back then.

[fatherofaking]

no this is no joke.

i will look for a source for the report.

i am not a catholic or even a christian for that matter.

[fatherofaking]

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2004/1091904.htm

is it not possible that mary could have been somehow been genetically predisposed for a virgin birth?

[pro610]

FK
Do you mean was Mary chosen by God?
The answer is yes,at conception also.

I,m busy right now,I,ll try and explain when I get a chance.

[fatherofaking]

i understand that mary was chosen by god.

what i am suggesting is that there is a scientific explanation for the virgin birth.

i think that there is a scientific explanation for every miracle.

i do not think that just because man is learning these things that god is not the source.

all knowledge comes from god.

[catholic_man]

Fatherofaking,

I heard about similar situations where reptiles or frogs were able to reproduce asexually when a male counterpart was not available. I study science as my Master's degree is related, but not from a medical or biological standpoint. I focus primarily on technology.

However, I am interested if you have any more information like that.

Here are my thoughts:
I believe that God created all of the fish, animals and us. In doing so, he pre-programmed us with natural instincts to survive and propogate the planet. Some of the programming for certain animals may lend to their species surviving when a mate is not available. I have no problem with that.

However, I do not know of any 'valid' account of a human 'virginal' birth that ever took place other than Jesus from Mary by the Holy Spirit. I realize God's wisdom in it taking place then versus now, because now scientist have the ability to impregnate a virgin woman using methods other than sex. Technically speaking, a virgin, today, could have a baby. Ouch!!

That's what makes the virgin birth of Jesus so fascinating is that there would have been no scientific means of that time to cause it. Sex would have been the only method.

Your thoughts???

[fatherofaking]

these mice were not artificially inceminated.

their genes were altered.

since there is an endless number of genetic possibilities, i guess you would have to allow for a virgin birth.