If you have a problem with what you read: 1. Get a dictionary 2. Don't read it 3. Grow up 4. After 3, go back to 1/ or 2. -- Dennis Blue. | "I don't care about your opinion, only your analysis"- Professor Calabrese. | "Life is more important than _______" - Drew | I eat animals that eat vegetables -- Matt Millen, former NFL Linebacker. | "This country is built on sugar & shit that comes in a box marinated in gluten - abc123
I don't believe in evolution. If you found a planet without life, but could support life and planted grass on it--in a billion years that planet would be covered in grass. No way there would be trees and moss and fungus and amphibians and reptiles...or groks.
There has to be something else going on...God? I doubt it, not the way it has been explained anyway. Something else? I'd bet money it's something else.
Why does it always boil down to God or Evolution? Couldn't there be another answer?
The argument 'if it wasn't random accidents it has to have been God' just doesn't work for me. Nor does 'if it wasn't God then evolution is true'.
I think I understand your question: you're not asking to debate evolution versus creation. You are asking if anyone approaches the Primal Lifestyle from a set of premises that are different from those presented. I get it and yes I do. In the Primal Blueprint, the primary message is to live life in a way that "fit's your genes." How our genes came to be is a different question. While I ascribe to creationist rather than evolutionist premises, I'm REALLY not interested in a "Primal Bluepriint for Creationists" version of the book. I'm fine with how it's presented.