Problems with the theory of evolution.

[MindForgedManacle]

Hi. I'm new here so this will be my first post. I'm Jamie from Alabama. I'm a proud Baptist and I'd like to point out a few inconsistencies I found in the theory of evolution.

Let's hear 'em.

The first point I'd like to make is in relation to the age of the earth and how it ties in with "evolution". I'm a young earth creationist. I believe that God created the earth approximately 5,000-6,000 years ago, and there is a good reason for this belief. Atheist scientists will tell us that the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old, but this is impossible. Please hear me out and let me explain before you scoff and abandon this thread.

Okay, I already see reason to doubt you. First off, you don't have to be an "atheist scientist" to accept the concept of deep time and the estimated age of the Earth. Heck, the prominent biologist Francis Collins accepts the theory of evolution by natural selection, and he's an evangelical Christian. Furthermore, even he urges his fellow Christians to "give up" the argument against the validity of biological evolution given it's tremendous support.

Atheist scientists believe that we evolved from stardust (even just saying it in a sentence sounds silly lol)

Sure, we have our origin in the expelled contents of detonated stars, ones that went supernova. The main evidence for this is that spectroscopy and atomic models have given very good grounds for thinking such, because they show that the only [known] place the relevant elements can be forged is within the cores of massive stars and during their explosion, and the aforementioned spectroscopy - when used to see the elemental composition of supernovae - essentially confirms this (i.e we see their elemental signatures present within the supernovae).

During a supernova, when a massive star explodes at the end of its life, the resulting high energy environment enables the creation of some of the heaviest elements including iron and nickel. The explosion also disperses the different elements across the universe, scattering the stardust which now makes up planets including Earth. Any element heavier than hydrogen is ultimately a product of the nuclear fusion that takes place within stars.

So apparently we are living beings that evolved from lifeless materials. It doesn't make much sense to me because last weekend I was sitting by a lake pondering God's marvelous creation when I picked up a rock and stared at it. It suddenly dawned on me that if that very rock was 4.6 billion years old like athiest scientists say it is, then rocks would have evolved into intelligent creatures also. If evolution really was true and we all evolved from lifeless materials over 4.6 billion years, then that rock should also be a mammal or an insect or something by now. But there it was, still a useless rock, just sitting there. No brain, no self-awareness. Nothing.

Okay, I seriously ask: Are you trolling? Because this is the kind of nonsense that the now imprisoned Kent Hovind used to push forward. The current abiogeneses hypotheses don't sound ANYTHING like that.

This is another point I'd like to make. In my senior year of science class my teacher (who I also suspect is an atheist) was explaining to us that humans developed large complex brains because "we integrated meat into our diets a long time ago".

Well, I myself have little knowledge on most aspects of human evolutionary history so I cannot vouch for what your teacher *apparently* said, but that certainly isn't the only reason. Another - perhaps cumulative - explanation is that there was some mutation within some pre-human species (that term itself is something of a misnomer) which caused their jaws to become smaller, which allowed for whatever larger brain development would later occur.

The modern human brain is two to three times larger than that of our closest relatives, chimpanzees. But to supply energy to such metabolically demanding tissue, a distinct trade-off in energy allocation had to evolve. Meat and other protein-rich foods were evolutionary drivers of bigger, more complex human brains.

Sounds silly to me. We started eating meat and the protein made us evolve a larger more complex brain, resulting in superior intelligence? Okay... well we aren't the only species that eats meat lol. Why didn't other animals evolve to be as intelligent as us? I can name dozens and dozens of animals that eat meat, but can you name how many lions you've met that attended university and became doctors? When you went to high school did you have a grizzly bear teacher? Have you ever had your taxes done by a dog accountant? Nope, not me anyways. A human did my taxes this year.

Okay, now I KNOW you're bullshitting me. Screw this, I'm done with you. I'm willing to bet you're actually an atheist.

Also, I did some research on something else. Apparently the total amount of water on earth is "1.386x10^21 liters", whatever that means. I don't know what the X and the ^ is for, but I'll continue anyways. There are almost 7 billion people on earth, so let's assume that human beings drink two liters of water a day, which could be true for some people. Some people drink a lot of water. That would mean that every human being on this planet collectively drinks 12x10^9 liters of water a day (I'm pretty sure that's right, I had to ask some Asian guy I know to do the math for me. I kinda suck at math)

Now here's what I'm getting at... atheist scientists say that life evolved around 3 billion years ago, so this would mean that human beings alone (excluding animals) would have consumed 9.5 times the amount of water on this planet. This is obviously impossible, because if this were true our oceans would be completely drained by now. So how do we still have large amounts of unused water?

One more quick thing. If there is no oxygen in space, then how does the sun keep burning? We all know that fire needs oxygen to keep burning.
[/quote]