Problems with the theory of evolution.

[Faith No More]

And to be clear, Jaime, this happens even if water is smothered with shit and urine, dowsed in cyanide, and chucked into a river.

But that is so much harder to grasp than "goddidit."

Remember, thinking is hard.

[Rahul]

The sun loses 400 Million tons every second in this process, thus it is burning constantly and will eventually putter out like stars do that we are able to observe in the final stage of their existence.

Could this be proof that God created our sun with an "expiration date"? You know, like how it talks about the 'end times' in the bible.

Our sun's expiration date is in about 5 billion years.

So... yeah.

I mean it's not like that's going to matter to the Earth. As the Sun consumes the Hydrogen within itself it is slowly bloating and becoming more hot.

In about a billion years it will have become so hot nothing alive will exist on the surface of the Earth and our oceans will be vaporized.

[Anomalocaris]

The sun loses 400 Million tons every second in this process, thus it is burning constantly and will eventually putter out like stars do that we are able to observe in the final stage of their existence.

Could this be proof that God created our sun with an "expiration date"?

No, this is proof the sun is changing all the time. The sun will be very different 6 billion years from now, but the chances are it will always remain as a cohensive object roughly the same mass as today (with in a factor of 2) for trillions of years, as far as science feels comfortable looking into.

You know, like how it talks about the 'end times' in the bible.

Yes, so did many other ignorant primitives. That things will not remain the way they are doesn't mean the idiots of the "end time" knew anything at all about what they are talking about, when it will happen, they mechanism by which it will end, and and through what agency it will happen.

Yes. I don't understand what 'troll' or 'trolling' or 'trolled' or 'Poe' means. Is this some kind of scientist slang? These terms keep getting thrown around and I don't understand what they mean.

No, they are not scientific slang. There is not such thing as scientific slang. There is scientific jargon.

They are not even scientific jargon. They are words in common circulation. They are so pervasive in the modern society, so integral to modernity, that if you have been raised not knowing what they mean, then you were probably raised in an environment that saw fit to deny the full lessons of the story of reeal human progress to you, in order to confine you mentally to the barbarous legends of iron age, such as those about "god".

That's another word I've seen since reading these forums. Abiogenesis. Now if the bible is supposedly false, why are you people using the word 'genesis' in a scientific theory?

Because "Genisis" itself is a word pilfered by sleazy opportunistic christians from an older, and better, civilization who holds a better reputation amongst scientists than early christians. We use the word because it was a word passed down to us from a pre-christian civilization that we could respect.

There is no need for rude language.

You are so ignorant that you should be thankful for real enlightenment whatever lanuguage you might be fortunate enough to hear them in.

Even expressed in the most crass manner they would still benefit you infinitely more than the pseudo pomp of biblical bullshit.

Well these scientists are saying we come from stardust. Who's to say that "dust" mentioned in the bible isn't the stardust that scientists are always talking about? Maybe they inadvertently proved some of the bible there, huh?

Maybe the ignorant yokels who cooked up the bible didn't have any clue how many different kinds of dust there can be, and got luck by using all encompassing term to pretend overarching knowledge, huh?

Please try to keep this fair and don't insult me. I'm not insulting anybody. Those are ad hominem attacks. Lets just try to have a civil discussion.

To say you are ignorant and therefore speak in a manner normally thought fit only for the stupid is not to insult you. It is to give you a more complete view of yourself as might be seen by people who have explored the world more intensively and more thoroughly than the biblical yokels and bible addled christians can imagine.

Christianity sucks, and we are telling you how much you've been damaged by it. Be grateful to us.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

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.

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

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.

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".

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.

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.

Hi Jamie. Welcome to the forums. I don't believe you're a creationist. No one who can form a coherent sentence could make this awful a case for it through mere ignorance. I appreciate the attempt to entertain us, but you have to strike a certain balance to be an effective poe.

[CleanShavenJesus]

Exhibit A that this is bullshit.

Yes. I don't understand what 'troll' or 'trolling' or 'trolled' or 'Poe' means. Is this some kind of scientist slang? These terms keep getting thrown around and I don't understand what they mean.

I mean, seriously? Tone it down if you want people to think you're for real.

To be fair, I didn't know what they meant when I first joined.

[Bad Writer]

The sun loses 400 Million tons every second in this process, thus it is burning constantly and will eventually putter out like stars do that we are able to observe in the final stage of their existence.

Could this be proof that God created our sun with an "expiration date"? You know, like how it talks about the 'end times' in the bible.

It actually doesn't prove that God created anything. What is your proof of creation?

I don't understand what 'troll' or 'trolling' or 'trolled' or 'Poe' means. Is this some kind of scientist slang?

Google it, and you'll be surprised at what you'll find. I'm sure Google is how you found this website in the first place, so you obviously know how to do an internet search.

I think you are confusing abiogenesis and evolution.

That's another word I've seen since reading these forums. Abiogenesis. Now if the bible is supposedly false, why are you people using the word 'genesis' in a scientific theory?

There is no need for rude language. Also, if the water we're drinking is urine then why is it clear? And why doesn't it taste bad? So many people have existed, they have excreted waste into water and bathed in it for thousands of years, so how does water "recycle itself". I remember when me and my brother were kids we went on vacation and he left poo in the toilet and forgot to flush because we were in a hurry to leave. And let me tell you, when we returned one week later that water didn't magically clean itself. It was still there like it was when we left.

First of all, there is no magical power attributed to a four-letter word, so fucking get over yourself. Second, that poo in the toilet didn't magically clean itself because water doesn't recycle when it sits and stagnates. All that bottled water that you drink didn't just get scooped up out of a lake to sit in a vat before it was bottled and bought by you. That water was run through a filtration process to become potable.

But I bet you believe in the Genesis 2 story where God created Adam from a pile of dust, don't you?

Well these scientists are saying we come from stardust. Who's to say that "dust" mentioned in the bible isn't the stardust that scientists are always talking about? Maybe they inadvertently proved some of the bible there, huh?

Assuming the Bible was right in the first place, but it gets so many other things wrong. I mean, Moses certainly wasn't right when he said that Rabbits chew cud. The moon isn't a light source akin to the sun, and over a million Israelites could not have been in the wilderness for 40 years, or there would be more archaelogical evidence for it. The book is not reliable for anything, so when it gets a few facts right (though god making Adam from dust is demonstrably wrong anyway), it doesn't make the rest of the Bible correct.

It's like making lemonade with all the right ingredients, except for that little bit of urine that got into it. That bit of piss ruins the entire batch.

Oh my fucking god, someone please tell me this is a poe or troll.

Please don't blaspheme. Don't bring God into it. If you have a problem with anything I say address me

You're an asshole if you think you can hold others up to your same standards. Shame on you for trying to impose your beliefs on free-thinkers.

I am as cynical about human intelligence as they come, and even I refuse to believe that anyone could be this stupid.

Please try to keep this fair and don't insult me. I'm not insulting anybody. Those are ad hominem attacks. Lets just try to have a civil discussion.

When you are being demonstrably stupid, then the insult is completely warranted, and you should know enough to fix your behavior accordingly in order to avoid more slander.

Over the weekend, my father-in-law cut his finger and had to go to the emergency room. There was a lady there who brought in her child because he had gone swimming and may have gotten water in his ear.

Yes, human stupidity is boundless.

I hope your father-in-law is okay. I'll send a prayer for his speedy healing. You shouldn't call him stupid though. We all have accidents from time to time.

And here you have demonstrated said stupidity. He wasn't calling his father-in-law stupid. Now it's obvious that you're a Troll.

[Faith No More]

To be fair, I didn't know what they meant when I first joined.

Yes, but did you ask anyone if it was some kind of "scientist slang?"

[Rahul]

We always gotta be rude, eh guys? Just chase 'em all off with insults before we can even teach them anything.

[Faith No More]

Well, you can't teach a phony persona anyway.

[Cyberman]

To be fair, I didn't know what they meant when I first joined.

Granted, but I bet you knew enough to find out instead of advertising ignorance. If only there was some kind of giant electronic database, a "web" if you will, which a person could "browse" and "search" for information...

That's another word I've seen since reading these forums. Abiogenesis. Now if the bible is supposedly false, why are you people using the word 'genesis' in a scientific theory?

I apologise, I did you a disservice. That one actually made me giggle.

Ok, Simon Cowell time again: I'm going to say -------yes. It took me a while to catch on to your style I think, it's a little rough and hit-and-miss, but your act does have potential.