Evolutionists your responses on these( no stupid responses please)..?

Question

on earth is about the same age as the bible predicts it would be? Why do some of the planets in the universe spill backwards to all the other planets? If the bib bang theory is true then everything should be spinning the same direction. The moon is leaving the earth, Which means that is you go back a couple millions of years ago the moon would have been touching the earth. The earths rotation is slowing down, which means if you go back in time to when first life form(magically) appeared on earth the earth would be spinning way to fast for life to exist on it. The sun is shrinking, which means that if you go back in time to when earth cooled down the sun would burn the earth and prevent from life appearing on it. Evolution is stupid.

Answer 1

You need to read a book other than the bible. You have no idea how stupid you sound. You cannot even begin to fathom how badly I am face palming myself.

Answer 2

1) earth is about the same age as the bible predicts it would be?

The Bible does not predict the age of the earth.



2) Why do some of the planets in the universe spill backwards to all the other planets?

That makes no sense, I honestly have no clue what you are talking about



3) If the [big] bang theory is true then everything should be spinning the same direction.

How did you get to that conclusion?



4) The moon is leaving the earth, Which means that is you go back a couple millions of years ago the moon would have been touching the earth.

Again, where did you get that information? The theory is that the moon and earth were two planets that collided, the collision resulted in tons of debris. The debris was held in orbit around the earth until it eventually formed a ball (the moon). That's a very simplistic version of the theory. Therefore the moon never touched the earth. The Moon is shifting away at a very very small distance per year because the Earths gravity is not strong enough to pull it in (basically that means a moon has one of two options - go back and loose orbit due to lack of substantial gravity or to come in due to too much gravity. Our moon just happens to be the former)



5) The earths rotation is slowing down, which means if you go back in time to when first life form(magically) appeared on earth the earth would be spinning way to fast for life to exist on it.

Again - What? I suggest researching this one, it's got to do with the theories on how the earth was formed.



6) The sun is shrinking

Incorrect, the sun is in fact getting bigger. Bigger but cooler. Also research how a sun is formed, it's very interesting



As a Christian, I know the theories and believe they make sense, I do however believe God purposefully planned out the events to create the perfect world for us.

Answer 3

on earth is about the same age as the bible predicts it would be? - Only in fantasies.



Why do some of the planets in the universe spill backwards to all the other planets? - Interaction with other celestial bodies.



If the bib bang theory is true then everything should be spinning the same direction. - No reasn why they should.



The moon is leaving the earth, Which means that is you go back a couple millions of years ago the moon would have been touching the earth. - Do the "correct" math and you have it much closer 4 billion years ago, not touching.



The earths rotation is slowing down, which means if you go back in time to when first life form(magically) appeared on earth the earth would be spinning way to fast for life to exist on it - Do the correct math and take in to consideration other celestial bodies. There are at least 6 that we know of that hit earth.



The sun is shrinking, which means that if you go back in time to when earth cooled down the sun would burn the earth and prevent from life appearing on it. - There is that correct math again.



Evolution is stupid. - Absolutely NONE of that has to do with evolution, but then what can you expect from a fundie.

Answer 4

You are presenting evidence for a young Universe rather than evolution but of course significant evolution could only occur if the planet is old, so the distinction is not that important.



Projecting the length of the day backwards through the evidence shown by growth rings in fossil corals gives a result of a six hour day 4.6 billion years ago. This is much shorter of course but not incompatible with life, though life didn't exist from the beginning on Earth.



The Moon moves back by only a few centimetres a year, which gives ample time for it to reach its current distance.



The planets all move in the same direction and close to the same orbital plane. Venus rotates in the opposite direction because this planet's gravity has braked it and pulled it in the other direction. Uranus is only technically retrograde because of its unusual axial tilt. Phoebe orbits the other way because it's a captured centaur. None of that has any bearing on the Big Bang theory.



Stars on the Main Sequence move from colder to hotter through their lives. When they reach the red giant phase, they go the other way.



I suggest you consider Cepheid variables.

Answer 5

There is so much wrong with that I wonder if you have ever been to school and if you have what sort of appalling science education system does your country have? If I were you, I would start with the Big Bang which you can read about here

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html



Our solar system was not created by the Big Bang but about 9billion years later. A star in the our part of the galaxy went supernova leaving a huge disc of gas and dust which consolidated under gravity to form the sun, the planets, the moons, the asteroids and everything else in the solar system. There is the possibility that two stars in succession went supernova before our solar system appeared, there was certainly time.



When you have learned what the Big Bang is all about, come back and ask questions about the moon etc although you will find your answers here if you look:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Answer 6

>Why do some of the planets in the universe spill backwards to all the other planets? If the bib bang theory is true then everything should be spinning the same direction.



http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260.html



>The moon is leaving the earth, Which means that is you go back a couple millions of years ago the moon would have been touching the earth.



http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html



>The earths rotation is slowing down, which means if you go back in time to when first life form(magically) appeared on earth the earth would be spinning way to fast for life to exist on it.



http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html



>The sun is shrinking, which means that if you go back in time to when earth cooled down the sun would burn the earth and prevent from life appearing on it.



http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html

Answer 7

Facepalm. Wow...really? I'm getting you a science book for your birthday. I stopped at the moon. There's no point in reading anything else.



The moon was once a part of the earth that was broken off. And besides that, you're own question turns in on itself. You say everything is slowly spinning away/out of control. Well, if your God created this "perfect" universe for us, then why is it falling apart? My kids build more structurally sound things out of legos. I think it's time for a new God. Have you accepted Thor into your life?

Answer 8

my 7th grade kid in earth science knows more about this bullshirt than you... this is a sad day......

yess at one point the moon was touching the sun but because the earths spin has been slowing down the moon is able to escape the gravity of earth faster. around 4.2 billion years ago a massive asteroid collided with the earth creating a celestial body that was small enough to orbit the earth. no the universe isnt spinning it is like the wind patterns on earth; constantly changing due to density and heat chages in the buble that holds it together. the sun isnt shrinking, its expanding due to the obvious fusion of small hydrogen atoms to larger helium atoms. lifedidnt magically appear, it happened due to the molecular combination of thousands of proteins combining in a heated space under a certain amount of pressure... once the atmospheric conditions are just right this is actually a common phenomenon that can still be observed today under the surface of the ocean by the volcanic rifts...

boom; your argument just got destroyed... :)

Answer 9

u trollin bro?



"The earths rotation is slowing down, which means if you go back in time to when first life form(magically) appeared on earth the earth would be spinning way to fast for life to exist on it."



OK, for one thing... the earth rotates at nearly 900 mph (depending on distance from axis). It could rotate a ton faster and we would still be here. We do not notice because we move with the earth.



"The earths rotation is slowing down, which means if you go back in time to when first life form(magically) appeared on earth the earth would be spinning way to fast for life to exist on it."



Life didn't form magically. Abiogenesis is a natural process that we are close to reproducing in a laboratory setting, look it up. And there WAS a time when the earth was too hot for life, but then it cooled down. For the past several million years the earth has been cool enough to support life.



That is the worst argument for creationism I have ever seen, BTW. You should educate yourself on what evolution is all about, because you are making your side look bad.

Answer 10

Charles Darwin failed miserably in his quest to validate his argument on Evolution.



God created the Heaven and Earth as the Holy Bible declares (Genesis 1:1). Don't put faith in theories. Have faith in God.



Charles Darwin did not use good logic in his famous book, "The Origin of Species."



W.R. Thompson, a Canadian entomologist(entomology-study of insects) of international repute, wrote in his introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin's Origen, "Darwin did not show in the Origin that species had originated by natural selection; he merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others.



Chapter 4 of the Origin, entitled "Natural Selection; or the Survival of the Fittest," occupies 44 pages in the 1958 mentor edition. In this chapter Darwin used the language of speculation, imagination, and assumption at least 187 times. For example, pages 118 and 119 contain the following phrases; "may have been," "is supposed to," perhaps," "If we suppose," "may still be," 'it is probable," "will generally tend," "may" "will generally tend," 'If," 'if...assumed," "supposed," "supposed," "probably," "It seems, therefore, extremely probable," and "We may suppose." Is this really the language of science? No, it is not.



Of Darwin's speculative arguments Thompson wrote, "....Personal convictions, simple possibilities, are presented as if they were proofs, or at least valid arguments in favor of the theory....The demonstration can be modified without difficulty to fit any conceivable case. It is without scientific value, since it cannot be verified; but since the imagination has free rein, it is easy to convey the impression that a concrete example of real transmutation (change of one species to another) has been given."



Source: Thompson, W.R., Introduction to The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, E.P. Dutton and Co., New York.



Have faith dear friends in God, not theories.



Genesis 1:1

Isaiah 45:18

Colossians 1:16

Hebrews 11:1-6

Genesis 2:1-3

Exodus 20:8-11

Psalm 14:1

Answer 11

So provide up being an ignorant moron who would be unable to spell and makes rants packed with hate, idiocy, fantasy and stupidity and that i'm effective you will get greater useful responses! the undeniable fact which you will submit this answer without what you asked quite says an undesirable lot approximately you! this form of answer is maximum probable standard so which you will get because of the fact of what YOU ask replace your questions and you gets diverse solutions!

Answer 12

Sounds like you're just parroting some very common creationist fallacies. From the likes of the Hovinds perhaps.



The development of a planet and the impacts it has withstood are what result in its rotational direction. Not the big bang.



Here's a video that addresses a number of the other claims you made. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBaLA4V9nz0

Answer 13

The Earth was spinning at 98rpm back then until we invented 45's. Now that we have Blue Ray, we're more likely to slip right off the intergalactical platter.

Answer 14

Yeah, if you totally ignore actual time it would seem ridiculous, yet you keep a watch at home don't you? Evolutions gives it time...plenty of time.



Just because it says this stuff is happening doesn't mean it's going on bible time. Yes, the bible doesn't create time rifts just by existing.

Answer 15

1. What do ANY of these have to do with evolution?

2. You know that evolution is how organic creatures adapt to their environment, right>

3. You know evolution has nothing to do with cosmology, right?

4. If you don't want stupid answers, why do you post stupid questions?



Creationism is stupid.



You asked for no stupid answers and then get one from Jack.

Answer 16

You apparently cannot tell the difference between cosmogony, abiogenesis, and evolution.



Until you can get your definition of terms straight, your question is just poorly-written nonsense.



And ironic. Very ironic.

Answer 17

I respond troll, a stupid question needs a stupid answer.

Answer 18

I'm sorry, I can't give you a serious, well-thought out answer...not with that bad grammar. I know mine isn't perfect, but damn, at least it seems like I at least paid attention in class.

Answer 19

.



At the moment we have 17 idiots and two real people who have answered -



The idiots cannot answer you because they don't know how.



BTW, those 17 idiots all gave stupid responses.



Keep up the good work.



.......

Answer 20

Don't ask for intelligent responses if you are going to provide a non-intelligent assertion.

Answer 21

You are not talking about evolution, which describes how creatures change shape.

Answer 22

you entrust your foundation of knowledge regarding the life span of earth on a book written thousands of years ago.





^ read that sentence a couple times, slowly

Answer 23

You say no stupid responses, but you asked a stupid question.

Answer 24

basically, your sources are lying.

Answer 25

Evolution would be fake even if they could answer you.