I'm a religious man myself, but not going to go down the road of flaming back and forth as some of you seem intent on picking apart and flaming religion rather than answering his actual topic which is against evolution which is what most of you should be trying to defend. Now that aside I do have four honest questions I've always wondered and since some of you are followers of evolution maybe you can respond.
1. (first deals with the big bang you guys have brought up) If you believe everything was formed in the big bang and that the bang was caused by two colliding gasses or whatever, where did those gases come from, and without celestial bodies to form any sort of pull or stellar winds how did these gases that came from wherever gain momentum enough to collide?
2. (This is true as well as I think it'd be stupid to make something up if I'm asking an honest question) A cowboy hat from roughly 60 to 90 (can't remember the exact date just read and saw pics on it) or so years ago was caught in a mudslide. After that small amount of time it became fosilized more or less. So if an item doesn't take millions of years to become fosilized, only to be covered in mud then why is every fosil stated as being millions of years old and nothing more recent than a few thousand it seems? Couple that with a test for carbon dating two scientists did for fun of testing a 5 min old game of tic tac toe and it saying it was 50 or so years old, and how do we not know carbon dating isn't way off?
3. If everything evolved from that one species that first crawled out of the primordial ooze or whatever, a. how did that one species branch off into millions of others once on land, and b. why do we only find point a's and b's in fosil records? What I mean by that last part is that so many species are supposed to have come from an earlier one, if evolution takes millions of years why do we only have an elephant and the aquatic specimin it supposedly came from? Why don't we find that aquatic animal with two fully formed legs, then with 4 legs as it went on land, then with a trunk and so on. I just find it funny that for a process taking millions upon millions of years we aren't finding fosils left and right of all those inbetween phases.
4. This ones simple and straight forward. Now while some of those ape skulls supposedly being missing links have already been proven false (even tho the human skull with a pig tooth glued in made it into school books after it was proven a hoax
) and some skulls mere fragments or made up of multiple bone sets discovered miles apart from eachother, how can it be proven their simply not skeleton deformities? Take ppl like Andre the giant, he had that giants disease, his skull was mishapen as was his skeletal structure, his head was larger and even thru his skin his forhead seemed more flat, and it was a disease. Or the elephant man, or the man other diseases we know of that shape skeletal structures in weird ways. Is there anyway to prove that it wasn't simply a human skeletal disease mishaping it?
Honestly I almost didn't ask this because in all honesty I find the concept laughable, fact is everytime they find a new 'missing link' it screws their line up severely and they have to rethink the entire thing. If it's so wobbly they can't get more than 3 steps in everytime they try to go thru it before a problem arrises...eh sry don't want to get off topic. Anyway my questions were on topic as this is about if evolution is a lie, and not how many ways can Hypesters hate on religion.
BTW on a side note Adam and Eve were NOT brother and sister. God created Eve as a companion to Adam, just because she came from Adam's rib doesn't mean they shared any common genetic structure. Second who Cain went to the land of nod to find a wife he didn't marry his own sister as he was banished from them.
