-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
lol, now who is moving the goal post?
The statement was never meant to "prove" people lived hundreds of years in the past.
Just as biochemical similarities does not "prove" that there was a common ancestor between those two species. It implies that there might be that common ancestor.
The fact that age is tied to the replication of telomeres, implies that if telomerase remain active, humans could have lived longer in the past. Therefore validity some statements in the Bible.
Evolutionary theory would not contradict the Bible at all if you began both at the adaptive radiation of land vertebrates from Noah's ark.
It is the genesis of life that is mixed in that confuses the issue. Also the timeline does not agree.
However, I believe that Christians can accept that evolution happens to the animals that departed from the ark and made the various species we presently see.
It says that different species change and adapt to the changing environment, which I would say was part of God's plan.
What you might not like is the Bible or God references, but this site is called CHRISTIAN chat.
The statement was never meant to "prove" people lived hundreds of years in the past.
Just as biochemical similarities does not "prove" that there was a common ancestor between those two species. It implies that there might be that common ancestor.
The fact that age is tied to the replication of telomeres, implies that if telomerase remain active, humans could have lived longer in the past. Therefore validity some statements in the Bible.
Evolutionary theory would not contradict the Bible at all if you began both at the adaptive radiation of land vertebrates from Noah's ark.
It is the genesis of life that is mixed in that confuses the issue. Also the timeline does not agree.
However, I believe that Christians can accept that evolution happens to the animals that departed from the ark and made the various species we presently see.
It says that different species change and adapt to the changing environment, which I would say was part of God's plan.
What you might not like is the Bible or God references, but this site is called CHRISTIAN chat.
A
Though I agree with most of your statement about life cycles of organisms is not the same thing as evolution.
I would say that the species are not "entirely new". They have just changed in a way that they no longer mate with others of the same species.
However, the BIBLE does not label things as different species. It says God made the birds.
We now have the ORDER of birds.
IF we believe in Genesis, then we can say God created various creatures such as birds and then they evolved to become the various family, genus, species we see today.
Many Christians make the mistake of rejecting all of evolution without truly understanding it.
I believe that evolution shows that Noah's ark was possible. That we could all the diversity of life from two breeding pairs if they had the genetic diversity in their genome.
Here are some links about genetic diversity & speciation:
The Genetic Variation in a Population Is Caused by Multiple Factors | Learn Science at Scitable
Evolution 101: Speciation
I would say that the species are not "entirely new". They have just changed in a way that they no longer mate with others of the same species.
However, the BIBLE does not label things as different species. It says God made the birds.
We now have the ORDER of birds.
IF we believe in Genesis, then we can say God created various creatures such as birds and then they evolved to become the various family, genus, species we see today.
Many Christians make the mistake of rejecting all of evolution without truly understanding it.
I believe that evolution shows that Noah's ark was possible. That we could all the diversity of life from two breeding pairs if they had the genetic diversity in their genome.
Here are some links about genetic diversity & speciation:
The Genetic Variation in a Population Is Caused by Multiple Factors | Learn Science at Scitable
Evolution 101: Speciation
A
Since the flood was a local and not a global event, there was no need. The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local
Then we can agree that your statement isn't an argument but what you personally believe. Fair enough.
At one point in time, this statement would have been true. But throughout the years we have found fossils of common ancestors (linked through numerous other studies and finds).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC&index=9
Order of birds? You mean the class Ares which is commonly referred to as birds? We didn't need the Bible to figure this one out. In fact, the Bible refers to bats as birds, which means our definition of bird slightly differs from the Bible's definition.
AronRa does a wonderful overview on the history of taxonomy. I can't remember which video it is so I'll keep an eye on it.
There is an estimated 10,000 species of bird of earth today. Are you telling me two bird evolved into 10,000 different species in a measly 7,000 years?
Genetic diversity doesn't refer to a single individual's genome. It refers to the range of genetic diversity throughout an entire population of animals (of the same species of course). Having only two of each animal would grant us a minuscule amount of genetic diversity, even if the two animals were fairly different from one another.
But if we're going to talk about genetic diversity, then perhaps we should also acknowledge the problem with inbreeding?
The two links you provided are wonderful reads indeed, but they do not support the validity of Noah's Ark. Genetic diversity between only two individuals is way too small to quickly evolve into a new species. Even if genetic diversity wasn't a problem, 10,000 species in 7,000 years is stupendously fast. That's roughly 1.4 new species every year!
At one point in time, this statement would have been true. But throughout the years we have found fossils of common ancestors (linked through numerous other studies and finds).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC&index=9
Order of birds? You mean the class Ares which is commonly referred to as birds? We didn't need the Bible to figure this one out. In fact, the Bible refers to bats as birds, which means our definition of bird slightly differs from the Bible's definition.
AronRa does a wonderful overview on the history of taxonomy. I can't remember which video it is so I'll keep an eye on it.
There is an estimated 10,000 species of bird of earth today. Are you telling me two bird evolved into 10,000 different species in a measly 7,000 years?
Genetic diversity doesn't refer to a single individual's genome. It refers to the range of genetic diversity throughout an entire population of animals (of the same species of course). Having only two of each animal would grant us a minuscule amount of genetic diversity, even if the two animals were fairly different from one another.
But if we're going to talk about genetic diversity, then perhaps we should also acknowledge the problem with inbreeding?
The two links you provided are wonderful reads indeed, but they do not support the validity of Noah's Ark. Genetic diversity between only two individuals is way too small to quickly evolve into a new species. Even if genetic diversity wasn't a problem, 10,000 species in 7,000 years is stupendously fast. That's roughly 1.4 new species every year!
Sorry, I linked the wrong video in my last post.
This video highlights taxonomy quite well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc&index=10&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC
This video highlights taxonomy quite well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc&index=10&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC
This is not about your post per say, this is about the statements at the bottom about legalism. God's definition of legalism as it is always used in the bible, is to teach that "salvation requires keeping the Mosaic Law". That, and only that.
Man's new modern definition changes the biblical meaning to the things you list below your post, like we have changed the meanings for the word adultery, the word ungodly lusts ... and many others. If we want God's meaning, we must find all of the places where the original words/roots are used throughout the scriptures (Septuagint and N.T. manuscripts), and hold to a meaning for the words that fits everywhere the same words/root words are used, and everywhere a situation that pertains to what we are looking for has occurred. We must choose meanings that fits with all that God and those said to be godly, have done and said, and have not done and not said. (i.e. if something is a sin to us, but not to God and godly people, there will be no reproof from God or godly people when what we have created as a command of God, but isn't a command of God was done, and godly people will seemingly violate the imaginary command without reproof from God.
Man's new modern definition changes the biblical meaning to the things you list below your post, like we have changed the meanings for the word adultery, the word ungodly lusts ... and many others. If we want God's meaning, we must find all of the places where the original words/roots are used throughout the scriptures (Septuagint and N.T. manuscripts), and hold to a meaning for the words that fits everywhere the same words/root words are used, and everywhere a situation that pertains to what we are looking for has occurred. We must choose meanings that fits with all that God and those said to be godly, have done and said, and have not done and not said. (i.e. if something is a sin to us, but not to God and godly people, there will be no reproof from God or godly people when what we have created as a command of God, but isn't a command of God was done, and godly people will seemingly violate the imaginary command without reproof from God.
A
i see a rabbit trail forming......
Percepi, I would respond to your post but it doesn't seem like you are really talking to me.... the lump responses to everyone's statements makes it kind of confusing since we are all individual people and don't all agree on all points being discussed.
Therefore it would be hard to discuss a point when you assume that I believe something I don't or I'm trying to say something I'm not.
Truthfully I just post to help my fellow Christians see how some aspects of evolution are true and do not conflict with the Bible.
Not to "prove" to nonbelievers the truths found in the Bible.
Percepi, I would respond to your post but it doesn't seem like you are really talking to me.... the lump responses to everyone's statements makes it kind of confusing since we are all individual people and don't all agree on all points being discussed.
Therefore it would be hard to discuss a point when you assume that I believe something I don't or I'm trying to say something I'm not.
Truthfully I just post to help my fellow Christians see how some aspects of evolution are true and do not conflict with the Bible.
Not to "prove" to nonbelievers the truths found in the Bible.
Last edited by a moderator:
Our opinion about creation v evolution is asked for in the OP, as well as what the Bible says about it. I didn't see reason to debate the issue here. Now for my opinion about that.
The generations involved in training up current evolution scientists are those who were brainwashed through the lie of Piltdown Man for apparently 58 years, including at least 17 years after exposure of the great lie. All science classes in grade schools and college were exposed to that. We were all contaminated, all forced to accept a concept that had no alternative concept that most could suspect. It was irrefutable fact for every American student from 1914 until over half a century after the "discovery" of that human skull with a jaw like an ape. Man indeed shared a common ancestor with the apes!
That lie was not removed from science textbooks and wall charts until a replacement concept could replace it. The idea took root such that most students still today are taught it is unthinkable to veer from evolution of man. Today the average teacher is influenced by the old who held the lie as a precious truth.
The best world scientists working with "evolution glasses" that only enable them to consider pro-evolution evidences failed to recognize a blatant hoax for about 41 years! They stood by knowing the lie was shaping future generations to accept their beliefs. What a shame on them.
From that I propose that surely it won't take another 41 years for the whole truth of this to emerge in the view of science students. Already much of the concept of evolution is severely damaged, just by single cases like the dinosaur bones containing blood components that somehow escaped millions of years of "lithification" (mud turned to rock) and replacement of organic cell components with minerals by "permineralization", and other manners of fossilization. It's interesting how evolutionists typically dismiss those mounting discoveries. They will continue denying it until their book sales meet expectations, and their retirement is secured.
The generations involved in training up current evolution scientists are those who were brainwashed through the lie of Piltdown Man for apparently 58 years, including at least 17 years after exposure of the great lie. All science classes in grade schools and college were exposed to that. We were all contaminated, all forced to accept a concept that had no alternative concept that most could suspect. It was irrefutable fact for every American student from 1914 until over half a century after the "discovery" of that human skull with a jaw like an ape. Man indeed shared a common ancestor with the apes!
That lie was not removed from science textbooks and wall charts until a replacement concept could replace it. The idea took root such that most students still today are taught it is unthinkable to veer from evolution of man. Today the average teacher is influenced by the old who held the lie as a precious truth.
The best world scientists working with "evolution glasses" that only enable them to consider pro-evolution evidences failed to recognize a blatant hoax for about 41 years! They stood by knowing the lie was shaping future generations to accept their beliefs. What a shame on them.
From that I propose that surely it won't take another 41 years for the whole truth of this to emerge in the view of science students. Already much of the concept of evolution is severely damaged, just by single cases like the dinosaur bones containing blood components that somehow escaped millions of years of "lithification" (mud turned to rock) and replacement of organic cell components with minerals by "permineralization", and other manners of fossilization. It's interesting how evolutionists typically dismiss those mounting discoveries. They will continue denying it until their book sales meet expectations, and their retirement is secured.
I want to thank you for your effort. Yes, many facts promoted by evolutionists are acceptable science and very good biology. All the science fields benefit. Now that genetics fields have split into so many specialties, more of the big picture emerges. The problem remains, though, in how the data is applied and upon what basis conclusions are formed. I tend to reject all evolution concepts introduced by any form of "We believe", or "It is believed", that something else is true because we believe the former belief is true. When any foreground belief is employed without verification of authenticity of its data, then the conclusion ought to be disqualified.
I appreciate how creation-believing scientists hold off on creation statements until after a purely scientific conclusion is derived. Once that is done it ought to be perfectly fine for them, and us to declare how so much good science is in agreement with the Bible. I won't throw the baby out with the bath water. I can read the secular works, filter out the unfair preconceived notions, accept the good stuff. But for me the creation account more and more makes the best explanation of life, geology explained best in the Genesis Flood, why no supposed intermediate forms of species to species evolution will hold up as such. Geneticists are learning enough to prove they won't ever find a real intermediate fossil. It isn't that geneticists themselves will use their facts to do so. It will be others using their facts. Whatever is true about evolution will be stronger.
I strongly believe much of this problem began each time science terms like "species" and "scientific process" got redefined to better support evolution. It was mostly evolutionists that did that, being in charge of academia. They were and remain in charge simply because of 100 years of the embedded lie of man/ape ancestry complicated by many other subsequent contaminated conclusions. Most couldn't help but mutually agree upon a natural course of beliefs based on former lies. It's most of their conclusions that are repulsive to me, as well as their methods which are selected to best serve the cause.
I appreciate how creation-believing scientists hold off on creation statements until after a purely scientific conclusion is derived. Once that is done it ought to be perfectly fine for them, and us to declare how so much good science is in agreement with the Bible. I won't throw the baby out with the bath water. I can read the secular works, filter out the unfair preconceived notions, accept the good stuff. But for me the creation account more and more makes the best explanation of life, geology explained best in the Genesis Flood, why no supposed intermediate forms of species to species evolution will hold up as such. Geneticists are learning enough to prove they won't ever find a real intermediate fossil. It isn't that geneticists themselves will use their facts to do so. It will be others using their facts. Whatever is true about evolution will be stronger.
I strongly believe much of this problem began each time science terms like "species" and "scientific process" got redefined to better support evolution. It was mostly evolutionists that did that, being in charge of academia. They were and remain in charge simply because of 100 years of the embedded lie of man/ape ancestry complicated by many other subsequent contaminated conclusions. Most couldn't help but mutually agree upon a natural course of beliefs based on former lies. It's most of their conclusions that are repulsive to me, as well as their methods which are selected to best serve the cause.
Birds are birds 
The Bible refers to "kinds", which held an amazingly complex genetic data set to provide many characteristics. We don't witness any of them becoming something other than another type of bird kind. God engineered the ability to adapt to different living conditions, while remaining kin to birds in general. The Ark was big enough to hold various "kinds" of birds, too, further expanding the possible varieties of what we lump into one category Ares. Perhaps there was in fact a then rare birdy-bat kind that went extinct after the flood.
The Bible refers to "kinds", which held an amazingly complex genetic data set to provide many characteristics. We don't witness any of them becoming something other than another type of bird kind. God engineered the ability to adapt to different living conditions, while remaining kin to birds in general. The Ark was big enough to hold various "kinds" of birds, too, further expanding the possible varieties of what we lump into one category Ares. Perhaps there was in fact a then rare birdy-bat kind that went extinct after the flood.Biblical literalism requires at least several original bird types, because God created birds according to their kinds (plural). The Bible doesn't use use the modern classification system, so bats might count as one bird kind and what we call birds counts as another bird kind. Actually, I don't know if the bible considers bats to be birds (I don't know that a bat in the KJV is really a bat).
But, science does make it difficult to extrapolate variation very broadly, regardless of what Evolutionists claim. It's very simple to get a lot of variation out of recombining existing genes. And, even if we can't breed one kind of bird into another kind of bird, maybe a common ancestor had the genetic variation to produce both of what we consider to be different kinds species. But, no original bird pair could hold enough genetic variation for more than few of what now appears to be different types of birds.
Speciation is a degenerative process and does nothing to aid an honest man wanting to believe Evolution. If you have speciation within a bird population, by a mutation, you can have officially two species, but they're still really the same kind of bird. Any distinctiveness they have is just because the two populations only have genetic subsets of the parent population.
Degenerative mutations can further diverge two species of the same bird kind. Suppose one bird population loses the function of a gene needed to express long tail feathers. Now, you have two bird populations, two species that are very easy to distinguish visually. No Evolution involved.
But, now we have substantially approached the end of variation that we can hope to see in nature. Degenerative mutations and speciation drive species toward extinction, with natural selection being the brakes.
We know empirically that species have no tendency to accumulate constructive mutations. Evolution is empirically false. And, while it's completely reasonable to accept that the number of kinds of birds on the ark was much fewer than the number of species that officially exist now, it's not scientifically reasonable to believe that all the current bird diversity developed from a common bird ancestor.
But, science does make it difficult to extrapolate variation very broadly, regardless of what Evolutionists claim. It's very simple to get a lot of variation out of recombining existing genes. And, even if we can't breed one kind of bird into another kind of bird, maybe a common ancestor had the genetic variation to produce both of what we consider to be different kinds species. But, no original bird pair could hold enough genetic variation for more than few of what now appears to be different types of birds.
Speciation is a degenerative process and does nothing to aid an honest man wanting to believe Evolution. If you have speciation within a bird population, by a mutation, you can have officially two species, but they're still really the same kind of bird. Any distinctiveness they have is just because the two populations only have genetic subsets of the parent population.
Degenerative mutations can further diverge two species of the same bird kind. Suppose one bird population loses the function of a gene needed to express long tail feathers. Now, you have two bird populations, two species that are very easy to distinguish visually. No Evolution involved.
But, now we have substantially approached the end of variation that we can hope to see in nature. Degenerative mutations and speciation drive species toward extinction, with natural selection being the brakes.
We know empirically that species have no tendency to accumulate constructive mutations. Evolution is empirically false. And, while it's completely reasonable to accept that the number of kinds of birds on the ark was much fewer than the number of species that officially exist now, it's not scientifically reasonable to believe that all the current bird diversity developed from a common bird ancestor.
Please, watch this video. It's not even trying to prove evolution to be true, all it does is explain what the theory of evolution is and what it is not.
[video=youtube;XdddbYILel0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdddbYILel0[/video]
Obviously not a rock. I'll answer your question but I need you to first understand the basics of what evolution is and what evolution is not. When you get this idea that evolution scientists believe life came from rocks and dogs give birth to cats out of your head, we can have a meaningful discussion.
Clearly you didn't watch the video I provided explaining the exposure of Piltdown man.
Piltdown man was a fraud that temporarily fooled scientists. But it was discovered to be a hoax and corrected. This doesn't mean every fossil we do have is a hoax though.
Poppycock! Evolution scientists immediately stopped referring to Piltdown man as soon as it started to contradict new data. Piltdown man was then re-examined and the moment it was discovered to be a fraud, scientists corrected the mistake! Sometimes data in textbooks provided to schools are not corrected or updated, which is a shame, but it doesn't mean scientists are intentionally trying to fool students. Keep in mind, the scientists who corrected the error were evolutionists themselves!
I provided a video explaining this too. The blood components were just that, components. They were found in unfractured bones in very specific conditions that allowed those components to remain preserved. These components were ONLY found in specific bones in which they were shielded from outside elements and nowhere else!
Scientists use these words because they remain honest and open to the idea that their data might be wrong. You can't just look at the words "we believe" and assume it's a baseless assumption. It's a belief based on evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-CqFh7xvDQ
I'm sorry, but are you serious? Creation scientists always start with the premise that God created the earth and that all evidence that contradicts that view must be wrong. Real scientists, evolutionists, do not start with the premise that evolution is true. They conclude evolution to be true after observing the fact. Watch the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. Ken ADMITS he would NEVER change his mind under ANY circumstances about creationism being true, ever. Countless "creation" scientists admit this.
Creation "science" isn't science. It's a bunch of people who look at things other scientists have uncovered and they pick at it so that parts that seem to verify creation are accepted and things that seem to counter creation are dismissed as false. They do not EVER partake in double blind studies to verify whether or not their facts are right. Scientists, evolutionists, do.
We have sooooooooooooooooooooo many examples of transitional fossils that it amazes me anyone can reject them as such. The problem isn't that there aren't any transitional fossils, the problem is that creationists will NEVER accept ANY fossil to be transitional no matter what!
The scientific process has always remained the same and evolution scientists do not control academia. It sounds like you watched Ben Stein's asinine movie "No Intelligence Allowed". If that's the case, I can provide numerous links that verify Stein as being intentionally dishonest in that film.
The Bible didn't go into much detail as to what a "kind" is, which means this claim is completely made up.
You said you studied evolution, so why do you make a statement that doesn't' describe evolution? Evolution is a GRADUAL process. It's not some sort of event in which a bird gives birth to a lizard or a half lizard, half bird, mutant. The process is gradual in the same sense a baby doesn't go to bed and wake up a teen, who wakes up a middle aged man, who wakes up an old wrinkled man. This is precisely what creationists pretend evolution is, an event in which offspring are vastly different from their parents - that's not how evolution works.
Wonderful! A prediction! Now all you have to do is find a bat/bird ancestor, verify it's age, and get the studies peer reviewed!
[video=youtube;XdddbYILel0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdddbYILel0[/video]
Obviously not a rock. I'll answer your question but I need you to first understand the basics of what evolution is and what evolution is not. When you get this idea that evolution scientists believe life came from rocks and dogs give birth to cats out of your head, we can have a meaningful discussion.
Clearly you didn't watch the video I provided explaining the exposure of Piltdown man.
Piltdown man was a fraud that temporarily fooled scientists. But it was discovered to be a hoax and corrected. This doesn't mean every fossil we do have is a hoax though.
Poppycock! Evolution scientists immediately stopped referring to Piltdown man as soon as it started to contradict new data. Piltdown man was then re-examined and the moment it was discovered to be a fraud, scientists corrected the mistake! Sometimes data in textbooks provided to schools are not corrected or updated, which is a shame, but it doesn't mean scientists are intentionally trying to fool students. Keep in mind, the scientists who corrected the error were evolutionists themselves!
I provided a video explaining this too. The blood components were just that, components. They were found in unfractured bones in very specific conditions that allowed those components to remain preserved. These components were ONLY found in specific bones in which they were shielded from outside elements and nowhere else!
Scientists use these words because they remain honest and open to the idea that their data might be wrong. You can't just look at the words "we believe" and assume it's a baseless assumption. It's a belief based on evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-CqFh7xvDQ
I'm sorry, but are you serious? Creation scientists always start with the premise that God created the earth and that all evidence that contradicts that view must be wrong. Real scientists, evolutionists, do not start with the premise that evolution is true. They conclude evolution to be true after observing the fact. Watch the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. Ken ADMITS he would NEVER change his mind under ANY circumstances about creationism being true, ever. Countless "creation" scientists admit this.
Creation "science" isn't science. It's a bunch of people who look at things other scientists have uncovered and they pick at it so that parts that seem to verify creation are accepted and things that seem to counter creation are dismissed as false. They do not EVER partake in double blind studies to verify whether or not their facts are right. Scientists, evolutionists, do.
We have sooooooooooooooooooooo many examples of transitional fossils that it amazes me anyone can reject them as such. The problem isn't that there aren't any transitional fossils, the problem is that creationists will NEVER accept ANY fossil to be transitional no matter what!
The scientific process has always remained the same and evolution scientists do not control academia. It sounds like you watched Ben Stein's asinine movie "No Intelligence Allowed". If that's the case, I can provide numerous links that verify Stein as being intentionally dishonest in that film.
Birds are birds The Bible refers to "kinds", which held an amazingly complex genetic data set to provide many characteristics.
The Bible refers to "kinds", which held an amazingly complex genetic data set to provide many characteristics.
You said you studied evolution, so why do you make a statement that doesn't' describe evolution? Evolution is a GRADUAL process. It's not some sort of event in which a bird gives birth to a lizard or a half lizard, half bird, mutant. The process is gradual in the same sense a baby doesn't go to bed and wake up a teen, who wakes up a middle aged man, who wakes up an old wrinkled man. This is precisely what creationists pretend evolution is, an event in which offspring are vastly different from their parents - that's not how evolution works.
God engineered the ability to adapt to different living conditions, while remaining kin to birds in general. The Ark was big enough to hold various "kinds" of birds, too, further expanding the possible varieties of what we lump into one category Ares. Perhaps there was in fact a then rare birdy-bat kind that went extinct after the flood.
that went extinct after the flood.
According to this source, the process started about 130,000 years ago.
Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Dog
Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Dog
G
The argument of the evolution THEORY scientists. You take a bowl of soup. Keep on stirring for 100,000 years. Eventually and Apple i-pad will form from the stirring. If not, keep on stirring… and stirring… and stirring until eventually we have something resembling an Apple i-pad. IF BY A MINUTE CHANCE, nothing has formed after 5,000 gazillions of years of stirring… do what all evolution theory scientist do. Keep on stirring, eventually after 10,000 gazillions of years an………
Like I said before, makes perfect sense to me when I say it out loud LOL
(And the Apple i-pad is hypothetical)
Like I said before, makes perfect sense to me when I say it out loud LOL
(And the Apple i-pad is hypothetical)