NationStates Jolt Archive

We need to start a new thread to avoid hijacking the poor, old one. :p

http://pics.livejournal.com/quelconque/pic/000026dg

Appropriate.

Now that we've started a new thread, what are the flaws in evolution?

*snip*
Appropriate.
I HAD TO START IT! WE NEED TO START THIS DEBATE ALL OVER AGIAN! FOR THE 352398TH TIME!! :D

Now that we've started a new thread, what are the flaws in evolution?

All the world, natural and human, operates in a balance. Order is not possible without balance. However, evolution stresses that IMbalance is the clue to growth. Therefore evolution and nature are incompatible in my point of view.

I HAD TO START IT! WE NEED TO START THIS DEBATE ALL OVER AGIAN! FOR THE 352398TH TIME!! :D

For real now, is there even a civilised country where this debate is pertinent any more? Creationism is dead. Evolutionism killed it dead a looooong time ago (even the Catholic church is evolutionist nowadays, and you know how behind the times they are). The only thing keeping creationism alive seems to be the Internet which, and you must agree, has a terrific knack for keeping outdated, old and just plain old kooky phenomena in perpetual stasis.

All the world, natural and human, operates in a balance. Order is not possible without balance. However, evolution stresses that IMbalance is the clue to growth. Therefore evolution and nature are incompatible in my point of view.

Evolution and nature are not incompatible. In fact there are anomalies that occur in nature, and there is imbalance. Nature isn't balanced... that's why mass extinctions happen. Therefore your argument is now trashed.

All the world, natural and human, operates in a balance. Order is not possible without balance. However, evolution stresses that IMbalance is the clue to growth. Therefore evolution and nature are incompatible in my point of view.
Look up the Red Queen Theory. Nature is not as balanced as you might think.

What does order have to do with anything?

Evolution and nature are not incompatible. In fact there are anomalies that occur in nature, and there is imbalance. Nature isn't balanced... that's why mass extinctions happen. Therefore your argument is now trashed.

Mass extinctions happen, but new things come out of it, balancing the equation. For example, we kill off all the apple trees in the world, but all the apples are made into apple pies. Apples are now extinct, but we also get an equal amount of apple pies. Balance! Voila!

You can't trash an argument by one statement, by the way.

Look up the Red Queen Theory. Nature is not as balanced as you might think.

What does order have to do with anything?

Don't you think the world acts in order? Gravity always happens anywhere in world. If it doesn't it's not because gravity has disappeared, but because there is an opposite force to gravity that is as strong as gravity and it seems that gravity has disappeared. Evolution is a disorder. That's incompatible with the order there is all around the world.

Looking up Red Queen theory. Gimme a sec.

Don't you think the world acts in order? Gravity always happens anywhere in world. If it doesn't it's not because gravity has disappeared, but because there is an opposite force to gravity that is as strong as gravity and it seems that gravity has disappeared. Evolution is a disorder. That's incompatible with the order there is all around the world.



This is false. Evolution is very much explaining how things are ordered, not disorder. You need to understand the theory before you talk about it.

Oh. Is the RQ theory "Why we have sex?"

We like having sex because God made us like having sex. Having sex is part of creating a family, originally, anyway, and family is in God's plan as being the first and most basic social group for animals and humans. It's a design, not a random occurance.

We like having sex because God made us like having sex. Having sex is part of creating a family, originally, anyway, and family is in God's plan as being the first and most basic social group for animals and humans. It's a design, not a random occurance.

Oh my, you are so brainwashed it is unbelieveable. You aren't even worthy to deal with.

This is false. Evolution is very much explaining how things are ordered, not disorder. You need to understand the theory before you talk about it.
For new species to occur, there must be disorder. Or else why else would the original species change?

Don't you think the world acts in order? Gravity always happens anywhere in world. If it doesn't it's not because gravity has disappeared, but because there is an opposite force to gravity that is as strong as gravity and it seems that gravity has disappeared. Evolution is a disorder. That's incompatible with the order there is all around the world.

Nipping this in the bud, gravity is disorderly. Order and disorder are different when applied to thermodynamics. Common definitions should not be used in scientific debates.

Oh my, you are so brainwashed it is unbelieveable. You aren't even worthy to deal with.

Okay. Bye bye.

Oh. Is the RQ theory "Why we have sex?"

No. The Red Queen Theory is that, in order to stay in the same place, you have to run as fast as you can. Fall behind, and you die.

Common definitions should not be used in scientific debates.

Hello, he's arguing for creationism. Science left that building before Elvis did.

Nipping this in the bud, gravity is disorderly. Order and disorder are different when applied to thermodynamics. Common definitions should not be used in scientific debates.

Okay. How about equilibria in biological and ecological systems? Ecosystems always have a tendancy to return to the original equilibria of state, not adopt a new one, after disturbance.

For new species to occur, there must be disorder. Or else why else would the original species change?

Then if there is disorder, and the fact that new species have in fact occurred, doesn't that trash your argument?

No. The Red Queen Theory is that, in order to stay in the same place, you have to run as fast as you can. Fall behind, and you die.
Yeah. The world has not been running since the beginning of the world. That's why so many species are dead and none significant are new.

For new species to occur, there must be disorder. Or else why else would the original species change?
Evolution is not a conscious phenomenon. A mutation occurs. If it decreases the organism's chances for survival, it dies out. If it increases the organism's chances for survival, it rapidly takes over the niche. If it has no effect, it remains in a relatively constant ratio until the environment changes. Repeat the previous three sentences.

Then if there is disorder, and the fact that new species have in fact occurred, doesn't that trash your argument?

New species of what? BACTERIA! It's called adaptation. They can change species, but they can't change kingdom.

Remember. Species is a human construct, that means species can change but in fact, they haven't changed much since the day they were created in God's eyes.

Yeah. The world has not been running since the beginning of the world. That's why so many species are dead and none significant are new.
Some species run a little faster. That the sets the bar for the rest. If they catch up, they live. If they don't, they die.

I can't explain it very well. I'll try to find an article on it that has a more in depth explanation.

Edit: Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen) an article with a more in depth explanation. It's not that good, but it's better than mine.

New species of what? BACTERIA! It's called adaptation. They can change species, but they can't change kingdom.

Remember. Species is a human construct, that means species can change but in fact, they haven't changed much since the day they were created in God's eyes.

Oh give me a break.. how old do you think this world is?

They weren't created by any higher power as a higher power doesn't exist and can't be proven.

Evolution is not a conscious phenomenon. A mutation occurs. If it decreases the organism's chances for survival, it dies out. If it increases the organism's chances for survival, it rapidly takes over the niche. If it has no effect, it remains in a relatively constant ratio until the environment changes. Repeat the previous three sentences.

I know that. I've debated this for 2 years now.

Ecosystems always have a tendancy to return to the original equilibria of state, not adopt a new one, after disturbance.

no, they don't. check out anywhere that an invasive species has been introduced. rabbits in australia, kudzu in the american south, humans into new zealand, etc. them ecosystems change, and perhaps reach an equilibrium again, but it is a completely new one.

Some species run a little faster. That the sets the bar for the rest. If they catch up, they live. If they don't, they die.

I can't explain it very well. I'll try to find an article on it that has a more in depth explanation.

But species don't tend to run, because they are designed to like the present! Many of them are dying rather than adapting.

no, they don't. check out anywhere that an invasive species has been introduced. rabbits in australia, kudzu in the american south, humans into new zealand, etc. them ecosystems change, and perhaps reach an equilibrium again, but it is a completely new one.
That's because the disturbances stay. If you take out the disturbances they will go back to the previous equilibrium.

Ecosystems always have a tendancy to return to the original equilibria of state, not adopt a new one, after disturbance.
No. They don't. A recent example of this is Krakatoa. After the eruption, new plants and animals arrived, but the population make-up is different than what it was before, as some species established footholds before others.

Edit: Then there's the K-T impact. Arguing that that didn't change the make-up of the ecosystem is like arguing that the earth is flat.

But species don't tend to run, because they are designed to like the present! Many of them are dying rather than adapting.

well people.. this is what denial does to you.. living a life of denial... really sad isn't it?

I got one.

Evolution defies the law of entrophy!

Well, I don't think this was needed. Since, in the old topic, creationists had already fallen back on"I've felt god in my life" as their proof that they were right. "You can't prove it either way, and I felt god touch my life, so you're wrong". I've got news for you, it's mind ofver matter. Infact, this is just mind over mind. You believe that there's a god affecting your life, and you start to see miracles everywhere. No, it's not a miracle, it's just a fireman, a vaccine, a winning lotto ticket, etc.

But species don't tend to run, because they are designed to like the present! Many of them are dying rather than adapting.
Excatly, which is how evo works, those that can change do so and live, those who don't, die. And it sounds like you're trying to apply the second law of thermodynamics to a biological system, like every OTHER creationist who hasn't bothered to take physics.

Change is all around us, every single moment is change. It would be nice to think that everything stays the same, but our own planet's record of climate change shows this to be false.

For new species to occur, there must be disorder. Or else why else would the original species change?

because there was some advantage to the new species over the old one?

That's because the disturbances stay. If you take out the disturbances they will go back to the previous equilibrium.

No shit genius. "Holy crap! When you take this block off the scale, it balances out!" this claim, if anything, supports evolution. When the climate and terrain returns to normal, the species that has already evolved and adapted to the terrain will return to dominance.

Excatly, which is how evo works, those that can change do so and live, those who don't, die. And it sounds like you're trying to apply the second law of thermodynamics to a biological system, like every OTHER creationist who hasn't bothered to take physics.
If you only study physics and believe that physics is independent to every other area of knowledge you are wrong. To acquire knowledge all the areas have to coordinate. If physics didn't affect biology then there would be no world at all. The art of coordination is higher than the art of discovery.

Change is all around us, every single moment is change. It would be nice to think that everything stays the same, but our own planet's record of climate change shows this to be false.

Change is all around us, but all changes revolve around fundamental balances.

No shit genius. "Holy crap! When you take this block off the scale, it balances out!" this claim, if anything, supports evolution. When the climate and terrain returns to normal, the species that has already evolved and adapted to the terrain will return to dominance.

Only adaptation. Not evolution.

Change is all around us, but all changes revolve around fundamental balances.

No it doesn't.. because everything is not balanced.. the world is full of chaos and imbalances.

I got one.

Evolution defies the law of entrophy!
Earth is an open system, not a closed one. You lose.

Only adaptation. Not evolution.
Adaptation is evolution. Learn the terms.

Now that we've started a new thread, what are the flaws in evolution?how does life on Earth start?

Many of them are dying rather than adapting.
There's your flaw: your talking about the present.

Human activity is greatly decreasing the population of some species because they cannot adapt fast enough.

For most animals, evolutionary changes take hundreds or thousands of years.

how does life on Earth start?

There are explanations about asteroids (or meteorites) containing organisms.

I've always wondered this. Why are there still single celled organisms.

There are explanations about asteroids (or meteorites) containing organisms.
Actually, a comet would be more likely, because they contain ice, and would be better to transport life (in a frozen state).

how does life on Earth start?

Abiogenesis != evolution. Evolution is what comes after it.

I've always wondered this. Why are there still single celled organisms.

Because they can adapt to change...

Takuma is right by the way.. a comet is more then likely.

Life began with design. Isn't it clear that the world is designed? Honeycombs are arranged in near-perfect hexagons because of chance?

Actually, a comet would be more likely, because they contain ice, and would be better to transport life (in a frozen state).


The comet just hit by deep impact was actually solid rock. Everyone thought it was going to be ice!

Change is all around us, but all changes revolve around fundamental balances.
Heh... ok, show me the balance of an ice age and the adaptations needed then? The blance of metor impacts, not to mention humanity's own infulance upon the planet.

Saying there is a fundamental balance does not make it so. We either go into nitches and stay and hope like hell nothing upsets the nitches, or we evolve out and find another way to prosper.

Life began with design. Isn't it clear that the world is designed? Honeycombs are arranged in near-perfect hexagons because of chance?
Because hexes work best. NS applies to behavior as well.

The comet just hit by deep impact was actually solid rock. Everyone thought it was going to be ice!

Some comets can be covered ice or just solid rock...

I've always wondered this. Why are there still single celled organisms.

Because the evolution of a new species does not mean the extinction of the old one, as they can normally co-exist.

Because they can adapt to change...




then why arent we single celled

then why arent we single celled

That's because all conditions aren't uniformed, and different species branch off towards different directions. That explains why we are so genetically similiar to chimps.

The comet just hit by deep impact was actually solid rock. Everyone thought it was going to be ice!
I call bullshit on this one.

I've always wondered this. Why are there still single celled organisms.

because they are ridiculously well adapted for their environments

then why arent we single celled

because we are also ridiculously well adapted to our environments

Because hexes work best. NS applies to behavior as well.

Yes. Hexes work best! That's why God made them in hexes!


I'm rapidly beginning to see that the same fact can be used for both arguments. Maybe I am really getting sick of this. I shouldn't have started this. Sigh.

I call bullshit on this one.

Me or the ones who said it was ice?

Me or the ones who said it was ice?
You, but it has nothing to do with the thread.

You, but it has nothing to do with the thread.

i was just wondering. but to be more off topic, you may want to check it out. Discovery had a good show on how they made the probe and what its finding where.

Maybe I am really getting sick of this. I shouldn't have started this. Sigh.
Then why on God's green Earth did you start it up again?

Then why on God's green Earth did you start it up again?

*sobs*

I didn't know my brain has injected chemicals that make me want to vomit whenever a Creation/Evolution debate is stirred up again.

I feel like vomitting now.

Abiogenesis != evolution. Evolution is what comes after it. Gahh... too tired... fixing post then going sleep.

so evolution can still be the tool that [insert diety] uses. there is nothing in Evolution that Discounts ID. and only fanatics take the Bible Literally. to me, this argument is a dead horse. basically two sides arguing about the same coin.

and with that... good night. :D

*sobs*

I didn't know my brain has injected chemicals that make me want to vomit whenever a Creation/Evolution debate is stirred up again.

I feel like vomitting now.
Well, now it sounds like you've become like the rest of us on NS about this topic. ;)

*sobs*

I didn't know my brain has injected chemicals that make me want to vomit whenever a Creation/Evolution debate is stirred up again.

I feel like vomitting now.Consider this then, your punnishment for bringing back this dead horse to beat upon. :D

Wow. So many many meaningful words, arranged in such a way that they make no sense.

Edit: I was attempting to quote JuNii. It didn't work.

Edit: I was attempting to quote JuNii. It didn't work.

i just had the same problem. twice.

strange

Free Soviets and CthulhuFhtagn, I posted and clipped a section of an artical that stated the improbability of Abiogenesis, it was a huge article... trust me, you didn't want me quoting the whole thing...

anyway, I redid my post so nvermnd... Goodnight and please torture the bastard who revived this subject will ya?

Edit: damn spelling errors... and I'll take it as a sign from the Almighty that the fact you had problems quoting me meant that it was a mistake to put that post up... :D

Gahh... too tired... fixing post then going sleep.

so evolution can still be the tool that [insert diety] uses. there is nothing in Evolution that Discounts ID. and only fanatics take the Bible Literally. to me, this argument is a dead horse. basically two sides arguing about the same coin.

and with that... good night. :D

Yes, but the principle of parsimony means throwing in a supernatural element when it doesn't effect the predictive power of a statement is not necessary. AKA, KISS.

Evidence people, evidence! Creatonism has no scientific evidence what so ever (however people who believe in it dont exactly think that science is the only thing out there) while Evolutionism has plenty of scientific evidence.

We need to start a new thread to avoid hijacking the poor, old one. :p

Sorry... but I only participate in "Limited Participation" Evolution threads. And only if I am not invited. It's like party-crashing a circle-jerk.

Evidence people, evidence! Creatonism has no scientific evidence what so ever (however people who believe in it dont exactly think that science is the only thing out there) while Evolutionism has plenty of scientific evidence.

Of course, the fact that God is likely to be above the regulations of science has nothing to do with it.

*sobs*

I didn't know my brain has injected chemicals that make me want to vomit whenever a Creation/Evolution debate is stirred up again.

I feel like vomitting now.



/comfort


There, there. If it's any consolation, I think you're cute in the picture in your sig :D


Edit: I see you changed your signature. Meh! :D

Of course, the fact that God is likely to be above the regulations of science has nothing to do with it.

If you want to get into a philosophical debate, I'll take the nihilistic side (of course, I'm hedging my bets here, nihilists always win philosophical debates).

If you want to get into a philosophical debate, I'll take the nihilistic side (of course, I'm hedging my bets here, nihilists always win philosophical debates).



Hear, hear! Philosophy! 'Tis better to debate the nature of God on his own terms than on ours :D

Of course, the fact that God is likely to be above the regulations of science has nothing to do with it.

with the complete utter lack of positive evidence for creationism, and the mind-bogglingly huge pile of positive evidence in favor of evolution?

when you have to have god not only covering his tracks, but going out of his way to trick everyone with basic critical thinking skills that has honestly looked at the evidence, it seems to me that the god hypothesis isn't all its cracked up to be.

with the complete utter lack of positive evidence for creationism, and the mind-bogglingly huge pile of positive evidence in favor of evolution?

when you have to have god not only covering his tracks, but going out of his way to trick everyone with basic critical thinking skills that has honestly looked at the evidence, it seems to me that the god hypothesis isn't all its cracked up to be.

There is a lot of positive evidence on Creationism. I can't post them or I'll really vomit. Spare me.

There is a lot of positive evidence on Creationism. I can't post them or I'll really vomit. Spare me.

Um, no, there's none whatsoever.

All the evidence of my senses and my experiences point to Unintelligent Design.

Um, no, there's none whatsoever.

So mr. GMC, where are your piles and piles of evidence for evolution? Oh and I mean stuff that actually makes logical sense. Not just some Darwin fanatic ranting on a weblog he created cuz he has no other life.

All the evidence of my senses and my experiences point to Unintelligent Design.

I'm stealing that. :)

I'm stealing that. :)

Not being sure if it originated with me, I have no reservations about others using it well.

By the way guys, the Bible has stood up in many instances of proving itself as a historically accurate book. So you can't just throw that aside as you debate something so serious as, well, the book of Genesis. The book that holds the creation account if you weren't already aware of that. Though I wouldn't be suprised if you all weren't, you seem to have a lack of understanding on a whole of what the Bible teaches, divinely inspired by God.

Um, no, there's none whatsoever.


There's plenty, but one I will highlight on: The possibility of life occuring in a universe infinitely hostile to life, especially in an atmosphere that will not host life, is...well....I can't even estimate it. It seems to me like advocates of abiogenisis need to spend more time on teaching us ignorant masses how exactly the impossible occured with no external force guiding it...and they'll also need to discredit all the physical-parameters harmony.

There's plenty, but one I will highlight on: The possibility of life occuring in a universe infinitely hostile to life, especially in an atmosphere that will not host life, is...well....I can't even estimate it.

However, we are here, so the situation was obviously not hostile to life, ne? What does that have to do with evolution?

It seems to me like advocates of abiogenisis need to spend more time on teaching us ignorant masses how exactly the impossible occured with no external force guiding it...and they'll also need to discredit all the physical-parameters harmony.

And anti-evolutionists need to learn that abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. There's evidence everywhere that if evoltuion was guided by something that force is the most moronic thing in existence. Life on earth is a litany of botch-jobs and crappy design.

So mr. GMC, where are your piles and piles of evidence for evolution? Oh and I mean stuff that actually makes logical sense. Not just some Darwin fanatic ranting on a weblog he created cuz he has no other life.

the twin nested hierarchy

the rather well documented fossil transitions between various groups in that nested hierarchy (i particularly like the human evolution fossil transitions, but the reptile -> mammal and the dinosaur -> bird ones are also really nice. as are a whole host of other ones)

the actual observation of natural selection in action as it causes a genetic shift in a population - easily observed in microbes

the fundamental unity of life in terms of chemical composition and how it all works.

and lots and lots more.

i particularly like the human evolution fossil transitions

speaking of which:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

# (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
# (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
# (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
# (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
# (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
# (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
# (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
# (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
# (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
# (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
# (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
# (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
# (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
# (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

(shamelessly ganked from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html)

However, we are here, so the situation was obviously not hostile to life, ne? What does that have to do with evolution?



And anti-evolutionists need to learn that abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. There's evidence everywhere that if evoltuion was guided by something that force is the most moronic thing in existence. Life on earth is a litany of botch-jobs and crappy design.


1. Contemporary evidence suggests that life originating would have been well-nigh impossible at the time life was estimated to have generated.


2. I'm sorry you can't recognize the beauty of the Duck-billed Platypus.

the twin nested hierarchy

the actual observation of natural selection in action as it causes a genetic shift in a population - easily observed in microbes

the fundamental unity of life in terms of chemical composition and how it all works.

We can have common descent without a twin nested hierarchy. There is no argument in a twin nested hierarchy, though nice try.

Natural Selection the way you describe also argues nothing for your side. Creationism doesn't say that natural selection, or as you explained it, the genetic shift, can't happen.

And just because we all have the "fundamental unity of life" means that we evolved from a single little cell thingy? Why isn't it any more believeable that this unity was brought down through the generations from Adam and Eve? Oh and God created both animals and humans, so is there any reason for him not to make their chemical composition similar?

speaking of which:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

# (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
# (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
# (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
# (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
# (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
# (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
# (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
# (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
# (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
# (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
# (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
# (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
# (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
# (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

(shamelessly ganked from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html)

Uh-huh... yeah, thats um, totally convincing? Because you realize that it must also make sense that this contradiction occurs and yet evolution is supposedly proven fact: We are supposed to be evolving to a higher state, and yet we are living shorter than we used to, our health, though our healthcare is supposedly amazing, sucks male genitalia, and the universe is also in a constant state of entropy? How are any of those compatible with evolution's amazing optimism?

Edit: a bunch of skulls are supposed to convince me when you guys won't even allow the Bible, which is supposed to be God-breathed truth, a chance in your mind?

1. Contemporary evidence suggests that life originating would have been well-nigh impossible at the time life was estimated to have generated.

You mean those stupid probability calculations by Hoyle? They're wrong because they represent everything as a single combined propability when the events aren't random and therefore you need a deterministic probability calculation. The calculations also tend to assume that modern life is the only possible way life could ever come to exist, as with that ludicrous calculation based on the first self-replicator being a modern bacterium.

2. I'm sorry you can't recognize the beauty of the Duck-billed Platypus.

It looks like a damp cloth wrapped around some kind of mole-duck. If a divine being created that by direct action, one must ponder His state of mind.

1. Contemporary evidence suggests that life originating would have been well-nigh impossible at the time life was estimated to have generated.


2. I'm sorry you can't recognize the beauty of the Duck-billed Platypus.

1) Ok let's see you evidense.

2) What?

1) Ok let's see you evidense.

2) What?


Do you my dear friend have any idea what the exact state of the world was in when life is supposed to have originated? Or were you there just to see it all unfold? If so I'd love for you to enlighten me.

The problem with "Evolution VS Creationism" is that it doesn't specify between different types of creationism. One type says that evolution did occur, but that a higher power created the universe and started life on Earth. The other major version says that life was created 6000-10,000 years ago and that life hasn't changed since.

For a title of "Evolution VS Creationism" you'd have to use the second definition, since the other possible pairing would just lead to a philosophical debate as to whether or not a higher power exists.

So in this case, unless you're arguing that life hasn't changed at all over the course of the existence of Earth, you're arguing FOR evolution.

Uh-huh... yeah, thats um, totally convincing? Because you realize that it must also make sense that this contradiction occurs and yet evolution is supposedly proven fact: We are supposed to be evolving to a higher state, and yet we are living shorter than we used to, our health, though our healthcare is supposedly amazing, sucks male genitalia, and the universe is also in a constant state of entropy? How are any of those compatible with evolution's amazing optimism?


Ahh what?


Edit: a bunch of skulls are supposed to convince me when you guys won't even allow the Bible, which is supposed to be God-breathed truth, a chance in your mind?

Science vs faith.

Science is supposed to be a skeptic. How do you prove God wrote the Bible?

The skulls offer a possible explanation.

The Bible? How do you prove it?

Do you my dear friend have any idea what the exact state of the world was in when life is supposed to have originated? Or were you there just to see it all unfold? If so I'd love for you to enlighten me.

Can you demonstrate the existence of God in a repeatable lab test?

Do you my dear friend have any idea what the exact state of the world was in when life is supposed to have originated? Or were you there just to see it all unfold? If so I'd love for you to enlighten me.


Actually I do. I want to see where her data comes from.

Just a small question to all of you fascinating people who are arguing with Regalia and I... How do you explain this argument in light of our discussion?

(1) All "that have a beginning" things are "of a cause" posessers.
(2) All the Universe is a "that has a beginning" thing.
(3) Therefore, all the Universe is a "that has a cause" thing.
(4) [AAA-1 - valid]

If you need help understanding the big words, feel free to ask. Be warned, if you try to assume you know what the big words mean and up arguing a worthless point, you'll just make yourself look like an ass.

I've never been able to get around one thing as far as evolution goes. It is easier for me to believe that the world was created than it is for me to believe that:
1) there was a cell that just came together with RNA and DNA
2) decided to divide itself one day, through meiosis and mitosis, Billions and Billions of years ago for no reason
3) that this cell not only wasn't destroyed but managed to survive long enough to do this over and over again.
4)somehow managed to diverify itself into different metabolic duties and purposes.
5) that this group of random cells formed a more complex form of life
6) that in the end was still, ultimately, unable to do anything more than hang out by a volcanic vent and suck in sulfur to survive.

And the end result of all of this was the most complex lifeform on an insignificant rock, orbiting a below average Sun on the edge of a galaxy that is literally the boondocks of infinity.

Give me a God, please. The alternative is too impossible to fathom.

Actually I do. I want to see where her data comes from.

Please do tell, now you've got me interested...sorta

Do you my dear friend have any idea what the exact state of the world was in when life is supposed to have originated? Or were you there just to see it all unfold? If so I'd love for you to enlighten me.


We can tell what the state of the world was like 4 billion years ago because it leaves behind evidence in the soil. We can take samples and determine what the atmosphere was like, what the Earth's crust was like, etc.

You don't have to be somewhere to know what went on. If you did, solving crimes would be impossible.

Can you demonstrate the existence of God in a repeatable lab test?

I can't believe I just read that. God save us all. I pray for humanity.

I can prove it by logic though. To be precise, an indirect proof if you're familiar with the term. I'd be happy to show you if you think your vocabulary is up to date ;-)

We can tell what the state of the world was like 4 billion years ago because it leaves behind evidence in the soil. We can take samples and determine what the atmosphere was like, what the Earth's crust was like, etc.

You don't have to be somewhere to know what went on. If you did, solving crimes would be impossible.

So then you do know exactly what the world was like? Then how do you explain the many renowned scientists slowly losing trust in their "obvious proof" of evolution?

I'd like to put emphasize on some other stuff here: Geological and paleontological evidence. Unless you totally ignore it, you have to realize that Earth is indeed billions of years old. And looking at how vastly different ecosystems existed in different times, evolution becomes not only a possibility but a necessity to assume. Otherwise you won't be able to explain the multiplicity of phenomena you see in the fossil record.

Of course, as a Creationist you could plainly go ahead and say "god did it", but you can't imagine how many subtle (and useless) wonders that would require... :D

I can't believe I just read that. God save us all. I pray for humanity.

I can prove it by logic though. To be precise, an indirect proof if you're familiar with the term. I'd be happy to show you if you think your vocabulary is up to date ;-)


I'd love to see this.

So then you do know exactly what the world was like? Then how do you explain the many renowned scientists slowly losing trust in their "obvious proof" of evolution?


Name some scientists that are losing trust in evolution. I've heard that in every discussion like this, but no names and quotes to go with it.

So then you do know exactly what the world was like? Then how do you explain the many renowned scientists slowly losing trust in their "obvious proof" of evolution?

Where do many renowned scientists lose trust? I don't know a single one...

We can have common descent without a twin nested hierarchy. There is no argument in a twin nested hierarchy, though nice try.

i don't really see how, unless organisms made random and arbitrary changes to the entirety of their morphology and genetics.

but more to the point, there are no non-evolutionary explanations for the nested hierarchies created by comparing morphology and comparing genetics being identical other than "just because". we've got all the explanatory power over on this side.

Natural Selection the way you describe also argues nothing for your side. Creationism doesn't say that natural selection, or as you explained it, the genetic shift, can't happen.

but once you allow that, creationism loses. if natural selection can happen, and if children are not identical to their parents, evolution wins.

If you need help understanding the big words, feel free to ask. Be warned, if you try to assume you know what the big words mean and up arguing a worthless point, you'll just make yourself look like an ass.

Is that a really wordy version of 'everything must have a cause?' If so, how do you explain that creationism requires an item which has no cause, God?

I can prove it by logic though.

No, that's mainfestly impossible.

So then you do know exactly what the world was like? Then how do you explain the many renowned scientists slowly losing trust in their "obvious proof" of evolution?

Oh come now.

It's called a theory not a law.

What "renowned" scientists are you talking about?

I'd like to put emphasize on some other stuff here: Geological and paleontological evidence. Unless you totally ignore it, you have to realize that Earth is indeed billions of years old. And looking at how vastly different ecosystems existed in different times, evolution becomes not only a possibility but a necessity to assume. Otherwise you won't be able to explain the multiplicity of phenomena you see in the fossil record.

Of course, as a Creationist you could plainly go ahead and say "god did it", but you can't imagine how many subtle (and useless) wonders that would require... :D


EWW EWW I can give you his responce!



So then you do know exactly what the world was like?

We are supposed to be evolving to a higher state

no we aren't. where the hell did you hear otherwise?

1) there was a cell that just came together with RNA and DNA


Ditto.
Hook me up with that explanation, please

also, heard a nice lil quote, once upon a time.

"The laws of thermodynamics are truely amazing, and can explain most everything... sadly evolution isnt one of them"

We can tell what the state of the world was like 4 billion years ago because it leaves behind evidence in the soil. We can take samples and determine what the atmosphere was like, what the Earth's crust was like, etc.

You don't have to be somewhere to know what went on. If you did, solving crimes would be impossible.

Well, we don't have rocks quite that old, but close (the oldest rocks are 3.9 billion years old, i think), and they do indeed give us informations that Earth was different. The point is the existence of certain minerals (pyrites, uraninites) in terrestrial sediments. These minerals form only under anoxic conditions, which means that the atmosphere must have been clear of oxygen at that time. So no plants whatsoever had evolved yet.

Well, we don't have rocks quite that old, but close (the oldest rocks are 3.9 billion years old, i think), and they do indeed give us informations that Earth was different. The point is the existence of certain minerals (pyrites, uraninites) in terrestrial sediments. These minerals form only under anoxic conditions, which means that the atmosphere must have been clear of oxygen at that time. So no plants whatsoever had evolved yet.


I know, I was just pulling a number out at random, and didn't realize it until it was too late.

Then I decided that if I changed it, and someone I argued against saw the change, I might get accused of changing my arguments to avoid looking bad.

I know, I was just pulling a number out at random, and didn't realize it until it was too late.

Then I decided that if I changed it, and someone I argued against saw the change, I might get accused of changing my arguments to avoid looking bad.

Well, you could argue it was rounding error. :p

I'm already tired of all this, my last post is as follows. I've put my trust and faith in all that the Bible teaches and in the Christ that died and rose again for my sins and for the rest of the world. Whether you believe any of that or not, thats my belief as it stands. I believe God created the world and is still interacting in it daily. I believe that He is coming back and will be glorified by all the nations, and by all the people. He'll gather His people and we'll live with Him for eternity. If you say arguing the proof of God is manifestly impossible, well here is my answer, whether you accept or not. When people don't treat you like another human being in a debate, its hard not to get tired out real quick. So here is an argument. Hope it helps. God bless you all.

1# Suppose that the Universe does not have a non-random cause (first step in indirect reasoning).
2# If there is not a non-random cause for the Universe, then there is a random cause for the Universe (tautology) (something can't be "sort of random" and "sort of not random" - it is either random, or non-random).
3# If all things are caused by random causes, then all humans are caused by random causes (subimplication).
4# If all humans are caused by random causes, then all human minds are caused by random causes (subimplication). At this point, some may cry "foul" because of the fallacy of division ("what is true of the whole must be true of the parts" - e.g. "a 747 airplane is heavy, so every part of it must be heavy"). This is not, however, division - if you were to say that I built a 747 airplane from scrap metal, then it logically follows that I made the engines of that 747. This is not a fallicious argument.
5# If all human minds are caused by random causes, then all products of human minds are caused by random causes (implication).
6# No non-randomness is caused by random causes (self-evident).
7# No "non-random" ideas are caused by irrationality (subimplication).
8# All theories are collections of ideas (self-supporting - true by definition).
9# All atheistic theories are collections of ideas (subimplication).
10# All atheistic theories are deniers of an original non-random cause [for the Universe] (self-supporting - true by definition).
11# Therefore, all atheistic theories are caused by random causes (subimplication - see point #7).
12# If atheistic theories are caused by random causes, then their truth value is random. In other words, if we accept atheism, then we also have to accept the fact that we have no idea whether atheism is actually true, a rather strange implication, as well as a contradiction ("if we know that atheism is true, then we don't know that atheism is true"). In addition, if the human mind is caused by random causes, then all products of it would be random, since non-randomness never results from randomness unless something less random "orders" it.
13# Since either God exists or He doesn't, and we have proven that He doesn't not exist, then He must exist. (This may seem like a double negative, but it is a necessary double negative, since this argument doesn't really prove the "positive" but rather disproves the negative).


Thats all for me guys. I won't say it was fun arguing this with you, you guys are animals. And I don't envy the sorry state you're in. God save your souls. Good night.

Ditto.
"The laws of thermodynamics are truely amazing, and can explain most everything... sadly evolution isnt one of them"


Can't seem to google that one up.

Please don't tell me it was a theologian......

"The laws of thermodynamics are truely amazing, and can explain most everything... sadly evolution isnt one of them"

And you heard this from who, exactly, being as it's one of the oldest false creationist arguments in existence?

"The laws of thermodynamics are truely amazing, and can explain most everything... sadly evolution isnt one of them"

actually, the basic building blocks of life are thermodynamically favored. add any particular mix of the basic chemical components, add heat and the occassional spark of electricity, and bam, all sorts of good organics. and the base materials of cell membranes also spontaneously join together. there also appear to be fairly simple biochemical things that can self-reproduce under the right conditions. add it all together in a test tube the size of, well, the ocean, and let simmer for half a billion years.

frankly, i'd be utterly surprised if there wasn't at least simple life that spontaneously formed in many places in the universe.

2# If there is not a non-random cause for the Universe, then there is a random cause for the Universe (tautology) (something can't be "sort of random" and "sort of not random" - it is either random, or non-random).

False. Some things are more probable than others. If you don't believe something can be more or less random, I have a nice stacked deck over here, fancy a hand of poker?

3# If all things are caused by random causes, then all humans are caused by random causes (subimplication).

Fallacy of division.

4# If all humans are caused by random causes, then all human minds are caused by random causes (subimplication).

Fallacy of division.

At this point, some may cry "foul" because of the fallacy of division ("what is true of the whole must be true of the parts" - e.g. "a 747 airplane is heavy, so every part of it must be heavy"). This is not, however, division - if you were to say that I built a 747 airplane from scrap metal, then it logically follows that I made the engines of that 747. This is not a fallicious argument.

Actually it is, because the fact that you assembled the entire 747 does not necessarily mean you made every individual component; you might have found an entire engine in the scrapyard somebody else built, for instance. Your analogy is very appropraite, since it's physically impossible to make an entire 747 from just scrap metal, so while you may say you made it from scrap metal, I could point to the dashboard or seat covers and demonstrate that all parts of the whole are not scrap metal.

In terms of the above 'theory,' it is a fallacy of division because life is dependant on predictable chemical interactions which are in no way random. You lose.

6# No non-randomness is caused by random causes (self-evident).

False. Random causes can create predictable patterns; a random stream of sand falling onto a surface will create a regular conical structure.

Your argument dies on point two.

*Snip*

1# Suppose that the Universe does not have a non-random cause (first step in indirect reasoning).

Hypothesis.

2# If there is not a non-random cause for the Universe, then there is a random cause for the Universe (tautology) (something can't be "sort of random" and "sort of not random" - it is either random, or non-random).

Proof?

3# If all things are caused by random causes, then all humans are caused by random causes (subimplication).
4# If all humans are caused by random causes, then all human minds are caused by random causes (subimplication). At this point, some may cry "foul" because of the fallacy of division ("what is true of the whole must be true of the parts" - e.g. "a 747 airplane is heavy, so every part of it must be heavy"). This is not, however, division - if you were to say that I built a 747 airplane from scrap metal, then it logically follows that I made the engines of that 747. This is not a fallicious argument.

Actually it is.


5# If all human minds are caused by random causes, then all products of human minds are caused by random causes (implication).

Actually they are. Care to explain why the Neandertals had larger cranial capacity then the we do?

*snip*


9# All atheistic theories are collections of ideas (subimplication).

Evolution has never sought to prove or disprove the existence of God. Darwin was an extreamly religious man so it's hardly atheistic.

*snip*


13# Since either God exists or He doesn't, and we have proven that He doesn't not exist, then He must exist. (This may seem like a double negative, but it is a necessary double negative, since this argument doesn't really prove the "positive" but rather disproves the negative).

Well why don't you try all that using the scientific method?

What you can't? Hmmmmm



Thats all for me guys. I won't say it was fun arguing this with you, you guys are animals. And I don't envy the sorry state you're in. God save your souls. Good night.

Awww I think I am supposed to be hurt. My how judgemental of you. I guess you missed the lesson about that.

I vote for evolutionism seeing as wolves have turned into dogs ape/Monkey/Gorilla could turn into man (Not sure which did it though) God wanted man so he put into progress evolution when the universe started to have things progress into man and whatever other creatures he wanted thought the universe

Can't seem to google that one up.

Please don't tell me it was a theologian......
The five major misconceptions about evolution faq (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo) might help clear this one up...

I vote for evolutionism seeing as wolves have turned into dogs ape/Monkey/Gorilla could turn into man (Not sure which did it though) God wanted man so he put into progress evolution when the universe started to have things progress into man and whatever other creatures he wanted thought the universe

Actually, we didn't evolve from apes (at least none of the extant species), we evolved from a common ancestor we share with them. (that btw is a typical *dumb* Creationist argument: "If humans had evolved from apes, then why apes are still around?")

2# If there is not a non-random cause for the Universe, then there is a random cause for the Universe (tautology) (something can't be "sort of random" and "sort of not random" - it is either random, or non-random).

false dilemma. where does "the universe is uncaused" fit in here?

6# No non-randomness is caused by random causes (self-evident).

bullshit. i don't find it self evident in the slightest. in fact, randomness seems to generate all sorts of predictable patterns all the time all over the universe.

7# No "non-random" ideas are caused by irrationality (subimplication).

what the fuck is a "non-random idea" and why couldn't one be arrived at through some irrational process?

The five major misconceptions about evolution faq (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo) might help clear this one up...

Danke!

I am more of a primatologist.

Makes for interesting reading. :)

All the world, natural and human, operates in a balance. Order is not possible without balance. However, evolution stresses that IMbalance is the clue to growth. Therefore evolution and nature are incompatible in my point of view.

Evolution and nature are not incompatible. In fact there are anomalies that occur in nature, and there is imbalance. Nature isn't balanced... that's why mass extinctions happen. Therefore your argument is now trashed.

I actually agree with both of you, in that I believe nature perpetually strives for a state of balance, but it never gets there. It always goes back and forth, i.e. the imbalance that Mesatecala talks about.

EWW EWW I can give you his responce!

So then you do know exactly what the world was like?

No, we don't know exactly (besides, do we know that about anything in history?), but we have a pretty good idea considering how long ago it was. :)

On the contrary the Genesis account is totally inconsistent with our observations...

Don't you think the world acts in order? Gravity always happens anywhere in world. If it doesn't it's not because gravity has disappeared, but because there is an opposite force to gravity that is as strong as gravity and it seems that gravity has disappeared. Evolution is a disorder. That's incompatible with the order there is all around the world.

You really need to take a physics class, or is that called witchcraft where you come from? Because the natural process for everything is to go from an ordered to disordered state. Its called entropy. A little lesson in case you dont know what that is, it means if you throw a deck of cards in the air and they go everywhere, when they hit the ground they wont be in order because the natural thing for it to do is get disorderly.

Danke!

I am more of a primatologist.

Makes for interesting reading. :)
Bitte schön. Always glad to help :D

No. They don't. A recent example of this is Krakatoa. After the eruption, new plants and animals arrived, but the population make-up is different than what it was before, as some species established footholds before others.

Edit: Then there's the K-T impact. Arguing that that didn't change the make-up of the ecosystem is like arguing that the earth is flat.

Actually, there's many more mass extinction events than just K-T impact, really... there's about a dozen in total, i think...

(not to mention background extinctions)

Uh-huh... yeah, thats um, totally convincing? Because you realize that it must also make sense that this contradiction occurs and yet evolution is supposedly proven fact: We are supposed to be evolving to a higher state, and yet we are living shorter than we used to, our health, though our healthcare is supposedly amazing, sucks male genitalia, and the universe is also in a constant state of entropy? How are any of those compatible with evolution's amazing optimism?

Edit: a bunch of skulls are supposed to convince me when you guys won't even allow the Bible, which is supposed to be God-breathed truth, a chance in your mind?

Living shorter than we used to? I dont know what statistics you read, but the average lifespan has been going up since, well, as long as we have been around. As long as you dont count those crazy ages in the bible.

Also, I wouldnt say evolutionists are opimistic as much as realistic. While the odds may seem insurmountable, it only takes time. In incredible amounts of time and countless numbers of stars and planets, eventually life would form somewhere. Thats assuming all life starts the way ours did, which probably isnt the case.

Evolution isnt fact, its like a puzzle without a box so you cant tell what its supposed to be you can only theorize by what pieces you have, but the pieces are hidden and when we find one we add it and the puzzle looks a little different. Creationism on the other hand, could also be called a puzzle, except there are no pieces, all there is, is the box.

Living shorter than we used to? I dont know what statistics you read, but the average lifespan has been going up since, well, as long as we have been around.

lifespan is only a little ways up from what it ever was these days, because we can artificially keep people alive for a couple extra years. life expectancy started out alright, collapsed with the introduction of agriculture, climbed up a bit every time some civilization figured out sanitation before collapsinbg back down, and began its current upswing when we got sanitation (again), the germ theory of disease, and the start of modern medicine.

As long as you dont count those crazy ages in the bible.

somehow, i suspect they are counting those mythical king lists. poor silly bastard.

somehow, i suspect they are counting those mythical king lists. poor silly bastard.

Actually the lists in the bible are already the harmless ones. The original ones (Epic of Gilgamesh) are even worse...

Alulim of Eridug: 28800 years

Alalgar of Eridug: 36000 years


En-Men-Lu-Ana of Bad-Tibira: 43200 years

En-Men-Gal-Ana of Bad-Tibira: 28800 years

Dumuzid of Bad-Tibira, the shepherd: 36000 years


En-Sipad-Zid-Ana of Larag: 28800 years


En-Men-Dur-Ana of Zimbir: 21000 years


Ubara-Tutu of Shuruppag: 18600 years

;)

Actually the lists in the bible are already the harmless ones. The original ones (Epic of Gilgamesh) are even worse...

yeah, it'd be hard to fit all of alalgar's 36,000 years into the 6,000 years we've had so far since the creation of the universe. and he's not even the worst of them.

somehow, i suspect they are counting those mythical king lists. poor silly bastard.Those aren't mythical, they just don't compare to modern calendars since they had different ones back then, as my jewish religion teacher pointed out.

Those aren't mythical, they just don't compare to modern calendars since they had different ones back then, as my jewish religion teacher pointed out.

so they changed calendars in the middle of the book of genesis? people before the flood in the bible live ridiculously long lives. after the flood, the ages they reach drop off until everybody lives just as long as we do today. in fact, if you add the numbers up, noah outlives his great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson, nahor. and noah's son shem outlives abraham, who is nahor's grandson. and, of course, part of the abraham story is that he and his wife thought themselves far too old to have a son at 100, though the antediluvians would have thought nothing of it.

I'm already tired of all this, my last post is as follows. I've put my trust and faith in all that the Bible teaches and in the Christ that died and rose again for my sins and for the rest of the world. Whether you believe any of that or not, thats my belief as it stands. I believe God created the world and is still interacting in it daily. I believe that He is coming back and will be glorified by all the nations, and by all the people. He'll gather His people and we'll live with Him for eternity. If you say arguing the proof of God is manifestly impossible, well here is my answer, whether you accept or not. When people don't treat you like another human being in a debate, its hard not to get tired out real quick. So here is an argument. Hope it helps. God bless you all.

1# Suppose that the Universe does not have a non-random cause (first step in indirect reasoning).
2# If there is not a non-random cause for the Universe, then there is a random cause for the Universe (tautology) (something can't be "sort of random" and "sort of not random" - it is either random, or non-random).
3# If all things are caused by random causes, then all humans are caused by random causes (subimplication).
4# If all humans are caused by random causes, then all human minds are caused by random causes (subimplication). At this point, some may cry "foul" because of the fallacy of division ("what is true of the whole must be true of the parts" - e.g. "a 747 airplane is heavy, so every part of it must be heavy"). This is not, however, division - if you were to say that I built a 747 airplane from scrap metal, then it logically follows that I made the engines of that 747. This is not a fallicious argument.
5# If all human minds are caused by random causes, then all products of human minds are caused by random causes (implication).
6# No non-randomness is caused by random causes (self-evident).
7# No "non-random" ideas are caused by irrationality (subimplication).
8# All theories are collections of ideas (self-supporting - true by definition).
9# All atheistic theories are collections of ideas (subimplication).
10# All atheistic theories are deniers of an original non-random cause [for the Universe] (self-supporting - true by definition).
11# Therefore, all atheistic theories are caused by random causes (subimplication - see point #7).
12# If atheistic theories are caused by random causes, then their truth value is random. In other words, if we accept atheism, then we also have to accept the fact that we have no idea whether atheism is actually true, a rather strange implication, as well as a contradiction ("if we know that atheism is true, then we don't know that atheism is true"). In addition, if the human mind is caused by random causes, then all products of it would be random, since non-randomness never results from randomness unless something less random "orders" it.
13# Since either God exists or He doesn't, and we have proven that He doesn't not exist, then He must exist. (This may seem like a double negative, but it is a necessary double negative, since this argument doesn't really prove the "positive" but rather disproves the negative).


Thats all for me guys. I won't say it was fun arguing this with you, you guys are animals. And I don't envy the sorry state you're in. God save your souls. Good night.

Anselm's argument for the existence of God was the worst one I'd ever heard until I read this. Random causes, huh? Cue ball hits stationary 9-ball, 9-ball sprouts legs and starts singing the Zimbabwean national anthem. There's a random cause for you.

And oh, pity the poor misguided souls who don't believe in magic!

Okay, you people have really got to stop arguing about the ages of biblical ancestors. All of that is both completely unprovable and utterly insignificant.

And btw, since when did agriculture lower the life expectency?

Okay, you people have really got to stop arguing about the ages of biblical ancestors. All of that is both completely unprovable and utterly insignificant.

And btw, since when did agriculture lower the life expectency?

I've been wondering about that one, too.

And btw, since when did agriculture lower the life expectency?

since forever.

agriculture is much harder work and a vastly less healthy lifestyle than foraging - people ate less food than their foraging ancestors and the food they did eat was less nutritious and their bodies wore out and broke quickly from all the intensive labor. it also involves living in close proximity to domesticated animals, which allowed the development of new diseases. and it also involves living in the same place indefinitely, which means living next to your own garbage and shit - again, a breeding ground for disease. and agriculture caused large concentrations of stationary population, which allows diseases new and old the opportunity to routinely kill off large numbers of people. additionally, since agricultural communities always rely on fewer types of food than foragers, it took the invention of agriculture to invent famine. agriculture also allowed the rise of class society, rulers and ruled, and the rulers were/are quite enchanted with the idea of sending the ruled off to die in various wars.

in other words agriculture is responsible for war, famine, and disease, in addition to just generally being highly unhealthy and dangerous in the best of times.

Actually, there's many more mass extinction events than just K-T impact, really... there's about a dozen in total, i think...

I'm well aware of that. The K-T impact is just the most famous one. Besides, I don't know any of the events that helped contribute to the other mass extinctions.

so they changed calendars in the middle of the book of genesis?
They did. They changed from the lunar calendar to the solar calendar.

They did. They changed from the lunar calendar to the solar calendar.

that doesn't work as an explanation, actually. the old standby of lunar months instead of solar years, while making methuselah's age a more reasonable 81, also means his father was 5 years old when he was born.

mythic king lists have people live lives of mythic proportion.
semi-historical heroic king lists have people live lives of heroic proportion.
actual historic king lists have people live lives of 70 years or so.

that doesn't work as an explanation, actually. the old standby of lunar months instead of solar years, while making methuselah's age a more reasonable 81, also means his father was 5 years old when he was born.

I never claimed it did. I was just pointing out that the calendar did change.

I was just pointing out that the calendar did change.

where exactly does it do so?

Yeah. The world has not been running since the beginning of the world. That's why so many species are dead and none significant are new.

Wow. I had no idea humans were insignificant.

I've always wondered this. Why are there still single celled organisms.

Because evolution is not directional. It has no "goal." Smaller organisms do not necessarily lead to larger ones, nor "lesser" to "greater." As long as unicellular organisms can thrive and reproduce, they will continue to exist.