Double standards? Did you even read my answer? Nope, not likely. I said evolution happens normally at populations, not individuums.

But even when we would talk about a small gene pool, there is a difference between a minimum gene pool of let's at least say 100 individuums to let the species survive, and the told two from the bible. Species with a gene pool below 100 individuums has a very high chance to die off. We can follow that at the moment at too much species every day. And you want to tell me that ALL species survived with just TWO of them?



Weird point of view. The problem is at your end. Science takes at least the facts into account. While faith just presents fairy tales. Science searches for truth. They present what they find. When they would find a proof for a god then they would present it. Faith digs for henchman. And uses the worst tricks to get them. Up to murder. Fear and fright are the weapons of faith. Truth the weapon of science. So who is to trust?



Again, i disagree here. When a thousand facts points into one direction, and not a single one in another direction, then i choose the direction in which the facts points. No need to introduce an imaginary ghost. Even more when every new found fact fits perfectly and points in the same direction.

And no, having facts doesn't mean to have errors and misinterpretations in the first place. It means in the first place to have facts. Proovable stuff. No matter how hard you try to twist and discredit them. Facts stays facts.

You trust a 2000 years old book. A single book. Written by a few humans. Based at fairy tales and myths from before 2000 years. An age that is fullfilled with gods and myths and fairy tales. But you distrust whole libraries, written by millions of humans, full of today knowledge and myriades of proovable facts. Sorry, but from my angle of view your brain must be turned off. They have really catched you

Hmm, again i can see in your argumentation to proof Bible, myths and fairy tales true by trying to disprove science and facts. And again, saying the evolution theory is wrong doesn't automatically mean the bible is right.

Facts please.

Easy. Use the drifting speed of continents, and then date back. You don't even need to age the rocks for that.

While at it, when a aging method for rocks says this stone is 200 million years old AND the continental drift says the same AND radio carbon method says the same AND the layering of the stones says the same, THEN it is very likely that this rock is 200 million years old. And when NO fact points in another direction, then it is very unlikely that this rock is just a few thousand years old.

You still miss the masses of facts and evidences that nowadays exists to prove or disprove something. Same ratio than between one book and library over library i would say

You don't feel a great need to know? That explains your scary lack of basic knowledge. But you say you can disprove libraries over libraries full of knowledge. How when you don't even know what they say?

You say the interpretation is faulty. But you don't even know the "interpretation" nor all the facts that leaded to this interpretation. You know small fragments. You twist this fragments. And say that is the proof that evolution is wrong. Good job.

I for myself have been in a quarry before. I have seen fossils in the layers. Evolution theory fits perfectly into what i have seen with my own eyes, with what i have held in my own hands.

There is not a single proof for the theory that time was faster or slower in the past, that the ratio has changed. Facts please.

What is true is that the time runs slower when you come close to light speed. Or in gravity fields. Measurable with the satelites that rotates around the earth. Here the time goes a bit slower, speaking of a milifraction of a milisecond. But there is no negative gravity. And so no way to speed up life on earth in such a dramatic manner to win thousands of years. There would be the theorethical way to slow it down in such a dramatic manner to win thousands of years. But the gravity/acceleration would kill all life then.

Nonlinear time, absolute to the universe, would not work. The whole physics would fall apart, chemical processes stop working. Because all is bound to energy, mass and time, it is bound to E=Mc². And this means the time has to be constant, linear. Because else you would change the light speed constant, and the formula quits working.

Ah, who cares about a formula you mean? Well, what happens to an atom that looses constantly energy? It will fall apart into radiation. What happens to an atom that gets constantly energy? It will heaten up. Up to the point where it becomes a plasma. Neither radiation nor plasma are really healthy for life. But this will happen when E becomes unequal Mass and time².

Nope, just letting things run faster or slower doesn't work without smashing the Universe into pieces.

Let's just for fun think about this case from another angle that could workaround the E=Mc² problem. Let faster or slower time happen relative to the universe. The whole universe becomes faster or slower, not just the content. So the life would also live faster or slower, dependand to the whole system. Then in the end they would have always lived the same time, no matter if they were in the faster episode or in the slower. Because it happened relative to the whole system. Which means it happens for the viewer linear, not nonlinear. There wouldn't be a difference

Nope, there is no nonlinear time. No matter from which angle you look. Time has to be linear. Else the Universe would disappear, it would break the causality.

Hmm, yeah, you can also distrust everything and everybody. But that is no solution.

In the end when a thrown stone comes down again, and this again and again, then there is a high chance that there is gravity. Okay, i am wrong, it is a god up there that throws the stone back