[_ Old Earth _] Big Bang and Evolution

[lordkalvan]

Given the absolutely vast differences between Homo sapiens and any other given animal, primate or otherwise, sapiens should be in a separate kingdom, not merely another species.

And yet, despite being given every opportunity, you have been unable to explain any methodological system which would allow you to express these differences such that you could justify such a separation on anything other than arbitrary grounds. Without taking into account other traits (which would inevitably produce a nested hierarchy like the one developed by taxonomists) you cannot even tell us how you would differentiate amongst humans with particular levels of mental retardation and more intelligent animals such as parrots and dolphins. Consequently, your suggestion is taxonomically worthless.

Those differences have been put on the board already, and been fudged as is usual in these matters.

Pointing out the drawbacks, misunderstandings and misrepresentations inherent in your presentation of those differences and assertions as to what they should signify taxonomically does not constitute ‘fudging’ anything. In contrast, your subjective demand that Homo sapiens sapiens be placed in a separate kingdom uniquely apart from other primates is nothing more than a fudge, as demonstrated by your inability to explain the methodology by which it could be applied.

Oh yeah. The usual cop out.

Pointing out that the fossil record is sparse and incomplete (and that due to entirely-to-be-expected factors) is not a ‘cop out’; it is a simple observation. However, ignoring the fossil record that is available simply because it is sparse and incomplete amounts to not very much more than denying the implications of things that we don’t like.

It all happened someplace else that we can't find, despite centuries of digging.

So where would you ‘expect’ it to happen other than in the place where the evidence tells us that it happened? And presumably you wish to ignore what has been found? Perhaps you could explain your own understanding of that evidence and why you choose to dismiss it so readily?

When are you guys going to see through this threadbare excuse and stop playing that card?

What? You’d rather we claimed the fossil record wasn’t incomplete and sparse? It’s instructive that you regard a comment on an actual situation as a ‘threadbare excuse’.

I'm really asking 'how did the sexes evolve?'

Best hypothesis based on the evidence: through increasing sexual differentiation amongst sexually reproducing species.

Did men and women evolve separately, or did they appear at the same time?

I am intrigued as to how you imagine male and female sexes arising independently of one another. Perhaps you could suggest an hypothesis for this scenario?

Genesis says 'at the same time'.

If Genesis says that male and female sexes evolved together, I see no reason to dispute that. Do you?

The record makes a point of reiterating 'male and female created He them', and does so several times, indicating that sexual reproduction appeared suddenly, in one go, in many different organisms.

If one accepts a particular literalist account of creation in which all life is made at one instant pretty much exactly as we see it today, then it would appear suddenly, indeed. However, as none of the actual evidence (as opposed to a prescientific culture’s understanding of life’s development is concerned) supports the idea that this is the case, then we should probably discount this literalist reading.

I could quote you writers who quite simply admit that the whole sexual thing is a mystery - but doubtless between you and Barbarian, you can concoct some fairy tale.

Well, not wholly a mystery, but if you are suggesting that because we don’t know everything about a process we should stop studying that process and simply accept that some supernatural force brought it about, I would have to disagree with you. Supernatural forces have long been invoked for phenomena that we now know have an entirely naturalistic explanation. Is it your argument that in the absence of a naturalistic explanation for those phenomena we should simply have thrown our hands up and accepted the supernatural explanation for all time?

He, of course, is quite likely to produce some foolish article presenting some vapid new hypothesis or other which explains nothing, and achieves nothing besides highlighting the fact that they don't know anything about it, but here's the latest piece of guesswork from Nature, PNAS or some other magazine.

Thank you for that incisive piece of critical comment and demonstration of prejudgmental bias. I thought you claimed to be a scientist? Surely as a scientist you understand the importance of constructing hypotheses that can be tested and potentially falsified in order to advance understanding? Or maybe you don’t understand what a hypothesis is at all?

C'est la vie, as they say in Portugal.

And evolutionary theory remains the best available explanation for understanding the development and diversity of that vie.

They have been nothing of the sort. If you suppose that saying that the mathematical and musical abilities of mankind, among others, are different from the primates' abilities merely in degree, and call that 'gainsaying', then you are sadly mistaken, and your critical faculties are on a par with barbarian's.

No, what we have pointed out is that the physical attributes that allow these specific manifestations of human creativeness and ingenuity to be expressed are a matter of degree.

Let me know when the next baboon, orangutan or chimpanzee produces a new theory of relativity, won't you. I'll consider my statements gainsaid, but till then, permit me to retain my skepticism.

And let me know when you can come up with a sensible suggestion as to how you might expect different degrees of the same physical attributes to be expressed amongst different species.

More later.

 

[lordkalvan]

I know the story quite well, and whether or not it took part in the Scopes trial is immaterial to the speed and willing swallowing exhibited by the scientific community.

And it’s instructive again that when it is pointed out that you are quoting a deceptive claim to support an argument you are making you handwave it away as ‘immaterial’. Does it not occur to you that, if you have been deceived about one thing, perhaps you have been deceived about another. Indeed, this is the case, for ‘the scientific community’ most certainly did not do what you accuse them of doing. Would you like to learn exactly how cautiously and carefully Henry Osborn actually dealt with Cook’s find and what the response of the relevant ‘scientific community’ was, or do you prefer to cling to AiG’s misleading account?

Good for them that they discovered the stupidity - but it does cast a huge shadow, along with Piltdown man's - on the palaeoanthropologists' inability to distinguish between concrete fact and hopeful fiction, doesn't it?

And yet distinguish amongst them they most certainly did, and in the case of Hesperopithicus very quickly. So what’s your argument?

How do I know that 'Lucy' et al are not also figments of the Leakey's imagination etc? Indeed, how do you know?

Because the evidence is extensive and consilient and examined and assessed by those qualified to understand what they are looking at and its implications. By all means critique these understandings and implications from a scientific point of view, that’s what science is about, but do you think that waving your arms around and suggesting incompetence and/or fraud on the part of a large number of palaeontologists and other scientists is really an argument you want to pursue?

AIG said that only very restricted supporters of the evolutionary theories advanced by the discoverer's were permitted to view and handle the specimens. Can you shed any light on that comment of their's?

As there is neither detail, support nor citation for this assertion, why would you expect that I would treat such a sweeping claim with any more confidence than is deserved following AiG’s various misrepresentations around Hesperopithecus?

I would hope so, indeed - but it hasn't progressed at all as far as rejecting Darwinism is concerned.

Why would something be rejected when the weight of evidence points to the fundamental soundness of evolutionary theory?

That theory is so full of holes, it's like a sieve - yet, it is clung to with the desperation of a drowning man to a straw.

And yet you have shown us no holes at all, other than your personal incredulity that certain phenomena can be explained in terms of evolutionary theory. You have critiqued nothing, simply made wide-ranging assertions about the impossibility of various phenomena having naturalistic explanations and then either ignored or handwaved away exactly those naturalistic explanations that you have previously asserted the impossibility of.

They have been described fully in the article 'Do Chimpanzees need a Chiropodist?'

And those that you have presented there have been dealt with there, so implying that they stand as persuasive evidence of your claims here is scarcely convincing.

When Maynard Smith reverse-engineered sex... he created a paradox. Sex should not exist; natural selection will favor asexual reproduction. The solution to the paradox is almost the Holy Grail of a large theoretical sub-branch of evolutionary biology, but it still has not been satisfactorily tracked down. — Mark Ridley, 1997

Can you cite the original work and page references for this quotation? Is this from Matt Ridley’s ‘The Red Queen’, or don’t you know, having simply sourced the quotation from a secondary source? If it is from ‘The Red Queen’ and is the result of your own reading, you must surely be aware that Ridley discusses a number of evolutionary hypotheses to account for the origins of sex.

In other words, guess what, 'we dunno'.

But we have hypotheses that we can test and explore to advance our understanding, or would you prefer that we remained ignorant?

"However, one of the most glaring failures of this alleged lineage is its inability to account for the origin of sexual (as opposed to asexual) reproduction, and the existence of a male and female within each species that reproduces sexually." Thompson and Harrub http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...=9&article=162

Sir John Maddox, who served for over twenty-five years as the distinguished editor of Nature, the prestigious journal published by the British Association for the Advancement of Science (and who was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1994 for “multiple contributions to science”), authored an amazing book titled What Remains to be Discovered in which he addressed the topic of the origin of sex, and stated forthrightly:
The overriding question is when (and then how) sexual reproduction itself evolved. Despite decades of speculation, we do not know. The difficulty is that sexual reproduction creates complexity of the genome and the need for a separate mechanism for producing gametes. The metabolic cost of maintaining this system is huge, as is that of providing the organs specialized for sexual reproduction (the uterus of mammalian females, for example). What are the offsetting benefits? The advantages of sexual reproduction are not obvious (1998, p. 252, emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.)
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...=9&article=162

Perhaps you can do better than these guys.

Why would you expect me to? I simply point out that present ignorance of the details of a naturalistic cause for a phenomenon does not provide evidence that a supernatural explanation must be the only one that can be provided. As a scientist, surely you are aware of this?

Whether they do or not, that is no answer to the questions both Maddox and I have posed.

However they offer avenues for scientific investigation that allow us to explore the questions surrounding the origins of sexual reproduction. Perhaps you would prefer to slam the door on such investigation? Are there any other areas of scientific research you would like to prohibit?

The only answer that makes any sense at all it that given by Genesis:

"...male and female created he them."

You can assert this and are fully entitled to believe it’ and I applaud your strength of conviction in the face of overwhelming evidence to the fact that, if God did create, he did so using naturalistic forces to develop his creation. But can you demonstrate it with reasoned argument that does not depend on personal incredulity? So far, it appears not.

 

[lordkalvan]

Just to go back to the question of whether men evolved from apes or not.

Here are 2 statements:

John Rennie, editor of Scientific American:

“This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor†(2002, 287[1]:81).

The late evolutionary geneticist and Nobel laureate, Hermann J. Muller, writing in the May 1957 issue of Scientific Monthly, blistered his evolutionary colleagues for making such a ridiculous assertion rather than simply accepting the fact that monkeys gave rise to apes, which then gave rise to humans.

It is fashionable in some circles to refer slurringly to the inference that apes were ancestral to man, and to insinuate that it is more proper to say that men and apes, perhaps even men, apes, and monkeys, diverged long ago from a stem form that was more primitive than any of these. This is mere wistful thinking on the part of those who resent too vivid a visualization of their lowly origin and their present-day poor relations (84[5]:250).


George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard—was equally outspoken against what he viewed as such a cowardly approach to the discussion of human evolution.

On this subject, by the way, there has been too much pussyfooting. Apologists emphasize that man cannot be descendant of any living ape—a statement that is obvious to the verge of imbecility—and go on to state or imply that man is not really descended from an ape or monkey at all, but from an earlier common ancestor.


In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise (1964, p. 12, emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.).
​

http://www.apologeticspress.com/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1046

You were saying, LK?

I was saying that 'common usage' is 'common usage' and taxonomic classification operates on a degree of precision that is quite distinct from 'common usage'. Taxonomically, humans are primates, along with the other modern great apes (i.e. Homo sapiens sapiens is, taxonomically, a great ape), and at various points in our evolutionary heritage our ancestral species gave rise to separate lines of descent which led to all the great ape species living today (and those that are extinct as well). At various points these would be described taxonomically as belonging to various parvorders, superfamilies and families of the infraorder 'Simiformes'. So when someone like yourself makes the claim that evolutionary theory supposes that human beings evolved from chimpanzees, I feel compelled to point out that this is quite clearly incorrect. If you want to rely on 'common usage' to inform your understanding, then you would presumably take 'sunrise' and 'sunset' to mean that the Sun moves in respect to Earth rather than vice versa.

 

[Barbarian]

Not sure why it would drive me up the wall. From my perspective, it shows how Science has back tracked.

Hasn't in the 40+ years since I took my first course in evolution.

Again, I was taught, and I've heard more than one teacher when I was in school state that we evolved from apes.

In cladistics, we are apes. But realistically, by "apes" people use the term to mean "non-hominids." We are more closely related to chimps than either species is related to anything else. But we didn't evolve from chimps either.

Our last common ancestor with chimps was something that you would probably think of as an ape. But hominids are much evolved from that and even fairly distant ancestors are rather more humanlike than apelike. Lucy, for example was far more humanlike than apelike in postcranial skeleton.

Perhaps my teachers were mis-informed, or perhaps they didn't to a good enough job articulating the difference.

Could be. But it was a huge error.

But I'm not the only one who was left with the impression that we were being taught that we evolved from monkeys.

That's really disturbing. And maybe the source of so much random creationism today.

 

[Asyncritus]

Looks like semantic messing about.

GG Simpson and Henry Muller (see above quotes) obviously both thought that we ARE descended from apes.

They were both leaders in their fields - genetics and palaeontology - and neither you nor LK are in their class.

That being so, isn't it time you closed the shop instead of messing around with words?

Trouble is, of course, that's all you evolutionists can do. You haven't got any facts to support the theory, certainly none of the calibre I have been raising, so semantics is all you have left.

When are you going to abandon the battlefield?

 

[Jam]

Looks like semantic messing about.

GG Simpson and Henry Muller (see above quotes) obviously both thought that we ARE descended from apes.

They were both leaders in their fields - genetics and palaeontology - and neither you nor LK are in their class.

You would appeal to authority rather than address the actual issue?

I'm not expert on evolution - as you've probably gathered from my other posts - but it seems to me that the confusion over whether we evolved from apes/monkeys or not is a result of confusion over the meanings of the words "ape" and "monkey". This is necessarily semantics. So, to dismiss the point simply becase it deals with semantics is absurd: the entire issue is semantic in nature!

That being so, isn't it time you closed the shop instead of messing around with words?

Trouble is, of course, that's all you evolutionists can do. You haven't got any facts to support the theory, certainly none of the calibre I have been raising, so semantics is all you have left.

When are you going to abandon the battlefield?

I must say that this seems remarkably hypocritical (where not simply false) given your attitude to the topic of evolution as I've seen it so far...

Stereotypes are not becoming, and most certainly do not have a place in discussions such as these.

 

[Barbarian]

In fact, Simpson, when he wrote that, was unaware of the large number of transitional hominins. Likewise Muller's career was before most of the transitional hominins were found.

So it's not surprising that they weren't so convinced about the ancestry of humans.

More recent scientists have demonstrated that humans could not have evolved from monkeys, and only secondarily from apes.

 

[lordkalvan]

Looks like semantic messing about.

GG Simpson and Henry Muller (see above quotes) obviously both thought that we ARE descended from apes.

They were both leaders in their fields - genetics and palaeontology - and neither you nor LK are in their class.

That being so, isn't it time you closed the shop instead of messing around with words?

Cladistics and taxonomical science are more than simply 'messing around with words', and surely as a scientist you are aware of this? They involve a degree of precision that, for some reason, you don't wish to engage with, as demonstrated by your reluctance to explain the methodology by which you intend to classify organisms such that Homo sapiens sapiens sits in its own exclusive KIngdom. Insofar as Homo sapiens sapiens is a great ape, anyone whose parents were human beings is 'descended from apes', so in this case Simpson, Muller and yourself are engaging in some degree of tautology.

Trouble is, of course, that's all you evolutionists can do. You haven't got any facts to support the theory, certainly none of the calibre I have been raising, so semantics is all you have left.

Umm, the one thing we do have is facts in abundance. Indeed, you have presented many facts, but few if any of the arguments and conclusions you have attempted to build on them are supported by those facts.

When are you going to abandon the battlefield?

Why would we do that when, to pursue your own analogy, you are just firing blanks and making a lot of noise in the hopes of just frightening us away?

 

[Asyncritus]

Cladistics and taxonomical science are more than simply 'messing around with words', and surely as a scientist you are aware of this? They involve a degree of precision that, for some reason, you don't wish to engage with, as demonstrated by your reluctance to explain the methodology by which you intend to classify organisms such that Homo sapiens sapiens sits in its own exclusive KIngdom.

It's very simple LK.

If an organism has characteristics present in no other kingdom, then it should be in its own.

Mankind can think. The evidence for that is indisputable, though I sometimes wonder...

That alone justifies a new, separate kingdom.

If you dispute this, then show another organism which can say, produce mathematical theorems or spacecraft or do eye surgery.

Insofar as Homo sapiens sapiens is a great ape, anyone whose parents were human beings is 'descended from apes', so in this case Simpson, Muller and yourself are engaging in some degree of tautology.

Simpson and Muller knew what they were talking about, and said it with a higher degree of authority than you can bring to bear in denying it.

Therefore, man did, according to them (but not me), descend fro the monkeys/apes.

Umm, the one thing we do have is facts in abundance.

Erm, where are they?

 

[lordkalvan]

It's very simple LK.

If an organism has characteristics present in no other kingdom, then it should be in its own.

Simple, but quite woolly and an obviously contrived fudge. It is 'on its own' - it's a species. Can you explain how your methodology assesses and classifies organisms? No, you can't, all you can do is insist that these subjectively-assessed characteristics should trump all other shared traits and permit you to separate humanity from its related species.

Mankind can think. The evidence for that is indisputable, though I sometimes wonder...

That alone justifies a new, separate kingdom.

And how do you measure this ability to think? I have already pointed out that research assesses the thinking abilities of several species on the same scale as we measure our own. How can you objectively justify a separate kingdom for humanity when you can't even tell us how you propose assessing the relative qualities that warrant this while justifying your dismissal of the shared traits that don't?

If you dispute this, then show another organism which can say, produce mathematical theorems or spacecraft or do eye surgery.

What I am pointing to is your inability to offer a thorough explanation of the assessment methodology which allows you to do what you insist should be done, at the same time offering a valid comparison with other thinking organisms. There is no part of your brain that you do not share with a chimp; the fact that your brain is larger and has more capability than a chimp's is no more a valid reason for placing humanity in a separate Kingdom than is the deeper-diving capability of one type of whale than all others a valid reason for placing it in its own Kingdom. Your proposal is quite farcical, as demonstrated by your inability to justify it objectively.

Simpson and Muller knew what they were talking about, and said it with a higher degree of authority than you can bring to bear in denying it.

Therefore, man did, according to them (but not me), descend fro the monkeys/apes.

Whatever floats your boat, but cladistically you and they are guilty of imprecision.

Erm, where are they?

I guess you can't have been paying attention then. The nested hierarchy that you are so keen to dismiss is but one of the many facts that attests to the validity of evolutionary theory. Not to mention atavisms, vestigial features, the fossil record, observed speciation, genetics and developmental embryology. That much of modern medicine depends upon the understanding that evolutionary theory provides should convince you, if nothing else does.

 

[Free]

Simpson and Muller knew what they were talking about, and said it with a higher degree of authority than you can bring to bear in denying it.

Therefore, man did, according to them (but not me), descend fro the monkeys/apes.

In fact, Simpson, when he wrote that, was unaware of the large number of transitional hominins. Likewise Muller's career was before most of the transitional hominins were found.

So it's not surprising that they weren't so convinced about the ancestry of humans.

More recent scientists have demonstrated that humans could not have evolved from monkeys, and only secondarily from apes.

Sounds to me like science changing it's views based on the data it finds. What does it matter, Asyncritus, what a couple of scientists believed prior to the data we have now? Are you arguing that because a couple of scientists believed, or appeared to believe, that we are descended from apes, that that is what science currently teaches us? If that is indeed what you are arguing, then you may as well argue to a geocentric solar system or flat Earth and quote those who preceded Copernicus and Galileo. Just because some in the past may have believed we descended from apes does not mean that it is so or that that is what science teaches.

But, I haven't been following this discussion so maybe that is not what you are saying.

 

[Barbarian]

If an organism has characteristics present in no other kingdom, then it should be in its own.

Mankind can think. The evidence for that is indisputable, though I sometimes wonder...

Apes can think, too. In fact, it's been shown that only humans and apes are capable of empathy (the inference of consciousness in another being). Monkeys can't do it. But apes can.

They can also reason, and communicate by means of symbols.

That alone justifies a new, separate kingdom.

If you dispute this, then show another organism which can say, produce mathematical theorems or spacecraft or do eye surgery.

That would exclude most members of H. sapiens from the designation of "human." And almost all creationists, BTW.

 

[Asyncritus]

Apes can think, too. In fact, it's been shown that only humans and apes are capable of empathy (the inference of consciousness in another being). Monkeys can't do it. But apes can.

They can also reason, and communicate by means of symbols.

Yes, maybe. And.... ?

That would exclude most members of H. sapiens from the designation of "human." And almost all creationists, BTW.

Would it? What proof can you offer?

But that does not alter the fact that such achievements justify a new kingdom.

 

[lordkalvan]

Yes, maybe. And.... ?

The difference of degree that you insist either does not exist or is irrelevant.

Would it? What proof can you offer?

The observed fact that the majority of individuals cannot do those things which you claim require that the totality of those individuals be placed in their own unique Kingdom.

But that does not alter the fact that such achievements justify a new kingdom.

And yet you are unable to define the limits for that Kingdom in respect of all other characteristics such that Homo sapiens sapiens does not remain taxonomically related to the other great apes and primates. Surely this alone tells you that your proposal is deeply flawed?

 

[Barbarian]

I suppose some of the prouder peacocks would declare that since their tails are vastly more elaborate than those of other organisms, that they are not birds at all, and belong in a different kingdom.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

Personal incredulence is not a valid argument;)

"Silly"? I'd say it was amazing.

Implying that Theistic Evolution is true, implies that God is a bad creator. The Bible says he made everything "perfect", from the beginning. So apparently humans are 4-6 billion years old and were never evolved.

Oh the contradicting.

 

[Free]

Implying that Theistic Evolution is true, implies that God is a bad creator. The Bible says he made everything "perfect", from the beginning. So apparently humans are 4-6 billion years old and were never evolved.

Oh the contradicting.

Does the Bible say God made everything perfect? And if so, what does "perfect" mean?

I know that the creation accounts in Genesis say that God declared everything good, and whether we want to say that means perfect it really doesn't matter. What it means is that it was created the way God intended it to be created, which would include the ability of organisms to evolve. I do not see how declaring theistic evolution to be true could imply that God is "a bad creator."

 

[jasoncran]

so men are soo stupid that we cant even design things better then random chance and natural laws. interesting.

i take that as a fact. whenever man has tried to fix himself theres always that side effect yet when a scientist can create life and a human who DOESNT DIE. THEN I WILL listen. tell then shut up!

to free, what does the idea of christ came to redeem man mean? we arent made for heaven and the ressurection doesnt speak of any bodyless existence and most jewish scholars laugh at us for taking genesis as not being as it says.

i cant if one wants to pull up the links and to barb.

sorry i dont take gentile scholars that speak of genesis without any weight given to the hebrew language as then they can pick and choose what to believe or deny.



why do we christian seems to think we know the very oracles given to the jews better then they which gave it to us.

the first audience must be considered.

if not lets stop and dont bother with the contexts and make up the story as we go along.

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/84579/jewish/The-True-Translation.htm

i find this interesting. hmm the originaly torah translated into the known seventy languages before the the first tanakh!
and

the bible or tanakh then had councils that decided what was in it and also what was taken to be literal if the the sages couldnt understand the words of god then the entire coming of christ and so forth is pointless.

surely its by faith. but that said one must believe that the God is able to guide his sages and the christians to be able to maintain the word that he gave them.

to ingore the most simplistic rendering of the word and how it fits in easily and the best isnt wise.

barb isnt able to answer my questions on the soul., and or the earth and all creation having a ruach.

 

[jasoncran]

http://www.chabad.org/library/artic...the-Theory-of-Evolution-Jibe-with-Judaism.htm

interesting reply to that question. honest.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/113105/jewish/Appendix-4-Evolution-Myths-and-Facts.htm

hmm so we christians are the only one being attacked on the literal rendering of genesis! the jews that are orthodox are as well.

chabad.org is a consertive jewish site and thus a reason i post a lot from them. they dont buy into gay rights and abortion etc. and treat the torah with respect whereas reformed judiasm doesnt.

 

[Barbarian]

Implying that Theistic Evolution is true, implies that God is a bad creator.

It says He's a lot more capable and intelligent than you suppose. Engineers are now discovering that evolutionary processes are more efficient than design for complex problems. As usual, God turned out to know best.

The Bible says he made everything "perfect", from the beginning.

No, it doesn't. Take another look. But even if it did, "perfect" would mean that it was created to serve His will.

So apparently humans are 4-6 billion years old and were never evolved.

The evidence says otherwise.

Oh the contradicting.

Indeed.