The myth of evolution

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

The myth of evolution

Post #1

Post by Willum »

Theists use myth an awful lot:

They have myths about talking snakes and magic DNA altering, evil bestowing fruit, and so on.

But they also use myth offensively, as in the case of evolution.

They say that since fish eggs don't hatch out men, or ape mommys don't give birth to human children, that evolution is false.

But anyone who does not need Original Sin in their playbook knows that that is not what evolution claims.

(As in write this, if they believed their myth of evolution was true, they would have to believe men and fish could interbreed or man an ape - but I digress.)

So we have what evolution is according to the REST of the world: The promotion of inheritable traits among generations

Vs

The myth of evolution, what Judaists and Christians maintain: That just about anything can evolve into anything else.

The point of discussion is, how do Judeo-Christians maintain their MYTH of evolution, in order to maintain their myth of creation (and sin)?

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: The myth of evolution

Post #61

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]

You are not accurately portraying the creationist position. Creationist except adaptation or mendel's laws of genetics. Where creationist split from evolutionary theory is in the belief that mutations could have caused the diversity of the species.

There are no observations which support the belief that mutations cause a diversity of life. All mutations we see today that cause a change in the organism the organism is simply performing tasks that it already had the information to do.

There are not any observations of mutations in the hox genes that do not result in very destructive changes in the organism. There would have to be changes in the hox gene for the diversity of life that we see.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: The myth of evolution

Post #62

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 61 by EarthScienceguy]
You are not accurately portraying the creationist position. Creationist except adaptation or mendel's laws of genetics. Where creationist split from evolutionary theory is in the belief that mutations could have caused the diversity of the species.
and they believe that evolution claims monkeys can give birth to men. It does not.

The rest of your post belongs in another post.

Your answer tries to avoid the reality of the post.

Why did you post?
I will never understand how someone who claims to know the ultimate truth, of God, believes they deserve respect, when they cannot distinguish it from a fairy-tale.

You know, science and logic are hard: Religion and fairy tales might be more your speed.

To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: The myth of evolution

Post #63

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Willum]
they believe that evolution claims monkeys can give birth to men. It does not.
No, creationist do not believe evolutionist propose that monkeys can give birth to men. So may express it like that but that is not what creationist believe.

Creationist take issue with the alleged chromosome 2 fusion site. For evolutionary theory to be true there has to be some sort of fusion of the primates genes because primates have 48 genes and while humans have only 46 genes. The fusion site that evolutionist claim to have taken place was a telomere to telomere site. The problem with a telomere to telomere site is that this type of fusion has never been observed in mammals.

Creationist have also taken issue with some of the classification of the "links" between man and ape. Like for example neanderthals, were claimed to be humans that were not as evolved as modern humans today. And yet neanderthals mated with modern man and had a larger brain than modern man.

That is what creationist believe.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: The myth of evolution

Post #64

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 63 by EarthScienceguy]

Ah, you see, you have indicated further myths about Evolution.
The chromosome issue is not an objection. Think about it a second. All things with chromosomes were/are evolving, and into things with different numbers of chromosomes. Man is no exception.
Neanderthal were an offshoot of humanity.

So you see two more myths invented about evolution, in an attempt to make it seem more silly than the “talking snake� alternative.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: The myth of evolution

Post #65

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Willum]

Also in 2014, teams led by David Reich (Harvard Medical School) and Josh Akey (University of Washington, Seattle) “pieced together a substantial portion—about 20% and 40% respectively—of the Neanderthal genome from bits lurking in the genomes of hundreds of living humans.�4 Henry Gee, a senior editor of Nature, tells of a humorous incident at a Royal Society meeting in London in 2013. David Reich spoke on the close relationship between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. This irked a member of the audience. “Are you telling me,� he asked in cut-glass tones, “that these different species copulated with one another?� Gee said he was seized by an impulse to stand up and reply, “Not only did they copulate, but their union was blessed with issue!�5 The fact that unions of the Neanderthals with Homo sapiens were “blessed with issue,� according to the DNA evidence, demonstrates that the Neanderthals were not a “different species� but were “human-kind,� according to God’s Word.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: The myth of evolution

Post #66

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 65 by EarthScienceguy]

And yet, this is about the myths that Judeo-Christians invent to disparage evolution.

Not about the issue of Neanderthals, which is a different subject of distracting from the topic using non-sequiturs.

User avatar
John Bauer
Apprentice
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 11:31 pm
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 64 times

Post #67

Post by John Bauer »

"How do Judeo-Christians maintain their myth of evolution, in order to maintain their myth of creation (and sin)?"

It needs to be understood that it's not generic "Judeo-Christian" theists who do this; it's not even "Christians" generally who do this. Those who examine the matter responsibly will notice an acceptance of evolution within most of Christianity, from Roman Catholics to mainline Protestants. If we are dealing with people who maintain such myths of evolution as apes giving birth to human children—or, "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"—then we're talking about young-earth creationists. That is the source of these myths (or misunderstandings) of evolution, not Christians generally but young-earth creationists specifically. If you examine the relevant Pew Research Center data, you'll discover that most Christians accept evolution while maintaining orthodox views of creation and sin.

But returning to your question: How are these myths maintained? Ignorance, first and foremost. In those churches that hold to young-earth creationism, these myths are handed down from one generation to the next in response to a perceived threat to their faith. They are taught by young-earth creationist leadership, from Henry Morris in 1961 clear through to Ken Ham today, that there is an insoluble contradiction between evolution and the Bible. They are taught that if evolution explains how everything came to be then biblical creation is disproved, whereas if God created all things then evolution must be false. But it is this naive perspective which is false. The insoluble contradiction is between evolution and a young-earth creationist interpretation of the Bible. And the falsehood of that interpretation does not entail the falsehood of biblical Christianity.
Willum wrote: Do you understand then, that with evolution, there is no Garden of Eden, and thus no original sin, and so no need for Jesus?
It is not obvious how, given evolution, there is no garden of Eden, original sin, and so forth. I'm an evangelical Christian who accepts the story of Adam and the fall, etc., as having taken place within the history of our world, a history characterized by billions of years of evolution (i.e., it's not an "alternative" to evolution). And I can do this precisely because these things are not mutually exclusive. The truth of evolution would preclude Adam being the first human, but not his existence or fall into sin or the need for Jesus and so forth.
Eloi wrote: I already told you I don't believe in evolution; I am not evolutionist, and that's it. Maybe you should tell me what is that you want me to tell you exactly.
What he wanted to hear from you was a description of evolution in order to see whether or not you even understand the thing you oppose.
Diagoras wrote: Evolutionary scientists do NOT believe that humans descended from apes. This is the single most common error that many creationists make. Apes are literally ‘genetic cousins’, not ‘genetic parents’.
Answers in Genesis doesn't seem to understand that we are apes, thus we are ape descendants of ape parents (who were related to other ape parents of our ape cousins).
"Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when he is called upon to act
in accordance with the dictates of reason."
— Oscar Wilde.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all
argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle
is contempt prior to investigation."
— William Paley.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: The myth of evolution

Post #68

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 64 by Willum]

Do you know the evidence that is used for human chromosome evolution? Evolutionist have to have faith that there was a telomere-telomere fusion in a mammal even when there has never been one observed.

They also have to believe that

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: The myth of evolution

Post #69

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 66 by Willum]
And yet, this is about the myths that Judeo-Christians invent to disparage evolution.
Oh!! I see what you mean. Minor details like facts.

DeMotts
Scholar
Posts: 276
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:58 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: The myth of evolution

Post #70

Post by DeMotts »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy]
Creationist take issue with the alleged chromosome 2 fusion site. For evolutionary theory to be true there has to be some sort of fusion of the primates genes because primates have 48 genes and while humans have only 46 genes. The fusion site that evolutionist claim to have taken place was a telomere to telomere site. The problem with a telomere to telomere site is that this type of fusion has never been observed in mammals.
When you say that this type of fusion has never been observed do you mean to say that we've never seen it happen in real time, or that we've never found evidence that it has occurred?

Post Reply