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)?

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Post #31

Post by Eloi »

That whole picture is speculation. As I said before, there are new reasearches about what fossil record could much probably say, and it is not a tree like Darwin painted it. Maybe you should get a postgrade or something to learn what the fossil record says most likely according to the most recent studies.

It has been about 5 posts where you compare God with a wizard and so ... some obsession you should have or some problem with your belief that you feel so much need to ridicule other beliefs.

I abandon your thread. It is not pleasant to talk with a person with that attitude. Have a good day.

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

Post #32

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 31 by Eloi]

OK, you, and only you can ignore fossil records, for purposes of discussion. Everyone else, including philosophers 2300 years old-dead, find it intuitive.
That leaves life filling ecological niches, and observation.
You, amazingly focused on fossils, which in your personal preview, despite the revelation of a hundred and more years ago, don't contribute.

OK, so what do you say to the observed evolution of finches, algae and crayfish?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0467-9
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... iYMWYJEjt8
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 141238.htm

Not that it is any part of the topic, which is why theists create specious myths about evolution in order to make their talking snake myths seem reasonable.

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

Post #33

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 31 by Eloi]
It has been about 5 posts where you compare God with a wizard and so
And so, you have not been able to dispute the analogy. I also said your magic sky wizard had no useful origin.
Disputing Darwins tree, is also not a disputation of evolution, apparently you did not read the article you posted.
The fault is on your religion, not the topic.

You have posted five pages and did not contribute the topic, nor did you, apparently read anything other than what you already believed.

IF YOU AREN'T GOING TO CONTRIBUTE TO A TOPIC, OR EVEN CONSIDER ANYTHING FROM IT
DON'T POST.

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8969
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 66 times
Contact:

Post #34

Post by OnceConvinced »

Moderator Intervention

There is a lot of tit-for-tat going on here which is not necessary. Please can we keep to the topic and avoid personal comments.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World

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 #35

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to 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.
This is not the conclusion of theist. Theist say that there is not legitimate mechanism for to increase the information or a change of the information in the Genome.

Nowhere is this more evident than during the cambrian explosion. Where most of the major body plans "evolved" in less than 20 million years. Which according to evolutions own time calculations is not possible. Even if we were to expand this time to some generous value of 70 million years it would still not be enough time according to evolutions own calculation. This has been a major stumbling block for evolution ever since Darwin wrote his book "origin of species".

Evolution is not possible even according to its own mathematical calculation.

Those that believe in evolution must believe that some organizing force was applied to the genome on this planet to override the mathematical impossibility of the "Cambrian Explosion".

This impossibility has not been lost on scientist. This is the reason why there has been an increase in the number of alternate theories, like simulation theory, and the Panspermia hypothesis. Scientist who have looked objectively at the data have concluded that there is not enough evidence to conclude that life originated on the earth. Therefore either life as we know it does not actually exist (simulation theory). Or it originated elsewhere in the universe (panspermia hypothesis).

Both of these theories were not generated by the evidence but by the failure of evolutionary theory.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: The myth of evolution

Post #36

Post by Bust Nak »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Where most of the major body plans "evolved" in less than 20 million years. Which according to evolutions own time calculations is not possible... Evolution is not possible even according to its own mathematical calculation.
Are you referring to the arguments for punctuated equilibrium? I don't think any evolution have ever expressed doubt as to how much can be done in 20 million years.
This is the reason why there has been an increase in the number of alternate theories, like simulation theory, and the Panspermia hypothesis.
These are not alternatives to evolution at all. And apparently you know this given your next statement:
Scientist who have looked objectively at the data have concluded that there is not enough evidence to conclude that life originated on the earth. Therefore either life as we know it does not actually exist (simulation theory). Or it originated elsewhere in the universe (panspermia hypothesis).
If you know this, why present them as alternatives to evolution?
Both of these theories were not generated by the evidence but by the failure of evolutionary theory.
The truth or falsity of evolution does not make either of these more or less acceptable to science, so I ask, where are you getting this idea from?

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 #37

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 36 by Bust Nak]

Ah, you see, Bust Nak, 'Earthscienceguy' is,doing exactly what the topic claims, creating a sophism or MYTH about evolution, so that this preposterous thing(s) he is proposing can be dismissed by the rational, and his religious theory, about talking snakes or what ever has more credence.

He is essentially saying that "evolutionists haven't stopped beating their wives, and so can't be relied on for moral stances."

When, of course, wife beating, or men spring forth from fish eggs, or whatever irrelevant thing he is proposing, has nothing the do with evolution, but is a daffy myth that he believes about evolution.

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 #38

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 36 by Bust Nak]
Are you referring to the arguments for punctuated equilibrium? I don't think any evolution have ever expressed doubt as to how much can be done in 20 million years.


Really! The following quote is from an article on Biologos entitled "Does the Cambrian explosion pose a challenge for evolution". An article which supports evolution theology, makes the following comments.

"Most scientists are persuaded that something significant happened at the dawn of the Cambrian era and view the Cambrian Explosion as an area of exciting and productive research."

"Further discoveries will no doubt reveal more clearly the relationship of Precambrian organisms with the creatures found in the Burgess Shale and Chengjiang deposits."

"What triggered the Cambrian Explosion? And why did so much change occur at this time?"

Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium because because the fossil record did not support Darwin's idea of phyletic gradualism.

People can read all about it in "Darwin's Doubt" by Stephen Meyer


Quote:
Scientist who have looked objectively at the data have concluded that there is not enough evidence to conclude that life originated on the earth. Therefore either life as we know it does not actually exist (simulation theory). Or it originated elsewhere in the universe (panspermia hypothesis).

If you know this, why present them as alternatives to evolution?
Both of these theories propose that life did not start on this earth. 20 years ago no serious scientist would ever even consider either one of these theories as possibility for the origin of life. But now these ideas have become practically mainstream "science". And I have to put "science" in quotations because neither of these "theories" could ever be tested. Therefore they are not theories but beliefs.

The only reason why "theories" like the the ones above would be entertained would be the utter failure of evolution to explain life.

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 #39

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 37 by Willum]

Why has crazy ideas like simulation theory and panspermia increased in popularity even among scientist? Neither of these theories can be tested. Evolution theology still has not answer for the cambrian explosion. Verbal "sleight of hand" imagery is no substitution for facts.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: The myth of evolution

Post #40

Post by Bust Nak »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Really! The following quote is from an article on Biologos entitled "Does the Cambrian explosion pose a challenge for evolution". An article which supports evolution theology, makes the following comments...
And I suppose by your count, these comments counts as doubts that 20 million years isn't enough for the Cambrian explosion?
People can read all about it in "Darwin's Doubt" by Stephen Meyer
And I suppose by "according to [evolution's] own mathematical calculation" you meant Stephen Meyer's calculation?
Both of these theories propose that life did not start on this earth. 20 years ago no serious scientist would ever even consider either one of these theories as possibility for the origin of life. But now these ideas have become practically mainstream "science".
That doesn't answer my question, if you know that these theories are about where or how life started, why did you present them as alternatives to evolution?
And I have to put "science" in quotations because neither of these "theories" could ever be tested. Therefore they are not theories but beliefs.
Simulation? Ok maybe it's unfalsifiable; but I don't know why you think panspermia can't be tested. Having said that, I will grant you that these are at best hypothesis and are far from scientific theory like evolution is.
The only reason why "theories" like the the ones above would be entertained would be the utter failure of evolution to explain life.
You are just restating your claim, I asked you to explain why you believe this, given that even if evolution is false, it wouldn't make either of these any more or any less true.

Post Reply