5 ms·

So you can't imagine how it evolved therefore you pick an even more unimaginable possibility with no evidence at all. I mean maybe an ancient alien wizard did

by pfisch 2y ago

So you can't imagine how it evolved therefore you pick an even more unimaginable possibility with no evidence at all. I mean maybe an ancient alien wizard did it. Should we credit the alien magi instead?

theodorejb 2y ago
From my perspective God has given us an incredible amount of evidence for His work - it's all around us in nature if one is open to looking for it!
- pfisch 2y ago
  Why isn't that the work of an ancient alien magi? Seems like the evidence for the alien magi is equal to the evidence of God.
- SonicScrub 2y ago
  The natural world truely is beautiful, and it's no surprise that someone would ascribe the majesty around us to higher powers. In fact, many scientists throughout time have been inspired to pursue scientific endeavors as a way to view the mind of God (and/or God's, depending the religious beliefs of the individual). However, we do God(s) a disservice when we deny the intricacies of their creation of the universe in favour of overly simplistic shortcuts such as "feather good because God made it". The story of natural selection via evolution is marvelous, and I don't believe that the God that made this universe would want us to ignore the intricacies of this fascinating process in favour of thought-terminating explanations such "well, it was just made that way". I also don't believe that God has an interest in deceiving us. Which would be the only explanation to reconciling a Creation explanation with the overwhelming amount of evidence for natural selection.
  - theodorejb 2y ago
    Natural selection is certainly real, but it has zero creative power. It can only select from what already exists. Usually the actual creative mechanism is assumed to be random genetic mutations. But where has anyone observed mutations changing one kind of animal into a new more advanced kind? In reality mutations are destructive to genetic information, and over long timescales cause devolution. As more mutations are inherited, genetic disorders and diseases will increase. To learn more about this I recommend reading the book "Genetic Entropy" by Cornell University geneticist Dr. John Sanford. I strongly disagree that it's thought-terminating to believe that God designed the universe and living things. This understanding will lead scientists to study the genius constructions, techniques, and formulas that God used in order to improve our own machines and inventions. In contrast, the belief that living things evolved by chance may cause scientists to dismiss something they don't understand as a useless evolutionary leftover, rather than studying it further to find its actual purpose (e.g. the appendix). Thus evolutionary assumptions retard scientific progress.
    - pfisch 2y ago
      Many organisms have been observed to acquire various new functions which they did not have previously (Endler 1986). Bacteria have acquired resistance to viruses (Luria and Delbruck 1943) and to antibiotics (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Bacteria have also evolved the ability to synthesize new amino acids and DNA bases (Futuyma 1998, p. 274). Unicellular organisms have evolved the ability to use nylon and pentachlorophenol (which are both unnatural manmade chemicals) as their sole carbon sources (Okada et al. 1983; Orser and Lange 1994). The acquisition of this latter ability entailed the evolution of an entirely novel multienzyme metabolic pathway (Lee et al. 1998). Bacteria have evolved to grow at previously unviable temperatures (Bennett et al. 1992). In E. coli, we have seen the evolution (by artificial selection) of an entirely novel metabolic system including the ability to metabolize a new carbon source, the regulation of this ability by new regulatory genes, and the evolution of the ability to transport this new carbon source across the cell membrane (Hall 1982). Such evolutionary acquisition of new function is also common in metazoans. We have observed insects become resistant to insecticides (Ffrench-Constant et al. 2000), animals and plants acquire disease resistance (Carpenter and O'Brien 1995; Richter and Ronald 2000), crustaceans evolve new defenses to predators (Hairston 1990), amphibians evolve tolerance to habitat acidification (Andren et al. 1989), and mammals acquire immunity to poisons (Bishop 1981). Recent beneficial mutations are also known in humans, such as the famous apolipoprotein AI Milano mutation that confers lowered risk to cardiovascular disease in its carriers.
      - theodorejb 2y ago
        Bacteria, plants, and other creatures are incredibly well designed to be able to adapt for survival in different environments, to the extent they can even copy and use external genes in some circumstances. Yet they still always reproduce the same kind. E. coli produce E. coli, plants produce the same kind of plant, animals produce the same kind of animal. There can be a lot of variation within a kind (e.g. all the different dog breeds), but a dog will never produce a non-dog, and a fish will never produce a non-fish. This requirement of microbe-to-man evolution contradicts the fundamental law of heredity.
        2y ago
- geocrasher 2y ago
  I choose to agree. To close ones mind to a conclusion (that there is a creator) is as illogical as blindly assuming there is a creator just because somebody said there was. One of the things that's always baffled me, and I say this completely honestly, is that if somebody looked at something like a Boeing 747, any high rise building, or well constructed, artistic looking bridge, and said "wow, evolution is amazing!" we would think them insane. But do that with something as intricate as a feather, or the brain (of any animal) and it's immediately acceptable. Then there's the second law of thermodynamics, which seems to be ignored by evolution, where it seems to be accepted that entropy decreases over huge amounts of time.
  - pfisch 2y ago
    The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to a system where we are constantly adding external energy. If we start we just a handful of seeds and externally add energy in the form of sunlight then over eons we will have a massive forest that covers the globe. That doesn't disobey the second law of thermodynamics. Our planet has continuous inputs of external energy.
maruahanka 2y ago
[flagged]

by pfisch 2y ago

theodorejb 2y ago

From my perspective God has given us an incredible amount of evidence for His work - it's all around us in nature if one is open to looking for it!

pfisch 2y ago
Why isn't that the work of an ancient alien magi? Seems like the evidence for the alien magi is equal to the evidence of God.
SonicScrub 2y ago
The natural world truely is beautiful, and it's no surprise that someone would ascribe the majesty around us to higher powers. In fact, many scientists throughout time have been inspired to pursue scientific endeavors as a way to view the mind of God (and/or God's, depending the religious beliefs of the individual). However, we do God(s) a disservice when we deny the intricacies of their creation of the universe in favour of overly simplistic shortcuts such as "feather good because God made it". The story of natural selection via evolution is marvelous, and I don't believe that the God that made this universe would want us to ignore the intricacies of this fascinating process in favour of thought-terminating explanations such "well, it was just made that way". I also don't believe that God has an interest in deceiving us. Which would be the only explanation to reconciling a Creation explanation with the overwhelming amount of evidence for natural selection.
- theodorejb 2y ago
  Natural selection is certainly real, but it has zero creative power. It can only select from what already exists. Usually the actual creative mechanism is assumed to be random genetic mutations. But where has anyone observed mutations changing one kind of animal into a new more advanced kind? In reality mutations are destructive to genetic information, and over long timescales cause devolution. As more mutations are inherited, genetic disorders and diseases will increase. To learn more about this I recommend reading the book "Genetic Entropy" by Cornell University geneticist Dr. John Sanford. I strongly disagree that it's thought-terminating to believe that God designed the universe and living things. This understanding will lead scientists to study the genius constructions, techniques, and formulas that God used in order to improve our own machines and inventions. In contrast, the belief that living things evolved by chance may cause scientists to dismiss something they don't understand as a useless evolutionary leftover, rather than studying it further to find its actual purpose (e.g. the appendix). Thus evolutionary assumptions retard scientific progress.
  - pfisch 2y ago
    Many organisms have been observed to acquire various new functions which they did not have previously (Endler 1986). Bacteria have acquired resistance to viruses (Luria and Delbruck 1943) and to antibiotics (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Bacteria have also evolved the ability to synthesize new amino acids and DNA bases (Futuyma 1998, p. 274). Unicellular organisms have evolved the ability to use nylon and pentachlorophenol (which are both unnatural manmade chemicals) as their sole carbon sources (Okada et al. 1983; Orser and Lange 1994). The acquisition of this latter ability entailed the evolution of an entirely novel multienzyme metabolic pathway (Lee et al. 1998). Bacteria have evolved to grow at previously unviable temperatures (Bennett et al. 1992). In E. coli, we have seen the evolution (by artificial selection) of an entirely novel metabolic system including the ability to metabolize a new carbon source, the regulation of this ability by new regulatory genes, and the evolution of the ability to transport this new carbon source across the cell membrane (Hall 1982). Such evolutionary acquisition of new function is also common in metazoans. We have observed insects become resistant to insecticides (Ffrench-Constant et al. 2000), animals and plants acquire disease resistance (Carpenter and O'Brien 1995; Richter and Ronald 2000), crustaceans evolve new defenses to predators (Hairston 1990), amphibians evolve tolerance to habitat acidification (Andren et al. 1989), and mammals acquire immunity to poisons (Bishop 1981). Recent beneficial mutations are also known in humans, such as the famous apolipoprotein AI Milano mutation that confers lowered risk to cardiovascular disease in its carriers.
    - theodorejb 2y ago
      Bacteria, plants, and other creatures are incredibly well designed to be able to adapt for survival in different environments, to the extent they can even copy and use external genes in some circumstances. Yet they still always reproduce the same kind. E. coli produce E. coli, plants produce the same kind of plant, animals produce the same kind of animal. There can be a lot of variation within a kind (e.g. all the different dog breeds), but a dog will never produce a non-dog, and a fish will never produce a non-fish. This requirement of microbe-to-man evolution contradicts the fundamental law of heredity.
      - 2y ago
geocrasher 2y ago
I choose to agree. To close ones mind to a conclusion (that there is a creator) is as illogical as blindly assuming there is a creator just because somebody said there was. One of the things that's always baffled me, and I say this completely honestly, is that if somebody looked at something like a Boeing 747, any high rise building, or well constructed, artistic looking bridge, and said "wow, evolution is amazing!" we would think them insane. But do that with something as intricate as a feather, or the brain (of any animal) and it's immediately acceptable. Then there's the second law of thermodynamics, which seems to be ignored by evolution, where it seems to be accepted that entropy decreases over huge amounts of time.
- pfisch 2y ago
  The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to a system where we are constantly adding external energy. If we start we just a handful of seeds and externally add energy in the form of sunlight then over eons we will have a massive forest that covers the globe. That doesn't disobey the second law of thermodynamics. Our planet has continuous inputs of external energy.

maruahanka 2y ago

[flagged]