35 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

"This is a perfect example of how the evolution world view terminates useful inquiry."

"God did it" as an answer doesn't ever tell us anything useful. There is no mechanism, no greater understanding of how something actually works, no testable predictions. Science has shown time and time again that it is useful for uncovering mechanisms and delving into the reasons behind natural events using only objective evidence observed around us. No superfluous magic required.

"If there is a creator, and my inquiries prompt people to question their beliefs, is that not more useful than scientific inquiry?"

And scientific enquiry can also prompt people to question their beliefs. However religious belief never lead to the discovery of antibiotics, electricity, metabolism, plate tectonics, etc. etc. etc. So no, your enquiries are not more useful than scientific enquiry.

"Religion can provide some good explanations."

Please provide them then. Also answer the question of why there must be a "why" at all.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"Religion can provide some good explanations"
Sure - but not one person can ever actually *validate* these explanations as being *knowledge* instead of belief.

"Interesting article you presented. It talks a lot about 'What?', but says nothing about 'Why?' or 'How?'."
The article I presented was linked to in the main article (under references). There need not be a why.

If you were actually interested in hearing the how, even a cursory search using lay resource would reveal that the leading hypothesis is that aves are derivatives of theropods. Go and speak to paleontologist at your local university.

http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf

Drop down to about page 40 for a breakdown of the morphological structures in support of each respective theory. The origin of birds is still a largely debated, and nevertheless interesting, for someone wanting to flick through the fossil record.

Again, though, that's only if you actually have the intention on *learning* something today, instead of regurgitating the empty rhetoric and specious assertions you so duly enjoy.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"What is the point of a Bar-tailed godwit and why, according to you, was it 'designed' to take those long distance flights?"

Its evolutionary ancestry required this capability of it. There was no "design" involved. Like many birds, it evolved to be able to fly long distances. This particular species got the right mutations to allow it to go particularly far, giving it more options and thus more survivability.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@boigboig

"You're too busy seeing the world as evolved to do the required legwork to form a valid opinion though, I gather."

You have this backwards. Biologists looked at the lifeforms of the world and constructed an explanation that fits observation. That explanation is called the Theory of Evolution. We're seeing the lifeforms of the world as evolved because under scrutiny that is how they are.

Typically, religious people often see the Theory of Evolution as a competing dogma. An idea that was thought of completely independently of observed phenomena and facts. But you should dispel this idea from your head because it is an outright fallacy. The theory encapsulates knowledge that explains observed phenomena and facts.

And *that* is why there is no competing theory or explanation of the biodiversity on this planet. Nothing with its predictive or explanatory powers.

"Did I not ask a question? Is that not an inquiry? If there is a creator, and my inquiries prompt people to question their beliefs, is that not more useful than scientific inquiry?"

No, it is not more useful than scientific inquiry. It is a dead end.

"This is a perfect example of how the evolution world view terminates useful inquiry."

Scientific inquiry *is* useful inquiry. Whether you choose to believe in a deity or not should not blinker you to the workings of the natural world.

"To answer your question, Revelation 4:11."

Okay, so that reads (according to King James Version):

"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."

Which explains absolutely NOTHING. God did everything because it made him 'happy'. Welcome to the simpletons explanation of the world. This is a full stop where all inquiry comes to an end. Why do birds fly? "GOD-DID-IT". Why do they migrate? "GOD-DID-IT" How do populations diverge? "GOD-DID-IT" and so on.

"What is the point of a Bar-tailed godwit and why, according to you, was it 'designed' to take those long distance flights?"

I'll take it that you meant to use 'evolved' instead of 'designed' when attempting to redirect this question back.

The point of a Bar-tailed godwit is its own existence, survival and propagation of genes. For the evolution of these creatures I direct you to the fascinating link that AusJP posted:

http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf

Migration:

http://www.paulnoll.com/Oregon/Birds/migrate-evolution.html

"By human standards, evolution is an excruciatingly slow process. Sometimes, however, changes in migratory habits occur so rapidly that we may actually see them in action. In the early 1940s, some House Finches from a nonmigratory population in California were released on Long Island, New York. Once established in the East Coast's far more seasonally variable climate, the birds began to develop a migratory pattern. The eastern House Finch has since become partially migratory and has spread throughout the Northeast. Some individuals are resident the year around, while others regularly migrate back and forth to the Gulf States."

This is a detailed resource on bird migration:

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/migratio/index.htm

In particular:

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/migratio/evolut.htm

"Religion can provide some good explanations. Can evolution?"

It can? What are they? Revelation 4:11? It's hardly an explanation is it. More of a 2000 year old shoulder shrug.

Check out the links above for scientific study based on actual observation.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Religion can provide explanations that can't possibly be verified. How about the theory that when god was creating a wonderful, perfect universe for his true children to live in our own universe was unknowingly split-off as an unwanted byproduct.

After all, if there was a god what makes you think they're perfect? Maybe it doesn't take omnipotence to create the kinds of realities that we exist in.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"You do realize that in your context, 'incredulity' applies to you as well. The reason it can apply to both of us, is simply because we each have a different faith."

Unevidenced assumption. You'll need to demonstrate his "faith" to validate your point.

"Simple deductive reasoning does"

You clearly don't have that capacity.

"Design requires intelligence"

Now show that life is designed. You should also show that complexity _can only_ arise from design.

"Hmmm. I'd say eternal life trumps antibiotics every time."

Got any objective evidence for eternal life? Didn't think so. Wait did the bible tell you that? The same book that says there is a god to begin with? Funny that.

"I did . Read my post."

Was that the biblical passage you posted? Because that didn't explain anything. Not even in the slightest.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Oh, wow, you don't skip a beat, do you? Is there a list of creationist talking points that you just randomly pull out of a hat and spew onto a Digg comment regardless of relevance?

"You say, 'we', so you are speaking for others? "
I will speak on behalf of all people who require evidence for an assertion. You have none, ergo all people who require evidence for an assertion will dismiss your claims as the excrement they are.

"You do realize that in your context, 'incredulity' applies to you as well. The reason it can apply to both of us, is simply because we each have a different faith."
You essentially define "faith" in a sense that it is utterly meaningless. I have "faith" in what reality can demonstrate. Your have faith that reality is often wrong, when the bible is wholly right. Do I have to inform you of which position necessarily trumps which?

"As for 'ignorance', I think you have that one backwards. Science does not have the answers to the origin of life. Simple deductive reasoning does. Design requires intelligence, and life is incredible in it's design. You are ignorant of that."

Once upon a time we didn't understand germ theory, I imagine you'd be the sort of person that would simply dismiss any scientific inquiry into this phenomena as bunk because you'd prefer attributing it to the god of your choosing. This is a fallacious god of the gaps argument that barely even warrants a reply.

You can continue to maintain the position of your bible being inerrant, and continue to jump out of the frying pan (and into another thread) each time you're caught in another untenable position, and you'll still be utterly *wrong*.

"Why? Does my position make your feel uncomfortable?"
Uh.. No? We dismiss it because it's uninformed, and more often than not, plain bollocks. Reality gives you a bitch-slapping and you're too stubborn, arrogant and unlearned to actually realize it. You're the poster boy of Dunning-Kruger.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@AusJP - I find it much easier to say that I have confidence in something, rather than faith. Confidence is a mental construct built upon evidence and a track record. Faith, to me, implies that there is no evidence for something. In light of this, I've found the word "faith" rather distasteful.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

While abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, there is some evidence to support it, and the amount of evidence is increasing. If you are at all interested try reading up about the work of Stanley Miller (both the Miller-Urey experiment and Miller's later work), and the work of Jack Szostak. This evidence is the basic properties of chemical systems that actually make up life. In the case of biblical creation, the only evidence is tautological. Most previous scientific discoveries began as hypotheses, and after enough evidence was discovered became scientific theories and laws. So AusJP's "faith" is not the same as religious faith because a) some objective evidence actually exists that life could be formed out of certain chemical systems, and b) there have been plenty of other examples in science of hypotheses becoming theories, so this is certainly within the realm of possibilities. Note that we are not talking about any specific model of abiogenesis here, just the existence of some form of abiogenesis.

Besides, abiogenesis is a seperate field to evolution. I understand why you've latched onto it of course - it's something that likely happened >3 billion years ago, and you mistakenly think that finding something that science can't fully explain somehow validates your contradictory viewpoint that itself has no objective evidence supporting it.

""Got any objective evidence for eternal life?"

Scientific? No. Personal? Absolutely."

So you've personally witnessed eternal life, or do you just personally believe in it? Now go and look up the definition of "objective".

"Then do some research and inform yourself, or risk having that previously mentioned adjective applied to yourself."

Can you provide an external and objective source that wasn't possibliy written by bronze age shepherds?

• Reply
• 1 Reply

• Digg
• Bury

I agree wholeheartedly with your definitions, Mnem, but I didn't want to go down the path of semantics with boig who seems to enjoy getting caught up arguing minutiae instead of dealing with evidential support for his otherwise vacuous propositions.

I think an Einstein quote is appropriate whenever dealing with creationist antics: "A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be." I'm unsure of the context it was originally said in, but it rings true.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"So, you have no faith in Abiogenesis."
Why do you obsess over abiogenesis with near masturbatory pleasure? I have confidence in the scientific method of answering the origins of life, yes. It is a tried and proven method. If it's abiogenesis, so be it. If it's another mechanism, so be it. I don't need to hinge onto it for some sort of ideological validation.

"You should insert the word 'scientific' prior to evidence. Then, that would limit the scope of your statement."
Minutiae, my friend. You lack any empirical evidence. Agreed?

"Then your imagination would be wrong. I welcome scientific inquiry. I just realize that by definition it has limits and a prejudice to naturalism."
Then you have no foundation upon which to reject what evolutionary theory actually postulates instead of these ridiculous straw-men you throw up. You have no basis to reject the observed instances of speciation in the wild and within a lab controlled environment. You have no basis upon which to reject radiometric dating. You have no basis upon which to reject an old universe, or old earth. You have no basis upon which you can accept a mythical flood.

"It is called common sense. If open my eyes and look..."
That's an example and not a rigorously defined mechanism. Please learn to distinguish between the two, and come back and talk when you can posit said rigorously defined mechanism.

"That's why the Bible has survived against all oppressive forces in all of history."
Modern scientific theory is eroding bible literalism faster than you can say "a flood of biblical proportions defies the laws of thermodynamics". I also have confidence in human stupidity, and our inclination to believe a conspiracy theory over no theory at all.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

""In the case of biblical creation, the only evidence is tautological."

Not at all. See my point above with the link to that big 'natural' \s stone wall."

I see you didn't understand my point.

1 Why is the bible right? -> Because God says the bible is the word of god.
2 How do you know God exists? -> Because the bible says so
goto 1...

There is no objective external evidence and you applied a logical fallacy known as the appeal to common sense.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#commonsense

""This evidence is the basic properties of chemical systems that actually make up life."

Huh? You want to think about that 'evidence' a bit more? (Hint: Circular and missing 'ingredient'.)"

So are you implying that this evidence doesn't exist? And don't think I don't get the irony of you (someone w) ho applies circular logic to their life every daysaying that to me.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v382/n6589/abs/382373a0.html
http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/early/2010/05/14/cshperspect.a002212.long
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja9029818
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/459171a.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7200/full/nature07018.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WK7-4NTRT8X-1&_user=103681&_coverDate=08%2F10%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000007920&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=103681&md5=50c4f9e15222fac5a5755510c52f5047
http://www.springerlink.com/content/84453m14673gn342/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16552527

• Reply