Copperhead

I didn't 'twist' anything. The fact that it seems to coincide with Evolutionary Theory has nothing to do with me, and I'm not 'making it' mean anything. That's just what the book says. IMO that you just don't want what the book claims to accurately coincide with the Evolutionary fossil record, as that would imply there's something to it. Only in your own minds.

Because a poster one this board wished to contend that the Biblical account of the origins of life cannot coincide with Evolutionary Theory. I was merely setting him straight.

Okay. Now can you explain how several distinct personalities with divine power can produce a single, smoothly operating system, such as the earth's water cycle? Wouldn't each divine personality influence the cycle in its own prefered way, causing something akin to chaos? Including atheists. You seem to forget your own ad hominem that provoked my response. Let me refresh your memory. "Your ability, or lack thereof, to deduce via any thought process or logic..... " You're quoting the wrong verse. Verse 20 refers to the first terrestial vertebrates, but you're quoting verse 24, which is clearly refering to modern mammals---livestock. Here's verse 20: "God also said, let the waters bring forth creeping creatures having life and let the fowl that may fly over the earth." The creeping creatures (terrestial vertebrates) were brought forth from the water before the fowl flew over the earth.

I feel I ought to apologize, as I've been having you on the whole time. You started off with the mistaken idea that Genesis contends that birds pre-date terrestial vertebrates---I knew as soon as I read your post that this was mistaken, but the study of the evolution of birds is a personal interest of mine, so I sort of tailored my responses to guide the discussion along that line of thought. Genesis actually says that "the waters brought forth creeping creatures having life"----(amphibians, dinosaurs, and other things that can "creep" rather than swim) BEFORE birds were created. Philosophy is not a hard Science. As such, there is no such thing as 'hard evidence' to support any philosophical proposition----whether it's polytheism, monotheism or atheism.The ability to deduce via thought processes and logic is really all philosophers have. And, as you freely admit that you lack this ability, you'd best stick to the hard sciences.

You didn't actually contest my rationale for believing that the existance of multiple gods is unlikely, you simply accused me of being biased and using a "double standard." However if you believe you can disprove my arguments against polytheism, then I'll listen to what you have to say. Why 'should' we assume that the physical universe has no cause? Everything within the physical universe requires a cause, so what's the rationale for making even a vague assumption that the universe does not? It's counter-intuitive.

Hardly. How is refering to a birdlike creature as a bird a stretch by any means? Particularly since many Archosaur reptiles are thought to have had such markedly birdlike features as beaks and even feathers.

To quote one mentioned on this thread(by an atheist), "atheists just assert that a universe might be able to exist without a real causal agent." No. No one said that. What I said was that the reptilian proto-birds that existed during the time of the dinosaurs possibly pre-dated the sub-group of mammal-like reptiles, the Synapsida, from which modern mammals are descended--- and the Evolutionary chart provided by Arete would seem to confirm this, as the Diapsida reptiles from which birds are descended clearly appear slightly earlier on the chart than the Synapsida. If you mean modern birds in their most developed form, you'd be right. But I'm speaking of the Reptilian proto-birds, the Diapsida, which clearly predate the reptilian proto-mammals, the Synapsida.

That doesn't really explain anything unless we know the basic bodily structure of the ancesteral amniote. That is, was it closer in appearence to a Diapsida a Synapsid? Is the mammalian body structure the result of a mutation of a basic birdlike body structure, or was the birdlike body structure the result of a mutation of a basic mammalian body structure? What came first, the amniote or the egg?

But neither are they in possesson of what might be called a conscious mind. The statement I made earlier still holds as about 80% accurate. Can fish plan for tommorrow? No. Can a fish concieve of anything other than the watery world in which it is placed? No. Can a fish recollect past experiences? Probably not. And yes, I do pay attention to the behaviors of animals. I live in a rural area and have been fortunate enough to observe the behavior of many animals.

Yes, but there are sources of light other than the celestial bodies. The magma and molten rock upon which the earth's tetonic plates drift is luminescent with heat, for instance. No, simply the genetic line of the two-legged reptilian organisms from which birds are descended.

Strawmen indeed. mississipichem would disagree with you there. He stated that "atheists just assert that a universe might be able to exist without a real causal agent"... an assertion which I reject as uncompellng and lacking in good evidence. And I don't believe anybody 'insinuated' anything about any 'atheist creation theory' at any point in our discussion. There are, however, 'Atheistic explanations for the origins of the physical universe,' which is, I believe, the term I've been using. And as I mentioned earlier, the Atheistic explanations for the origins of the physical universe mentioned on this thread are as much taken on faith by their proponents as any religous creation story. You can hardly decry religous ideas as 'unsupported' when the only alternate explanation that any of you have brought to the table ("matter can just exist without a casual agent") has just as little imperical evidence to lend it credence. And that is in no way a 'strawman,' as I did not create the aforementioned alternate explanation; it was, in the words of mississipichem, 'asserted by atheists.' Not at all. Really, any rational process by which one attempts to discover the truth by using the scientific method---observing certain aspects of any given subject, hypothesizing about the nature of these aspects, ect. is a form of the scientific discipline in and of itself. You are correct in supposing that the method I used has nothing to do with physical or hard sciences, but let us not forget that these are far from the only sciences. You know, the sun is not the only source of light in the universe. It is currently thought that birds evolved from a class of bird-like dinosaurs such as Raptors. And, if all dinosaurs evolved from a common ancestor(which may well have been one of these birdlike dinosaurs), then it might be accurately stated that 'birds' arrived on earth before the terrestrial vertebrates which evolved later.

In other words, you're asking "How do you know that yours is the right God?" Not an unreasonable question. There are, after all literally thousands of religons in the world---what are the chances that the one I follow is the right one? That being said, IMO you can narrow it down a bit. I subscribe to the Socratian school of thought about Polytheism--- if there is such a thing as a Deity, than there is probably only one Deity. It would seem unlikely that multiple personalities could produce our smoothly fuctioning natural world, as each one would probably try to influence nature to its own preferences, and that would probably not result in the smooth, unsupported cycles we see in our world--- such as animal lifecycles, the water cycle, and even evolution. (Zeus belongs to a Polytheistic Pantheon, so that knocks him out of the running.) We've already eliminated probably some 90% of the world's religons. Next, which of the remainder coincides with contemporary Scientific knowledge? For me, that left the Abrahamic religons, for if one is of the opinion(as I am) that the sections of the Torah, Bible, and Qur'an dealing with origins of the world are largely symbolic parable (as are many other sections), then the Abrahamic Creation Story coincides with Evolutionary Theory quite nicely. So That leaves three religons; which these is the "right" one? That can only be determined by a comprehensive comparison of Doctrine---which falls more into the realm of Theology than any scientific method of elimination.

Hold up right there. I believe you stated at one point that 'atheists just assert that a universe might be able to exist without a real causal agent' I feel that I must point out that there is absolutely zero objective evidence to support that assertion. I hesitate to call anyone broken, as we've all believed in baseless theories. However, I can state with confidence that the system of logic by which humans assert unsupported theories as probable truth is broken indeed. It's a classic instance where the proponents of certain philosophy denounce their rival's ideas as unfounded whilst offering an equally unsupported idea as a counterweight. In view of the fact that you've offered a 'theory' with nothing to support it but blind faith, you'd best prepare for the trial you spoke of. Faith: not good enough for courts, not good enough for science, not even good enough for casual conversation. But whatever else it's good for, it's evidently good enough for atheists. And that, iNow, is a true instance of hypocrasy.

I've got a fairly well-known example for you. http://catholiceduca...ion/re0447.html To give a bit of backround: the subject is a purportedly miraculous 16th century artifact called the 'Tilma of Guadalupe'. I'll spare you the old story about where this thing came from (you can read it for yourself anyway) And instead stick to the pertinent facts. 1: The object in question is an indigenious Mexican cloak from the 1500s, with an image of a woman, obstensibly Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ imprinted on the front. 2: The object is made from maguey cactus fiber, a material that begins to disintegrate within a few decades, though the object in question has inexplicably survived for nearly 500 years, despite an attempt, puportedly by Freemasons, to destroy it with a bomb in the 1920s. 3: In the eye of the woman on the Tilma, microscopic images of human figures have been identified as being accurately depicted in the manner that they would reflect in the human eye--despite the fact that the artists of the 1500s did not have the ability to accurately reproduce how human figures would reflect on the human eye. While your adament defense of your position does you credit, my belief that a non-physical force created the universe is no more baseless than your own belief that matter is somehow 'eternal' and required no creation----for there is in fact, no observable evidence that matter is 'able to exist without a casual agent.' Now I've got a challenge for you: name one observable object in our physical universe that requires no beginning.

You got me there.

You fail to understand what I'm getting at here. We can observe that all physical things seem to require a well defined begining. But a God, First Force, Deity, whatever you want to call it, is by definition a metaphysical being, that is a being not bound by the laws of physics. Since it appears to me that physical matter cannot be responsible for its own genesis, then something other than a physical object must have produced it. There is nothing either hypocritical or broken about that line of thought.

Not necessarily so. Are you familiar with the Multiverse Theory? It essentially holds that there exist an infinite number of Universes distinct from our own.(If I recollect correctly, Proff. Dawkins outlines the Theory in his book "The God Delusion.") If this is the case, then it is incorrect to say that something that does not exist in the universe (meaning our own) must be non-existant. For all we know, "God" could be operating out of any one of the infinite number of universes proposed by Dawkins.

LOL, sounds more like political rhetoric than philosophical debate! iNow has raised an interesting point here. I happen to be religous myself, but I don't deny that most religons do have a tendancy of attracting a certain number of---how shall we say this? Flakes. Indeed, while fufilling my own religous obligations, I occasionally note a few of my co-religonists behaving in ways that hint at a certain instability of mind---exaggerated and attention-seeking displays of phony devotion, an irrational fear of being 'contaminated' by individuals who aren't 'holy enough,' ect. Mind you, these pious nutters are more the of the silly rather than the truly offensive or agressive sort of loony, and more than anything else act as a distraction rather than a real cause of worry. That being said, not all of us are cringing head cases that use religon as some sort of 'psychological refuge' to block out the physical world. I, for one, did not become especially religous until after I had become familiar the scientific case for Atheism; suffice it to say that I had read the works of Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens (both of whom I respect immensely,) before I ever seriously read the Bible. Ultimately, though, I found myself unconvinced by the Atheistic explanations for the origins of the physical universe. All of them, from the Steady State Theory to the Big Bang Theory seemed to me to have the same fundamental flaw, that none explain the origin of the actual matter that forms the universe, but simply held that it was always there for no reason---and that just doesn't seem to me to jibe with the modus operandi that the Universe operates by. As far as I can observe, physical objects all seem alike in the fact that they have both a cause and effect. A mountain, for instance, is the effect of the movement of the earth's tetonic plates. A planet is the effect of debris or gases being pulled to a point of gravity. A Black Hole is the effect of the collapse or implosion of a star. Suppose that there was no star at a given point to collapse; could there be a Black Hole existant at that given point? No, there could not, because there would be no cause for a Black Hole. If there was no center of gravity at a given point, could a planet form at that point? No it could not; if there is nothing to cause the planet to be there, then it simply won't exist. Realizing that all the individual parts that compose the Physical Universe are governed by this universal law, it occured to me that it would be unlikely the Universe as a whole would be exempt from it. Hence, if there did not exist a force that existed before physical matter, then the apparent laws of physics would seem to dictate that physical matter itself would have no cause to be extant, consequently precluding the existance of the physical Universe. But then of course, came the proverbial theological dilemma: What then, produced this pre-physical force, this Deity-thing that created it all? In plain English, who made God? Then it occured to me that if indeed there exists a force that predates physical matter, then it would be fallacious to impose physical laws on it. That is, whereas physical matter requires a specific cause, God, if He exists, may not as He would not be a physical object. So ultimately I came to the conclusion that God most likely exists. Does this mean I reject Scientific concepts like Abiogenesis, Darwinistic Evolution, and the like? Certainly not. I am simply of the opinion that these things probably had some non-physical Intelligence behind them.

Actually, we can make a pretty good case for the theory that humans are the only conscious species on earth by employing the oldest scientific method in the book--- simple observation. First of all, animal behavior is essentially determined by the basic instincts common to all species---the urge to eat, the urge to avoid damage to itself, and the urge to reproduce. Human behavior, on the other hand, while strongly influenced by these same urges, is ultimately decided by our rational minds, as our minds have become advanced enough to "override" our instinctive impulses. That is why humans do not behave like any other any other species that has ever lived on the earth; we have the ability to influence and experiment with our environment, and bend it to our will. We can concieve of and plan for tommorow. We can ponder and think about our environment, and theorise about its origins, past, present and future. We can cooperate with other members of our species like no other social animal ever has. Conversely, even our closest animal relatives, the great apes, have no such qualities. They cannot plan for tommorrow. They do not have the capacity to think about the universe or their environment. If they are approached by a member of their species not belonging to their pack outside of the mating season, they usually try to kill it. They are, in a word, like simple Java computer programs; their actions are determined by a basic set of commands (eat, fight, evade predator, reproduce.) that changes very little from century to century. Whereas human knowledge and technology has seen fantastic variation from generation to generation, the great apes living today are not a whit more intelligent or advanced than the great apes that lived 500 years ago. They carry on simply performing the same basic functions nature has 'programmed' them to perform. (Note: I believe, incidentally, that this is why animals tend to become extinct when their habitat is destroyed--- they are not conscious of the environmental change, and continue to perform the same behaviors which were effective for survival in the ecosystem they evolved in, which naturally tend to fail in the artificially altered environment.)