People who believe in god are broken

[Moontanman]

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?

 

 

Copperhead, there is no doubt that terrestrial vertebrates existed before birds, they evolved from terrestrial dinosaurs.

[Copperhead]

And what are the atheistic explanations for the universe?

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."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So amphibians, dinosaurs, and mammals evolved after birds?

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.

 

Copperhead, there is no doubt that terrestrial vertebrates existed before birds, they evolved from terrestrial dinosaurs.

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. Edited May 10, 2012 by Copperhead

[Arete]

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.

 

1) Birds evolved from an ancestral Archosaur - http://tolweb.org/Archosauria/14900

Archosauria gave rise to the Squamates, the Crocodilians, the sauropods and the birds. Describing the ancestral Archosaur as a "bird" would be a considerable stretch of the word "bird".

 

 

2) Synapisdae is unequivocally ancestral to the Dynapsidae and thus predates it.

http://tolweb.org/Amniota/14990

 

You can't get around the fact that birds are a derived lineage within the Amniota and thus the Genesis version of events contradicts evolutionary theory.

[immortal]

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.

 

How and why on earth a monotheistic god is more likely than a polytheistic pantheon of gods, a monotheistic god may look more reasonable to you. I am a born Hindu and I don't invest my time on worshiping those innumerous Gods because they aren't convincing and reasonable enough to invest time in them, that doesn't mean they don't exist, its just they cannot be falsifiable.

 

Reality is what it is, all religions of the world stands on its own, one should be careful while eliminating polytheistic gods otherwise you have a bias towards monotheistic gods and that's a display of double standards.

[Copperhead]

1) Birds evolved from an ancestral Archosaur - http://tolweb.org/Archosauria/14900

Archosauria gave rise to the Squamates, the Crocodilians, the sauropods and the birds. Describing the ancestral Archosaur as a "bird" would be a considerable stretch of the word "bird".

 

 

2) Synapisdae is unequivocally ancestral to the Dynapsidae and thus predates it.

http://tolweb.org/Amniota/14990

 

You can't get around the fact that birds are a derived lineage within the Amniota and thus the Genesis version of events contradicts evolutionary theory.

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.

[Greg H.]

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."

 

 

That's not an atheist explanation of the universe - it's a vague generalization that says we cannot (or at least should not) make the assumption that a causal agent necessarily exists or is even necessary for the universe to exist. That statement, in and of itself, makes no attempt to explain how the universe came into being. The key word you seem to be overlooking, or ignoring, is might, implying that the question is still unanswered and awaiting evidence.

[Moontanman]

You said

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

You said that birds predate terrestrial vertebrates, this is clearly not true, no matter how you put it there were terrestrial vertebrates before there were birds. Birds evolved from terrestrial vertebrates, specifically Theropod Dinosaurs Terestrial vertebrates existed in the form of amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, and mammals well before there were birds. And no the Diapsida do not predate the Synapsida.

[Copperhead]

How and why on earth a monotheistic god is more likely than a polytheistic pantheon of gods, a monotheistic god may look more reasonable to you. I am a born Hindu and I don't invest my time on worshiping those innumerous Gods because they aren't convincing and reasonable enough to invest time in them, that doesn't mean they don't exist, its just they cannot be falsifiable.

 

Reality is what it is, all religions of the world stands on its own, one should be careful while eliminating polytheistic gods otherwise you have a bias towards monotheistic gods and that's a display of double standards.

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.

 

That's not an atheist explanation of the universe - it's a vague generalization that says we cannot (or at least should not) make the assumption that a causal agent necessarily exists or is even necessary for the universe to exist. That statement, in and of itself, makes no attempt to explain how the universe came into being. The key word you seem to be overlooking, or ignoring, is might, implying that the question is still unanswered and awaiting evidence.

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.

[doG]

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.

Your arguments are meaningless. Have you any evidence to support your assertion? That's all that really matters. Your ability, or lack thereof, to deduce via any thought process or logic what may or may not be more or less probable has no meaning in the matter.

[immortal]

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.

 

I see no reason why a pantheon of Gods cannot possibly give rise to a smooth functioning of the world.

[Arete]

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.

 

The common ancestral archosaur was not a bird via the use of any system of classification in current use. The clade contains many non-ornithian lineages such as all extant crocodiles, the Sauropods in addition to Therapods. The fact that some theraods shared some traits with extant birds does not indicate that either a) all archosars did, b) the ancestral archosaur did or c) that those therapods which had some common traits with birds were "proto-birds".

 

 

The point is moot given that the archosaurs were preceded by a vast diversity of other tetrapods and were thus not the first terrestrial vertebrates. You simply cannot assert that birds evolutionarily preceded terrestrial vertebrates and thus Genesis contradicts evolutionary theory. There is simply no manner, consistent with modern evolutionary synthesis to uphold a conclusion by which aves can in any way be described as ancestral to the terrestrial vertebrates.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Arete

[doG]

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.

We should not leap to any conclusions without evidence to support it. We don't know if the Universe had cause or not so that can not be used as evidence to support any other assertion.

[Greg H.]

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.

 

Quantum mechanics is counter intuitive a lot of the time, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

[Copperhead]

1) Birds evolved from an ancestral Archosaur - http://tolweb.org/Archosauria/14900

Archosauria gave rise to the Squamates, the Crocodilians, the sauropods and the birds. Describing the ancestral Archosaur as a "bird" would be a considerable stretch of the word "bird".

 

 

2) Synapisdae is unequivocally ancestral to the Dynapsidae and thus predates it.

http://tolweb.org/Amniota/14990

 

You can't get around the fact that birds are a derived lineage within the Amniota and thus the Genesis version of events contradicts evolutionary theory.

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.

 

Your arguments are meaningless. Have you any evidence to support your assertion? That's all that really matters. Your ability, or lack thereof, to deduce via any thought process or logic what may or may not be more or less probable has no meaning in the matter.

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.

[doG]

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 that's why anyone that wants to use 'philosophy' as evidence can be readily dismissed in any debate requiring evidence.

 

And, as you freely admit that you lack this ability, you'd best stick to the hard sciences.

Ad hominem attacks are specifically against the rules here. Keep them to yourself!

[Arete]

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.

 

 

This happens on the fifth day

 

Genesis 1:20-21

English Standard Version (ESV)

 

²⁰ And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds^[a] fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens." ²¹ So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

 

This happens on the sixth day

 

Genesis 1:24-25

English Standard Version (ESV)

 

²⁴ And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. ²⁵ And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

 

www.biblegateway.com/

 

 

Seems fairly straightforward that Genesis is stating that the "beasts of the earth" came after the birds and it seems to require a fair bit of logical and linguistic gymnastics to twist it the other way around.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Arete

[Copperhead]

I see no reason why a pantheon of Gods cannot possibly give rise to a smooth functioning of the world.

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?

 

And that's why anyone that wants to use 'philosophy' as evidence can be readily dismissed in any debate requiring evidence.

 

 

Including atheists.

 

Ad hominem attacks are specifically against the rules here. Keep them to yourself!

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..... "

 

This happens on the fifth day

 

Genesis 1:20-21

English Standard Version (ESV)

 

²⁰ And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds^[a] fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens." ²¹ So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

 

This happens on the sixth day

 

Genesis 1:24-25

English Standard Version (ESV)

 

²⁴ And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. ²⁵ And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

 

www.biblegateway.com/

 

 

Seems fairly straightforward that Genesis is stating that the "beasts of the earth" came after the birds and it seems to require a fair bit of logical and linguistic gymnastics to twist it the other way around.

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.

[doG]

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..... "

That wasn't an attack. It was a statement that acknowledged any possibility that might exist. I have no idea of your ability or lack thereof and simply pointed out that I didn't know of your ability, or lack thereof, it was an ambiguous statement. Your reply was not ambiguous but specifically implied an inability to reason. It was an ad hominem attack without doubt.

 

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.

Why are we quoting verse from an unsubstantiated story book at all. It is not evidence and has no place in the discussion.

[Moontanman]

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?

 

Actually the water cycle shows no influence that cannot be explained by naturalistic causes, no god or gods is needed....

 

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.

 

It's all horse feathers to start with and has no basis in reality, why would you even try to twist such obviously false writings to match reality? if we get to interpret this to mean what ever we want then it becomes meaningless to start with...

[Copperhead]

 

Why are we quoting verse from an unsubstantiated story book at all. It is not evidence and has no place in the discussion.

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.

[Moontanman]

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.

 

 

I'm pretty sure he set you straight dude...

[Copperhead]

Actually the water cycle shows no influence that cannot be explained by naturalistic causes, no god or gods is needed....

 

 

 

It's all horse feathers to start with and has no basis in reality, why would you even try to twist such obviously false writings to match reality? if we get to interpret this to mean what ever we want then it becomes meaningless to start with...

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.

 

I'm pretty sure he set you straight dude...

Only in your own minds.

[Moontanman]

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.

 

No, as a matter of fact I spent many years clinging to that particular line of bullshit, I tried to justify it in many ways but eventually I had to be honest with my self and admit it was just bullshit. The bible is just a rehash of myths about god borrowed from surrounding cultures. nothing is more dishonest than creationism and the book they worship...

 

Only in your own minds.

 

yeah, keep on lying to your self, that makes it all better...

[John Cuthber]

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 don't know about you but, speaking as a terrestrial vertebrate, I object to being called a creeping creature.

 

However, as has been pointed out, a book of old myths isn't really evidence of much and isn't relevant to the thread.

[doG]

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.

'Straight' according to what?