People who believe in god are broken

[zapatos]

So you are saying that you disagree with this wiki entry?

No, I generally agree with it.

 

Are you saying that evidence has shown the Big Bang to be true, rather than just likely?

[Copperhead]

If you're willing to suspend the need for consistency and disregard your requirement for a well understood cause for your god concept, why not do the same for the universe itself? Adding the nebulous and ill-defined term of "god" into the mix doesn't bring additional clarity. It merely introduces an extraneous variable into an already uncertain equation. It is a broken set of reasoning... a double standard.

 

Either way, I'll ask again. It strikes me as hypocritical for you to suspend your personal requirement for a well defined cause when you assert this idea of god, but to simulataneously show an unwillingness to do the same for the universe itself.

 

 

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.

[mississippichem]

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.

 

And so far there have been zero agreed upon examples of metaphysical beings existing. Provide one verifiable example of anything violating the principles of physics. I'll accept absolutely any example as long as we can agree that it actually happened (the event must be objectively verified, think courtroom evidence).

 

I've made this challenge way too many times on the internet. I've yet to even see a valiant attempt.

 

Since it appears to me that physical matter cannot be responsible for its own genesis...

 

I'm sorry but that has absolutely no basis in reality. It is merely baseless opinion. In addition, I don't think many make the claim that matter can "be responsible for it's own genesis". Many atheist just asset that a universe might be able to exist without a real causal agent, especially an anthropomorphic causal agent with a beard who disapproves of our sex lives and doesn't like us to eat fish on Friday.

 

then something other than a physical object must have produced it. There is nothing either hypocritical or broken about that line of thought.

 

The premise is broken so the conclusions that follow are unlikely to be valid.

 

No matter how much literary meandering we do by redefining things as metaphysical or claiming that they exist because they exist as beliefs in peoples' heads, the fact still remains that there is absolutely ZERO objective evidence of the existence of any deity.

 

All of the evidence presented in favor of the existence of a deity in this thread has either been false or can be applied to the existence of any mythical being or un-falsifiable notion.

 

I hesitate to call anyone broken, because let's face it, we've all believed in some form of nonsense at one point. However I can, with confidence, state that the system of logic that humans use to justify the existence of the non-existent is beyond broken to say the least. It is a classic example of a conclusion looking for supporting evidence, or even worse...a conclusion still trying to define it's own hypothesis in post.

 

Anyone who uses faith to justify their belief should be subjected to a trial by jury were they are given guilty verdict based on faith alone.

 

Faith: not good enough for courts, not good enough for science, not even good enough for casual conversation...It does just fine to prove the existence of that which clearly does not exist. That, readers of SFN, is broken.

[questionposter]

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.

It's called "multi"-verse because it's not the "uni"-verse, the universe contains all the sections of the multiverse. If those other big gangs occurred, they are part of the universe but are an extension of the multiverse.

 

By the way, metaphysical beings have not been observed to exist.

Edited May 10, 2012 by questionposter

[zapatos]

I can't view any claims of faith healing seriously when there are limitations that seem illogical if the claims were true. Why could faith in God or prayers to God heal cancers and other diseases and disabilities, but be unable to cure someone who lost a limb or digit?

I guess what I keep trying to get to, is when does something become evidence?

 

If I present what I call evidence for something, is it not evidence if you don't take it seriously? Or if you haven't accepted my hypothesis?

 

What if you don't like it but someone else does? Is it evidence or not?

 

Do a certain number of people have to agree it is evidence before it is considered evidence?

 

Is it evidence simply because I use it to support my hypothesis?

 

Many scientific theories that are now accepted were not accepted when they were first presented. Does that mean that what the scientist presented as evidence was not really evidence because the theory was not accepted?

 

If the evidence presented for string theory is not considered evidence, then I can accept that miracles as documented by the Vatican are not evidence.

 

If one is considered evidence but the other not, then it looks to me as if we have a double standard.

[questionposter]

I guess what I keep trying to get to, is when does something become evidence?

 

If I present what I call evidence for something, is it not evidence if you don't take it seriously? Or if you haven't accepted my hypothesis?

 

What if you don't like it but someone else does? Is it evidence or not?

 

Do a certain number of people have to agree it is evidence before it is considered evidence?

 

Is it evidence simply because I use it to support my hypothesis?

 

Many scientific theories that are now accepted were not accepted when they were first presented. Does that mean that what the scientist presented as evidence was not really evidence because the theory was not accepted?

 

If the evidence presented for string theory is not considered evidence, then I can accept that miracles as documented by the Vatican are not evidence.

 

If one is considered evidence but the other not, then it looks to me as if we have a double standard.

 

No, evidence is evidence, what your thinking is probability. While there may be evidence to support it, it isn't necessarily a likely scenario with the given knowledge.

[iNow]

You fail to understand what I'm getting at here.

I comprehend your intended point perfectly. The fact that I'm showing it to be flawed, inconsistent, hypocritical, and stinking of double standard does not mean I "fail to understand" it.

---

 

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.

And so far there have been zero agreed upon examples of metaphysical beings existing. Provide one verifiable example of anything violating the principles of physics. I'll accept absolutely any example as long as we can agree that it actually happened (the event must be objectively verified, think courtroom evidence).

 

I've made this challenge way too many times on the internet. I've yet to even see a valiant attempt.

I second this same request. It will, of course, go unanswered... or any answer will rely on circular thinking... but I will repeat your question, all the same.

 

 

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.

I'm sorry but that has absolutely no basis in reality. It is merely baseless opinion. In addition, I don't think many make the claim that matter can "be responsible for it's own genesis". Many atheist just asset that a universe might be able to exist without a real causal agent, especially an anthropomorphic causal agent with a beard who disapproves of our sex lives and doesn't like us to eat fish on Friday.

Indeed. It seems our new friend is quite fond of arguing against strawmen.

 

 

There is nothing either hypocritical or broken about that line of thought.

The premise is broken so the conclusions that follow are unlikely to be valid.

 

No matter how much literary meandering we do by redefining things as metaphysical or claiming that they exist because they exist as beliefs in peoples' heads, the fact still remains that there is absolutely ZERO objective evidence of the existence of any deity.

 

All of the evidence presented in favor of the existence of a deity in this thread has either been false or can be applied to the existence of any mythical being or un-falsifiable notion.

 

I hesitate to call anyone broken, because let's face it, we've all believed in some form of nonsense at one point. However I can, with confidence, state that the system of logic that humans use to justify the existence of the non-existent is beyond broken to say the least. It is a classic example of a conclusion looking for supporting evidence, or even worse...a conclusion still trying to define it's own hypothesis in post.

 

Anyone who uses faith to justify their belief should be subjected to a trial by jury were they are given guilty verdict based on faith alone.

 

Faith: not good enough for courts, not good enough for science, not even good enough for casual conversation...It does just fine to prove the existence of that which clearly does not exist. That, readers of SFN, is broken.

FTW!

 

I might just reword one part. "Any conclusions rooted in flawed premises are only correct by accident."

 

If one is considered evidence but the other not, then it looks to me as if we have a double standard.

Is the point we exchanged earlier in the thread that the evidence must scale with the claim somehow no longer relevant or no longer present in your thoughts?

[doG]

No, I generally agree with it.

 

Are you saying that evidence has shown the Big Bang to be true, rather than just likely?

What I say is that the evidence claimed to support the Big Bang is either presumed to be true or proven true by other evidence (with the rule recursively applied of course) as described in the wiki entry. As an example, expansion of the Universe as indicated by red shift should qualify 'expansion' as evidence. I think expansion can be presumed to be true and it is supported with other evidence.

 

I do not believe any alleged evidence of a miracle claimed by the Vatican can be presumed to be true or has been proven true with other evidence so I wouldn't consider it evidence according to the rule.

 

Note, neither of these require the event itself to be true, either the Big Bang or the miracle, only that the evidence supporting the event itself be true in order for it to qualify as evidence.

Edited May 10, 2012 by doG

[Copperhead]

Provide one verifiable example of anything violating the principles of physics. I'll accept absolutely any example as long as we can agree that it actually happened (the event must be objectively verified, think courtroom evidence).

 

I've made this challenge way too many times on the internet. I've yet to even see a valiant attempt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry but that has absolutely no basis in reality. It is merely baseless opinion. In addition, I don't think many make the claim that matter can "be responsible for it's own genesis". Many atheist just asset that a universe might be able to exist without a real causal agent, especially an anthropomorphic causal agent with a beard who disapproves of our sex lives and doesn't like us to eat fish on Friday.

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.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Copperhead

[zapatos]

Is the point we exchanged earlier in the thread that the evidence must scale with the claim somehow no longer relevant or no longer present in your thoughts?

Not at all. Based on that point you made I feel the likelihood that God exists is smaller than ever.

 

What I am trying to figure out is what is considered evidence. I have heard a lot of people say there is no evidence for God. Not necessarily that it is weak or grossly insufficient to support the extraordinary claim of the existence of God. But that it does not exist.

 

I never hear that statement regarding what a scientist claims is evidence for a scientific theory, even if it is believed the theory is completely wrong. When it is science I hear people say 'your evidence is completey wrong'. When it is religion I hear people say 'you have no evidence'. Either there is a difference I don't understand, or people are being more generous to the scientists than the theists. I'm trying to figure out which it is.

 

What I say is that the evidence claimed to support the Big Bang is either presumed to be true or proven true by other evidence (with the rule recursively applied of course) as described in the wiki entry. As an example, expansion of the Universe as indicated by red shift should qualify 'expansion' as evidence. I think expansion can be presumed to be true and it is supported with other evidence.

 

I do not believe any alleged evidence of a miracle claimed by the Vatican can be presumed to be true or has been proven true with other evidence so I wouldn't consider it evidence according to the rule.

 

Note, neither of these require the event itself to be true, either the Big Bang or the miracle, only that the evidence supporting the event itself be true in order for it to qualify as evidence.

Ah, ok. If we want to accept it as valid evidence, it shouldn't be a one off event. We should be able to find evidence to support the evidence maybe. So if prayer cured someone, maybe we can get prayer to move a rock. Or maybe praying to one God results in cures but not praying to another God. Or a complete lack of praying never results in remission.

 

Alright, this sounds like it is a real difference between what I considered evidence of God and accepted evidence of the Big Bang. Excellent! Thanks for the clarification.

 

Edit: I just went back and reread some of your previous posts. I seem to have been rather slow on the uptake. Thanks for sticking with it.

Edited May 10, 2012 by zapatos

[Copperhead]

No matter how much literary meandering we do by redefining things as metaphysical or claiming that they exist because they exist as beliefs in peoples' heads, the fact still remains that there is absolutely ZERO objective evidence of the existence of any deity.

 

All of the evidence presented in favor of the existence of a deity in this thread has either been false or can be applied to the existence of any mythical being or un-falsifiable notion.

 

I hesitate to call anyone broken, because let's face it, we've all believed in some form of nonsense at one point. However I can, with confidence, state that the system of logic that humans use to justify the existence of the non-existent is beyond broken to say the least. It is a classic example of a conclusion looking for supporting evidence, or even worse...a conclusion still trying to define it's own hypothesis in post.

 

Anyone who uses faith to justify their belief should be subjected to a trial by jury were they are given guilty verdict based on faith alone.

 

Faith: not good enough for courts, not good enough for science, not even good enough for casual conversation...It does just fine to prove the existence of that which clearly does not exist. That, readers of SFN, is broken.

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.

 

Edited May 10, 2012 by Copperhead

[mooeypoo]

I asked the question earlier in the thread about Zeus and how would the "hypothesis" of Zeus (which is equal if not MORE abundant actually than that of the biblical god) is bunk while god isn't.

 

Didn't get an answer on that, and I think it touches on what evidence is. Why is it that the fact Zeus is described in hundreds and hundreds of tablets and stories from many people over a large period of time is NOT enough to believe Zeus and worship him, but the biblical account is enough to believe in God?

 

In my eyes both are equally non evidence, because both are equally not representing facts, hence both of thse are equally unreal, unless some evidence is presented to the contrary.

 

Actual evidence.. the type we can test and see as factual.

 

Otherwise, well..

 

[doG]

What I am trying to figure out is what is considered evidence. I have heard a lot of people say there is no evidence for God. Not necessarily that it is weak or grossly insufficient to support the extraordinary claim of the existence of God. But that it does not exist.

 

I never hear that statement regarding what a scientist claims is evidence for a scientific theory, even if it is believed the theory is completely wrong. When it is science I hear people say 'your evidence is completey wrong'. When it is religion I hear people say 'you have no evidence'. Either there is a difference I don't understand, or people are being more generous to the scientists than the theists. I'm trying to figure out which it is.

The real problem here is people trying to make an apples to oranges comparison which sets the whole debate on an indeterminate slippery slope. For clarity I'll weigh in on these in reverse.

 

With a scientific theory we usually begin with a defined, falsifiable assertion. The Big Bang is a good example. What we as a group are talking about when we refer to the Big Bang is defined in a manner such that we all have some level of agreement on what it is that we are discussing. There's little ambiguity in the definition. It's also well understood by all that anything presented as evidence to support the assertions that the Big Bang is true or false is itself verifiably true like red shift. You cannot propose a hypothesis for example as evidence to support a theory until that hypothesis is itself proven to be true.

 

With the assertion that there are/were one or more deities we are immediately debating the definition of what it is we're even talking about. There is no reasonable agreement on the definition of god(s). This compounds the difficulty in determining what exactly is or isn't evidence to support the assertion of the existence of god(s). Without defining exactly what assertion it is we're trying to prove or disprove we can't even begin to decide what is or isn't evidence in context of the assertion. Seashells on mountain tops might be evidence in a very narrowly defined Abrahamic god but it is meaningless in the debate of any other god(s). That's why it's really pointless to discuss any alleged evidence of any supposed deity until you have actually defined that deity.

[questionposter]

Otherwise, well..

 

 

But the the god we've chosen is a god that get's mad when we don't worship it, so wouldn't it make logical sense that a different god wouldn't have a problem with that?

 

What I say is that the evidence claimed to support the Big Bang is either presumed to be true or proven true by other evidence (with the rule recursively applied of course) as described in the wiki entry.evidence.

 

The real scientific community doesn't assume the big bang is true, they say for certain that based on their current knowledge the universe seems hotter and denser as you go backwards in time, they acknowledge that they don't know everything.

Edited May 10, 2012 by questionposter

[mooeypoo]

Wha..?

 

 

 

The question is simple: What if Zeus is the REAL god, but we worship the judeo-christian God. That only makes Zeus madder and madder because we worship the wrong god.

 

You keep dancing AROUND this question, questionposter, but it's very important, especially in light of evidence and its definition -- it really asks what do you use to dismiss some claims as false (like the existence of Zeus) and accept others as true (like the existence of God) when you don't use the methodology of science.

 

How do *you* decide what's true and what isn't, and how do you know for sure that you're right?

 

Lacking a system of judgment about removing bias and measuring evidence in relation to reality, while having quite a number of elaborate stories and myths about different gods, how do YOU judge which God-story is true?

 

Please answer this.

[Copperhead]

I asked the question earlier in the thread about Zeus and how would the "hypothesis" of Zeus (which is equal if not MORE abundant actually than that of the biblical god) is bunk while god isn't.

 

Didn't get an answer on that, and I think it touches on what evidence is. Why is it that the fact Zeus is described in hundreds and hundreds of tablets and stories from many people over a large period of time is NOT enough to believe Zeus and worship him, but the biblical account is enough to believe in God?

 

In my eyes both are equally non evidence, because both are equally not representing facts, hence both of thse are equally unreal, unless some evidence is presented to the contrary.

 

Actual evidence.. the type we can test and see as factual.

 

Otherwise, well..

 

 

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.

[iNow]

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.

As I previously mentioned, you seem to very much enjoy arguing against strawmen.

 

What you seem to be missing, copperhead, is that atheists do not "assert" contrary theories or ideas... They simply reject yours as uncompelling and lacking good enough evidence. There are no "atheist theories of creation" any more than there are "jewish forms of biology" or "muslim versions of math." The insinuation is stupid on its face.

 

The fact that people dismiss your conjectures as illogical and unsupported has nothing to do with them accepting other things based on faith alone. If you continue to assert otherwise, your argument will continue to rest on the logical fallacy known as a strawman.

[zapatos]

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.

I think it is a stretch to label the first part of your post as a 'scientific method of elimination'.

[Arete]

the Abrahamic Creation Story coincides with Evolutionary Theory quite nicely.

 

Except for when the light is created before the sun and the birds before the terrestrial vertebrates.

[Copperhead]

As I previously mentioned, you seem to very much enjoy arguing against strawmen.

 

What you seem to be missing, copperhead, is that atheists do not "assert" contrary theories or ideas... They simply reject yours as uncompelling and lacking good enough evidence. There are no "atheist theories of creation" any more than there are "jewish forms of biology" or "muslim versions of math." The insinuation is stupid on its face.

 

The fact that people dismiss your conjectures as illogical and unsupported has nothing to do with them accepting other things based on faith alone. If you continue to assert otherwise, your argument will continue to rest on the logical fallacy known as a strawman.

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.'

 

I think it is a stretch to label the first part of your post as a 'scientific method of elimination'.

 

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.

 

Except for when the light is created before the sun

You know, the sun is not the only source of light in the universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and the birds before the terrestrial vertebrates.

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. Edited May 10, 2012 by Copperhead

[Arete]

You know, the sun is not the only source of light in the universe.

 

Sure, but the light was created on the first day, before any celestial bodies which came along with the sun on day three.

 

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.

 

Sure if you want to interpret "birds" to mean "the common amphibian ancestor to all terrestrial tetrapods" you might be correct, but it would be a pretty long stretch of the word "birds" - as every animal with four appendages would now be describable as a bird.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Arete

[Copperhead]

Sure, but the light was created on the first day, before any celestial bodies which came along with the sun on day two.

 

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.

 

Sure if you want to interpret "birds" to mean "the common amphibian ancestor to all terrestrial tetrapods" you might be correct, but it would be a pretty long stretch of the word "birds" - as every animal with four appendages would now be describable as a bird.

No, simply the genetic line of the two-legged reptilian organisms from which birds are descended. Edited May 10, 2012 by Copperhead

[Arete]

No, simply the genetic line of the two-legged reptilian organisms from which birds are descended.

 

In order for one to assume this, the genetic line must be the one that all tetrapod life is descended from. I.e.

 

[Moontanman]

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 what are the atheistic explanations for 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.

 

 

So amphibians, dinosaurs, and mammals evolved after birds?

[Copperhead]

In order for one to assume this, the genetic line must be the one that all tetrapod life is descended from. I.e.

 

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?