₦airaland Forum

Prizm: Here’s a concise formulation of the Cosmological Argument (for those who may not bother to do the necessary research):

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The Universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

What this means quite plainly is that the universe along with space, time, matter and energy came into being. The universe is not a necessary entity; it is a contingent entity. It does not have an infinite past. The only necessary being/entities one can think of are a) numbers b) an unembodied personal mind. This is the conception of God that theists work with—a personal, unembodied, spaceless, infinite, eternal mind. It goes without saying that numbers though necessary, do not have any creative ability. It follows that the cause of the universe is a mind greater than the universe—by which we mean something that is immaterial, boundless, spaceless and eternally pre-existent.

How is it then that when you present the Cosmological argument, an atheist’s response is “What Caused God?” That question simply shows a misunderstanding of the argument. Anyone asking this question should familiarize him/herself with what “necessary” and “contingent” entities are. That question is as laughable as asking “What makes a triangle have three sides whose angles add up to 180 degrees?”, or “Why should a triangle have three sides with angles that add up to 180 degrees?” The answer is as simple as saying “That is what a triangle is DEFINED as”. I have nothing to discuss with anyone who wants to argue with definitions. If you do not like the definition given, go ahead, define yours and see if we may agree or disagree.

Another argument an atheist may make when confronted with the Cosmological Argument is to suggest that “the universe is uncaused” which is a patently false idea given its finitude in the past. An atheist is left with the worst option of declaring that the “universe just popped out of nothing, from nothing and by nothing” and that I suggest is even worse than magic. Nothing pops out of nothing, from nothing, by nothing. To suggest otherwise is to be painfully irrational. Not even radioactive decay; or virtual particles which merely arise and disappear from fluctuations in the quantum vacuum—a veritable ‘sea’ of energy.

To refute the argument, you have to shoot down or falsify the premises. Otherwise, you'll arrive at the painful conclusion whether you want to or not.

Well, first, while you may not like the idea of first settling on definitions; in philosophical discussions defining the terms one is using and why it should be accepted is probably one of the most important aspects of said discussion. For instance, to bend your example a little to fit the scheme of the general discussion of the thread, if a triangle is defined as anything that has "three sides with angles that add up to 180 degrees", should anything that has "three sides with angles that add up to 180 degrees" be automatically called or accepted as a triangle? Thus settling on all of the parameters removes confusion and ensures we all work using the same signifiers for the same signified.

Secondly, and probably most importantly, the first postulate of the cosmological argument is wrong. Not everything that begins to exist has a cause, nor does every occurrence necessarily need a tangible precedent. Sure in Aristotle's via Aquinas' via the "times" of many modern theistic apologists all that had been observed indicated that the first premise must be an axiom; however, with the onset of the likes of quantum physics and even studies of radioactivity it's known that things are different from human intuited arguments.

Finally, yes even virtual particles and radioactive decay. The argument is that everything has to be caused. They contravene the causality premise because, particularly in the case of virtual particles, the fluctuation isn't caused by the "veritable ‘sea’ of energy".

chukwudi44:
Back to my previous argument,nothing is uncaused i.e everything that exists has a cause.For the world to have evolved ,something must have started the whole evolution process .

So mr tudor what existed before evolution started and what actually caused it ?

Nonsense; several things of which we have become aware are uncaused - virtual particles, radioactive decay. Further, the world did not evolve (in the biological sense, that is). Sure the earth went through changes, but it is separate, study-wise, from biological evolution. In any case, one needn't resort to gods to study or discover the processes of biological evolution and planetary formations.

OLAADEGBU:

"Lol, no my post wasn't a red herring. You wrote this as a response to me pointing out that Sinosauropteryx was a dino with feathers and archeopteryx was found in layers preceding the Sinosauropteryx: "The only obvious dinosaur fossil with obvious feathers that was "found" is Archaeoraptor liaoningensis.".

I responded directly to thtat by giving yet another example in addition to Sinosauropteryx. Your red herring was insisting on going about archeoraptor, which I hadn't brought up, and I suspect you mixed up with archeopteryx. Well done, idiot."

If you read my response you will realise that I made no such claims that you are accusing me of.  The only dinosaur fossil that I said was with obvious feathers was the Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, and this was discovered to be a fraud.  So don't get excited that I acknowledged that any dinosaur had feathers, what they have are scales.  Sinosauropteryx are filamentous and sometimes have interlaced structures which bears no obvious resemblance to feathers.  They have been said to appear like connective tissue fibres (collagen) found in the deep dermal layer of the skin.  So, I don't know where you got the idea that I claimed that they are dinosaurs with feathers.

First, you claim you didn't make the "such claims that [I am] accusing of". Um, you do realise that I quoted you directly? Further to that, I threaded the immediate history of our discussion so you could follow exactly what you wrote. Here is the complete quote of the section ro which you are responding:


Now if you didn't mistake archeoraptor for archeopteryx, why was continuously attacking archeoraptor your major response to particularly the subject of archeopteryx and Sinosauropteryx?

Second, since I already addressed the archeoraptor here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-304357.96.html#msg4295818 we can move on from how it's a "fraud", etc. You'll also notice that in that post I address how you mistook archeopteryx for archeoraptor.

Thirdly, yes, there is a difference between the feathers of birds from the scales of other modern reptiles, and while there is a link between the two, the issue isn't so much if scales can turn to feathers but why dinosaurs - for example sinosauropteryx and Therizinosaurus - had feathers. Unmistakable feathers. You claim that what Sinosauropteryx had wasn't feathers, but scales. The issue then becomes: if they were scales, why filaments hollow and arranged along its body in a way that is suggestive of feathers? In truth, there is no real answer to that, because it is in fact primitive feathers that dotted the body of the Sinosauropteryx.  

Finally, learn to read - I didn't say you said Sinosauropteryx was a dinosaur with feathers.

P.S. Would it be overkill to introduce mammals with scales, like the pangolin (http://www.pangolin.com/PangolinPic.html)?

The fact that Archaeopteryx have teeth, fingers on its wings and a long tail does not prove that they are reptilian ancestry.  While there are no living birds with teeth, other fossilised birds such as Hesperornis also had teeth.  Some modern birds, such as the ostrich, have fingers on their wings, and the juvenile hoatzin(a south American bird) has well developed fingers and toes with which it can climb trees

You're right those things don't show the dinosaurian aspect of archeopteryx. Instead, it's the presence of these in a "bird" that show it is a transitional:

1. The lack of a bill
2. The presence of socketed teeth
3. Nostrils far forward on the snout
4. The vertebrae of the trunk are free, not fused
5. The presence of abdominal ribs
6. The ribs do not articulate with the sternum
7. A shoulder joint that faces downward
8. A mobile wrist, unfused digits and claws
9. A long tail with free vertebrae
10. Solid bones
11 A skull that bears sutures.

Incidentally, you hit on a good point with the presence of finger claws in some modern birds - ostriches, emus, hoatzin chicks. That's a vestige from their evolution history. One that is a homologous feature that indicates shared ancestry with dinosaurs.

You didn't mention all those. I'll address them individually:

Yes, there dissimilarities between scales and feathers. However, several species of dinosaurs had feathers. I have given two examples: Sinosauropteryx and Caudipteryx zoui. I can give more if required. We are thus left very few options: that those dinosaurs had feathers, and therefore it isn't a difference between birds and dinosaurs, or they weren't dinosaurs, but birds. The latter is absurd, and the former the most parsimonious. And before you say those dinosaurs didn't have feathers, consider that the feathers of the Caudipteryx zoui, especially, was plume like, hollow and in the same formation as that on modern birds.

Sinosauropteryx are dinosaurs while Caudipteryx are birds, that was a good try.  In actual fact feathers are profoundly different from scales in both their structure and growth.  Feathers grow individually from tube-like follicles similar to hair follicles.  Reptile scales, on the other hand, are not individual follicular structures but rather compromise a continuous sheet on the surface of the body.  While feathers grow and are shed individually, scales grow and are shed as an entire sheet of skin.

There is definitely no evidence of any transitional fossil that can be called "sceathers" that is, reptile scales evolving into feathers, knowing that these incredibly complex structure bears not the slightest resemblance to the relatively simple reptilian scale.

If Caudipteryx was a bird, then how do you explain specifically non-avian dionsaurian traits like, and I quote from a written critique: "forward-pointing pubis, and the contact in its ankle joint between the calcanaeum and the fibula." It would make little sense for a bird to have those features that early dinosaurs had except it was somehow related to dinosaurs. In fact, given that it had more dinosaurian features than avian, it's more likely it was a dinosaur.

I've addressed the issue of scales and sino~ above. I should also mention at this point that scales may be generally different from feathers, but scutes are not.

By the way, here's another feathered dinosaur: Therizinosaurus

Second, lungs. The shape and structure of the chest cavities of several dinosaurs indicate that they had the same lungs as aves.

One of the most distinctive features of birds is their lungs.  Bird lungs are small in size and nearly rigid, but they are, nevertheless, highly efficient to meet the high metabolic needs of flight.  Birds do not have diaphrams but reptiles do.  If theropod dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, one might expect to find evidence of an avian type lung in such dinosaurs.  While fossils generally don't preserve soft tissue as lungs, Sinosauropteryx fossil has been found in which the outline of the visceral cavity has been well preserved.  The evidence clearly indicates that this theropod had a lung and respiratory mechanics similar to that of a crocodile and not a bird.  Specifically, there was evidence of a diaphram like muscle separating the lung from the liver, this you will see in modern crocodiles but not in birds.

Nonsense. My words were: some species of dinosaurs had avian lungs, and this is evidenced in the fossils of several dinosaurs. Here's a picture of a comparison featured on pharyngula:

https://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2006/08/bird_saur_vertebrae.jpg

From here:http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/dinosaur_lungs.php

PZ goes in more details on the lungs of dinosaurs, but the point I wanted to bring here was the similarity between the lungs of several species of dinosaur and modern birds.

Finally, um yeah, Sinosauropteryx was a non-avian dinosaur. No shit! Sinosauropteryx wasn't an example of a dinosaur with avian lungs, but of a dinosaur with feathers.

Finally, different dinosaur speices had many different stances. You have no idea what you are talking about here. "Lizard-hipped" Seriosuly? Geez!

I must say that you are the one who's got no clue of the two major groups of dinosaurs based on the structure of their hips (pelvic bones): the lizard hipped dinosaurs and the bird hipped dinosaurs.  The main difference between the two hip structures is that the pubic bone of the bird hipped dinosaurs is directed toward the rear (as in birds) rather entirely to the front (as in mammals and reptiles).  In most other respects, the bird hipped dinosaurs are even less bird-like than the lizard-hipped, bipedal dinosaurs, such as the theropods.  This point is rarely emphasised in popular accounts of dinosaur/bird evolution for obvious reasons.

Mea Culpa. However, you're still wrong because it would appear that birds are "lizard-hipped". Go figure!

No, you weren't expecting anything, you wanted the question I asked to be drowned under a barrage of non-aligning question. I'll do you a solid. I'll answer your question separately since you mad an attempt at mine. You have to try again, though, because you got it wrong.

You have shown that you ai'nt got a clue on the differences above.

Yet again, more nonsense. I have done nothing but show knowledge on most of the issues raised.

Wanna try again, because so far species of dinosaurs possess the same type of traits you mentioned as birds

The evidence above proves otherwise.
http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaurs-vs-birds-fossils-dont-lie/

Except it doesn't. So far we have dinosaurs with feathers; others that are bird-hipped and others that have avian lungs. Now, unless you're they were all birds you haven't told us what differentiates dinosaurs from birds.

Wonderful rebuttal. How about no, you put up the arguments that you think refutes what all I wrote instead. Don't just foist links at me.

Again see the rebuttal above and learn from it.  Feathers have long been considered to be unique to birds.  Certainly all living birds have feathers of some kind, while no living creature other than birds have feathers has been found to have a cutaneou appendage even remotely similar to a feather.  Dinosaurs are reptiles, and so it is not surprising that fossil evidence has shown them to have a scaly skin typical of reptiles.  For example, a recently discovered well preserved specimen of Compsognathus (a small theropod dinosaur of the type believed to be most closely related to birds) showed unmistakable evidence of scales but alas -- no feathers.

U.B. Gohlich and L.M. Chiappe, A new carnivorous dinosaur from the late Jurassic Solnhofen archipelago, Nature 440:329-332,2006.

Ugh, don't obfuscate. What the fossil evidence has shown is that several species of dinosaur had feathers too. I have given three examples so far.

Yeah, that's what I thought. It's useless.

This is what Isaac Newton said: "Atheism is so senseless"   

That's nice. Still doesn't change the fact that so far Creationism, especially as you've described it and been unable to provide ways that it can be tested and potentially falsified, is useless.

OLAADEGBU:

[quote]Firstly, that birds belong in the reptilia class is netheir opinion nor dogma, but a taxonomic classification. You'll also notice that I mentioned earlier that the evidence suggests that several dinosaurs were endothermic and some early birds may have been exothermic.

Second, I know what endothermic means. It doesn't change the fact, though, that findings have led us to realise that species of dinosaurs were warm-blooded. Okay?

Finally, here's a question: why do you think all dinosaurs were exothermic? And does that apply to the likes of archeopteryx and other transitionals?

This is what another sincere evolutionist says about the classification of dinosaurs:

Dr. Larry Martins, of the univ. of Kansas, "Recent research has shown the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones was characteristic of cold-blooded animals, so we are back to cold-blooded dinosaurs". - Stieg, Did birds evolve from dinosaurs? The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 1997.

Except we have this:

"Bone Structure - It is possible to note significant differences in microscopic bone structure between warm-blooded and cold-blooded animals. Dinosaur bone clearly shows a warm-blooded structure. This appears much stronger evidence than the mere overall design of the bone and effectively refutes the structure argument for ectothermy."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/a590294

Yay! my quote is more up to date than yours. Interesting you still managed to ignore most of the things I wrote.

I gave you at least four quotes and references from science journals and all you could do was to counter them with spin from the media such as bbc   Even wirinet would tell you that all they are concerned about is in sensationalism as they did to the so called missing link called "Ida."[/quote]Except, you didn't. Well, that's not totally accurate, you did give four quotes - or quotemines - in your entire post, but I responded to them individually, and that was my response to the first quote(mine?): findings that are more recent than yours. I keep forgetting that for your type of dogmatism, everything with which you disagree is sensationalist, and others that you think agree with you are "sincere". Your response isn't a rebuttal. I can give you a link to the study of the endothermic nature of dinosaurs as indicated by their bones if you promise to read it.

First, you are right that it is the structure of the bones of the fossils of dinosaurs that have helped in the understanding of the endothermic nature of several of them. The thing is, though, that while different classes of animals may have osteons, there are different types and the type of osteon and the history of the organism can be told and differentiated. As for the egg and brood behaviour issues, um, challenged how? Simply saying "they have been challenged" isn't an argument in itself. That - like the theory of evolution - different lines of evidence point to the same conclusion - that many dinosaur species were endothermic - is a strong indication and argument.

It is surprising that you did not see what was written after the word "challenged" even when I suggested the reference of the article.

And it's unsurprising that me talking about the quote mine ending in "challenged" was all you saw. Yeah, I what was written after challenged. I'll tell you what it wasn't, though, the rest of the quote telling us how those things have been challenged. Maybe you can help. Post the part that tells us how they've been challenged.

Thanks for the reminder, which actually means nothing. In any case, what the hell are you talking about in regards of archaeoraptor? I'll discuss that fossil later in this post. Incidentally, you will notice that I did give you an example of a dinosaur with feathers. Would you like me to give you more examples other than sinosauropteryx? As usual you ignored it, preferring, instead, to use a red herring (take note davidylan, that's how how it's used). and what I suspect is a quote mine.

You are the one using red herring in response to my post.  Did you not ignore the link I posted regarding the fraud you now propagate?  Here is the link once again, I believe that you will not pretend not to see it.



http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaurs-vs-birds-fossils-dont-lie/

Lol, no my post wasn't a red herring. You wrote this as a response to me pointing out that Sinosauropteryx was a dino with feathers and archeopteryx was found in layers preceding the Sinosauropteryx: "The only obvious dinosaur fossil with obvious feathers that was "found" is Archaeoraptor liaoningensis.".

I responded directly to thtat by giving yet another example in addition to Sinosauropteryx. Your red herring was insisting on going about archeoraptor, which I hadn't brought up, and I suspect you mixed up with archeopteryx. Well done, idiot.


Finally, don't just post a link at me - I could do the same. Instead, pick out the best argument and present it.

You did duck the queestion. See question: "So, um, wanna try again on the differences between dinosaurs and birds?"

See your response: "Why don't you explain to me the mechanism to change scales into feathers, mechanism to change a reptilian lung into an avian lung? The fact that there are no legitimate dinosaurs found with feathers are all good indications that dinosaurs didn't turn into birds. The evidence is still consistent with what the Bible teaches about birds being unique and created after their kinds."

I didn't bother to waste my time repeating what I had already done.  My response was on the point, it is you that hasn't addressed it.  The differences I highlighted there was in regards to the scales and feathers dissimiliarity, the avian vs. the reptilian lung and I may now add the "bird-hipped" vs the "Lizard-hipped" dinosaurs.  What I actually did was to ask you to explain the mechanism that powered the transition to the other but then it seemed that I was expecting too much from you.

You didn't mention all those. I'll address them individually:

Yes, there dissimilarities between scales and feathers. However, several species of dinosaurs had feathers. I have given two examples: Sinosauropteryx and Caudipteryx zoui. I can give more if required. We are thus left very few options: that those dinosaurs had feathers, and therefore it isn't a difference between birds and dinosaurs, or they weren't dinosaurs, but birds. The latter is absurd, and the former the most parsimonious. And before you say those dinosaurs didn't have feathers, consider that the feathers of the Caudipteryx zoui, especially, was plume like, hollow and in the same formation as that on modern birds.

Second, lungs. The shape and structure of the chest cavities of several dinosaurs indicate that they had the same lungs as aves.

Finally, different dinosaur speices had many different stances. You have no idea what you are talking about here. "Lizard-hipped" Seriosuly? Geez!

No, you weren't expecting anything, you wanted the question I asked to be drowned under a barrage of non-aligning question. I'll do you a solid. I'll answer your question separately since you mad an attempt at mine. You have to try again, though, because you got it wrong.

Wanna try again, because so far species of dinosaurs possess the same type of traits you mentioned as birds

Yeah, that's what I thought. Now am I to take it that your only response to the findings of dinosaurs with feathers - some much after the Feduccia quote - is to quote Feduccia? Look that doesn't take away the evidence. More that the feathers of Caudipteryx zoui, for instance, was plume like, should make anyone rethink their position unless, of course, their position is dogma.
Your so called Archaeoraptor liaoningensis has been found out to be a fraud, why don't check up the National Geographic and correct the error of yours and your students that has been spread in the media, schools and publications instead of projecting a lie that has been found out. Wink

Um, archeopteryx is different from archeoraptor. Totally and completely different. Oh dear, how embarrassing for you. Wanna try again? "So, say an animal like the archeopteryx with traditionally dinosaurian traits like: Lacking a bill; socketed teeth; Nostrils on the snout ; Unfused vertebrae of the trunk, etc. are we to assume that it is. . . which kind?"

Now to the archeoraptor issue. First, the fraud was practiced on the science community by non-scientists out to make a quick buck. Unsurprisingly, though, the fraud was also discovered by the science community, and not Creationist non-scientists.

Second, um, no one has spread archeoraptor in the media and schools. It has been acknowledged by all circles for what it is.

Thirdly, the fossils that were fused together to produce archeoraptor have been studied and have also given good results.

You missed the important part, though. The genetic variance between the two is comparable - or even probably greater - to that between humans and chimps. If they are the same kind then by Creationist classifications humans and chimps must surely be the same kind.

Take your time to peruse the link I supplied above or is it now below?

http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaurs-vs-birds-fossils-dont-lie/

Wonderful rebuttal. How about no, you put up the arguments that you think refutes what all I wrote instead. Don't just foist links at me.

"QED", you used it wrong. So what fact of creation would that be? Any way it can be tested and falsified?

I'll leave you to carry on with your semantics which will not carry you beyond the natural and since the natural is the product of the supernatural you will be at loss when it comes to the Power of the uncreated Creator who is the Eternal, Infinite and Supremely Intelligent God.

Yeah, that's what I thought. It's useless.

OLAADEGBU:

Firstly, that birds belong in the reptilia class is netheir opinion nor dogma, but a taxonomic classification. You'll also notice that I mentioned earlier that the evidence suggests that several dinosaurs were endothermic and some early birds may have been exothermic.

Second, I know what endothermic means. It doesn't change the fact, though, that findings have led us to realise that species of dinosaurs were warm-blooded. Okay?

Finally, here's a question: why do you think all dinosaurs were exothermic? And does that apply to the likes of archeopteryx and other transitionals?

This is what another sincere evolutionist says about the classification of dinosaurs:

Dr. Larry Martins, of the univ. of Kansas, "Recent research has shown the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones was characteristic of cold-blooded animals, so we are back to cold-blooded dinosaurs". - Stieg, Did birds evolve from dinosaurs? The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 1997.

Except we have this:

"Bone Structure - It is possible to note significant differences in microscopic bone structure between warm-blooded and cold-blooded animals. Dinosaur bone clearly shows a warm-blooded structure. This appears much stronger evidence than the mere overall design of the bone and effectively refutes the structure argument for ectothermy."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/a590294

Yay! my quote is more up to date than yours. Interesting you still managed to ignore most of the things I wrote.

Nonsense. There's plenty of evidence that several species of dinosaurs were endothermic, from their feeding and lifestyle modes to physical traits like feathers for insulation.

One of the lines that you guys claim as "evidence" for endothermic dinosaurs is based on the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones. Fossil dinosaur bones have been found containing special microscopic structures called osteons (or Haversian systems). This arrangement is assumed by some to be unique to endothermic animals and thus evidence that dinosaurs are endothermic, but such is not the case. Larger vertebrates (whether reptiles, birds or mammals) may also have this type of bone. Even tuna fish have osteonal bone in their vertebral arches. Another argument for endothermy in dinosaurs is based on the eggs and assumed brood behaviour of dinosaurs, but this speculation too has been challenged (see N.R. Geist and T.D. Jones, Juvenile skeletal structure and reproduction habits of dinosaurs, Science 272:712-714,1996).

First, you are right that it is the structure of the bones of the fossils of dinosaurs that have helped in the understanding of the endothermic nature of several of them. The thing is, though, that while different classes of animals may have osteons, there are different types and the type of osteon and the history of the organism can be told and differentiated. As for the egg and brood behaviour issues, um, challenged how? Simply saying "they have been challenged" isn't an argument in itself. That - like the theory of evolution - different lines of evidence point to the same conclusion - that many dinosaur species were endothermic - is a strong indication and argument.

Further, of course the Sinosauropteryx prima is "unbird-like". It wasn't some kind of proto-bird. It was a dinosaur with feathers. Also, that the feathers of the Sinosauropteryx prima was hollow belies any argument that it wasn't feathers.

Finally, yeah, birds and dinosaur-birds transitionals - for example, the archeopteryx - have been found in layers that even precede the Sinosauropteryx prima, but um, no one has said Sinosauropteryx is the ancestor of modern birds or proto-birds.

The only obvious dinosaur fossil with obvious feathers that was "found" is Archaeoraptor liaoningensis. This so called definitive feathered dinosaur was reported with much fanfare in the November 1999 issue of National Geographic but has since been shown to be a fraud as usual.

Let me remind you of what Feduccia, a bird expert and evolutionist, said: "the major and most worrying problem of the feathered dinosaurs hypothesis is that the integumental structures have been homologized with avian feathers on the basis of anatomically and paleontologically unsound and misleading information."

Thanks for the reminder, which actually means nothing. In any case, what the hell are you talking about in regards of archaeoraptor? I'll discuss that fossil later in this post. Incidentally, you will notice that I did give you an example of a dinosaur with feathers. Would you like me to give you more examples other than sinosauropteryx? As usual you ignored it, preferring, instead, to use a red herring (take note davidylan, that's how how it's used). and what I suspect is a quote mine.

Wait, why is Feduccia sincere? Because you wish he is? The fact remains that Feduccia has constantly ignored new findings and any evidence that show he is wrong about the view of bird evolution he has had for decades. Feduccia, despite the fact he accepts the theory of evolution, has ironically become the darling of Creationists because he practices the same thing they do: ignore reality and all evidence.

If I were you I would read of the quotes of your fellow sincere evolutionists, even though they may be sincerely wrong about their worldview but they were at least sincere in their field of speciality.

You still haven't told me why Feduccia is sincere. You also ignored the fact "that Feduccia has constantly ignored new findings and any evidence that show he is wrong about the view of bird evolution he has had for decades. Feduccia, despite the fact he accepts the theory of evolution, has ironically become the darling of Creationists because he practices the same thing they do: ignore reality and all evidence."

Nice ducking of the question, dude. I'll answer your question when you answer mine. Deal? Um, no "legitimate dinosaurs with feathers? What about the sinosauropteryx? Or, what, you think it's a bird now? Or the Caudipteryx zoui? Yeah, can't wait for the express dodge.

I did not duck your question, I answered it. I even quoted what Feduccia lamented about when he said and I repeat for the upteenth time: "the major and most worrying problem of the feathered dinosaur hypothesis is that the integumental structures have been homologized with avian feathers on the basis of anatomically and paleontologically unsound and misleading information." If you want to read up on it read A. Feduccia, T. Lingham-Soliar, and J.R. Hinchliffe, Do feathered dinosaurs exist?

You did duck the queestion. See question: "So, um, wanna try again on the differences between dinosaurs and birds?"

See your response: "Why don't you explain to me the mechanism to change scales into feathers, mechanism to change a reptilian lung into an avian lung? The fact that there are no legitimate dinosaurs found with feathers are all good indications that dinosaurs didn't turn into birds. The evidence is still consistent with what the Bible teaches about birds being unique and created after their kinds."

Yeah, that's what I thought. Now am I to take it that your only response to the findings of dinosaurs with feathers - some much after the Feduccia quote - is to quote Feduccia? Look that doesn't take away the evidence. More that the feathers of Caudipteryx zoui, for instance, was plume like, should make anyone rethink their position unless, of course, their position is dogma.

So, say an animal like the archeopteryx with traditionally dinosaurian traits like: Lacking a bill; socketed teeth; Nostrils on the snout ; Unfused vertebrae of the trunk, etc. are we to assume that it is. . . which kind?

Your so called Archaeoraptor liaoningensis has been found out to be a fraud, why don't check up the National Geographic and correct the error of yours and your students that has been spread in the media, schools and publications instead of projecting a lie that has been found out.

Um, archeopteryx is different from archeoraptor. Totally and completely different. Oh dear, how embarrassing for you. Wanna try again? "So, say an animal like the archeopteryx with traditionally dinosaurian traits like: Lacking a bill; socketed teeth; Nostrils on the snout ; Unfused vertebrae of the trunk, etc. are we to assume that it is. . . which kind?"

Now to the archeoraptor issue. First, the fraud was practiced on the science community by non-scientists out to make a quick buck. Unsurprisingly, though, the fraud was also discovered by the science community, and not Creationist non-scientists.

Second, um, no one has spread archeoraptor in the media and schools. It has been acknowledged by all circles for what it is.

Thirdly, the fossils that were fused together to produce archeoraptor have been studied and have also given good results.

Donkeys and horses are of course of the same kind and if you think that humans and chimps are of the same kind as you have been taught why don't you try and reproduce your kind with one of them, that, if you have not tried it before.

You missed the important part, though. The genetic variance between the two is comparable - or even probably greater - to that between humans and chimps. If they are the same kind then by Creationist classifications humans and chimps must surely be the same kind.

The fact of creation and the order of creation affirm the fact that birds and dinosaurs originated separately. QED

"QED", you used it wrong. So what fact of creation would that be? Any way it can be tested and falsified?

OLAADEGBU:

Well, first, birds are also reptiles, or to be more specific, belong in the same class as dinosaurs: reptilia.

You are entitled to your own dogma or opinion.  Remember that we are observing the same evidence but our different starting points make us interprete or explain it differently.  Anyone observing objectively would realise the fact that birds are warm blooded creatures and that reptiles, such as dinosaurs, are cold blooded animals.  That alone should tell you that they belong to different classifications.  Birds have exceptionally high body temperatures resulting from their high metabolic rate.  Their differences is not simply in the relative temperature of the blood core temperature but rather in their abililty to maintain a constant body temperature.  This is why birds and mammals have internal physiological mechanisms to maintain an essentially constant body temperature and this is why they are more properly called "endothermic."  In contrast, reptiles such as the dinosaurs have a varying body temperature influenced by their surrounding environment and are called "ectothermic."  An ectothermic animal can adjust its body temperature such as moving between shade and sun, it can even achieve higher body temperature than a so called warm blooded animal, but this can only be done by external factors.

Firstly, that birds belong in the reptilia class is netheir opinion nor dogma, but a taxonomic classification. You'll also notice that I mentioned earlier that the evidence suggests that several dinosaurs were endothermic and some early birds may have been exothermic.

Second, I know what endothermic means. It doesn't change the fact, though, that findings have led us to realise that species of dinosaurs were warm-blooded. Okay?

Finally, here's a question: why do you think all dinosaurs were exothermic? And does that apply to the likes of archeopteryx and other transitionals?

Now to the claim that dinosaurs were exothermic, the evidence actually suggests otherwise. While some dinosaurs were no doubt exothermic, several were endothermic. For example, the Sinosauropteryx prima had feathers and the suggestions of hairs used for insulation. Moreover, its physical characteristics also imply its endothermic nature. It's interesting to note, also, that some early "birds" may have been exothermic

I know that evolutionists such as yourself are trying to make the evolution of dinosaurs into birds seem more plausible, hence your argument that dinosaurs are endothermic, but there is no clear evidence for this.  Your example of Sinosauropteryx is unfounded.  This Sinosauropteryx is very unbird-like and it lacks any evidence of structures that could be shown to be feather-like.  What you claim to be "protofeathers" in the Sinosauropteryx in the dinosaur fossils are simply filamentous and sometimes have interlaced structures bearing no obvious resemblance to feathers.  They actually appear likely to be connective tissue fibers found in the deep layer of the skin.  And for your information, true birds have been found among the fossils of the Sinosauropteryx in the same layers as their presumed dinosaur ancestors.

Nonsense. There's plenty of evidence that several species of dinosaurs were endothermic, from their feeding and lifestyle modes to physical traits like feathers for insulation.

Further, of course the Sinosauropteryx prima is "unbird-like". It wasn't some kind of proto-bird. It was a dinosaur with feathers. Also, that the feathers of the Sinosauropteryx prima was hollow belies any argument that it wasn't feathers.

Finally, yeah, birds and dinosaur-birds transitionals - for example, the archeopteryx - have been found in layers that even precede the Sinosauropteryx prima, but um, no one has said Sinosauropteryx is the ancestor of modern birds or proto-birds.

Finally, it isn't other scientists that try to make the evidence conform when it doesn't, it's Feduccia that does that. Since digging in his heels about what the lineage of bird evolution should be, Feduccia has consistently ignored all emerging findings and evidence.

This is what Feduccia, a bird expert and evolutionist who is sincere, says: "the major and most worrying problem of the feathered dinosaurs hypothesis is that the integumental structures have been homologized with avian feathers on the basis of anatomically and paleontologically unsound and misleading information."

Wait, why is Feduccia sincere? Because you wish he is? The fact remains that Feduccia has constantly ignored new findings and any evidence that show he is wrong about the view of bird evolution he has had for decades. Feduccia, despite the fact he accepts the theory of evolution, has ironically become the darling of Creationists because he practices the same thing they do: ignore reality and all evidence.

So, um, wanna try again on the differences between dinosaurs and birds?

Why don't you explain to me the mechanism to change scales into feathers, mechanism to change a reptilian lung into an avian lung?  The fact that there are no legitimate dinosaurs found with feathers are all good indications that dinosaurs didn't turn into birds.  The evidence is still consistent with what the Bible teaches about birds being unique and created after their kinds.

Nice ducking of the question, dude. I'll answer your question when you answer mine. Deal? Um, no "legitimate dinosaurs with feathers? What about the sinosauropteryx? Or, what, you think it's a bird now? Or the Caudipteryx zoui? Yeah, can't wait for the express dodge.

Lest I forget, does the Bible tell us the "kind" of dinosaur-bird transitionals?

It is you and your bedfellows that have the onus to prove to us that dinosaurs evolved into birds.  What the Bible says is that birds where created on day 5 and dinosaurs on day 6.  Genesis 1:21 says that God created every winged bird after its "kind."  The following verse says they were to multiply or reproduce.  The logical connection is that birds of the same kind can reproduce.  The Hebrew word for "kind" in Genesis refers to any group of animals capable of interbreeding and reproducing according to their type.  For example, all dogs and dog-like animals, such as wolves and coyotes, are capable of interbreeding and thus would represent one "kind," even though some are classified today as different species.

This does not mean that all birds represent a single created kind and thus share a common ancestry.  The Bible tells us that there are many different bird kinds.  For example, the Levitical dietary laws (Lev.11:13-19), lists many different bird kinds as being unclean.  This gives further biblical support for multiple created bird kinds.

So, say an animal like the archeopteryx with traditionally dinosaurian traits like: Lacking a bill; socketed teeth; Nostrils on the snout ; Unfused vertebrae of the trunk, etc. are we to assume that it is. . . which kind?

Second, if the defintion of a kind is their ability to interbreed and reproduce, then that would make a donkey and a horse are the same kind.  However, the thing is, the genetic distance between a donkey and a horse are comparable to that between humans and chimps - probably even more. That would, then, logically, make humans and chimps the same kind. Hmm. . .

Finally, I take it there is no scientifc value to the Bible's classification of bird "kind", yes?

OLAADEGBU:
The fact is that dinosaurs are reptiles.  The major differences between birds and reptiles include the fact that living reptiles are mostly cold - blooded creatures, while birds and mammals are warm-blooded.  Birds have exceptionally high body temperatures resulting from a high metabolic rate.  Birds and mammals are endothermic while reptiles such as dinosaurs are ectothermic.

This is what Alan Feduccia, an expert on birds and their evolution concluded:

"there has never been, nor is there now, any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic." 

He went on to say that despite the lack of evidence "many authors have tried to make specimens conform to the hot-blooded theropod dogma."

The evidence is consistent with what the Bible teaches about birds being unique and created after their kinds.  The Bible is clear that God didn't make birds from pre-existing dinosaurs.  In fact, dinosaurs (land animals made on Day 6) came after winged creatures made on Day 5, according to the Genesis.  Both biblically and scientifically, chicken eaters around the world can rest easy with the realisation that they are not eating mutant dinosaurs! 

Well, first, birds are also reptiles, or to be more specific, belong in the same class as dinosaurs: reptilia. Now to the claim that dinosaurs were exothermic, the evidence actually suggests otherwise. While some dinosaurs were no doubt exothermic, several were endothermic. For example, the Sinosauropteryx prima had feathers and the suggestions of hairs used for insulation. Moreover, its physical characteristics also imply its endothermic nature. It's interesting to note, also, that some early "birds" may have been exothermic.

Finally, it isn't other scientists that try to make the evidence conform when it doesn't, it's Feduccia that does that. Since digging in his heels about what the lineage of bird evolution should be, Feduccia has consistently ignored all emerging findings and evidence.

So, um, wanna try again on the differences between dinosaurs and birds?

Lest I forget, does the Bible tell us the "kind" of dinosaur-bird transitionals?

davidylan:

And I'm restricting myself to responding to what you wrote. I've read the feature again and no where in it is it implied that chickens descended from T-rexes. It mentions a bolstering development in the findings of their relatedness, though

This is because we have forced you all to go back and read the original paper where the initiall discovery was made. A link manmustwac pasted here made that claim (i didnt!) and manmustwac himself swallowed it hood-line and sinker. My posts here have been to show how preposterous such a claim is so as far as i'm concerned you're preaching to the choir here because i didnt make that claim.

Um, it made the claim that dinosaurs are essentially birds and the t-rex is related to birds. No where did it imply that chickens descended from t-rexes. You started to show why you didn't accept the view of the feature posted by manmustwac, but you later deviated into somehow implying that it was indicated that chickens descended from t-rexes. You even went as far as to state that saying otherwise made no sense. That idea was what I was addressing. You made the claim I addressed.

Besides the claim DOES NOT BOLSTER any claim of their relatedness . . . that was why i used so many other examples from other animals. We may as well be related to every organism on earth if we use a >50% amino acid similarity as the basis.

Um, we are most likely related to most - if not every - organism of which we know.

Then you should realise that stating birds are dinosaurs or their descendants - and therefore related to the T-rex - isn't the same as saying birds evolved from T-rexes.

Red herring again.

Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you don't know what the term "red herring" means. You wrote that saying birds and t-rexes are phylogenetically related is the same thing as saying the former descended from the other. You even went as far as to state that "To say the T. rex and chicken are related BUT the chicken did not evolve from the T. rex doesnt make much sense."

I'm pretty sure it's not a red herring to address the misconception.

I shld not be realising anything . . . i didnt make the silly claim that birds are descendants of dinosaurs . . . you shld be directing all this thesis to manmustwac who made the initial claim.

Besides you have the entire argument upside down . . . the claim was NOT that birds are descendants of dinosaurs and thus related to the T. rex by virtue of it being a dinosaur - the argument was about establishing a DIRECT link between the T. rex (nothing to do with other dinosaurs!) and the chicken based on amino acid similarities in collagen I.

You and jamiru, instead, created the strawman that the dinosaur-bird evolution was essentially birds are descendants of t-rexes. By misreading and misrepresenting the argument of the link, your arguments devolved into what was basically "ha ha, how could chickens have descended from t-rexes."

I am not arguing that chickens didn't descend from dinosaurs. In fact, I'm still trying to figure out what makes a chicken any less of a dinosaur in generalities.

Finally, actually this is the thrust of the argument from the article itself:

"Many paleontologists already believed, based on fossil bones, that birds are dinosaurs or their descendants. But this new paper provides even more evidence of the fact."

More related than what?

Red Herring again . .

This is the argument - Chickens are 58% similar in collagen I amino acid content to the T. rex, well frogs are also 51% similar to the T. rex. When i raised that earlier, this is what you said in quotes - "Birds are more closely related."

I then asked . . . cows have a 97% Collagen I amino acid similarity to humans, does that make the cow more closely related to us than say the chimpanzee?

Yeah, I'm not going to tell you what to do, but it probably wouldn't kill you to find out the correct usage of the red herring fallacy as a label. 'Kay?

Anyway, yes, birds are more closely related to dinosaurs. Your question as response, however, was incomplete, hence my response - "More related than what?" As you've now completed it, the answer is no, cows are not more closely related to humans than chimpanzees. While the presence of a shared unique combination of amino acids, etc. may show evolutionary relatedness, other shared traits can show which species is more closely related to one than another.

Yes. The issue then becomes how closely or distantly related are we to other species.

this again is a red herring . . . it makes absolutely no sense. We have homologs of most genes with other organisms . . . are we "related" to them all? Including the yeast, fruitfly and C. elegans? Just WHEN will scientists come up with something other than "we are related to xyz"?

I'm just going to ignore the fact that you started this part yet again with your newly found term and get on with it. We are related to most - if not all - other species. Get over it.

Remind me again how bringing up other dinosaurs other than the T-rex, and how they relate to birds in a discussion on dinosaur-bird evolution is a red herring? Stop being silly and just say you can't state the differences between the two.

Because it IS a red herring brought up to muddy the waters when it becomes clear the T. rex - chicken claims dont hold water. As i mentioned earlier, which of course you all prefered to ignore, there is a paper out there already challenging the validity of the alleged T. rex collagen I protein.

Can you state the differences between the human and the cow? We have a 97% similarity with collagen I so i shld expect us to have a lot more in common than the bird and T. rex who only share a 58% similarity no?

These arguments just make you shake your head in wonder.

Loving the way you still don't know what a red herring means. I had to laugh at the suggestion that bringing up other dinosaurs other than the t-rex in a discussion on dinosaur-birds evolution is a ploy to "muddy the waters". You got to love it. Wait, what T-rex-chicken claims? Okay, seriously where did you get that from? By the way, I don't doubt that there is a paper - more than one if I remember correctly, especially in the first weeks and months following the announcement of the finds - challenging the protein thing. I found them spurious. If you want to bring them into the fray, you should post what you consider the outstanding arguments in the paper(s).

Anyway, yes I can state many differences between humans and cows.

- Humans have fingers and opposable thumbs. Cows have hooves
- Humans are naturally bipedal while cows are never so
- Different ears and earing mechanisms
- Humans are omnivorous, cows are herbivores
- Humans and cows have differing stomachs
-Different number of teats in the females of the species


Those are just some quick ones off the top of my head. Your turn. What are the differences between dinosaurs and birds.

Again red herring. See above.

Yeah, we got it, you learnt of a new fallacy. Learn to use it properly, though, or it looks stupid.

jamiru:
Before I respond to this quote, I have to ask you first, what are we to make of the religious serial killers? And since you are a Christian, what are we to make of serial killers that allegedly take their cues from the Christian God and read the Bible religiously?

well what i read didnt state he said that becos God killed so i will kill like him. but he was the president in the church. u see  i dont deny that there are no evil men in the church, becos scripture said that the wheat & tares were allowed to grow together untill the appointed time. so being in the church without making a confession that will lead to being born anew is a waste of time. i did and this has made me a new creature, specie.

Now you're getting the idea . . . well some of it, at least.

davidylan:
this point (in highlights) is moot. I am restricting myself to commenting ONLY on manmustwac's link and the science paper allegedly linking T. rex to chickens based on collagen I similarity.

And I'm restricting myself to responding to what you wrote. I've rad the feature again and no where in it is it implied that chickens descended from T-rexes. It mentions a bolstering development in the findings of their relatedness, though

Under no circumstances have i said T. rex is the only dinosaur . . . to insinuate such is of no relevance.

Then you should realise that stating birds are dinosaurs or their descendants - and therefore related to the T-rex - isn't the same as saying birds evolved from T-rexes.

Again meaningless . . . we would then imply that cows are more "related" to humans because they have a 97% similarity in collagen I?

More related than what?

The yeast RPD3 gene is remarkably similar to human and mouse HDAC2 (almost 80% by amino acid analysis) . . . are we also "related" to yeast?

HDAC1 from mouse is almost identical to that of a human . . . are we also "related" to the mouse?  

Yes. The issue then becomes how closely or distantly related are we to other species.

1. The issue of other dinosaurs is moot, irrelevant to the topic and a red herring.

Remind me again how bringing up other dinosaurs other than the T-rex, and how they relate to birds in a discussion on dinosaur-bird evolution is a red herring? Stop being silly and just say you can't state the differences between the two.

2. Again another red herring. Yeast looks nothing like humans but so many of its genes have human homologs.

This was a number 2 response to this parrt of my post: "
T-rexes are dinosaurs; not all dinosaurs are T-rexes. Have you been able to identify the differences between dinosaurs and birds?" Okay, then.

jamiru:
now that athiest have agreed that dinosour T.Rex evolved into birds before they were wiped out. why is it that man before he passes away, doesnt evolve into another specie but just dies? does it mean man cant ''evolve'' or the ''evolutioanary'' process has stopped? becos if u look at the list about man's ancesstor by NOW it would have been more than 2million years already and man should have evolved into something. but naa, all they do is grow then die no evolution.

I wrote this in response to Davidylan, and I implied the same earlier to you: T-rexes are dinosaurs; not all dinosaurs are T-rexes.

By the way, you really, really, really don't understand biological evolution.

davidylan:
that is your own opinion but its obvious that the scientists try to make a link between T. rex and bird evolution. To say the T. rex and chicken are related BUT the chicken did not evolve from the T. rex doesnt make much sense. Are they cousins or a splinter off the evolutionary tree?

Um, what? Yes there's a link between T-rexes and modern birds: they are related. That doesn't mean birds evolved from T-rexes. Are you somehow under the impression that T-rexes were the only dinosaurs?

Ok does that mean the T. rex is also related to the newt or the frog since it shares a 51% similarity in collagen I with them both?

Birds are more closely related.

By the way . . . this quote came from the Livescience website - And a comparison of the protein's chemical structure to a slew of other species showed an evolutionary link between T. rex and chickens, bolstering the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

There is even a paper out questioning the validity of the T. rex collagen samples. So much for scientists . . .

T-rexes are dinosaurs; not all dinosaurs are T-rexes. Have you been able to identify the differences between dinosaurs and birds?

jamiru:
hi kag i reread the post and this is what it said
Many paleontologists already believed, based on fossil bones, that birds are dinosaurs or their descendants. But this new paper provides even more evidence of the fact.

i think that is what it meant

As far as I'm aware T-rexes weren't the only dinosaurs. In any case, see if you can state the differences between dinosaurs and birds.

davidylan:
Which is essentially the same thing . . .   scientists like to use nebulous words to drive home their point without being specific.

Absolutely not. That I'm closely related to a cousin twice removed doesn't mean that cousin is a grandparent. The T-Rex and chicken are related.

davidylan:
no the question was from wirinet. I quoted him.

Oops, you're right. My mistake.

davidylan:
No i will not . . . you people are way too lazy and empty-headed. We are always "furnishing you with links" even though you come here to post and insult us as if you even knew what you were arguing about in the first place.

Considering it was Jamiru that asked the question to which you responded, appropriate Freudian slip me thinks.

jamiru:
Please furnish me with a link that says it was T.Rex that evolved to birds. Because from what i know T.Rex did not survive the  mass extinction

It didn't say T-Rexes evolved into birds. Instead, they share a remarkably close phylogeny.

jamiru:
hello all

i was following and enjoying the discusion between tonyt and huxley on the documents that prove/state/evidenced evolution or existence of God. but alas it ended up with so many advanced english and terms erv, etc that wasnt what tonyt wanted to know. all we want to know is what DOCUMENT do u have that stated that there is no God/evolution.

u see my bible (toneyt document and mine) states that everything,
1. created by Him - John 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.[/b]KJV
2. speaks about Him - Rom 1:19-20
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the [b]invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
KJV

Now u say (no document) that from evolution everything
1. made was made
2. and the evidence is seen in the fossils etc

so my question (hope that was what tonyt was asking, kindly present the documents used to substantiate your claim or rather darwins claim. thanks

I've posted it before and I'll post it again. For genetic evidence one need not look further than shared endogenous retrovirus insertions and the presence of chromosome 2 in humans. There are many others but I prefer those as they focus on the human inclusion in biological evolution.

jamiru:
thanks for stating the obvious - my rerogative

I did more than state the obvious, though.

Ok where are christian serial killers mentioned and have they confessed that they were after what God stated or did in the bible

The BTK killer, Dennis Rader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader) That's one.

jamiru:
please athiest, has evolution ended its evolving or are we still in the process?

Like has been previously stated, no, evolution hasn't stopped. The process of biological evolution is bound to continue with imperfect offspring replications.

Edit: on the dinosaur-birds issue. What are the differences between dinosaurs and birds?

jamiru:
if it is what u mean fanatical faith blinded to the reasoning (rebelling rebuffing in short anti athiest) of evolution and that i gain nothing then i prefer to be such a christian 4life. moreover i am already learning that there is nothing to be gained by being an athiest so i am sorry, i am stuck to my "delusion" for it gives a better hope of here and hereafter than athiesm.

That's your prerogative. You asked a question; I provided an answer. Of course I could point out that one needn't be an atheist to accept the validity of evolution and other sciences in general, or that more theists than atheists accept them; but I suspect, given your preferences, that it would be pointless.

read this confession from a serial killer i read from this website- http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/07/07/darwin-or-lincoln#fnList_1_1
“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. [b]When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing.
Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, November 29, 1994.[/b]

Before I respond to this quote, I have to ask you first, what are we to make of the religious serial killers? And since you are a Christian, what are we to make of serial killers that allegedly take their cues from the Christian God and read the Bible religiously?

Now to Dahmer. The point would be for the betterment of ones society and loved ones. One needn't believe there's a supreme being to act with love. In my opinion, showing love to others because you care is more moral than trying to do so because of fear of a supreme being.

Naira.:
Didn't read the entire post but for the initial post,

I've been asked this question times before and here's the answer I always give,  I don't think I'm wrong but let's just say I am.  So we die and it's time to be judged and go to "heaven" or "hell".  For me, if the only reason I am not let into "heaven" is because I didn't believe in God, not because I was a bad person, criminal etc,   If God's reason is "Because you didn't believe in me, worship me and spend hours praising and proclaiming me, I'm sending you to eternal damnation" Then for me, it totally proves why I didn't worship him and I still wouldn't want to be a part of that.  If there was a God, I don't think he would be that petty and vengeful. 

This one of the reasons I do not believe the Bible is inspired by God but man creating a God and imposing his own characteristics on him.  Quotes like "I'm a jealous God, you shall worship no other god but me", "There's a land flowing with milk and honey, go and conquer the peoples and take over their land" , "I'll punish your descendants generations after you for your sins against me" and countless others,  to me these are the thoughts of man not God.

Here are a few quotes I like:
"And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence." - Bertrand Russell

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself." - Sir Francis Burton

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do" - Anonymous



As for what theists will lose, are you assuming all theists are worshiping the same God?

Quoted for affirmation.

You know it's funny, I've only met radical Islamists and Christians on the internet, too. Come to think of it, in real life I've never encountered an Ifa worshiper, nor have I met a scientologist. And now that I think of it I only know of one Wiccan, Hmm, I guess they really don't exist anywhere else but the internet; that, or I need to get out more. Can't for the life of me figure out which it is, though.

jamiru:
lets make an assumption.

lets assume that after reading thru various threads u have created, to riducle christianity - lets assume other religion are put aside. and i have seen how u have presented your facts
1. There is no God
2. that the bible cannot be the word of a divine creator becasue of its contradiction
3. that we are on our own here with no divinity, supernatural, devils etc

now if ur assumption is true, WHAT HAVE U GAINED BY BEING AN ATHIEST and WHAT DO U HOPE I WILL GAIN BY BEING AN ATHIEST? u could kindly highlight point by point the benefits that entails.
thanks

It all obviously depends on what type of Christian you were before your hypothetical deconversion. If, for instance, you were the stereotypical Christian blinded by fanaticism and closed to any type of logic or reasoning that you interpret as contradictory to the Bible, then becoming an atheist may help. You also tend to learn more.

olabowale:
@KAG: « #16 on: Yesterday at 10:06:23 PM »   Good and cheap easy answer so that no deep reflection is in play!

Still doesn't change the fact that the picture is a photoshop. The fact that Muslim apologists have to resort to trickery and outright lies to buoy their religion should probably tell you something.

Yes. You are different. Not human I dare to say. Sorry.

That's nice.

Your suggesting that the other lines are ignored did not take into consideration that none of them is as bright and bold and prominent. I hope you realise that if you free hand write, and you do not dot your i(s), and punctuate a whole sentence until the final period, a good reader will still be able to read it and understand what you meant.

So, it's not a miracle but an attempt to stretch natural things into a support for one's religion. Got it.

Gaggi:
So you guys don't believe in Jesus Christ. Ok, so do you believe that the devil has powers.
Do you believe that the devil gives people powers, like a man can be shot and the bullets will not penetrate him?

The devil doesn't exist. The second is just as nonsensical as the first.

Do you believe that people can make others mad, etc? Looking foward to know what you believe.

I'll put it this way: Not in absentia.

javalove:
This picture was taken by Sunita Williams, the first female astronaut from space. While the whole earth is covered with darkness, the sacred mosques of Islam continue to shine like stars. . .!!!  What do you think?

That it's a hoax - that is, a lie. Muslim apologetics at its finest.

Ever wondered about the meanng of the mark on ur palms? Wonder no more. . .!

First, my palms are not like that. I have a different shape on mine. Second, this works by ignoring all the other marks on ones palms, ignoring the basic and real shape of the Arabic numerals in question, and fudging numbers around the obfuscation.

Foster cat:
Mean while I learn That MFM will b Having a Programe this wk end at the Prayer City.I would Love To attend.Is any body Going?i would i like to Join U.so Let Arrange

I might be there or pass through

deebrain:
Hmmm, i have already entered thy name as an applicant.
Ye shall be contacted if thou were chosen.
Thanks.

Oh thank you. I'll be waiting with baited breath.

I stop short of pointing out every time someone shoves something in my vicinity that Nigeria, despite being one of the most religious countries in the world, is also one of the most corrupt.

Generally, though, I barely notice the religious. I think I've become good at being insular and since most of the religious don't really bother me, I don't mind them.

No, I don't. Sorry.

folami86:
which came first, the chicken or the egg

The amniotic egg.

Krayola:
haha . . .i don't even know what ontology means.

Don't worry about it. Noetic doesn't know what it means either.

Tudór:
He's able to deduce your god doesn't exist due to your inability to provide evidence evidence that he does. Simple.

To be fair, that shouldn't be one's only criterion for dismissing the god hypothesis.

FRA:
Your logic is so convincing. Keep it up Its like saying because I am standing therefore I am not sitting

"because I'm standing therefore I'm not sitting" is actually logical.