Why, the curse by God of course!

Actually, that's a really good question. During my research to find those pictures, the closest to an answer I came across was this from Discovery News: How Snakes Lost Their Legs. Essentially, it seems that the animals outgrew their legs as an encumbrance to swimming or burrowing, though the case is far from being closed. Don't you just hate stories without endings?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelvic_spur

Vestigial legs on snakes don't particularly bother me, but note that, well, they don't look like legs and they have been found to have other uses.

(November 9, 2012 at 5:09 pm)John V Wrote: It's the tautological fallacy, actually.

The question is whether the universe has always existed. You substituted existence for universe, then made the tautological observation that existence exists. I know it seems profound to you, but it isn't. It's a fallacy.

That would be the equivocation fallacy actually (unless the tautological fallacy is another name for the equivocation fallacy? Personally I've never heard of it). Because that would be equivocating "existence" and "universe". It would be the equivocation fallacy but in this case it actually isn't because I'm not suggesting that the universe and existence are the same thing. I'm saying that "existence" has always existed, because that's a tautology. So whether the "universe" had a beginning or not, something has always existed. And so why would existence, which has tautologically always existed, require God?

Yeah, when I Googled, I discovered that these "limbs" are only found on pythons and boas. Which makes sense because the vipers are more highly evolved, further removed from the first common legless ancestor. Venom is a more "modern" development (along with those retractable hypodermic fangs). But nothing on why slithering was advantageous. Perhaps someday we'll know... perhaps not... either way it's pretty freakin' awesome!

@John... Just because they aren't used for walking doesn't mean they don't get used at all

Except that they are attached to hipbones. That they have other uses, for example as an aid to mating, is not only not a problem, it's to be expected.

(November 8, 2012 at 11:28 pm)SpecUVdust Wrote: You believe everything in the bible, except what you choose not to believe. That your big plan for yourself? As if your bible was not entirely iron-age dribble.

Was this directed at me?

I believe the Bible and take it as authoritative...however, I don't claim to be the infallible interpreter of it.

There are parts of the Bible that are very clear, and there are parts that aren't as clear.

I don't believe the unclear parts are hills to die on.

(November 9, 2012 at 5:40 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: That would be the equivocation fallacy actually (unless the tautological fallacy is another name for the equivocation fallacy? Personally I've never heard of it). Because that would be equivocating "existence" and "universe". It would be the equivocation fallacy but in this case it actually isn't because I'm not suggesting that the universe and existence are the same thing. I'm saying that "existence" has always existed, because that's a tautology. So whether the "universe" had a beginning or not, something has always existed. And so why would existence, which has tautologically always existed, require God?

Yes, it's actually equivocation followed by tautology. Tautology is another name for circular reasoning. It's something that's true by definition. As it's true, it's not strictly fallacious. It's considered a fallacy because it adds nothing to the argument, like saying "I know he's not married because he's a bachelor." There's also some misuse of converse or something back there where you were also throwing nonexistence into it.

"I know he's not married because he's a bachelor" doesn't explain why he's not married or why he's a bachelor (and if I actually claimed that it did explain that, by the way, that wouldn't be the circular reasoning fallacy that would be the question begging fallacy), but it does mean that if he's a bachelor he's not married because they're the same thing.

All I'm saying is that to say that existence ever didn't exist is logically nonsensical. It's true by definition that existence is never non-existent. Just as it's true by definition that bachelors are never married. If you say otherwise, you are talking nonsense unless you are redefining things, in which case I still don't know what you're talking about until you tell me what your redefinitions are.

So as I said,

Quote:whether the "universe" had a beginning or not, something has always existed[since existence by definition can't ever be non-existent]. And so why would existence, which has tautologically always existed, require God?