[__ Science __ ] No birds are non-birds.

[Paul E. Michael]

Darwinist: "Birds are descended from dinosaurs, therefore birds are dinosaurs."

By his word, "dinosaurs," either 1) the Darwinist is referring to birds, or 2) the Darwinist is referring to non-birds, or 3) the Darwinist is not referring, at all, and is thus merely speaking in a cognitively meaningless manner.
​

• If, by his word, "dinosaurs," the Darwinist is referring to birds, then here is what he is saying: "Birds are descended from [birds], therefore birds are [birds]."​
• If, by his word, "dinosaurs," the Darwinist is referring to non-birds, then here is what he is saying: "Birds are descended from [non-birds], therefore birds are [non-birds]."​
• If, by his word, "dinosaurs," the Darwinist is neither referring to birds, nor referring to non-birds, then he is not referring, at all, and is thus merely speaking in a cognitively meaningless manner.​

Some animals are birds, and all other animals are non-birds. Ask the Darwinist, then, to which (if any) animals he is referring by his word, "dinosaurs," when he says "Birds are descended from dinosaurs, therefore birds are dinosaurs": to birds or to non-birds?

By being confronted with this question, the Darwinist is inexorably forced into a corner out of which he can't get, by the embarrassing trilemma he has created for himself by his Darwinistspeak; he knows that 1) he cannot answer it by saying "I am referring to birds," without embarrassing himself, and, just the same, he knows that 2) he cannot answer it by saying "I am referring to non-birds," without embarrassing himself. In trying to evade your question, he will be tempted to react to it by saying "By my word, 'dinosaurs,' I am referring to dinosaurs." But such a reaction from him to that question is not only a glaring failure to answer it, but also, it is yet another instance of the Darwinist merely inviting the same question to be asked all over again. So, instead of choosing to embarrass himself by answering the question, the Darwinist chooses 3) to embarrass himself by never answering it, and by always stonewalling against it.​

 

[Barbarian]

It's simple, but not simple enough for AIG. We can say "gorillas are primates." Which is true, just as we can accurately assert that birds are dinosaurs. I can refer to gorillas and birds without referring to other kinds of primates and dinosaurs.

It really shouldn't be necessary to point this out, but apparently it is.

Some animals are birds, and all other animals are non-birds. Ask the Darwinist, then, to which (if any) animals he is referring by his word, "dinosaurs," when he says "Birds are descended from dinosaurs, therefore birds are dinosaurs": to birds or to non-birds?

For example we can say that gorillas are descended from primates. Which is true. This is in no way a contradiction.

Have you figured out yet, what characteristics differentiate birds from other dinosaurs? What have you got?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It's simple, but not simple enough for AIG. We can say "gorillas are primates." Which is true, just as we can accurately assert that birds are dinosaurs. I can refer to gorillas and birds without referring to other kinds of primates and dinosaurs.

It really shouldn't be necessary to point this out, but apparently it is.

For example we can say that gorillas are descended from primates. Which is true. This is in no way a contradiction.

Have you figured out yet, what characteristics differentiate birds from other dinosaurs? What have you got?

Gorillas are still primates today. Dinosaurs are reptiles. But reptiles are not birds. Your example doesn’t work.

The problem is you have to believe a bird descended from a non-bird. There is no category in between. There are only Non-birds and birds. There is no category that is a bridge. Dogs are canines AND descendants of canines.

 

[Barbarian]

Gorillas are still primates today. Dinosaurs are reptiles. But reptiles are not birds. Your example doesn’t work.

You could as well say "primates are not gorillas." Gorillas are primates. Just as birds are dinosaurs. If you doubt this, name one thing true of primates that is not true of gorillas and one thing true of dinosaurs that is not true of birds.

What do you have?

The problem is you have to believe a bird descended from a non-bird.

So the evidence shows. Would you like to see how we know?

There is no category in between.

There are, as even many informed creationists admit, numerous transitional forms between bird and other dinosaurs. Would you like me to show you some examples?

There is no category that is a bridge.

What would you expect a transitional between a dinosaur and a bird to look like? Tell us about it.

 

[Mister E]

 

[Milk-Drops]

Gorillas are still primates today. Dinosaurs are reptiles. But reptiles are not birds. Your example doesn’t work.

Dinosaurs are archosaurs which are a specific reptilian line. Birds geneticly spring off of dinosaurs called theropods. So dinosaurs refers to multiple groups of archosaurs, theropods split off from other archosaurs, and birds split off of theorpods.

The problem is you have to believe a bird descended from a non-bird. There is no category in between. There are only Non-birds and birds. There is no category that is a bridge. Dogs are canines AND descendants of canines.

I think the problem is that genetics and lineage names are created by people and people name groupings differently to make it easy to understand what we are talking about. The concept non-bird makes sense as long as we understand that lineage is still a thing. A cat can't give birth to a bird and that can be explained by lineage. It seems that the word non bird is being used here without the understanding that lineage names are made up by humans and we can seperate off distant lineages into their own name.

 

[Barbarian]

Dinosaurs are archosaurs which are a specific reptilian line. Birds geneticly spring off of dinosaurs called theropods. So dinosaurs refers to multiple groups of archosaurs, theropods split off from other archosaurs, and birds split off of theorpods.

Birds are reptiles in the same sense that mammals are reptiles. Birds evolved from saurischian dinosaurs; they are part of the theropod dinosaurs. Mammals evolved from therapsid reptiles and we are part of the therapsid clade.

Birds, mammals, and other reptiles are all amniotes, separated from other vertebrates ( we are, with the fish and amphibians, vertebrates).

 

[Barbarian]

What would you expect a transitional between a dinosaur and a bird to look like? Tell us about it.

(no answer)
Darn, I was looking forward to that one...

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The problem is you have to believe a bird descended from a non-bird.​

Another insurmountable problem for Darwinists is that they (as they admit) cannot prove/have never proved that birds descended from non-birds. They expect us to stop listening to truth and reason, and to, instead, just start believing that birds descended from dinosaurs, solely because they—Darwinists—say birds descended from dinosaurs.

Note that, when the truth is pointed out to Darwinists—that birds are non-dinosaurs—they react absurdly, telling us that birds are not different from dinosaurs; they tell us that nothing differentiates birds from, say, brontosauruses and triceratopses. If Darwinists think nothing differentiates brontosauruses and triceratopses from birds, then why do Darwinists not come out and tell us that brontosauruses are birds, and that triceratopses are birds? I mean, I've actually been told by Darwinists that if (as Darwinists claim) there is no difference between birds and brontosauruses, then there is no reason to think birds aren't brontosauruses, or to think brontosauruses aren't birds.

Also, since Darwinists claim that the ancestors of birds are non-birds, it would be amusing to hear them tell us what (to use their phrase) "essential differences" differentiate birds from their (birds') ancestors.

A fun question for any Darwinists who happen to read this post:

Can you please tell us what essential differences differentiate birds from their ancestors (which ancestors, remember, you Darwinists like to call "dinosaurs," claiming they are non-birds)? If you Darwinists can't tell us even one essential difference between birds and their ancestors, then why do you think birds' ancestors are non-birds?​

 

[Paul E. Michael]

It seems that the word non bird is being used here without the understanding that lineage names are made up by humans and we can seperate [sic] off distant lineages into their own name.

Do you not understand that any animal that is not a dinosaur is a non-dinosaur?
Do you not understand that any animal that is not a bird is a non-bird?

The word, 'non-bird,' is being used here to refer to an animal that is not a bird. Would you be able to keep a straight face and tell us that it is erroneous to use the word, 'non-bird,' to refer to an animal that is not a bird—to an animal that is a non-bird?

If you want to use the word, 'non-bird,' to refer to an animal, here are your only options: either

1) you will be using it to refer to an animal that is not a bird (IOW, to a non-bird), or​

2) you will be using it to refer to an animal that is a bird (IOW, to a bird).​

​

So, to which animal do you prefer to refer by the word, 'non-bird': To an animal that is a bird, or to an animal that is not a bird? Which?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Dinosaurs are archosaurs which are a specific reptilian line. Birds geneticly spring off of dinosaurs called theropods. So dinosaurs refers to multiple groups of archosaurs, theropods split off from other archosaurs, and birds split off of theorpods.


I think the problem is that genetics and lineage names are created by people and people name groupings differently to make it easy to understand what we are talking about. The concept non-bird makes sense as long as we understand that lineage is still a thing. A cat can't give birth to a bird and that can be explained by lineage. It seems that the word non bird is being used here without the understanding that lineage names are made up by humans and we can seperate off distant lineages into their own name.

You’ve given me the theory of how you believe this transpired. This is only your opinion, not a fact. You don’t seem to understand that this is made up by humans sans living creatures to prove it, and we can combine lineages into the same name.

 

[Barbarian]

Do you not understand that any animal that is not a dinosaur is a non-dinosaur?

But as you recently discovered, birds are dinosaurs. Remember when you were skeptical and I asked you to tell me even one characteristic of birds that was not found in dinosaurs, and you couldn't name even one? Good reason for that. Birds are dromaeosaurs, a group of small theropod dinosaurs. They are the last surviving branch of a once-diverse group of dinosaurs.

It seemed to help when you realized that while all gorillas are primates, not all primates are gorillas. Likewise, all birds are dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds. Try to keep that in mind when you're puzzling out the "bird/non-bird" issues.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Do you not understand that any animal that is not a dinosaur is a non-dinosaur?

I can see your word game. Birds are a subset of the group known as dinosaurs. All birds are dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds. That's a sound logical silagism

Do you not understand that any animal that is not a bird is a non-bird?

Do you not know that bird is a category of winged bupeds that descended from theropods?

The word, 'non-bird,' is being used here to refer to an animal that is not a bird.

Yep, and you are nor your father. You descended from your father. Same thing.

Would you be able to keep a straight face and tell us that it is erroneous to use the word, 'non-bird,' to refer to an animal that is not a bird—to an animal that is a non-bird?

Can you keep a straight face and say that your father and yourself are not the same being?

If you want to use the word, 'non-bird,' to refer to an animal, here are your only options: either

1) you will be using it to refer to an animal that is not a bird (IOW, to a non-bird), or​

2) you will be using it to refer to an animal that is a bird (IOW, to a bird).​

​

Can you name the evolutionist/Darwinist you are specifically arguing against, or are we just arguing with your shower thought?

So, to which animal do you prefer to refer by the word, 'non-bird': To an animal that is a bird, or to an animal that is not a bird? Which?

I prefer to use the so are you trying to say you and your father are the same or are you just trying to use made up definitions.

 

[Milk-Drops]

You’ve given me the theory of how you believe this transpired. This is only your opinion, not a fact. You don’t seem to understand that this is made up by humans sans living creatures to prove it, and we can combine lineages into the same name.

The difference is that unlike Paul's word game, the position I am taken is backed up by tons of research and is available for others to varify.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I can see your word game.

Why do you call the practice of referring to animals that are not birds as "non-birds," a "word game"?

I asked you:

Do you not understand that any animal that is not a bird is a non-bird?

You: <NO ANSWER>

Were I asked that question, I would have no difficulty answering it. My answer would be, "I understand that any animal that is not a bird is a non-bird." No problem, see? So, why can't you answer that question?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I asked you:

So, to which animal do you prefer to refer by the word, 'non-bird': To an animal that is a bird, or to an animal that is not a bird? Which?

You: <NO ANSWER>

Why can't you answer this easy, easy, easy binary choice question?

Myself, I prefer to refer, by the word, 'non-bird,' to any animal that is not a bird.

I prefer to use the so are you trying to say you and your father are the same or are you just trying to use made up definitions.

LOL

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Remember when you were skeptical and I asked you to tell me even one characteristic of birds that was not found in dinosaurs, and you couldn't name even one?

To which "dinosaurs" are you referring, here? By your word, "dinosaurs," are you referring to the ancestors of birds? Remember, you claim that the ancestors of birds are non-birds, and you call the ancestors of birds, "dinosaurs." So, by all means, please feel welcome to tell us even one characteristic of birds that was not found in their ancestors (which ancestors you assert are non-birds). If you can't even name one (to borrow your term) essential difference between birds and their ancestors, then why do you say that birds' ancestors were non-birds?
​

If you can't tell us even one difference between birds and their (birds') ancestors, then why not just admit the obvious truth that all ancestors of birds are birds, rather than non-birds?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Why do you call the practice of referring to animals that are not birds as "non-birds," a "word game"?

I'm calling it a word game because you are not defining ehat a bird is, instead you are putting the burden on the person you are conversing with. I read your original post and it strikes me as a shower thought, or shadow boxing. I have heard and read many biologists who explain what they mean by their classifications and why they hold that birds are dinosaurs.

You need to define what a nonbird is.

I asked you:



You: <NO ANSWER>

You are asking a negative. That's why I am calling it a word game. You aren't verifying or clarifying knowledge, you are obfuscation knowledge.

Were I asked that question, I would have no difficulty answering it. My answer would be, "I understand that any animal that is not a bird is a non-bird." No problem, see? So, why can't you answer that question?

Your answer is circular then. If break it down logical your question is "why is x not y, when y=not x?".

You have not established x and y demands that we accept a definition for x.

 

[Milk-Drops]

To which "dinosaurs" are you referring, here? By your word, "dinosaurs," are you referring to the ancestors of birds? Remember, you claim that the ancestors of birds are non-birds, and you call the ancestors of birds, "dinosaurs." So, by all Imeans, please feel welcome to tell us even one characteristic of birds that was not found in their ancestors (which ancestors you assert are non-birds). If you can't even name one (to borrow your term) essential difference between birds and their ancestors, then why do you say that birds' ancestors were non-birds?
​

If you can't tell us even one difference between birds and their (birds') ancestors, then why not just admit the obvious truth that all ancestors of birds are birds, rather than non-birds?

Hey Paul, define what you mean by bird.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I'm calling it a word game because you are not defining ehat [sic] a bird is,​

False. On the contrary, I define a bird as any animal that is not a non-bird. Don't you agree that any and every bird is an animal that is not a non-bird?
​

instead you are putting the burden on the person you are conversing with. ​

How can the elementary fact that no bird is a non-bird, and the fact that no non-bird is a bird, be burdensome on you?
​

You need to define what a nonbird is.​

A non-bird is anything that is not a bird. Some of those things that are not birds are animals, right? So, any animal that is not a bird is a non-bird. Wouldn't you agree? I mean, anyone who can't agree with that is someone who is not amenable to being reasoned with. It's really very clear and simple.
​

You are asking a negative.​

Oh, sorry. Let me try to make it more palatable to you by getting rid of the negativity:

Do you not understand that any animal that is not a bird is a non-bird?
Do you understand that any animal that is not a bird is a non-bird?
​

Your answer is circular then.​

LOL

The question: "Do you understand that any animal that is not a bird is a non-bird?"
My answer to it, which you are calling "circular": "[Yes,] I understand that any animal that is not a bird is a non-bird."

By calling my answer "circular," do you mean to tell me that it is somehow wrong to answer that question in the affirmative? Should I, instead, say "No, I do not understand that any animal that is not a bird is a non-bird"?

Obviously you're not digging the question I asked you, and you're just going to keep stonewalling against it. Here's an even simpler question (for you to also stonewall against and call a "word game"):
​

Every animal that is not a bird is a non-bird: true or false?​

​

If break it down logical your question is "why is x not y, when y=not x?".​

What you wrote, there, doesn't look even remotely like any question I've asked. In fact, it does not even look like any question anybody has asked. In fact, it does not even look like a cognitively meaningful use of the English language at all. "If break it down logical" sounds like Cookie-Monster-speak.
​

You have not established x and y demands that we accept a definition for x.​

Whence are you getting your y, here? I've been talking about x and non-x. Why are you trying to invite y onto the scene? Why can't you deal with what's already here: x and non-x?​