[__ Science __ ] Study: Only 37% of American Pastors Have a Biblical Worldview

[T. E. Smith]

Paul E. Michael I have stopped responding to you not because you've stumped me, but rather because this conversation has gotten nowhere and you are not listening. So I'm done discussing it.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Paul E. Michael I have stopped responding to you not because you've stumped me, but rather because this conversation has gotten nowhere and you are not listening. So I'm done discussing it.

Thank you for responding to me to tell me you've stopped responding to me.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

There are some differences.

Between dinosaurs and non-dinosaurs? Um, yeah. Duh.

 

[Barbarian]

There are some differences between birds and dinosaurs.

Between dinosaurs and non-dinosaurs? Um, yeah. Duh.

But you don't know what they are. And that is what has been tying you down in these discussions. You don't know the difference between a non-avian dinosaur and a bird.

 

[Barbarian]

Paul E. Michael I have stopped responding to you not because you've stumped me, but rather because this conversation has gotten nowhere and you are not listening. So I'm done discussing it.

I think it's worth going on. In spite of all the frustration going on here, it's worth putting the information up on the board, if for nothing more then people observing.

And I'm a very patient guy.

 

[Barbarian]

To the best of my recollection, I have never used your word, "Darwinspeak". All you've done in this forum is continually chant your Darwinistspeak, because you have no argument to offer.

As you know realize populations evolve, not individuals.

IOW, "As you learned, [living things] don't evolve."

Populations are collections of living things. They evolve.

IOW, "(No [living thing] ever evolved into a [living thing], either)"

IOW, "but [individuals] did evolve into [individuals]."

No. Populations evolved into other populations. I can see you're trying here. And maybe you're getting closer to the reality of evolution.

IOW, "[Individuals] are populations of individuals and [individuals] are populations of individuals"

No. No individual is a population.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

There are some differences between birds and dinosaurs.

IOW, "There are some differences between [non-dinosaurs] and dinosaurs."

You don't know the difference between a non-avian dinosaur and a bird.

You mean the difference between a dinosaur and a non-dinosaur?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

No individual is a population.

IOW, "No [animal] is a [species]."

And, according to you, a fishbowl in which only one goldfish lives houses a goldfish population of 0, since, according to you, a goldfish is not a population.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Populations are collections of living things.

Which do you mean?

1. "[Non-living things] are collections of living things?"
2. "[Living things] are collections of living things?"

Is a population a living thing? Yes or No?

Is a collection of living things a living thing? Yes or No?

They evolve.

Which do you mean?

1. "[Living things] evolve."
2. "[Non-living things] evolve."

When Darwinists say "Life evolved," which do you mean: 1 or 2?

1. "[Living things] evolved."
2. "[Non-living things] evolved."

And what would "NON-LIVING things evolved" have to do with BIOlogy or ZOology?

 

[Barbarian]

Is a population a living thing? Yes or No?

Well, let's take a look. Are populations alive? Yes. They are. Are populations things? Well, yes, they are.

But they aren't individuals. And this is what keeps tripping you up. You're having trouble with the concept that evolution is, by definition, a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. As you learned, individuals don't evolve, but populations do. Observably so. And as I pointed out, you seem to be confusing evolution (remember the definition) with consequences of evolution like common descent.

After a bad storm on a ranch, if the foreman asks his hands, "did the herd survive?" Is he talking about individuals living or the herd living? When you figure this out, you will have your answers. Hint: there is an entire discipline called "population genetics."

When Darwinists say "Life evolved," which do you mean: 1 or 2?

Darwinists say "life evolves." I think you're confusing abiogenesis (which is not evolution as biologists consider it) with evolution. Since "evolution" merely means "change" (Darwin didn't care for the term, preferring "descent with modificiation) you might want to use Darwin's term to avoid further confusion.

And what would "NON-LIVING things evolved" have to do with BIOlogy or ZOology?

There is, for example, "stellar evolution". the formation of stars which is again change, but not descent with modification. And it has nothing whatever to do with biology. And it's a good thing for you to remember.

 

[Barbarian]

And, according to you, a fishbowl in which only one goldfish lives houses a goldfish population of 0, since, according to you, a goldfish is not a population.

No, that's wrong. On a towboat, a crew is a group of people who work the boat. It is possible, to have only one person aboard in port. He is both an individual and the crew at that moment, by law and usage. So a population of one is indeed possible and sometimes happens. But that population won't evolve, absent immigration (unless it happens to be a pregnant female). Do you see why?

 

[Barbarian]

IOW, "There are some differences between [non-dinosaurs] and dinosaurs."

No. I said there are some differences between birds and non-avian dinosaurs. Like the differences between humans and non-human mammals. By now, since you've conceded that you can't give us any essential differences between birds and non-avian dinosaurs, I suppose you've realized that they are a group with themselves.

You mean the difference between a dinosaur and a non-dinosaur?

Like the difference between a mammal and a non-mammal. But that wouldn't include humans as non-mammals, would it?

Is it getting clearer for you?

 

[T. E. Smith]

Thank you for responding to me to tell me you've stopped responding to me.

And in my response, I intentionally answered none of your objections. Goodbye.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Well, let's take a look. Are populations alive? Yes. They are. Are populations things? Well, yes, they are.

But they aren't individuals.

So, a population is a living thing, but not an organism? A population is a living non-organism?

First, it's important to remember that organisms don't evolve; populations do.

How can something live that is not an organism?

 

[Barbarian]

So, a population is a living thing,

If you can believe that old rancher, yep. Common usage in English. We consider groups of organisms to be alive.

but not an organism?

One of your issues is not being clear in your own mind, what "alive" means. Are the cells in your body alive? If so, are the population of cells that make up you, alive? It gets dicer with hive insects, colonial animals, sponges, etc. Would you like to learn about those things?

Again, you've been tripped up by essentialism. In biology, there's at least one exception to every truism, including this one.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

If you can believe that old rancher, yep. Common usage in English. We consider groups of organisms to be alive.

One of your issues is not being clear in your own mind, what "alive" means. Are the cells in your body alive? If so, are the population of cells that make up you, alive? It gets dicer with hive insects, colonial animals, sponges, etc. Would you like to learn about those things?

Again, you've been tripped up by essentialism. In biology, there's at least one exception to every truism, including this one.

Is a population an organism? Yes or No?

 

[T. E. Smith]

Is a population an organism? Yes or No?

In this context, we want to define population as "the total of individuals occupying an area or making up a whole." So to answer your question, we can just substitute organisms for individuals:

A population is the total of organisms occupying an area or making up a whole.

For example, "the dinosaur population" would be all the dinosaurs, whether in the whole world or in a specific area. "America's owl population" would be the total of all owls living in America.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Are the cells in your body alive? If so, are the population of cells that make up you, alive?

"are the population"??

Not "is the population"?

Do you really not know how to get the grammatical number of your predicate to agree with the number of your subject? Or, are you just playing dumb about the elementary grammatical error you have made, there?

Incorrect use of 'are': "Are the population of cells alive?"

 Correct use of 'is': "Is the population of cells alive?"

Incorrect use of 'is': "Is the cells alive?"

Correct use of 'are': "Are the cells alive?"

Seriously, why can you not get something that basic, correct?

"Is our children learning?" - G. W. Barbarian

Is a population an organism? Yes or No?

You: <NO ANSWER>

 

[Paul E. Michael]

So to answer your question, we can just substitute organisms for individuals:

Here, you're not answering any question I've asked. Are you talking to yourself again?

Here's the question I asked: "Is a population an organism? Yes or No?"

So far, you've not answered it.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

No. I said there are some differences between birds and non-avian dinosaurs.

IOW, "I said there are some differences between [non-dinosaurs] and non-avian dinosaurs."

If, by your word, "birds," you're referring to dinosaurs, then by your word, "birds," you are not referring to birds, since birds are not dinosaurs; since birds are non-dinosaurs; since dinosaurs are not birds; since dinosaurs are non-birds. Just like how, if, by the phrase, "the Statue of Liberty," one is referring to the Space Needle, then by the phrase, "the Stature of Liberty," he/she is not referring to the Statue of Liberty.

Why, Barbarian, are you so addicted to using your word, "birds," to refer to non-birds? Why not also go about using the word, "squares," to refer to pentagons?