Why do you believe that non-dinosaurs are dinosaurs?
Show us an essential feature that makes non-dinosaurs dinosaurs, and you're out of the box.
[__ Science __ ] Study: Only 37% of American Pastors Have a Biblical Worldview
- Thread starter AIG.com
- Start date
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
By "show I'm wrong," what do you mean if not "cause Barbarian to admit the truth that Barbarian is wrong"? Obviously I cannot force you, against your hardened will, to stop lying for the cause of Darwinism; you're a professional Darwinist, and selling your Darwinistspeak to boobs who mindlessly lap it up is your craft—and you know that by that craft you have your wealth.
Try showing you're right in your claim that non-dinosaurs are dinosaurs. Obviously it's not going to work for you to just keep on repeating your assumption that non-dinosaurs are dinosaurs.
What have you got?
Last edited:
I don't think stating your assumption that non-dinosaurs are dinosaurs in a different way (such as by saying "birds are dinosaurs") is going to work for you.
What have you got?
Last edited:
Sorry, you don't get that bunny trail, either. You asserted that birds are not dinosaurs. And now, you're going to have to support that with at least one significant difference, or we will have to conclude that you are wrong. Your assertion; you need to support it.
Am I to now conclude that you still can't find even one difference?
Or will you step up and show us one?
Here, you're assuming what you proposed to prove. That's very faulty logic. You've assumed that birds are not dinosaurs. If you're right, it should be easy to demonstrate. And yet, you've struggled and failed repeatedly to show us any reason to accept your assumption.
Do you think no one notices? Why not just give us one difference, or admit that you don't have anything?
Remember the TOS? Maybe you don't think accusations of lying is disparagement, but the rest of us do. I don't say anything here that I don't believe to be true, and I'm pretty sure you know that.
But it would be easy to show that my suspicions that you are a Poe, are mistaken. All you have to do is come up with one characteristic by which non-avian dinosaurs and birds differ. But you seem completely unable to do that.
If you'd even explain why you can't or won't come up with anything, it might help you. But instead you're just stonewalling. And that does arouse suspicions.
You asserted that non-dinosaurs are dinosaurs.
And now, you're going to have to support your assertion with at least one, significant characteristic that, according to you, would make non-dinosaurs dinosaurs, or we will have to conclude that you are wrong. Obviously you can't, so obviously you are wrong.
Your assertion; you can't support it.
Difference between what and what? Between non-dinosaurs and dinosaurs?
Sure, false accusations of lying are disparagement. Who would be stupid enough to think that true accusations of lying are disparagement? You?
I don't believe that to be true, professional Darwinist. I know that you've already said that, but I do not believe it is true. So, what's the point of you repeating it? That's right: it's pointless for you to repeat it.
IOW, you expect me to conclude, instead, that you're just really, really stupid, confused, and bumblingly self-defeating? I mean, as I already documented, out of one side of your mouth, you say that "no individual is a population," and then, out of the other side of your mouth, you glaringly contradict yourself by telling me that an individual human is "a living population."
Until you own up to this self-contradiction of yours, why would you expect any rationally-thinking person to conclude that you're not lying? I get that you want both sides of your self-contradiction to be true, but one of them is not true, and can only be false. But that's your problem, professional Darwinist; it is not a problem for rationally-thinking people.
Until you own up to this self-contradiction of yours, why would you expect any rationally-thinking person to conclude that you're not lying? I get that you want both sides of your self-contradiction to be true, but one of them is not true, and can only be false. But that's your problem, professional Darwinist; it is not a problem for rationally-thinking people.
It would be easy to show that my suspicions that you are lying are mistaken. All you have to do is tell me you're as confused and deluded as you make yourself to sound in your posts, and then I could see that you're not just playing dumb for weasel purposes.
Again, where is your "evidence" for the claim you've been making, that non-dinosaurs are dinosaurs? All you have to do is come up with one characteristic that would make non-dinosaurs dinosaurs. Why do you continue to stonewall against this request, Barbarian? You're arousing suspicions. People are wondering. 
Last edited:
You're assuming what you proposed to prove: your claim that non-dinosaurs are dinosaurs.
LOL
I see you're gettin' on your G Dubya Barbarian again: "Is our children learning?"
You made the assertion, up to you to support it. By now, if you're not just a Poe, you're beginning to realize that your assertion can't be supported, and you're trying to get me to do it for you. It's not working. I'm just pointing out that your assumption can't be validated.
Here, you're assuming what you intended to prove. You asserted that birds are not dinosaurs. We'll keep reminding you that you failed to support that assumption with even one fact, until you come up with one, or admit that you can't. I notice that other creationists hereabouts, none of whom have given me any reason to wonder about them, have responded to my question when I tossed it up for grabs. Perhaps they are more cautious than you have been.
Which is what you did. As you know, I don't say anything here that I don't believe to be true. You got angry and rashly accused me of lying. And now you're dealing with the consequences. I won't report you, but I will note what you have done.
But then you also falsely accused me of lying, so your credibility isn't very good here, is it? Incidentally, calling one a "professional Darwinist" is like calling one a "professional capitalist." I've been called both, since I've made money at both. But properly speaking, both are theories that describe real phenomena, and don't really fit as epithets, do they?
Is it possible that English is not your first language? Disparagement does not refer to the truth or falsehood of the statement.
But you can end all of this by just supporting your assumption that birds aren't dinosaurs by citing a significant difference, or by admitting that you don't have any such fact. If you'd even explain why you can't or won't come up with anything, it might help you. But instead you're just stonewalling. And that does arouse suspicions.
But now, you're apparently out of stuff and recycling disparagements. If you ever find a reason to suppose that birds aren't dinosaurs, be sure to come on back and tell us about it, hear?
Last edited:
Since this one has apparently given up on any attempt to justify his notion that birds are not dinosaurs, let's review the apomorphic characters that unite the birds with theropod dinosaurs:
So far, no one has found any significant evidence that separates birds from other dinosaurs.
- Feathers, unique to both avian and non-avian dinosaurs.
- Pneumatized bones, indicating the flow-through respiratory system we find in birds. More efficient than our own.
- Haversian canals in bones, indicating a high metabolism and warm-blooded physiology.
- Biochemistry. Not long ago, a bit of heme (fragment of hemoglobin molecules) was found in the bones of a T rex. It turned out to be immunologically more similar to the heme of birds than it is to the heme of modern reptiles.
- Bipedalism. This has evolved in other lineages, but it's functionally theropodish in birds, unlike the structural functions in marsupials, rodents, lizards, and several species of primates.
- Scutes; highly specialized scales found only on archosaurs including birds and dinosaurs. For a while, after it was shown that bird scutes can be induced to form feathers, it was thought that feathers might have evolved from scutes. It now seems that scutes evolved from feathers, again linking birds with other dinosaurs.
So far, no one has found any significant evidence that separates birds from other dinosaurs.
More to the point, they explain why we see evolution happening in populations today. And they explain things like speciation and the evolution of higher taxa.
And yet you can't show us even one of them that is not verified. You've pretty much conceded everything to Darwin.
False. I have never made the assertion that non-dinosaurs are dinosaurs. That's your assertion; that's an assertion you've been making. It's up to you to support it, but, as you know, you have no hope of supporting your assertion that non-dinosaurs are dinosaurs. Sorry, professional Darwinist, but no one is obligated to you to believe your unsupported, unsupportable, asinine, false assertion that non-dinosaurs are dinosaurs.
I'm not assuming that non-dinosaurs are dinosaurs; you're the one assuming that non-dinosaurs are dinosaurs. Where is your "proof" that non-dinosaurs are dinosaurs?
You asserted that non-dinosaurs are dinosaurs.
Every time you say "birds are dinosaurs"—while, by your word, "birds," you are referring to birds—is a time you are asserting that non-birds are dinosaurs.
We'll keep reminding you that you continue in your failure to support, with even one fact, your assumption that non-dinosaurs are dinosaurs.
Obviously I'm not trying to get you to support my assertion that non-dinosaurs are not dinosaurs.
Here, you're falsely accusing me of falsely accusing you. Is falsely accusing, lying? If you mean something different by "falsely accus[ing]" than you mean by "lying," please tell us what different thing you mean by it. Thank you.
I don't say anything here that I don't believe to be true, and I'm pretty sure you know that, so your credibility isn't very good here, is it?
I notice you've still avoided showing us that, by your nonsense word, "evolution," you are referring to something we see happening in populations today. Will you be able to do that soon?
As you know, professional Darwinist, your Darwinistspeak is not evidence for or against anything. But, the fact that you are so addicted to handing out your Darwinistspeak, instead of evidence, is evidence that you know you have no evidence for anything you say. Sorry, professional Darwinist, but repeatedly handing us your Darwinistspeak, and miscalling your Darwinistspeak, "evidence" for your Darwinistspeak, is all you've been doing throughout this thread, and is never going to do anything for you beyond getting a mindless amen from your fellow Darwinists, like T. E. Smith. Enjoy your meaningless applause from your fellow Darwinist, professional Darwinist.
I notice that you've still avoided showing us that any of the things you have called "Darwin's four points" are cognitively meaningful—you've avoided showing us that they are even points. Will you be able to do that soon?
And, I notice that you've still avoided showing us that you are referring, by your Darwinistspeak nonsense phrases ("speciation" and "the evolution of higher taxa") to anything that happens. But, as you know, you're the same guy who glaringly contradicts yourself by both saying that no individual is a population, and saying that an individual is a population, so, obviously no rationally-thinking person expects you to be able to explain anything, professional Darwinist.
You can't even show us that your claim (that your Darwinistspeak is verified) is verified, professional Darwinist.
You've pretty much conceded everything to anyone who would say that either 1) you're extremely dumb, and incapable of constructing an argument, or 2) you're lying, or 3) both 1 and 2.
Last edited:
More to the point, they explain why we see evolution happening in populations today.
So, for example, if winters get colder, we see alleles for increased size in sparrows increasing in the population. Turns out, as little as one millimeter in the length of a sparrow breastbone can enhance survival in a tough winter. That's what evolution is. Over time, (as even organizations like AIG admit) that can lead to speciation and even higher taxa. They suppose, without any evidence, that there must be a limit somewhere. But no one can show any such limit.
However, you're still stuck trying to show us how birds aren't dinosaurs. So when you figure out what you think the evidence is for your assumption, we can move on. Otherwise, you're struck here. Let us know.
Getting upset and calling names won't help. Hint: showing us an essential difference between birds and non-avian dinosaurs would help. Good luck.
I showed you several times. You keep forgetting, I guess. Remember what biological evolution is? I told you more than once. One more time: "change in allele frequency in a population over time." Or as Darwin put it, "descent with modification." Write it down somewhere, O.K.?
So, for example, if winters get colder, we see alleles for increased size in sparrows increasing in the population. Turns out, as little as one millimeter in the length of a sparrow breastbone can enhance survival in a tough winter. That's what evolution is. Over time, (as even organizations like AIG admit) that can lead to speciation and even higher taxa. They suppose, without any evidence, that there must be a limit somewhere. But no one can show any such limit.
However, you're still stuck trying to show us how birds aren't dinosaurs. So when you figure out what you think the evidence is for your assumption, we can move on. Otherwise, you're struck here. Let us know.
Getting upset and calling names won't help. Hint: showing us an essential difference between birds and non-avian dinosaurs would help. Good luck.
You made the assertion, up to you to support it.
But then you also falsely accused me of lying, so your credibility isn't very good here, is it?
Would be, if you knew for sure. But I think you just lost your temper again and lashed out without considering whether or not you thought it was true. I never say anything here I don't think is true, except for an occasional joke. If I have any doubts about anyone in the conversation, I usually include my WFTH-I to let them know.
It's true. You claimed that birds are not dinosaurs. But so far, you've been unable to show us even one characteristic by which they differ. As you now realize, there are a large number of apomorphic characters shared by birds and non-avian dinosaurs. So until you can come up with something, you're just running on imagination.
But then you also falsely accused me of lying, so your credibility isn't very good here, is it?
No, I'm pointing out that you twice falsely accused me of lying. Not surprisingly, you declined to support those claims as well. We're used to it, now.
Would be, if you knew for sure. But I think you just lost your temper again and lashed out without considering whether or not you thought it was true. I never say anything here I don't think is true, except for an occasional joke. If I have any doubts about anyone in the conversation, I usually include my WFTH-I to let them know.
Might be so. I will assume you're just angry and not trying to be dishonest. But instead of focusing on hurt feelings, how about you just tell us by what characteristics you think birds differ from non-avian dinosaurs? That would be much better and a more Christian thing to do, don't you think so?
Kindly explain to us why you imagine that to accuse someone of lying, who is lying, is to disparage the one who is lying, since you say that it is disparagement to do so.
That's what you assert, professional Darwinist; but so what? It's false. Contrary to your wish, your assertion of it does not cause it to quit being false; your assertion of it does not show it to be true. See, you have not even once showed anything you have told me you showed. Obviously, like any parrot, you can easily sit there all day long, as you've been doing, and assert over and over that you "showed" whatever it is you want to say you "showed". But, what do you imagine you get out of engaging in such pointless parroting as that?
All that is is you showing me that you enjoy chanting your meaningless Darwinistspeak over and over, and erroneously calling your chanting thereof, "showing". One more time: that's merely you chanting your Darwinistspeak, failing to show that your Darwinistspeak is even meaningful, let alone that it is true. Write it down somewhere, O.K.?
False. I never made your unsupported, unsupportable assertion that non-dinosaurs are dinosaurs.
Says you, but you're speaking falsehood.
True. As you just admitted, here, I claimed that non-dinosaurs are not dinosaurs.
False. You're falsely accusing me of having falsely accused you of lying.
I don't believe you're speaking truth, here. Not surprisingly, you have thus far declined to support this claim of yours that you never say anything here you don't think is true. We're used to it, now.
What "evidence" do you have for your claim that you never say anything here you don't think is true? Sorry, professional Darwinist, but merely repeating your claim that you never say anything here you don't think is true is not evidence for your claim that you never say anything here you don't think is true.
And again, professional Darwinist, why is it you continue stonewalling against commenting on your glaring self-contradiction that I have caught you in, where you say both that 1) no individual is a population and that 2) an individual is a population?
Do you always resort to frequently thinking about anger, and about losing of temper, and about lashing out, whenever people don't play along with you at your Darwinistspeak language games? I've noticed you, and T. E. Smith , numerous times bringing up the topic of anger in your posts addressed to me. Do y'all have anger on the brain or something? Why do you choose to so often bring up the topic of anger in your reactions to my posts?
Why did you choose to say "I will assume you're...not trying to be dishonest," and to not say, instead, "I will assume you're...not being dishonest"? Do you imagine that one can be dishonest without trying to be dishonest? That one can be dishonest unintentionally? Please give an example of how, according to your imagination, someone could be dishonest without trying to be dishonest.
Last edited:
Why do we keep bringing up anger? Well... By your logic, why do you keep bringing up dishonesty? Are you dishonest?
Good reader, you. That's just what I asked. Can you not answer that question? Why do you keep bringing up anger?
Because you and Barbarian have been shamelessly lying to, and about me all throughout this thread. (Not to mention, y'all falsely charged me with being angry quite some time before I had ever charged Barbarian with lying.) Not only that, but in your rank hypocrisy, you sit there and accuse me of lying (by calling me "Poe," for instance), while saying I should not accuse you of lying. It's somehow OK for Barbarian to accuse me of lying, while it's wrong for me to accuse Barbarian of lying?
No. You are dishonest.
For example, you told me that a myth can be made of flesh and blood, and then you turned around and lied through your teeth by telling me you did not mean that a myth can be made of flesh and blood when you said that a myth can be made of flesh and blood.
Here is another instance of you lying through your teeth:
Nobody could be stupid enough to say, in sincerity, what you are saying there. For you to prove that you're not lying in saying that would be for you to prove that you're non compos mentis.
Getting angry and accusing others of lying really isn't a very smart thing to do.
Your behavior is very consistent with a Poe. Never called you one, but your behavior is a good imitation if you're not one.
I merely pointed out that it's against the TOS. And yes, calling one a liar is derogatory.
Actually, I didn't. Go back and look.
Since you can't show any such thing, yes, that's wrong. As I said, I prefer to believe that you just got upset and threw it out without thinking about it.
Meantime, you're still refusing to support your claims, even after numerous reminders. I do think you now realize that birds are dinosaurs, since you've abandoned any attempt to support your original claim. Just deal with it and move on. Perhaps you could look at the list of apomorphic characteristics of birds and non-avian dinosaurs and try to come up with a cogent criticism of that data.
Name-calling and anger aren't doing you much good.
Last edited: