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

[Paul E. Michael]

Your behavior is very consistent with a Poe. Never called you one, but your behavior is a good imitation if you're not one.

What behavior are you accusing me of imitating? Lying?

 

[Barbarian]

What behavior are you accusing me of imitating?

You're not listening. When you can accurately deal with what I've actually said, we'll pick up on things. I'm now convinced that you are unable to even consider how birds might be different than non-avian dinosaurs. And if you aren't a Poe, I'm thinking that you're fighting your own internal battles projected on the rest of us. I'll just look in here from time to time, to see if anyone else might be willing to take a shot at the issue.

 

[Barbarian]

Meantime, you might find this of interest:

Was Archaeopteryx a Bird or a Dinosaur?​

The Answer: A Little of Both, and Some of Neither​

Was Archaeopteryx a Bird or a Dinosaur?

Archaeopteryx is often described as the first bird, but the truth is more complex. The question is, was Archaeopteryx closer to being a bird than it was to being a dinosaur?

www.thoughtco.com

 

[Paul E. Michael]

When you can accurately deal with what I've actually said, we'll pick up on things.

What you've actually said is "birds are dinosaurs":

Since, as you have learned, birds are dinosaurs, just as dogs are mammals, it shouldn't be that hard to grasp. I'm puzzled as to why you don't get it.

When you can stop cowering from my questions about what (if anything) you mean when you chant "birds are dinosaurs", and when you have answered them, we'll pick up on things.

1. When you say "birds are dinosaurs", do you mean "[dinosaurs] are dinosaurs"? Yes or No?
2. When you say "birds are dinosaurs", do you mean "[non-dinosaurs] are dinosaurs"? Yes or No?

I'm puzzled as to why you, a professional "biologist," continually refuse to answer these two, elementary questions about your use of your word, "birds". It's no tax on me, your glaring failure at taxonomy.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Barbarian, when I asked your fellow Darwinist, T. E. Smith, about his use of his word, "birds,"--

And, when you say "a population of dinosaurs became birds", by your word "birds," either 1) you are referring to non-dinosaurs, or 2) you are referring to dinosaurs. Which of these two things do you mean:

1. "a population of [non-birds] became [non-dinosaurs]"?
2. "a population of [non-birds] became [dinosaurs]"?

--he was able to answer the question:

Paul E. Michael I missed that question. A population of non-birds became non-dinosaurs, sure, if that's the bizarre way you want to put it. So what?

If he can answer that question about his use of his word, "birds," then why can't you answer the same question about your use of your word, "birds"?

(I know why you can't. ;)

 

[T. E. Smith]

Barbarian, when I asked your fellow Darwinist, T. E. Smith, about his use of his word, "birds,"--


--he was able to answer the question:

If he can answer that question about his use of his word, "birds," then why can't you answer the same question about your use of your word, "birds"?

(I know why you can't. ;)

By the way, my knowledge of evolution is very limited and I should not be taken as an expert.

 

[Barbarian]

If he can answer that question about his use of his word, "birds," then why can't you answer the same question about your use of your word, "birds"?

Sorry, as you learned, the definition of bird is just not what you wanted to be.

It’s official: birds are literally dinosaurs. Here’s how we know

It’s official: birds are literally dinosaurs. Here’s how we know

Drop any preconceptions of dinosaurs, which are likely reptile-centric and warped by Spielberg; the real dinosaurs are outside your window. Yes, birds are dinosaurs. Shaun Hurrell interviews dinosaur evolution expert Professor Roger Benson to unearth the latest research on the origin of birds.

www.birdlife.org

​

This is why you keep refusing to say what the differences are. It is, as you now realize, like asking the difference between dogs and mammals.

This might help clear up some of your confusion...

Yes, birds are reptiles, but let me explain a bit. Biologists use two types of classification systems, the Linnaean and the phylogenetic. The Linnaean system was developed by Carolus Linnaeus in the 1730's. In the Linnaean system, organisms are grouped by characteristics regardless of their ancestry. So a reptile is an animal that is ectothermic and has scales, and birds would not be reptiles. In the 1940's, a biologist named Willi Hennig came up with another classification system that he called phylogenetics. In this system, organisms are grouped only by their ancestry, and characteristics are only used to discover the ancestry. So a reptile is any animal descended from the original group called reptiles. Both birds and mammals share ancestors sometimes referred to as reptile-like animals (Reptiliomorpha), but it's not very common for people to talk about mammals as reptiles. The situation is different for birds. Birds are part of the group Diapsida, which also includes all other living reptiles (crocodilians, turtles, tuataras, and squamates (mostly snakes and lizards)).


Usually what people mean when they say birds are reptiles is that birds are more closely related to reptiles than anything else, and this is true in a way, but there are many types of reptiles. Birds are most closely related to crocodiles. To understand this, we should look at some history. The first groups of reptile-like animals evolved about 320 million years ago. About 40 million years later, (very quickly by geologic standards), a group called therapsids branched off, which eventually became modern mammals. Other groups of reptiles split off over the next 120 million years, and one branch called the archosaurs were very successful.


Archosaurs were the ancestors of dinosaurs and crocodiles, but they were only distantly related to modern snakes, lizards, and turtles, groups that had split off at different times. Then, 65 million years ago there was a massive extinction event, and all dinosaurs were killed except for a single group of feathered dinosaurs. These evolved over the next 65 million years into modern birds. So birds aren't just closely related to dinosaurs, they really are dinosaurs! And they are most closely related to crocodiles, which also came from archosaurs. This is what most people mean when they say that birds are reptiles, although technically, according to the phylogenetic system, birds, reptiles, and mammals all share a reptile-like ancestor.

Birds, Dinosaurs, and Reptiles | Ask A Biologist

Yes, birds are reptiles, but let me explain a bit. Biologists use two types of classification systems, the Linnaean and the phylogenetic. The Linnaean system was developed by Carolus Linnaeus in the 1730's. In the Linnaean system, organisms are grouped by characteristics regardless of their...

askabiologist.asu.edu

And yes, since mammals evolved from a different branch of reptiles, that means mammals are also therapsids. (the reptiles from which mammals evolved) Would you like to know how we know that?

 

[Barbarian]

Here's a cladogram of the amniotes, to help you understand why you can't answer my questions:

There are three great groups of reptiles;

the synapisids, which include mammals and the reptiles from which they evolved
the anapsids (mostly turtles and their extinct relatives)
the diapsids broken into the Lepidisaura (lizards and snakes) and the Archosaura (crocodiles, dinosaurs, and birds)

What seems to have you riled up is that there are no reliable indices for separating birds from non-avian dinosaurs. For a while, we were pretty sure that a specific form of ankle bone in birds was unique to their clade. And then they found it in some dromaeosaurs. Reality might be frustrating for you, but it has the virtue of being real.

Learn to accommodate it.

 

[Barbarian]

Synapsid cladogram:

https://biocyclopedia.com/index/general_zoology/images/images22/fig003.jpg

 

[Barbarian]

And, given the anatomical and fossil data, it's no surprise that scientists have now found, in the genetic data...

If you really want to know about birds, you have to consider the crocodile.

That point was driven home this week with the release of the genomes of 45 bird species, which reassigned some perches on the avian evolutionary tree and included some seemingly odd bedfellows.

Down near the roots of that avian tree lies a mysterious ancestor that was decidedly more terrestrial and terrifying than the finch or the wren.

The archosaur, or so-called “ruling reptile,” roamed Earth about 250 million years ago, and “was something that was very reptilian, very early-dinosaur-ish, and then it evolved into modern-day crocodiles and birds,” said David Haussler, Scientific Director of the UC Santa Cruz Genomics Institute, a coauthor of several studies that came out of the avian genomics effort.

“So it really is the proper dinosaur ancestor,” Haussler said. “And birds and crocodiles are the proper descendants of this ancestor.”

When it comes to DNA, crocodiles and birds flock together

If you really want to know about birds, you have to consider the crocodile.

www.latimes.com

 

[Barbarian]

By the way, my knowledge of evolution is very limited and I should not be taken as an expert.

It's such a simple idea. As Huxley remarked, when he read Darwin's book; "how stupid of me not to realize it!" But it is a very complex process, due to the creativity of our God Who built endless possibilities into the universe He made for us. So Darwin remarked at the end of his book:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

"...endless forms most beautiful..." Indeed. One learns just how great and wise the Creator is, when one takes a closer look. If you have an interest, you might want to read Sean Carroll's book which has Darwin's phrase as a title. Evolutionary development has made a great deal of evolutionary history clear for us.

Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo: Carroll, Sean B.: 9780393327793: Amazon.com: Books

Buy Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo on Amazon.com ✓ FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders

www.amazon.com

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Sorry, as you learned, the definition of bird is just not what you wanted to be.

"the definition of bird"?

I don't know what to make of your phrase. Do you usually talk that way, or hear other people talk that way? Why do you not precede your word, "bird," with an article? Instead of saying, "the definition of a bird," or "the definition of the bird," or "the definition of birds," or "the definition of the word, 'bird'," you have chosen to speak in the manner people often speak when they are talking about food: "We ate chicken for supper". You seem to be using your word, "bird," as a mass noun, here, but I cannot tell what (if anything) you are trying to signify by doing so. Can you?

And, what "definition" are you talking about? You continue in your refusal to answer the elementary questions I've been asking you about your use of your word, "birds":

1. By "birds are dinosaurs," do you mean "[dinosaurs] are dinosaurs"? Yes or No?
2. By "birds are dinosaurs," do you mean "[non-dinosaurs] are dinosaurs"? Yes or No?

You've persistently stonewalled against defining anything; you've given no definition. Every thing is either a dinosaur, or it is not a dinosaur (in which case, it is a non-dinosaur). If you even have (and I do not assume you do have) a referent behind your word, "birds," so far you've given no definition of it. I would love it if you actually would define whatever (if anything) you are referring to by your word, "birds," but you've made it clear that you are adamant against doing so. Like I've said, I know why you won't touch that with a ten-foot pole; I don't assume you're as stupid as you seem to want people to think you are, and so, you know that it must needs only backfire right into your proud face, were you to answer these, two, elementary questions I've been asking you. So, because of your calculation, you prefer to embarrass yourself by sitting there stone silent against these questions which even children would find easy to answer.

Also, since you've obviously never thought about the matter, you might enjoy learning that, without exception, to define is to assert. So, whenever professional Darwinists pontificate to their marks that professional Darwinists have defined, or given a definition, that's the professional Darwinists admitting that they have asserted/made an assertion. Yet, professional Darwinists (whether out of dullness and lack of reflection, or out of disingenuousness) frequently wax hypocritical by trying to get their marks to believe that professional Darwinists are somehow absolved from asserting/making assertions. And, every instance of assertion, without exception, is, because it is an assertion, an instance of asserting either a truth or a falsehood; so, Barbarian, if you do ever engage in defining, then, whether you like it or not, you're therein engaging in asserting/making an assertion. And, of course, you'll never get any free pass to be taken seriously by rationally-thinking people when you demand others to "support" assertions, while you sit there making assertions, and saying, in effect, "I am under no obligation to support any assertions," or "I have made no assertions." For you to do that is nothing other than rank hypocrisy.

Until you have answered these, two, elementary questions I've been asking you about your use of your word, "birds," I have no way to learn what (if anything) you mean when you say, "birds are dinosaurs". Not knowing that you mean something by that—much less, what (if anything) you mean by it—I am in no position to be able to respond to you by saying either, "Oh, yes, Barbarian, that's true; birds are dinosaurs," or "No, Barbarian, that's false; birds are not dinosaurs." So, whether you like it or not, the ball is still in your court, but you've shot yourself in the foot, so that, as you and I both know, you ain't gonna be making a play anytime soon.

 

[T. E. Smith]

It's such a simple idea. As Huxley remarked, when he read Darwin's book; "how stupid of me not to realize it!" But it is a very complex process, due to the creativity of our God Who built endless possibilities into the universe He made for us. So Darwin remarked at the end of his book:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

"...endless forms most beautiful..." Indeed. One learns just how great and wise the Creator is, when one takes a closer look. If you have an interest, you might want to read Sean Carroll's book which has Darwin's phrase as a title. Evolutionary development has made a great deal of evolutionary history clear for us.

Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo: Carroll, Sean B.: 9780393327793: Amazon.com: Books

Buy Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo on Amazon.com ✓ FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders

www.amazon.com

The end of Darwin's book is very beautiful. Honestly one of the most well-written sections of any English book.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

By the way, my knowledge of evolution is very limited and I should not be taken as an expert.

You're an expert on whether you are referring to dinosaurs or to non-dinosaurs when you choose to say "birds", though, right? I mean, who could be more expert than you about that particular question?

I'll give it to you that you, being a lay Darwinist, are obviously not as expert in shamelessly employing tactics of obfuscation, weaselly language games, and stonewalling, as professional Darwinists seem to be, since you, at least, actually answered the question I asked you about your use of your word, "birds". You freely admitted that, by your word, "birds," you are referring to non-dinosaurs, rather than to dinosaurs. I'm not even going to assume that you'd have done differently, had you "been on your guard," so to speak.

Barbarian, on the other hand, being a professional Darwinist, has not admitted that, by his word, "birds," he is referring to non-dinosaurs; nor has he admitted that, by his word, "birds," he is referring to dinosaurs. He has chosen, instead, to continually stonewall against my question about his use of his word, "birds." So, as it stands, you, being a lay Darwinist, cannot learn from Barbarian, a professional Darwinist, whether, as a Darwinist, you ought to be referring to non-dinosaurs, or, instead, to dinosaurs, by your word, "birds". Barbarian's refusal to answer my question about his use of his word, "birds," is his refusal to instruct even you (his fellow Darwinist) as to which you should be referring to by your word, "birds": dinosaurs or non-dinosaurs. Barbarian is obviously fine, then, with you continuing your use of your word, "birds," to refer to non-dinosaurs, rather than to dinosaurs. His reticence, for aught we know, may as well be taken as his approval of you, his fellow Darwinist, continuing with that usage. Right?

 

[T. E. Smith]

You're an expert on whether you are referring to dinosaurs or to non-dinosaurs when you choose to say "birds", though, right? I mean, who could be more expert than you about that particular question?

I'll give it to you that you, being a lay Darwinist, are obviously not as expert in shamelessly employing tactics of obfuscation, weaselly language games, and stonewalling, as professional Darwinists seem to be, since you, at least, actually answered the question I asked you about your use of your word, "birds". You freely admitted that, by your word, "birds," you are referring to non-dinosaurs, rather than to dinosaurs. I'm not even going to assume that you'd have done differently, had you "been on your guard," so to speak.

Barbarian, on the other hand, being a professional Darwinist, has not admitted that, by his word, "birds," he is referring to non-dinosaurs; nor has he admitted that, by his word, "birds," he is referring to dinosaurs. He has chosen, instead, to continually stonewall against my question about his use of his word, "birds." So, as it stands, you, being a lay Darwinist, cannot learn from Barbarian, a professional Darwinist, whether, as a Darwinist, you ought to be referring to non-dinosaurs, or, instead, to dinosaurs, by your word, "birds". Barbarian's refusal to answer my question about his use of his word, "birds," is his refusal to instruct even you (his fellow Darwinist) as to which you should be referring to by your word, "birds": dinosaurs or non-dinosaurs. Barbarian is obviously fine, then, with you continuing your use of your word, "birds," to refer to non-dinosaurs, rather than to dinosaurs. His reticence, for aught we know, may as well be taken as his approval of you, his fellow Darwinist, continuing with that usage. Right?

Who could be more of an expert? Why, a formally trained evolutionist of course. I've only read a bunch of books, no college.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

due to the creativity of our God

I don't imagine that is going to be palatable to T. E. Smith.

As far apart as you and I obviously are on so much, I can't help but harbor a little hope that, somehow, we may have a thing or two in common in some area(s) of importance. Well, in particular, in some other area(s) of (for lack of a better term) "God talk".

It may sound silly, but, for my part, I sometimes like to think of at least some of the various worldview debates I get involved in with others in light of those cartoons with the sheepdog with the mop-top, and the Wile E. Coyote lookalike, in their respective "days at the office". I'm the sheepdog, and my wrong-headed debate opponent is the hapless, hopeless wolf who just cannot prevail, no matter what he tries. Of course, to hear my opponent tell it, it's the other way around, so that he/she is the sheepdog, and I'm the wolf. But, at the end of their respective, concurrent shifts, whenever they meet to punch out at the timeclock, they can somehow, pleasantly, amicably shake hands and say to each other, "Goodbye, Sam"/ "Goodbye, Ralph". (Of course, you, Barbarian, seem to give the impression of being such a barbarian that you've probably never even heard of, much less watched, much less been amused by such cartoons.)

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Who could be more of an expert? Why, a formally trained evolutionist of course.

Someone who is not you is/can be more of an expert than you are regarding how you choose to use the words you choose to use?

I've only read a bunch of books, no college.

Hope this does not come through sounding snide, because I've no ill sentiment behind it, but, do I seem to you like I would care a whit whether or not someone has "gone to college"? I'm not altogether opposed to it. I have no doubt that in some ways it can be quite beneficial. But, the way I see it, it could never be beneficial to anybody who cannot be autodidactic. "Only reading a bunch of books" suits me just fine. I mean, I'm free to receive whatever seems good and rational to me from the intellectual output of anybody, whether or not they've been "formally trained". And, just the same, I'm free to reject, criticize, and ridicule whatever seems bad and irrational to me, even if it's been handed to me by the "formally trained".

Your phrase, "a formally trained evolutionist," puzzles me. Well, it puzzles me that you are willing to say it. In your thinking, you're obviously not in exactly the same place/on the same page as most of the evolutionists I've seen. For, time and again, I've seen evolutionists complain about people saying "evolutionist," and "evolutionism." They'll say things like, "I'm not an 'evolutionist'! I'm just someone who accepts science," always putting sneer quotes around the word, "evolution," of course. Or, they'll say, "Evolution is not an ism!" One guy said to me something like, "Evolution is not an ism. I'm just someone who accepts evolution; I'm not an ist. An ism is a religion, and an ist is someone who is religious." I marveled at the glaring case of cognitive dissonance on display, there, seeing as that same guy also was proud to call himself "atheist".

 

[T. E. Smith]

Someone who is not you is/can be more of an expert than you are regarding how you choose to use the words you choose to use?

Hope this does not come through sounding snide, because I've no ill sentiment behind it, but, do I seem to you like I would care a whit whether or not someone has "gone to college"? I'm not altogether opposed to it. I have no doubt that in some ways it can be quite beneficial. But, the way I see it, it could never be beneficial to anybody who cannot be autodidactic. "Only reading a bunch of books" suits me just fine. I mean, I'm free to receive whatever seems good and rational to me from the intellectual output of anybody, whether or not they've been "formally trained". And, just the same, I'm free to reject, criticize, and ridicule whatever seems bad and irrational to me, even if it's been handed to me by the "formally trained".

Your phrase, "a formally trained evolutionist," puzzles me. Well, it puzzles me that you are willing to say it. In your thinking, you're obviously not in exactly the same place/on the same page as most of the evolutionists I've seen. For, time and again, I've seen evolutionists complain about people saying "evolutionist," and "evolutionism." They'll say things like, "I'm not an 'evolutionist'! I'm just someone who accepts science," always putting sneer quotes around the word, "evolution," of course. Or, they'll say, "Evolution is not an ism!" One guy said to me something like, "Evolution is not an ism. I'm just someone who accepts evolution; I'm not an ist. An ism is a religion, and an ist is someone who is religious." I marveled at the glaring case of cognitive dissonance on display, there, seeing as that same guy also was proud to call himself "atheist".

No, what I mean is that I may be using the words and descriptions inaccurately due to my lack of formal education. Now then I understand what that atheist is saying because a lot of Christians do consider atheism and even evolutionism to be religions. Needless to say they are not. But I am happy to call myself an evolutionist and to say I hold to Darwinism, because I do.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't imagine that is going to be palatable to @T. E. Smith.

Perhaps not. But when he disagrees with me, he doesn't pout and call me a liar.

It may sound silly, but, for my part, I sometimes like to think of at least some of the various worldview debates I get involved in with others in light of those cartoons with the sheepdog with the mop-top, and the Wile E. Coyote lookalike, in their respective "days at the office". I'm the sheepdog

Perhaps a cartoon version of reality is precisely what's causing your problems. Have you figured out why you think birds are not dinosaurs yet? Got some facts to support your feelings?

Tell us about those facts. Or, if you'd rather, explain why that large list of apomorphic characters common to birds and non-avian dinosaurs don't show them to be in an outgroup with respect to other amniotes.

Of course, you, Barbarian, seem to give the impression of being such a barbarian that you've probably never even heard of, much less watched, much less been amused by such cartoons.

Warner Bros. cartoons were my favorite. But being the child of a father who in his teens had to make his own way during the depression as an orphan, I was raised to separate whimsy from reality.

How I got this moniker is rather ironic. I was a long time ago, in the days of usenet, arguing with a rather aggressive atheist, who called me a liar, misrepresented my statements, and finally told me that I just had no idea how "barbaric" Christianity is. I replied "call me the barbarian, then." Others on the board thought it was funny, and the name stuck. He wasn't amused, though.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't know what to make of your phrase. Do you usually talk that way, or hear other people talk that way? Why do you not precede your word, "bird," with an article? Instead of saying, "the definition of a bird," or "the definition of the bird," or "the definition of birds," or "the definition of the word, 'bird',"

Oh, you'd like a link...

Birds are feathered theropod dinosaurs and constitute the only known living dinosaurs. Likewise, birds are considered reptiles in the modern cladistic sense of the term, and their closest living relatives are the crocodilians. Birds are descendants of the primitive avialans (whose members include Archaeopteryx) which first appeared about 160 million years ago (mya) in China. According to DNA evidence, modern birds (Neornithes) evolved in the Middle to Late Cretaceous, and diversified dramatically around the time of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 mya, which killed off the pterosaurs and all non-avian dinosaurs.

Bird - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

By "birds are dinosaurs," do you mean "[dinosaurs] are dinosaurs"? Yes or No?

I mean birds are avian dinosaurs of a particular lineage. There were other flying dinosaurs close to the lineage that led to birds, but they were not birds. Archaeopteryx, for example, or Microraptor. Much as there were bipedal hominids at one time that were not of the lineage that led to anatomically modern humans. Those hominids were more or less human-like, but not of our own hominin lineage.

Like I've said, I know why you won't touch that with a ten-foot pole; I don't assume you're as stupid as you seem to want people to think you are, and so, you know that it must needs only backfire right into your proud face, were you to answer these, two, elementary questions I've been asking you. So, because of your calculation, you prefer to embarrass yourself by sitting there stone silent against these questions which even children would find easy to answer.

As you have learned, there is are no significant differences between birds and non-avian dinosaurs such as would put them in different groups. There were even flying dinosaurs other than the lineage that led to birds. This is why you have repeatedly refused to give us even one such difference.

When we were children we were told that the class Aves were amniotes that had feathers, a four-chambered heart, a special flow-through breathing system, and were warm-blooded. These things distinguished them from reptiles, including dinosaurs. However, subsequent evidence shows that all of those were found in at least the theropod dinosaur ancestors of birds.

As a child I could give you a nice, discrete definition of "bird" that would exclude dinosaurs. But now, with all that evidence since then...

Reality is not obligated to meet our definitions. Sorry.