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

[Paul E. Michael]

No, what I mean is that I may be using the words and descriptions inaccurately due to my lack of formal education.

You admitted that you use your word, "birds," to refer to non-dinosaurs; we've already documented that fact. So, here, you're telling me you "may be using" your word, "birds," inaccurately by using it to refer to non-dinosaurs, rather than to dinosaurs. Are you trying to change your tune, now? In any case, you only have three options whenever you say the noun, "birds": either 1) you are referring to dinosaurs, or 2) you are referring to non-dinosaurs, or 3) you are not referring at all, and are merely speaking meaninglessly.

So far, by persistently stonewalling against the questions I've been asking him, Barbarian seems to want us to think he has been going with option 3.

Barbarian be like: "I refuse to say that by my word, 'bird,' I am referring to dinosaurs, and, just the same, I refuse to say that by it I am referring to non-dinosaurs. I prefer to keep it a secret, because it would embarrass me to say either way."

Apparently Barbarian considers it easier, and less embarrassing to himself, for him to continue to lead us to think he is merely using his word, "birds," meaninglessly, rather than meaningfully.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I have repeatedly asked Barbarian:

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

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER, STILL>

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

Neither do I. I don't pout, and I've never called you a liar. And, besides, since in all of our disagreement you're wrong and I'm right, obviously I've nothing to pout about. Duh.

Reality is not obligated to meet our definitions. Sorry.

Rationally-thinking people are not obligated to take meaningless slogans like, "Reality is not obligated to meet our definitions," seriously. Sorry.

 

[Barbarian]

So far, by persistently stonewalling against the questions I've been asking him, @Barbarian seems to want us to think he has been going with option 3.

You are dissatisfied with the answers you got, which is not the same thing. I do note that you continue to stonewall and refuse to give us even one significant difference between birds and non-avian dinosaurs. Do you think people don't notice? And you continue to pout and make up things you want me to have said:

Barbarian be like: "I refuse to say that by my word, 'bird,' I am referring to dinosaurs, and, just the same, I refuse to say that by it I am referring to non-dinosaurs. I prefer to keep it a secret, because it would embarrass me to say either way."

As you know, I've pointed out to you that birds are dinosaurs. I've shown you the apomorphic characters that make them so, and linked you to other technical papers documenting the fact. There's really no reason to pretend otherwise.

Birds are dinosaurs. That's just a fact.

By "birds are dinosaurs," do you mean "[dinosaurs] are dinosaurs"?

Let's see why "birds are dinosaurs" is so difficult for you to understand.

Maybe I can make it simpler. Suppose there exists a class of things, Abs, such that all Abs are also Cags. So if I say "Abs are Cags", is it also true that Cags are Cags? Yep, but saying "Abs are Cags" is not the same as saying "Cags are Cags." Do you see why this is true?

If you can see that, then it shouldn't puzzle you that when I point out that birds are dinosaurs, it's not the same as saying that dinosaurs are dinosaurs, It does happen to be true, but that's not what I said. "Birds" and "Abs" are subsets of the sets of "dinosaurs" and "Cags", respectively.

Easier now?

 

[Barbarian]

Neither do I. I don't pout, and I've never called you a liar.

You've done so more than once. And you seem extremely cranky about the way people talk to you here. Accusing anyone of lying is a difficult proposition, absent evidence of intent, and particularly difficult in my case, since I never say anything here I don't believe to be true.

Rationally-thinking people are not obligated to take meaningless slogans like, "Reality is not obligated to meet our definitions," seriously. Sorry.

Just pointing out the obvious to you. I get that the taxonomic consequences of evolution bother you. But they remain, regardless of your feelings.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Suppose there exists a class of things, Abs, such that all Abs are also Cags. So if I say "Abs are Cags", is it also true that Cags are Cags?

1. By your word, "Abs," are you referring to Cags? Yes or No?
2. By your word, "Abs," are you referring to non-Cags? Yes or No?

Yep, but saying "Abs are Cags" is not the same as saying "Cags are Cags."

Obviously those two, different combinations of words are not one and the same combination of words. What's your point?

I'm not asking you, "Which did you intend to write: 'Abs are Cags' or 'Cags are Cags'?" Obviously you wrote what you intended to write. I'm asking you, to which are you referring by your word, "Abs": cags or non-cags?

When you say "Abs are Cags," if you are referring to something by your grammatical subject term, "Abs," then you are referring either to Cags or to non-Cags; together, Cags and non-Cags are exhaustive of all things to which you could be referring by your word, "Abs". If you are referring neither to cags nor to non-cags, then you are not referring at all—you have no referent behind your word, "Abs"; and thus, you are merely using your words ("Abs are Cags") in a cognitively meaningless way, rather than expressing a proposition. IOW, if you're neither referring to Cags, nor referring to non-Cags, then not only are you not expressing/affirming any true proposition, but you're not even expressing/affirming any false proposition.

So, by "Abs are Cags," which do you mean: 1 or 2?

1. "[Cags] are Cags"?
2. "[Non-Cags] are Cags"?

If you mean neither 1 nor 2, then you are speaking meaninglessly when you say "Abs are Cags".

Same story with "birds are dinosaurs". If you mean neither "[non-dinosaurs] are dinosaurs," nor "[dinosaurs] are dinosaurs," then you are merely speaking meaninglessly, rather than expressing any truth or falsehood, when you say "birds are dinosaurs".

"...saying "Abs are Cags" is not the same as saying "Cags are Cags.""

True. But so what?

Saying "Abs are Cags" while referring to Cags by the word, "Abs," is the same as expressing the proposition, "[Cags] are Cags."

Saying "Abs are Cags" while referring to non-Cags by the word, "Abs," is the same as expressing the proposition,
"[Non-Cags] are Cags."

Saying "Abs are Cags" while referring neither to Cags nor to non-Cags by the word, "Abs," is the same as expressing no proposition, whatsoever.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

You've done so more than once.

I've done what more than once? Called you a liar? I have never once, nor more than once, called you a liar. If you'd say otherwise, then go ahead and search the record, and, by all means, quote my exact words wherein you'd say I have called you a liar. Have fun with that.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I never say anything here I don't believe to be true.

You've said this numerous times. So far, you've not proved that it is true that you never say anything here you don't believe to be true. Obviously, neither your ability to say, nor your penchant for saying, "I never say anything here I don't believe to be true," does not prove that you never say anything here you don't believe to be true. So, what "proof" do you have to support what you are saying, here?

I mean, you're not stupid, right? You wouldn't expect to be taken seriously by any rationally-thinking person, were you to say that it is impossible for someone to be lying when they say "I never say anything here I don't believe to be true," right?

 

[Barbarian]

I never say anything here I don't believe to be true.

You've said this numerous times. So far, you've not proved that it is true that you never say anything here you don't believe to be true.

It is nevertheless true. And of course, you've twice accused me of lying with no support whatever for your accusations.

So, what "proof" do you have to support what you are saying, here?

Sorry, that's not how it works. You made the accusations, you support them, or people draw conclusions. Your choice.

I mean, you're not stupid, right?

Well, you know how dumb old barbarians can be. We got it. You made some accusations, but you can't support them. We'll just note that and move on.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Corrigendum:

In my previous post addressed to Barbarian, as excerpted, here, I botched my sentence with a double negative ("neither...nor...does not prove"):

Obviously, neither your ability to say, nor your penchant for saying, "I never say anything here I don't believe to be true," does not prove that you never say anything here you don't believe to be true.

In order to properly express what I meant to express, I should have said, instead:

Obviously, neither your ability to say, nor your penchant for saying, "I never say anything here I don't believe to be true," [proves] that you never say anything here you don't believe to be true.

 

[Barbarian]

In spite of your frequent denials:

As you know, I've already done so, and so, here you are lying to/about me, yet again.

Answer the two questions I've asked you in that post. So far, you've not answered them, and merely continue to shamelessly lie about your failure to answer them.

You know you're lying.

Technically, hominids are primates with vestigial tails which are now internal. Hominids include chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, orangutans, Australopithecines and humans. Hominins are bipedal hominids with human-like postcranial skeletons. Hominins include Australopithcines, H. erectus, and anatomically modern humans.

Our closest living relatives are chimpanzees; we and chimps are more closely related to each other than either of us is related to any other apes.

This classification is supported by genetics, anatomy, and fossil record, as admitted by knowledgeable creationists. Would you like me to show you that?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

It is nevertheless true.

That's what you say. But so what? Your recent post is you advertising that, as you and I both know, you cannot prove it is true; you cannot support your claim that it is true.

I never say anything here I don't believe to be true.

You've already chanted that, numerous times. Again, I don't believe you never say anything here you don't believe to be true. So far, you have given no support, whatever, for this self-praise of yours.

And of course, you've twice accused me of lying with no support whatever for your accusations.

I've never called you a liar. So why did you bring up, to me, the idea of calling you a liar? Here is you bringing up, to me, the idea of calling you a liar:

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

Does someone call you a liar when disagreeing with you? If so, who does?

Sorry, that's not how it works. You made the accusations, you support them, or people draw conclusions. Your choice.

Sorry, that's not how it works. You've repeatedly claimed you never say anything here you don't believe to be true, you support that claim, or people draw conclusions. Your choice.

We got it. You made some accusations, but you can't support them.

We got it. You made the claim that you never say anything here you don't believe to be true, but you can't support it.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

In spite of your frequent denials:

My "frequent denials" of what?

 

[Barbarian]

I've never called you a liar. So why did you bring up, to me, the idea of calling you a liar?

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;

 

[Barbarian]

You hypocrisy will not help you, and is why, along with your self-contradiction, your lying, and your lashing out at me in your anger, you are not being taken seriously.

 

[Barbarian]

To no question I have ever asked. Sorry, Barbarian, but your continual lying about your failure to answer the question I've been asking you is never going to erase the fact of your failure to answer it.

 

[Barbarian]

Here, again, is the very simple question you have not answered, your failure to answer which you are brazenly lying about:

 

[Barbarian]

There's more of that. And yes, I know that unless I give you the answer you want for your questions, you will say I am lying, because I gave you an answer you didn't want.

I think you let your temper get the best of you and you blurt out accusations without thinking about the consequences.

Meantime, you were asked to give us even one significant difference between birds and non-avian dinosaurs. Have you thought of one yet? And if you haven't, isn't that a pretty good clue that you're wrong in supposing that birds are not dinosaurs?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Barbarian, I asked you:

I've never called you a liar. So why did you bring up, to me, the idea of calling you a liar?

So far, you've not answered this question. Instead of answering this question, you are sitting there linking to quotes of me not calling you a liar. So far, you've not quoted me calling you a liar. What point are you trying to make by posting quotes of me, in none of which I never even once have called you a liar?

 

[Barbarian]

So far, you've not answered this question. Instead of answering this question, you are sitting there linking to quotes of me not calling you a liar.

Sorry, the quotes are all up there for everyone to see. No point in denial. And they only have to click on them to see the post. Sometimes, people do things in haste they have reason to regret. It's good to keep that in mind.

I notice you are still unable to show us even one significant difference between birds and non-avian dinosaurs. Have you now decided that birds are indeed dinosaurs? Or are you still trying to find a rational way to deny it?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

There's more of that.

Yeah. I know. Duh. So what? What's your point? That's right: you have no point. And you know that you have no point, which fact you have been advertising by devoting three, or four posts to quoting my words, sans any commentary, from you, to explain why you are quoting those words of mine.

I asked you why—since I've never called you a liar—you brought up, to me, the idea of calling you a liar; and thus far, you've remained entirely silent to this question. Why did you bring up, to me, the idea of calling you a liar?