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

[Barbarian]

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.

Anyone who doubts what you were doing there can just click on them and see the entire post. This is why I suggested that it's a good idea to step back and think a bit before just letting temper take over.

As I said, I won't turn you in, but others might. Use some caution. Have you decided if you're going to answer the question? Are there any significant differences between birds and non-avian dinosaurs? You see very reluctant to answer. If you can't find any, just say so.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Sorry, the quotes are all up there for everyone to see. No point in denial.

So what if the quotes are all up there for everyone to see? So far, you've not told us what point you are trying to make by highlighting them. Are you accusing me of something, and trying to say that these quotes show me doing some particular thing? If so, of what are you accusing me? If so, of what, exactly, are these quotes you've highlighted supposed to be showing me doing? If you're trying to accuse me of something, then let's hear your accusation, Barbarian.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

As I said, I won't turn you in, but others might. Use some caution.

Turn me in for what, exactly? What would be your accusation against me? Hopefully you won't be accusing me of having called you a liar, since 1) I've never called you a liar, and since 2) you would, ipso facto, not be able to use documentation of my words to support an accusation that I've called you a liar.

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

I won't turn you in for calling me a fool, but others might. Use some caution.

 

[Barbarian]

Turn me in for what, exactly? What would be your accusation against me? Hopefully you won't be accusing me of having called you a liar, since 1) I've never called you a liar,

Your behavior is well-documented. I showed you some of it. No point in denying anything. Have you found anything at all that supports your belief that birds are not dinosaurs? Or are you still searching? Let us know if you find anything.

 

[Barbarian]

Big meat-eating dinosaurs had a complex system of air sacs similar to the setup in today's birds, according to an investigation led by Patrick O'Connor of Ohio University. The lungs of theropod dinosaurs -- carnivores that walked on two legs and had bird-like feet -- likely pumped air into hollow sacs in their skeletons, as is the case in birds.

A bird's air sacs are distributed throughout its body. The lungs never change shape, Claessens explained. Instead, fresh air is constantly being drawn from the air sacs through the lungs, in both directions, creating a very efficient respiration system.

There is also evidence that the dinosaur's rib cage was adapted for this type of system, Claessens told LiveScience.

The superior breathing apparatus, along with their complex hearts, increases bird metabolism and makes them warm-blooded, meaning they generate internal heat that controls their body temperature.

Dinosaurs Breathed Like Birds

New evidence points to internal air sacs and cavities in the giant predators' bones.

www.livescience.com

Proceedings of the Royal Society - Biological Sciences
Published:07 November 2007

Avian-like breathing mechanics in maniraptoran dinosaurs​

Abstract​

In 1868 Thomas Huxley first proposed that dinosaurs were the direct ancestors of birds and subsequent analyses have identified a suite of ‘avian’ characteristics in theropod dinosaurs. Ossified uncinate processes are found in most species of extant birds and also occur in extinct non-avian maniraptoran dinosaurs. Their presence in these dinosaurs represents another morphological character linking them to Aves, and further supports the presence of an avian-like air-sac respiratory system in theropod dinosaurs, prior to the evolution of flight. Here we report a phylogenetic analysis of the presence of uncinate processes in Aves and non-avian maniraptoran dinosaurs indicating that these were homologous structures. Furthermore, recent work on Canada geese has demonstrated that uncinate processes are integral to the mechanics of avian ventilation, facilitating both inspiration and expiration. In extant birds, uncinate processes function to increase the mechanical advantage for movements of the ribs and sternum during respiration. Our study presents a mechanism whereby uncinate processes, in conjunction with lateral and ventral movements of the sternum and gastral basket, affected avian-like breathing mechanics in extinct non-avian maniraptoran dinosaurs.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Your behavior is well-documented. I showed you some of it. No point in denying anything. Have you found anything at all that supports your belief that birds are not dinosaurs? Or are you still searching? Let us know if you find anything.

Your behavior is well-documented. I showed you some of it. No point in denying anything. Have you found anything at all that supports your belief that non-dinosaurs are dinosaurs? Or are you still searching? Let us know if you find anything.

 

[Barbarian]

Have you found anything at all that supports your belief that non-dinosaurs are dinosaurs?

As you now realize, there is abundant evidence to show that birds are dinosaurs. But no one has said that "non-dinosaurs" are dinosaurs. There's really no way for you to get out of this by misrepresenting what I've said.

Birds are dinosaurs. We know this, for example from all the evidence I've shown you. And of course, we've noticed that you have been unwilling or unable to show us even one significant difference between birds and non-avian dinosaurs.

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

No, that's wrong. Because the set "Abs" (a subset of of the set of "Cags") is not the same as the set of Cags. You're still locked into the idea of essentialism. All birds are dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds. All Canadians are North Americans but not all North Americans are Canadians. So saying "all Canadians are North Americans" is not the same as saying "all North Americans are North Americans."

Is that easier for you?

And I think no one at all cares about your denials. Let's focus on the your failure to show us even one reason to think that birds are not dinosaurs.

Surely by now, you've realized the reason for your failure.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution June 10, 1997 94 (12) 6291-6296​

Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone​

The heme found in the T-rex bone when injected into rats, produced antibodies that reacted against pigeon heme, but not snake heme, once again verifying that birds are dinosaurs.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

all the evidence I've shown you

Since you like to call your Darwinistspeak, "evidence," why don't you provide us with some "evidence" for your assertion that your Darwinistspeak is evidence?

You are wholly incompetent to speak rationally when you are asked elementary questions about the nature of evidence. By all means, since, being a professional Darwinist, "evidence" is clearly one of your very favorite words to chant meaninglessly, let's hear you explain to us exactly what, according to you, would make something evidence for the proposition, P? Tell us, professional Darwinist: What must E do in order for E to be evidence for the proposition, P?

Obviously, since you, being a professional Darwinist, have no hope of speaking rationally to an elementary question such as this, about the nature of evidence, you certainly have no reason to expect to be taken seriously by rationally-thinking people, whenever you call your Darwinistspeak flimflam, "evidence". Who cares if Barbarian calls his Darwinistspeak nonsense and falsehood, "evidence," since he can't, in the first place, even tell us what would make something evidence?

 

[Barbarian]

American Zoologist, Volume 40, Issue 4, August 2000, Pages 486–503​

Phylogenetic Context for the Origin of Feathers​

Recent fossil finds of Late Cretaceous feathered dinosaurs in China have demonstrated that feathers appear to have originated in taxa that retained a significant number of primitive nonavian features. Current evidence strongly suggests that birds are theropod dinosaurs, and that the most primitive known feathers are found on non-flying animals. This further suggests that feathers did not evolve as flight structures. Thermoregulatory, display, and biomechanical support functions remain possible explanations for the origin of feathers. As the earliest function of feathers was probably not for aerial locomotion, it may be speculated that the transitional animals represented by the Chinese fossils possessed skin with the tensile properties of reptiles and combined it with the apomorphic characteristics of feathers.

 

[Barbarian]

Since you like to call your Darwinistspeak, "evidence,"

That's what we call facts. Facts are things that are in evidence. Your presuppositions keep you from accepting them. Your problem, not ours.

You are wholly incompetent to speak rationally when you are asked elementary questions about the nature of evidence.

Getting angry and verbally abusive won't help you now. Try to calm yourself and put a cogent argument together, using facts. For example, you might want to find at least one significant difference between birds and non-avian dinosaurs. Or you could just admit that you can't find any. Either would help your credibility a great deal here.

What must E do in order for E to be evidence for the proposition, P?

I suspect you actually don't know that, and it's not just a rhetorical question for you. Fair enough...

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,[1] although scientists also use evidence in other ways, such as when applying theories to practical problems.[2] Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific methods. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Evidence has to be factual. So for example, if we assert that a population has evolved, we are required to show that there has been a change in the allele frequencies of that population over the time we say it has evolved. And that is testable and can be verified by sampling and analysis. Every hypothesis must be testable and in principle, falsible. In this case, we can test the population genome and see if it has changed over time. If it has, the hypothesis has been confirmed, and we recognize that it's true. If the genome has not changed, then our hypothesis has been falsified. Do you see this?

This is what scientists mean when they say there is a difference between evolution as a fact (what I just described) and evolution as a theory (the theory that explains the observed phenomenon of evolution).

It has to be observable, like that change in allele frequencies. Does that help?

Your belief that birds are not dinosaurs turns out to be a testable hypothesis. You see, a hypothesis is an idea or group of ideas that might explain something about the physical universe. Your belief is testable, because we can go and look for evidence for and/or against that belief. As you have seen, the evidence, such as the fossil record, anatomy, immunological evidence, and so on does not support your belief. In fact, as you have seen, all the evidence clearly shows that birds are dinosaurs. This was hypothesized by Huxley over 100 years ago.

As you seem to realize no one has found even one significant difference between birds and non-avian dinosaurs. And there is a very large body of evidence (remember what evidence is) that shows birds are dinosaurs. That being the case, your hypothesis has been falsified.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

That's what we call facts.

You just keep calling your Darwinistspeak, "facts". Of course, so far, you've not supported your assertion that your Darwinist speak is facts. You've just repeatedly asserted it, over and over, because that's what you've been conditioned to doing. Obviously, you're pretty impressed with yourself for doing something that anybody could do; like you do, anybody could call any mumbo jumbo he/she wanted to call "facts," "facts".

I asked you: "What must E do in order for E to be evidence for the proposition, P?"

According to the link you handed me (because you obviously can't, or won't think for yourself), "Evidence for a proposition is what supports this proposition." So, to answer my question, would you say, then, that E must support the proposition, P, in order for E to be evidence for P? Yes or No?

Evidence has to be factual.

Do you mean that, in order for E to be evidence, E has to be factual?

Also, whenever you say that something is factual, what makes you decide to say that it is factual, if not merely your whim?

 

[Barbarian]

You just keep calling your Darwinistspeak, "facts".

As you have seen, it's no problem to check changes in population genomes. The changes are what scientists call "facts" or "evidence." Since they are objectively shown to be, they are evidence. The presence of pneumatized bones in dinosaurs is easy to demonstrate, and is a fact shown by physical evidence.

No point in denying these facts.

It is precisely because you can show us no facts that would indicate that birds are not dinosaurs, that your assumption fails. Do you see how this is causing you problems?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

It has to be observable

What (if anything) do you mean when you say that something is "observable"?
What (if anything) do you mean when you say that you have "observed" X?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

So, to answer my question, would you say, then, that E must support the proposition, P, in order for E to be evidence for P? Yes or No?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Do you mean that, in order for E to be evidence, E has to be factual?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Also, whenever you say that something is factual, what makes you decide to say that it is factual, if not merely your whim?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Barbarian be like: "I cannot answer Paul E. Michael's questions about the nature of evidence, because I have absolutely no clue as to what I'm talking about. Nevertheless, I'm just going to keep calling whatever I want to call 'evidence,' 'evidence,' and hope that most people are too stupid to notice that I'm just blowing hot air in so doing."

Think fast, professional Darwinist; give 'em all you've got by once again by chanting "allele frequencies"! Or, maybe you could, just as meaningfully, start chanting "alleles akbar!" so as to try to intimidate them into submission to your Darwinislam.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

No point in denying these facts.

No point in calling your non-facts, "facts".

 

[Barbarian]

What (if anything) do you mean when you say that something is "observable"?

It can be perceived by senses and can be documented. For example, the results of genetic analyses. Like the immunological tests you saw, in which Dr. Schweitzer showed that dinosaur heme is most like the heme of birds. Facts.

Like the finding of pneumatized bones, four-chambered hearts, and feathers in dinosaurs as they are in birds.

No point in calling your non-facts, "facts".

Sorry, denial isn't going to help you. These are documented facts.

 

[Barbarian]

Think fast, professional Darwinist; give 'em all you've got by once again by chanting "allele frequencies"! Or, maybe you could, just as meaningfully, start chanting "alleles akbar!" so as to try to intimidate them into submission to your Darwinislam.

You're starting to get overexcited again. Calm yourself and try to do a rational post. Is it possible you don't know what "allele frequencies" are? From the Biology dictionary:

Allele Frequency Definition​

The allele frequency is the number of individual alleles of a certain type, divided by the total number of alleles of all types in a population. In simple terms, the allele frequency describes how common an allele is within a population.

Allele Frequency Overview​

The allele frequency is different from the phenotypic ratio in that it accounts for all alleles, even if they are recessive and are “hidden” within carrier organisms. The phenotypic ratio only describes the phenotypes, or actual physical features that are present within a population. To find the allele frequency, scientists must consider heterozygous individuals, which may be hiding a recessive allele.

Allele frequency is most commonly calculated using the Hardy-Weinberg equation, which describes the relationship between two alleles within a population. When more than two alleles are present, scientists must use more complex methods to determine the actual allele frequency. Allele frequency can change over time as evolution acts upon a population and the population adapts by increasing or decreasing the frequency of certain alleles.

Allele Frequency - Definition, Calculation, Example | Biology Dictionary

The allele frequency is the number of individual alleles of a certain type, divided by the total number of alleles of all types in a population.

biologydictionary.net

With the Hardy-Weinberg equation, they provide a good test for selective pressure in a population. Hardy-Weinberg predicts the allele frequencies in generation n+1, given their frequencies in generation n. If there is no significant immigration or emigration, then a result that does not closely match the predicted frequencies will indicate some kind of selective pressure and directional evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian be like: "I cannot answer Paul E. Michael's questions about the nature of evidence, because I have absolutely no clue as to what I'm talking about. Nevertheless, I'm just going to keep calling whatever I want to call 'evidence,' 'evidence,' and hope that most people are too stupid to notice that I'm just blowing hot air in so doing."

Paul E. Michael be like: "I can't deal with the things Barbarian is saying, so I'll pretend he said something else."

Nice try, but pretty much everyone here is on to you. Which is not to say you haven't been useful in this conversation; you've brought up a lot of misconceptions that creationists have, and thereby we can discuss them and show why they are misconceptions. Hang in there.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Sorry, denial isn't going to help you. These are documented facts.

Sorry, denial isn't going to help you. Your "documented facts" are non-facts that no rationally-thinking person calls "facts"; only Darwinists call your non-facts, "facts." Which is why you have not supported, and cannot support, your assertion that your non-facts are facts.

Many things that are true also happen to be facts. Remember what a fact is. It's something observable. Something that does not require interpretation to know. There are also things that are not facts, that happen to be true. Evolution is a fact, because it is directly observed. Common descent is true, but it's not a fact, because one has to interpret facts to understand it.

According to the dictionary a fact is "a thing that is known or proved to be true."

So, you disagree with the dictionary when you say that something can be true, yet not be a fact. Sorry, Barbarian, but the dictionary is right, and you are wrong.

So, were you, by your phrase, "common descent," referring to something that is true, then you'd be, therein, referring to something that is a fact.

So, why should any rationally-thinking person ever take you even the least bit seriously whenever you call something "fact," or when you call some other thing, "not a fact," since you can't even deal rationally concerning something as elementary as questions concerning the nature of fact?