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

[Paul E. Michael]

Again, individuals don't evolve; populations do.

Since dinosaurs are individuals, and since birds are individuals, whether you like it or not, Barbarian, whenever Darwinists say "Dinosaurs evolved into birds," you are saying "[Individuals] evolved into [individuals]."

A dinosaur is an individual; dinosaurS are individualS. A dinosaur is not a plurality of individuals.
A bird is an individual; birdS are individualS. A bird is not a plurality of individuals.

 

[Barbarian]

Remember: As you've demonstrated, your cherished nonsense word, "evolution," is neither the name, nor a descriptor of anything that happens

You forgot again. It's a very testable term. "A change in allele frequency in a population over time." Which is exactly a description of what happens. No point in denying the fact.

Desultory attempt to force a negative answer:
"Has any human ever been born to a non-human? Yes or No?"

Direct answer:
"Human" would be the genus Homo. "Non-human" would be any other hominin. So yes, at some point, a population of some other genus did evolve to be a different genus, Homo. Remember, evolution happens to populations, not individuals. So this was, as we have observed in nature, a gradual process of speciation. At some point, the changed population would be considered different enough to be a new genus. Would you like to learn about some of those observed speciations?

Even groups like AIG and ICR now freely admit that speciation is a fact. They also admit that new genera appear from the modification of earlier genera. Would you like me to show you that?

( I bolded the "yes" in red so you wouldn't miss it this time)
We get that you don't want a "yes", but there it is. Your only confusion is that you still think evolution happens to individuals. It doesn't; it happens to populations. But as you see, even many creationist organizations freely admit that new genera develop from existing ones. So even an honest creationist would admit that humans (genus Homo) could evolve from another hominin population.

From Answers in Genesis:
Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

Speciation

Speciation, the formation of new species, is not evolution in action. Rather, it demonstrates the incredible variety God put within each created kind.

answersingenesis.org

AIG can't bring themselves to admit that it is evolution (remember what evolution is?), but they are honest enough to admit that it's a fact. It seems you can't get past the false denial of speciation mentioned in AIG's website. You're trying to force the facts to fit your misconceptions. And it seems no matter how often you see the truth, you aren't going to accept it. So be it.

 

[Barbarian]

Since dinosaurs are individuals, and since birds are individuals, whether you like it or not, Barbarian, whenever Darwinists say "Dinosaurs evolved into birds," you are saying "[Individuals] evolved into [individuals]."

As you learned, that's false. A population of dinosaurs gave rise to a population that became birds. The key is "dinosaurs" not "dinosaur" and "birds", not "bird." For some reason the plurals are giving you no end of trouble.

Let's test your assumption; what characteristics of birds do you think are not found in dinosaurs?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Desultory attempt to force a negative answer:
"Has any human ever been born to a non-human? Yes or No?"

Force a negative answer? LOL

How can I force you to answer the question in the negative, seeing as you have not even answered the question? Not only have you not answered the question in the positive, but you've not even answered it in the negative. Obviously, the fact that you have not answered the question at all means that I cannot force you to answer it. And I've never been under any delusion so as to think I can force you to answer it, so, of course I would not bother trying to force you to answer it. Rather, by asking you this question which you have never answered, what I've achieved is that I have forced you to not answer it, and have cornered you into the position you are in, wherein you are demonstrating that, as you and I both know well, your vanity impels you to lie and be a weasel about your failure to answer it.

Direct answer:

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.

I've asked you numerous times, Barbarian:
Has any human ever been born to a non-human? Yes or No?

YES = "At least one human has been born to a non-human."
NO = "No human has ever been born to a non-human."

YES OR NO?

You: <STILL NO ANSWER>

( I bolded the "yes" in red so you wouldn't miss it this time)

We get that you don't want a "yes", but there it is.

But your bolded, red "yes" is not in answer to the question I've been asking you. You have not answered the question I've been asking you. And, were you to answer "yes" to the question I've been asking you, then you'd be answering incorrectly. But, even were you to answer my question incorrectly, at least you'd, at last, be answering the question I have been asking you, and I'd be able to say to you, "Thanks for answering, although you have answered incorrectly." Thus far, you've never answered it; you've neither answered it "yes" (incorrectly) nor have you answered it "no" (correctly). Instead of answering it, you shamelessly continue to lie about your failure to answer it. You can continue to sit there all you want and come up with things you are pleased to call "questions," things that aren't the question I've been asking you; and you can continue to sit there and say "yes" in response to your "questions". By doing that, you have not whitewashed, and you never shall whitewash the glaring fact that you, thus far, have not answered the question I've been asking you:

Has any human ever been born to a non-human? Yes or No?

YES = "At least one human has been born to a non-human."
NO = "No human has ever been born to a non-human."

YES OR NO?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The key is "dinosaurs" not "dinosaur" and "birds", not "bird."

Correct: dinosaurS are individualS, and birdS are individualS. So, when you say "Dinosaurs evolved into birds," you're saying "[Individuals] evolved into [individuals]."

Is a group of dinosaurS A dinosaur? Yes or No?
Is a group of birdS A bird? Yes or No?

Let's test your assumption; what characteristics of birds do you think are not found in dinosaurs?

What "assumption"?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

A population of dinosaurs gave rise to a population that became birds.

Since, as you've learned, dinosaurs are individuals, and since, as you've learned, birds are individuals, here is what you are saying:

"A population of [individuals] gave rise to a population that became [individuals]."

Oh, and "gave rise to a population" of what? Every population is a population of something(s), no?

"A population of dinosaurs gave rise to a population [of ___________s] that became birds?"

Since every population is a population of individuals, obviously this population you speak of, which you say "became birds," is a population of individuals. So

"A population of dinosaurs gave rise to a population [of individuals] that became birds."

But, "gave rise to a population" of individual whats? Dinosaurs? Birds? Cats? Dogs? Razor clams?

"A population of dinosaurs gave rise to a population [of individual ___________s] that became birds?"

If you can't rationally fill in that blank, it's because you're speaking nonsensically, rather than saying something that is cognitively meaningful—IOW, you're speaking Darwinistspeak.

Which, if any of these, do you mean?

• "A population of dinosaurs gave rise to a population [of individual dinosaurs] that became birds?"
• "A population of dinosaurs gave rise to a population [of individual birds] that became birds?"
• "A population of dinosaurs gave rise to a population [of individual horses] that became birds?"
• "A population of dinosaurs gave rise to a population [of individual rats] that became birds?"

And, if none of the above, then what (if anything) do you mean?

 

[Barbarian]

Correct: dinosaurS are individualS, and birdS are individualS.

Actually "dinosaur" is an individual. "Dinosaurs" is a group of them.

So, when you say "Dinosaurs evolved into birds," you're saying

One group gave rise to another, yes.

Is a group of dinosaurS A dinosaur?

It's a population of dinosaurs.

Is a group of birdS A bird?

It's a population of birds.

Let's test your assumption; what characteristics of birds do you think are not found in dinosaurs?

What "assumption"?

Few creationists can answer that question. You're not alone.
So let's make it simpler. Can you tell us what a bird is, by its characteristics? Can you tell us what a dinosaur is by its characteristics?

I don't know how to make it simpler than that for you. What do you think the differences are?

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.

Paul, I get that you're frustrated because you got an answer that you didn't want to hear. As you've learned, a population of hominins evolved sufficiently to become a new genus, Homo (humans). As you've also learned, even many creationists admit the evolution of new species and genera.

But you should know that accusing people of lying is a very unwise thing to do, unless you can clearly show it. It's against the TOS here, and while I won't report you, other people might. Suffice to say that I don't make assertions here that I don't believe to be true (although I did suggest that Stovebolts became Spiderman, having been bit by a spider; I'm sure you do understand humor)

You should calm yourself, look to deal with issues, and put together a cogent argument for your beliefs. You'll get better reception from people here, and a good deal of respect if you can do that. Worth a try?

 

[Barbarian]

Since, as you've learned, dinosaurs are individuals, and since, as you've learned, birds are individuals, here is what you are saying:

A population of dinosaurs gave rise to a population of birds. Remember what evolution is:

"A change in allele frequency in a population over time."

Evolution happens to populations, not individuals. Hence, when AIG talks about speciation, they mean that a population of one species, gave rise to a population that was a different species. Do you understand why?

As I said, it might be that you're having trouble deciding what are the essential differences between dinosaurs and birds. Do you think you could give a few things that would distinguish the two groups? Think about it, and let us know what you think.

"Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic3..."
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Actually "dinosaur" is an individual.

Actually "dinosaur" is a word. A dinosaur is an individual.

"Dinosaurs" is a group of them.

"Dinosaurs" is a word. Dinosaurs are individuals. So, you egregiously fail yet again at even the most elementary truth.

Why can't you understand what even a child could understand: that "dinosaurs" is a word?
Why can't you understand what even a child could understand: that dinosaurs are individuals?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Suffice to say that I don't make assertions here that I don't believe to be true

Obviously you've never even taken so much as ten seconds to look into what asserting is. Nobody asserts things they don't believe. One's assertion, qua assertion, is always of things he/she believes. So, sorry to burst your bubble, but there's nothing the least bit special about someone for making assertions of what they believe.

 

[Barbarian]

Obviously you've never even taken so much as ten seconds to look into what asserting is. Nobody asserts things they don't believe.

Definition of assertion​

: the act of asserting or something that is asserted: such as
a : insistent and positive affirming, maintaining, or defending (as of a right or attribute) an assertion of ownership/innocence
b : a declaration that something is the case He presented no evidence to support his assertions.

Definition of ASSERTION

the act of asserting or something that is asserted: such as; insistent and positive affirming, maintaining, or defending (as of a right or attribute); a declaration that something is the case… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

You're clearly wrong. Criminals often assert that they are innocent, for example. I notice that you are still unable to come up with any differences between birds and dinosaurs. Perhaps you could look up some, or ask someone else?

Worth a try. If you aren't sure, bring it up and we'll talk about it.

 

[miamited]

Unfortunately, many creationists (and a few evolutionists) often decide that it's an issue of who believes them. The fact is, how life developed on Earth is not part of the Gospels, nor does God say exactly how any of that happened. And He certainly did not make belief in any particular interpretation of His creation a salvation issue. Those who say that it is, regardless of their interpretation, are making an idol of their own wishes in place of God.

Hi Barbarian

So, would it be safe to say that your position is that if it isn't written in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, it really isn't important to either God or the believer?

God bless,
Ted

 

[Barbarian]

So, would it be safe to say that your position is that if it isn't written in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, it really isn't important to either God or the believer?

It would be safe to say that my position is that one's opinion of evolution is not at all a salvation issue, unless one makes an idol of it and insists that we all must believe that particular opinion to be a good Christian.

 

[T. E. Smith]

AiG and ICR practically make The Genesis Flood by Morris and Whitcomb into a third testament.

 

[Barbarian]

Since this seems to be a major stumbling block for creationists and at least one person can't tell us what they are, can anyone here give me some essential differences between dinosaurs and birds?

 

[T. E. Smith]

Paul E. Michael https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-dinosaurs-shrank-and-became-birds/ https://www.livescience.com/are-birds-dinosaurs.html

You might also appreciate my short article on the topic of dino >> bird transitionary fossils (from a lay perspective, obviously): https://solarationis.com/2022/04/12/dinosaurs-to-birds-a-few-key-fossils/

 

[Barbarian]

Good from your link:
Modern birds have feathered tails and bodies, unfused shoulder bones, toothless beaks and forelimbs that are longer than their hind limbs. They also have a bony plate near their tails called a pygostyle. Other types of extinct theropods had one or more of these features, but only modern birds have all of them, according to Takuya Imai, an assistant professor with the Dinosaur Research Institute at Fukui Prefectural University in Fukui, Japan.

In a primitive bird from Japan called Fukuipteryx — a 120-million-year-old avian that Imai described in November 2019 and the earliest known bird with a pygostyle — the preserved structure closely resembled the pygostyle of a modern chicken, Imai previously told Live Science. In other words, some structures in modern birds can be traced back to some of their earliest ancestors.

However, primitive birds still had much in common with non-avian theropods, said Jingmai O'Connor, a paleontologist specializing in dinosaur-era birds and the transition from non-avian dinosaurs, at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthroplogy in Beijing, China.

In fact, early birds were "very dinosaur-like" compared to modern birds, O'Connor told Live Science in an email. "Some had long, reptilian tails, teeth and claws on their hands," she said. And many theropod dinosaurs that were not birds had true feathers, "which are feathers that have a central part down the middle and branching barbs," according to Clarke.

However, it is not true that Archaeopteryx was a bird. It's got more dinosaur features than bird features, and is of a lineage very close to birds, but is not ancestral to birds. It's just a dinosaur that could fly a bit. It's not the only one. And I'm not talking about pterosaurs, which are only distantly related to dinosaurs and birds.

As they say, birds are dinosaurs in the same sense that humans are mammals. Each is a particular group that evolved from that larger group.

Perhaps this could help Paul figure out some essential differences between dinosaurs and birds.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Since this seems to be a major stumbling block for creationists and at least one person can't tell us what they are, can anyone here give me some essential differences between dinosaurs and birds?

Now, by your word, "dinosaurs," either you 1) are referring to non-birds, or 2) are referring to birds, or 3) are not referring at all. So, if you mean anything at all, you mean one of the following:

1. "can anyone here give me some essential differences between [non-birds] and birds?"
2. "can anyone here give me some essential differences between [birds] and birds?"

So, which of these do you mean, Barbarian? 1 or 2? Or, are you just handing out more of your cognitively meaningless Darwinismspeak? (And remember: if you're speaking meaninglessly, then you're asking no question.)

 

[Paul E. Michael]

As they say, birds are dinosaurs

When they say "birds are dinosaurs," by their word, "dinosaurs," to which are they referring: non-birds or birds?

Which are you saying, Barbarian:

1. "As they say, birds are [non-birds]"?
2. "As they say, birds are [birds]"?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Paul E. Michael https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-dinosaurs-shrank-and-became-birds/ https://www.livescience.com/are-birds-dinosaurs.html

You might also appreciate my short article on the topic of dino >> bird transitionary fossils (from a lay perspective, obviously): https://solarationis.com/2022/04/12/dinosaurs-to-birds-a-few-key-fossils/

You might also appreciate my question about the title of the document to which you linked in your last post.
Title:

"How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds"​

By their word, "dinosaurs," to which are they referring: non-birds or birds? Which do they mean:

1. "How [non-birds] Shrank and Became Birds"?​

2. "How [birds] Shrank and Became Birds"?​