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

[Barbarian]

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.

Such is a disparagement, but since you still can't show that anyone here is lying it's a moot point.

(Regarding observed evolution)
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.?

That's what you assert, professional Darwinist; but so what? It's false.

Nope. It's the definition of biological evolution. A change in allele frequencies in a population over time. That's just what it is.

(regarding Paul's assertion that birds are not dinosaurs)
You made the assertion, up to you to support it.

False.

No, it's true. You claimed that birds are not dinosaurs. If for some reason, we got that wrong, just say "I do not deny that birds are dinosaurs", and we'll be done with it. Is that the case? Just say so, if it is.

I'm pointing out that you twice falsely accused me of lying. If you deny this, just show where I lied to you, with your evidence that it was a lie. I don't say things here that I don't believe to be true.

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?

Take a moment, settle yourself, and read your posts. You sound extremely angry. You call names, make accusations, and act in a way that certainly looks like anger.

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"?

I was assuming both of those, and if you thought about it for a moment, you'd see why. This is why it seems to us that you're really angry. You might be a pretty good person, but you're not leaving that impression here. And maybe that's a shame.

 

[Barbarian]

One of the major creationist misconceptions found on this thread is the mistaken belief that new species and higher taxa do not evolve.

"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."

 

[Paul E. Michael]

So now, you're accepting "population" as a singular living entity. Congratulations. You finally got it.

Remember what evolution is:

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

IOW: "A change in allele frequency in a [singular living entity] over time."

IOW: "A change in allele frequency in a[n individual] over time."

LOL

Populations are not organisms, they are living entities composed of organisms. So are you, BTW.

I'm an individual, BTW. So, here you've just told me that an individual is a population. So, you're glaringly contradicting yourself in saying:

No individual is a population.

Which is it, Barbarian? Are you an individual, or are you a population? Which are you?

Why are you so proud of contradicting yourself, professional Darwinist?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

(regarding Paul's assertion that birds are not dinosaurs)
You made the assertion, up to you to support it.

What (if anything) do you mean? To which are you referring by your word, "birds," in your phrase, "Paul's assertion that birds are not dinosaurs":

1. dinosaurs?
2. non-dinosaurs?

Which do you mean:

1. "Paul's assertion that [dinosaurs] are not dinosaurs"?
2. "Paul's assertion that [non-dinosaurs] are not dinosaurs"?

I don't assume you're as dumb as you seem to want to make yourself sound in all of your posts, so you can easily understand that if you mean neither of those, two things, then you are merely speaking meaninglessly in saying "Paul's assertion that birds are not dinosaurs". So, which of those, two things do you mean? 1 or 2? Surely you're not just speaking in a cognitively meaningless way, are you?

 

[Barbarian]

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.

What (if anything) do you mean?

I mean your earlier claim that birds are not dinosaurs.

As we've seen, you've repeatedly refused to show us any reason to believe your assumption. And you've seen numerous reasons to accept the evidence for birds being dinosaurs:

Let's review the apomorphic characters that unite the birds with theropod 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.

https://www.hal.inserm.fr/file/index/docid/381627/filename/inserm-00381627_edited.pdf

https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dvdy.20291

So far, no one has found any significant evidence that separates birds from other dinosaurs.

I don't assume you're as dumb as you seem to want to make yourself sound in all of your posts

As I said, getting angry and calling names really isn't doing you any good. Try to support your assumption that birds are not dinosaurs, with some evidence. That would help your position greatly. What do you have?

 

[Barbarian]

I'm an individual, BTW. So, here you've just told me that an individual is a population. So, you're glaringly contradicting yourself in saying:

Remember what evolution is:
"A change in allele frequency in a population over time."

IOW: "A change in allele frequency in a[n individual] over time."

No. A population is an entity, but it is not an individual. It's made up of individuals.

As I showed you earlier, in many cases it's a difficult distinction. Hives of insects, colonial animals, even you. We could consider your mitochondria as a population, since they are genetically different than you are, and reproduce by their own circular bacterial DNA.

Remember when I told you that every generalization in biology has an exception? You're still running into trees, because you can't figure that out. As with "species", the term can be pretty fuzzy in some cases. And that's the point; if YE creationism were true, there would be nice, neat categories of species and individuals. But since YE is false, that's not what we see in nature.

While you're struggling with that, would you mind showing us some evidence that birds aren't dinosaurs? Or have you now realized that they are dinosaurs, and just don't want to tell us that you know?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

No. A population is an entity, but it is not an individual.

Here, you're contradicting yourself again. You told me, out of the one side of your mouth, that a human—an individual—is a population, whereas now, out of the other side of your mouth, you're telling me that a human—an individual—is not a population.

By your word, "entity," do you mean (with OED) "a thing with distinct and independent existence"? If not, what (if anything) do you mean by it? Is this what you're saying: "A population is [a thing with distinct and independent existence], but it is not an individual"?
​

What (if any) difference is there between "a thing with distinct and independent existence" and "an individual"?

​

As I showed you earlier, in many cases it's a difficult distinction.​

As you showed me earlier, in every situation, all professional Darwinists can do in their attempts at huckstering their Darwinism, is to shamelessly resort to using weasel words, like you're doing, here.
​

Which is it, Barbarian? Are you an individual, or are you a population? Which are you?​

Professional Darwinist: <NO ANSWER>

It's sad, but instructive, to observe you sitting there telling me that it is difficult for you to distinguish whether or not you are an individual, and whether or not you are a population. You've trapped yourself by your own mumbo jumbo, and you've therein wounded your pride by your bumbling and lack of foresight. To you, I "seem angry," because I merely draw your attention to the quandary into which, by your hubris as a professional Darwinist, you've cornered yourself.​

Hives of insects, colonial animals, even you.​

But not you? Perhaps you do not even consider yourself to be a human?

Are you an individual, Barbarian? Yes or No?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Are you a population, Barbarian? Yes or No?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Can a professional "biologist" really not answer these questions? But, so far, you've not answered them. Why is that, Barbarian?

Also, Barbarian, can a professional "biologist" really not answer the question, "By your word, 'birds,' to which are you referring: non-dinosaurs or dinosaurs?" Yet, again, so far, you've not answered this question. Why is that, Barbarian?
​

Remember when I told you that every generalization in biology has an exception?​

Yeah, of course I remember when you told me that every professional Darwinist has nothing but weasel words and futile evasion tactics to offer when they know they've backed themselves into a corner by their incoherent, self-defeating ramblings, and know they cannot answer even the most elementary questions; that is precisely the position into which you have marched yourself, here. You can't even answer these, two questions:
​

• Are you an individual, Barbarian? Yes or No?​
• Are you a population, Barbarian? Yes or No?​

You're still running into trees, because you can't figure that out.​

You're still running into yourself, because you can't even figure out whether or not to say that an individual tree is an individual, nor whether or not to say that it is a population. You're still running into yourself, because you can't even figure out whether or not to say that you, yourself, are an individual, nor whether or not to say you are a population. You're still running into yourself, at every turn, because you proudly refuse to even try to think in a logical, self-coherent, systematic way.​

As with "species", the term can be pretty fuzzy in some cases.​

As you've over and over demonstrated, in the hands of professional Darwinists such as yourself, the word, "species," is downright meaningless. Sometime, you should try taking a break from your apparent fascination with your Darwinistspeak mumbo jumbo (what you seem to like to call "fuzz"), and, instead, start trying to become fascinated with logic and truth.​

 

[Paul E. Michael]

just say "I do not deny that birds are dinosaurs"

I've asked you, repeatedly, to tell me which of the two, following things you mean by your word, "birds":

1. dinosaurs?
2. non-dinosaurs?

So far, you've not told me. Why can't you tell me?

If you mean anything, at all, when you say "birds are dinosaurs," then either you mean

​

1. "[dinosaurs] are dinosaurs,"​

or you mean

​

2. "[non-dinosaurs] are dinosaurs."​

​

So far, you've not told me which one you mean. Why can't you tell me?

If you mean neither of those two things, then you mean nothing at all, and you're merely speaking in a cognitively meaningless way when you say things like "birds are dinosaurs". Yet, for some reason, you continue to stonewall against this elementary question as to what (if anything) you mean by a word ("birds") you have chosen to use. I don't know whether, by your word, "birds," you are referring to dinosaurs, or, instead, to non-dinosaurs. How can I know this until you have told me? And obviously, for you to react to my request by saying something like, "By 'birds' I mean birds," will be for you to merely continue on in your glaring failure to meet this elementary request of mine.

Before I can make any sense out of your chants—"birds are dinosaurs" and "you asserted that birds are not dinosaurs"—I will need to learn from you whether, by your word, "birds," you mean dinosaurs, or by it you mean non-dinosaurs. Now, you can sit there all day long and keep reasserting your assertion that you are using your word, "birds," meaningfully, but you will not be able to prove your assertion that you are using it meaningfully unless you tell me whether, by your word, "birds," you mean dinosaurs, or whether, by it you mean non-dinosaurs. The ball's in your court, professional Darwinist.

Barbarian's thus-far-UNSUPPORTED claim: That Barbarian is using his word, "birds," meaningfully, rather than meaninglessly

So, what "proof" do you have for your claim that you are using your word, "birds," in a cognitively meaningful way, Barbarian? Far be it from me to assume that you are using your word, "birds," in a cognitively meaningful way, rather than meaninglessly. You're the one claiming that you are using your word, "birds," in a cognitively meaningful way; it's up to you to "support" this claim of yours. All you have to do, in order to prove that you are using your word, "birds," in a cognitively meaningful way, is to tell me either, "By 'birds,' I mean non-dinosaurs," or "By 'birds,' I mean dinosaurs."

(Note, too, that you're never going to prove this claim of yours by telling me I "seem angry". LOL)

Barbarian: the professional "biologist" who either cannot, or for some reason will not even say whether, by his word, "birds," he means dinosaurs or non-dinosaurs.

Barbarian, by your word, "birds," to which are you referring:

1. dinosaurs?
2. non-dinosaurs?

Barbarian, when you say "Birds are dinosaurs," do you mean "[Dinosaurs] are dinosaurs"? Yes or No?

Barbarian, when you say "Birds are dinosaurs," do you mean "[Non-dinosaurs] are dinosaurs"? Yes or No?


Yeah, you know the dilemma into which you've cast yourself, here.

​

 

[Barbarian]

I've asked you, repeatedly, to tell me which of the two, following things you mean by your word, "birds":

1. dinosaurs?
2. non-dinosaurs?

If you mean anything, at all, when you say "birds are dinosaurs," then either you mean

Pretty much the same thing as saying "dogs are mammals." This doesn't seem like a terribly difficult concept. Yet, for some reason, you continue to stonewall against this elementary fact

I don't know whether, by your word, "birds," you are referring to dinosaurs, or, instead, to non-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.

Which perhaps is why you're unable to give us even one characteristic by which birds differ from non-avian dinosaurs. It appears that you're either so stuck in your preconceptions that you can't get your head around it, or possibly, you're just some Poe trying to make Christians look bad. I don't know. One of those.

Note, too, that you're never going to prove this claim of yours by telling me I "seem angry".

Well, name-calling, unsubstantiated accusations of lying, and large and/or bolded font, are all a pretty good tip-off.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Barbarian, when you say "Birds are dinosaurs," do you mean "[Dinosaurs] are dinosaurs"? Yes or No?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Why can't you answer this elementary question, Barbarian?

Barbarian, when you say "Birds are dinosaurs," do you mean "[Non-dinosaurs] are dinosaurs"? Yes or No?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Why can't you answer this elementary question, Barbarian?

So far, you've failed to prove your claim that you are using your word, "birds," meaningfully, Barbarian. I'm sure you'll soon be able to prove it, though, right?

 

[Barbarian]

Paul E. Michael said:
Barbarian, when you say "Birds are dinosaurs," do you mean "[Dinosaurs] are dinosaurs"?

Pretty much the same thing as saying "dogs are mammals." This doesn't seem like a terribly difficult concept. Yet, for some reason, you continue to stonewall against this elementary fact, and refuse to show us even one significant way in which birds differ from non-avian dinosaurs. Everyone notices.

<NO ANSWER>

Rather, you got an answer you find disturbing. Whether you simply lock down miss it, or you just pretend you don't get it, that's hard to say.

Paul E. Michael said:
Barbarian, when you say "Birds are dinosaurs," do you mean "[Non-dinosaurs] are dinosaurs"?

I mean birds are dinosaurs. As you now realize, you're unable to come up with even one significant difference, just as you wouldn't be able to come up with a significant difference between dogs and mammals.

But you're stuck on that question. You can't or won't give us even one significant difference between birds and non-avian dinosaurs.

Why can't you answer this elementary question, Paul?

 

[Barbarian]

It's come to my attention that I missed a significant apomorphic character of birds and non-avian dinosaurs. Four-chambered hearts:

Found: Dinosaur With A Heart

Seems It Worked Similar To Human Hearts

www.cbsnews.com

The only other living archosaurs, crocodilians, also have a four-chambered heart:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Schematic-drawings-of-the-hearts-of-A-zebrafish-B-crocodiles-and-C-non_fig2_51626653

Other reptiles do not have four-chambered hearts.

It's notable that Thomas Huxley, a collaborator with Darwin, predicted the relationship of birds to ancient dinosaurs, based on anatomy of crocodiles, close relatives of dinosaurs. They also have scutes as do birds and non-avian dinosaurs.

 

[Barbarian]

As you've over and over demonstrated, in the hands of professional Darwinists such as yourself, the word, "species," is downright meaningless.

Which is kind of odd for you to be saying so, because organizations like AIG consider them to be valid taxa. I wonder if you knew creationism a little better, if that might help you figure out what you now think about birds and non-avian dinosaurs.

As I showed you earlier, in many cases it's a difficult distinction. Hives of insects, colonial animals, even you. We could consider your mitochondria as a population, since they are genetically different than you are, and reproduce by their own circular bacterial DNA.

Remember when I told you that every generalization in biology has an exception? You're still running into trees, because you can't figure that out. As with "species", the term can be pretty fuzzy in some cases. And that's the point; if YE creationism were true, there would be nice, neat categories of species and individuals. But since YE is false, that's not what we see in nature.

While you're struggling with that, would you mind showing us some evidence that birds aren't dinosaurs? Or have you now realized that they are dinosaurs, and just don't want to tell us that you know?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Barbarian

See post #250.

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. Your telling me that you've answered them, against the glaringly plain, documented fact that you have not answered them, is you shamelessly lying about your failure to answer them. You will continue in your failure to have answered them until you have answered each of them either in the positive, or in the negative. So far, you've answered neither question. Until you have answered each of those two questions, you will continue in your failure to prove your assertion that you are using your word, "birds," meaningfully.

By your failure to answer those two questions, you demonstrate that either 1) you are, for some reason, motivated to continue stonewalling against answering them, or 2) you cannot answer them. Sorry, Barbarian, but those are your only options.

You are the one asserting that you are speaking meaningfully, rather than meaninglessly, when you chant "Birds are dinosaurs," so it's up to you, and you alone, to prove that you are speaking meaningfully, rather than meaninglessly, when you chant "Birds are dinosaurs." It will be very easy for you to prove that you are speaking meaningfully, rather than meaninglessly, when you chant "Birds are dinosaurs": all you'll need to do is answer those two, elementary, yes/no questions that even a child would have no difficulty answering. So far, you've not done so. Get back to me if/whenever you're ready to stop lying about your failure to have answered those, two yes/no questions I've asked you, and ready to finally answer them.

1. Barbarian, when you say "Birds are dinosaurs," do you mean "[Dinosaurs] are dinosaurs"? Yes or No?

You're not stupid. You understand that you must needs embarrass yourself, were you to answer "Yes" to this question, and that, just the same, you must needs equally embarrass yourself, were you to answer "No" to it. Thus, according to your calculation, your most palatable choice is to not answer this question at all.

2. Barbarian, when you say "Birds are dinosaurs," do you mean "[Non-dinosaurs] are dinosaurs"? Yes or No?

You're not stupid. You understand that you must needs embarrass yourself, were you to answer "Yes" to this question, and that, just the same, you must needs equally embarrass yourself, were you to answer "No" to it. Thus, according to your calculation, your most palatable choice is to not answer this question at all.

And so, by choosing to not answer these, two, elementary questions, you embarrass yourself by the fact that you are resorting to stonewalling against them.

 

[Barbarian]

Answer the two questions I've asked you in that post.

We're still waiting for you to step up and show us even one significant difference between birds and non-avian dinosaurs. Until then, you're stuck right where you are. If you want to just admit that there are no such differences, that would also be sufficient. You're up. Hint, getting angry, calling names, accusing people of lying, will not help you.

Meantime...

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.

Dinosaurs Breathed Like Birds

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

www.livescience.com

More specifically...

Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences

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.

Let us know when you think you have an answer, hear?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Barbarian
See post #254.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Hint, getting angry, calling names, accusing people of lying, will not help you.

I've only accused people of lying who are lying. Unlike you, I don't accuse those of lying who are not lying.

What "names" are you accusing me of "calling"? Is "Poe" a name?

Sorry, Barbarian, but I can't help you with your anger problem. You've wounded yourself by repeatedly contradicting yourself; I've merely brought the fact of your self-contradiction to your attention. Your shameless hypocrisy, and projecting your anger triggered by that fact onto me, as you've been doing, will not help you.

See post #254. Get back to me if you ever want to deal with those questions. So far, you've not answered them.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Hint, getting angry, calling names, accusing people of lying, will not help you.

I've only accused people of lying who are lying.

But you can't offer anything to support your accusation? This is why you're not being taken seriously.

Unlike you, I don't accuse those of lying who are not lying.

I didn't say you were lying. Go back and look. You're upset and imagining things, again.

What "names" are you accusing me of "calling"? Is "Poe" a name?

I merely pointed out that you're giving the impression of being a Poe. I really don't know if you are or not, and I never said one way or the other.

Since you're still unwilling to name even one significant difference between birds and non-avian dinosaurs, we'll conclude that you can't, and have no realized that you are wrong.

So, unless you can come up with something, we'll move on.

 

[Barbarian]

No non-humans are ancestors of any humans. No non-apes are ancestors of any apes. So, humans are not related to apes.

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]

Barbarian suggests:
Hint, getting angry, calling names, accusing people of lying, will not help you.

Then you should stop getting angry, calling names, accusing people of lying. 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.

But you can't offer anything to support your accusation?

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

I didn't say you were lying.

Here, you're lying, once again. You called me "Poe". That's you saying I was lying.

Go back and look.

You're upset and imagining things, again.

You're projecting, again.

I merely pointed out that you're giving the impression of being a Poe.

That's you calling me "Poe".

I really don't know if you are or not,

You know I'm not lying.

and I never said one way or the other.

You know you're lying.

Since you're still unwilling to name even one significant difference between birds and non-avian dinosaurs, we'll conclude that you can't, and have no realized that you are wrong.

See post #254.

Since you're still unwilling to support your assertion that you are using your word, "birds," in a cognitively meaningful way, rather than meaninglessly, we'll conclude that you can't, and have now realized that you can't.