7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
I clicked thanks on what he said before he edited his post to what it is now.
Sorry about that, JR.
I clicked thanks on what he said before he edited his post to what it is now.
Jesus says that at the beginning of creation male and female were there.
But God says that neither male nor female were there at the beginning of creation. Is this a contradiction? No. Jesus meant at the beginning of the creation of humans.
The answer is simple... he's not.I like how The Barbarian refuses to cite which (if any) passage(s) of Scripture he is pretending to discuss.
No worries :thumb:Sorry about that, JR.
I think I have said that.You don't say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs? You don't want to admit that you would be willing to say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs? Why is that?
Yes, obviously.By "describe [anchiornis or a microraptor] as birds", do you mean "say that they are birds"?
Had you guessed, perhaps, that in my opinion you would not have disputed that these two species are dinosaurs?If not, then what (if anything) do you mean? If they are birds, then so what? What would be the big deal with saying they are birds? If they are not birds, then why would you say that they are birds?
I think I have said that.
I think that if you and I could observe an anchiornis or a microraptor in flight we would be able to agree to [say that they are birds].
When you say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, by the word, "birds", are you referring to dinosaurs? Yes or No? |
Your problem is you don't understand how taxonomy works, especially cladistics.Thanks to the law of excluded middle (which you, in your commitment to your irrationality, despise), these are your only options, Stuu: If, by the word "birds", you are referring to something, then EITHER you are referring, by it, to dinosaurs, OR you are referring, by it, to non-dinosaurs.
So, when you say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, which one (if either) of these two things do you mean?
Have fun continuing to stonewall against the question, Stuu.
- The ancestors of dinosaurs were dinosaurs
- The ancestors of non-dinosaurs were dinosaurs
What Alate_One said.I wouldn't say that something that is not a bird is a bird, Stuu. Why would you say that something that is not a bird is a bird? Why would observing a non-bird in flight make you able to say that that non-bird is a bird, Stuu?
Once again, Stuu, you have stonewalled against the question I asked you: When you say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, by the word, "birds", are you referring to dinosaurs? Yes or No?
Again, why can't you answer this question, Stuu?
I would add to Alate's proper answer by telling you that the sound of one hand clapping is non-existent, and that if a tree falls in the woods and there is no-one there to hear it then it does make a sound regardless.Thanks to the law of excluded middle (which you, in your commitment to your irrationality, despise), these are your only options, Stuu: If, by the word "birds", you are referring to something, then EITHER you are referring, by it, to dinosaurs, OR you are referring, by it, to non-dinosaurs.
So, when you say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, which one (if either) of these two things do you mean?
Have fun continuing to stonewall against the question, Stuu.
- The ancestors of dinosaurs were dinosaurs
- The ancestors of non-dinosaurs were dinosaurs
Your problem is you don't understand how taxonomy works, especially cladistics.
The ancestors of birds were a specific subset of dinosaurs, likely from within the group maniraptora.
Dinosaurs are defined as having specific characteristics of the skull as well as legs held directly beneath the body. Clades are defined as ancestral groups and ALL of the descendants of that group. Birds, technically speaking, never stopped being dinosaurs. They may look very different but they are still dinosaurs. But they are not identical to their ancestors - non-avian theropods, like T-Rex.
When you (Alate_One, Stuu, The Barbarian, Disney's NatGeo, and all other Darwin cheerleaders) say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, by the word, "birds", are you referring to dinosaurs? Yes or No? |
When you say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, which one (if either) of these two things do you mean?
- The ancestors of dinosaurs were dinosaurs
- The ancestors of non-dinosaurs were dinosaurs
What Alate_One said.
"Bird" is merely a man-made term for certain animals. The Hebrews classified bats as birds, even though we don't. The troll is, as you suggest, playing word games. Properly speaking, a bird is a dinosaur in the same sense that 7djengo7 is a fish. Or one of the senses in which he's a fish.
Birds, technically speaking, never stopped being dinosaurs. They may look very different but they are still dinosaurs. But they are not identical to their ancestors - non-avian theropods, like T-Rex.
I answered you. You're apparently incapable of understanding the answer Birds ARE dinosaurs. So dinosaurs evolved into a different kind of dinosaur, i.e. birds. Get it?Why can't you answer this question, Professor?
"One celled organisms" aren't a clade. That's a characteristic that's shared by a lot of different groups, that is something that consists of one cell. What unites the one celled things that birds descended from is that they are eukaryotic cells. And yes they never stopped being eukaryotic cells.Since you say that birds are descended from one-celled organisms, why do you refuse to at least be consistent with your own stupidity (highlighted above) by your refusal to say, also, "Birds, technically speaking, never stopped being one-celled organisms"?
For the sake of your own self-consistency, you may as well say, "Birds may be many-celled organisms, but they are still one-celled organisms."
I answered you. You're apparently incapable of understanding the answer Birds ARE dinosaurs. So dinosaurs evolved into a different kind of dinosaur, i.e. birds. Get it?
"One celled organisms" aren't a clade.
That's a characteristic that's shared by a lot of different groups, that is something that consists of one cell. What unites the one celled things that birds descended from is that they are eukaryotic cells. And yes they never stopped being eukaryotic cells.
Since you say that birds are descended from one-celled organisms, why do you refuse to at least be consistent with your own stupidity (highlighted above) by your refusal to say, also, "Birds, technically speaking, never stopped being one-celled organisms"? |
Since you say that birds are descended from eukaryotic cells, why do you refuse to at least be consistent with your own stupidity (highlighted above) by your refusal to say, also, "Birds, technically speaking, never stopped being eukaryotic cells"? |
You are simply failing to understand the answer and then asserting that it's a non-answer.
Sorry but you need to learn some actual biology and taxonomy to have a rational conversation.
Since you say that birds are descended from one-celled organisms, why do you refuse to at least be consistent with your own stupidity by your refusal to say, also, "Birds, technically speaking, never stopped being one-celled organisms"? |
I already answered you!Here's the question you have not answered:
Huh? Why? Because you say so? You haven't posted anything resembling evidence, ever. You simply want to play moronic semantic games that have no meaning.You say that a bird has a dinosaur for an ancestor (which is false, and idiotic),
This isn't "jargon".and you say that, thus, a bird IS a dinosaur. So, you're ridiculously inconsistent with your own stupidity, there, when you turn around and refuse to say, also, that since a bird has a one-celled organism for an ancestor, a bird IS a one-celled organism. You cannot hide your inconsistency by trying to murk things up with more jargon.
That's the pot calling the kettle black.As usual, you are simply puffing out nonsense, and then asserting, falsely, that your nonsense is an answer, in your continued stonewalling against the questions I ask you.
No I have a "student" here that refuses to take yes for an answer and then asserts his own question only must have the answer he's predetermined.Ha. You're sorry because you're such a sorry excuse for a teacher of actual biology and taxonomy. You're the sort of "teacher" who loves pontificating your pompous nonsense, and when, in plain, ordinary, everyday English, some prospective student comes along and asks you elementary questions about your own purported expertise--inconvenient questions of which you have no hope of answering--you simply repeat your previously pontificated nonsense, mixed with more jargon, hoping (in futility) to simply fart the pesky questions out of your way.
As usual, the Holy Wikipedia contains the gospel. The first words of the body of the article on birds are:When you say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, which one (if either) of these two things do you mean?Which (if either) of those two things do you mean? 1 or 2?
- The ancestors of dinosaurs were dinosaurs
- The ancestors of non-dinosaurs were dinosaurs
If you mean neither of them, then you mean nothing, because, thanks to the law of excluded middle (which you despise) dinosaurs and non-dinosaurs, together, necessarily exhaust all your options for things to mean. You'll not have answered the question I asked you until you have specified which (if either) of these two things you mean.
Birds, also known as Aves or avian dinosaurs... |
I already answered you!
Birds are dinosaurs therefore they are dinosaurs that evolved from other dinosaurs.
Are birds *identical* to the dinosaurs they descended from?
Are birds *identical* to the dinosaurs they descended from?
Obviously not.
As usual, the Holy Wikipedia contains the gospel. The first words of the body of the article on birds are:
Birds, also known as Aves or avian dinosaurs...
So you are attempting the logical fallacy of equivocation but failing because 'birds' and 'avian dinosaurs' are synonyms.
Stuart