Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
Alate_One
Well-known member
Birds are a category WITHIN the category of Dinosaurs. Just as squares are a category within the category of rectangles. Every square is a rectangle but not every rectangle is a square.
It's like arguing that a Toyota Corolla AND a Camry cannot both be Toyotas. Are they identical? Of course not but they both are part of the category Toyota.
Your problem isn't evolution it's the very concept of a category containing other categories.
Uhh what? You've really gone off of the deep end here. No, bird species is identical to any other bird species. And really no individual bird is identical to any other, save a clone and even then it still isn't totally identical.
Bird is a CATEGORY with a specific definition, just as Dinosaur, amniote and vertebrate are also categories. The definitions of those categories become progressively more inclusive so that they include more groups of organisms. That is a nested hierarchy.
At this point you're either incapable of understanding that concept or you're intentionally trying to make it sound nonsensical with your own illogical argument.
It's why I tossed him in the troll bin some time ago.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Did Charles Linnaeus tell you that? Of course he didn't. And well he didn't, since it's false. Though, you'll still abuse his name to try to promote the stupidities you're trying to sell as a Darwin cheerleader. The truth is, birds are a category WITHOUT the category of dinosaurs; birds are a category WITHIN the category of non-dinosaurs. In fact, birds are inside the category of non-dinosaurs along with fish, porcupines, and Ford Mustangs, and every Cuisinart product: just as neither a fish, a porcupine, a Ford Mustang, nor a Cuisinart is a non-dinosaur, so also every bird is a non-dinosaur.
True. So what?
True. So what?
Uh-oh, another one of your orphaned pronouns, here: "It". What's "like arguing that a Toyota Corolla AND a Camry cannot both be Toyotas"?
Me? I've no problem with categories containing categories. You, on the other hand, have got a problem with the category, "everything". See, this category, "everything", is exhausted by its two, immediate subcategories: "dinosaurs" and "non-dinosaurs". Whatever there is is either a dinosaur or a non-dinosaur. What you, in your fairy tale magic mentality, bitterly disdain, is the fact that there's no going outside these two categories, "dinosaur" and "non-dinosaur": it angers you--the fact that whatever is not a dinosaur is a non-dinosaur, and that whatever is not a non-dinosaur is a dinosaur. You wish that, somehow, you could have it so that something could be not a dinosaur, yet also, at the same time, not a non-dinosaur. You'll not be getting your wish, though.
Why be disgruntled at me, though? I'm just the messenger of the truth.
By saying, "No bird is identical to any dinosaur", and, "Every bird is identical to a bird", I've gone off the deep end? How so?
I take it the comma was a typo.
Where'd I say such a thing as, "A bird species is identical to another bird species"? That's right: nowhere.
Where'd I say such a thing as, "An individual bird is identical to another individual bird"? That's right: nowhere.
Why pretend as though you are presenting an exception to what you just stated, and then turn around and contradict yourself by saying that it isn't an exception to what you had just stated?
So, tell us what is your "specific definition" of your category, "Bird". Tell us what is the sine qua non of being a bird; tell us what is the sine qua non of being a non-bird.
Tell us what is your "specific definition" of your category, "Dinosaur". Tell us what is the sine qua non of being a dinosaur; tell us what is the sine qua non of being a non-dinosaur.
In other words, you will call more than just dinosaurs, "dinosaurs": you will also call non-dinosaurs, such as birds, "dinosaurs".
Lay out for us, premise by premise, exactly what it is you are calling "your own illogical argument".
Alate_One
Well-known member
No, he didn't because they hardly had any dinosaur fossils at the time. Linnaeus did tell us that all mammals share certain characteristics together, including humans.
Wrong. Dinosaurs are pillar erect (legs straight under the body) in their skeletal structure. Reptilian in origin, diapsids with extra holes in the skull.
More specifically birds are theropod dinosaurs with three forward facing toes, bipedal posture, a wishbone and a three fingered hand.
https://www.birdnote.org/show/wishbones-and-dinosaurs
We also see plenty of fossils of theropod dinosaurs with pennaceous feathers.
So, if Birds are, in your opinion, "non-dinosaurs" then is this also a "non-dinosaur"?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
So, if Birds are, in your opinion, "non-dinosaurs" then is this also a "non-dinosaur"?
If by your pronoun, "this", you are referring to the rock in your picture, my answer would be that that rock is also a non-dinosaur. I, myself, would not say that any rock is a dinosaur.
Why do you put quotes around the word, 'non-dinosaur'? Do you consider the word, 'non-dinosaur', to be somehow illegitimate? Is every thing that exists a dinosaur? Obviously only an abject fool would answer this question by saying, "Yes, every thing that exists is a dinosaur." Now, I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but I'll break it to you that--though you may imagine otherwise--not every thing that exists is a dinosaur. And so, the word, 'non-dinosaur', is a perfectly legitimate name of every thing that isn't a dinosaur. By saying, "That thing is a non-dinosaur", I am saying, "That thing is a thing that is not a dinosaur". That's pretty simple, no? Is your washing machine a dinosaur? Of course not; hence, your washing machine is a non-dinosaur. No need for quotes where you (for whatever motivation) might be tempted to put quotes. It's strange that you have this reservation against saying, "Is this also a non-dinosaur?"--which reservation somehow urges you to say, instead, "Is this also a "non-dinosaur"?"
Which do you consider the rock (in the picture you showed me) to be?
- a dinosaur
- a non-dinosaur
Have a look at Struthiomimus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struthiomimus
Would you say that it is a bird, or a dinosaur?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Neither.
What the picture seems to show is something resembling a set of bone-like things. A set of bone-like things is neither a bird, nor a dinosaur. A painting is neither a bird, nor a dinosaur. A drawing is neither a bird, nor a dinosaur. Do you disagree?
Alate_One
Well-known member
You could, I don't know, NOT be intentionally dense? If I say this and produce an image, it's pretty obvious what I'm referring to. It's not a rock, it's a fossil with sufficient preservation of the feathers to allow scientists to ascertain the creature's original coloration. So that means it's the partially preserved remains of a once living organism. And those remains should belong to some category or another.
Was that organism a dinosaur or not? In your opinion.
I certainly have a position on the matter, but you're now the one that's refusing to answer. You said birds are non-dinosaurs.
Is the creature I posted a picture of earlier, a dinosaur or non-dinosaur? It's the same question you keep insisting on others answering and now you won't answer it yourself.
Last edited:
That's asking too much of 7djengo7. Now you're expecting miracles!
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
I do not assume that the rock (or rock-like thing) in your picture--or some portion thereof--is remains of any organism. Why should anybody think that it is? Because you, and lots of other people calling yourselves "Science" say that it is? Why do you think that it is?
The chunk of material in your picture is no organism, and so, the chunk of material in your picture is not a dinosaur, nor a bird. And I do not even assume that the chunk of material in your picture--nor even a portion of it--is the remains of an organism, is the remains of a dinosaur, is the remains of a bird, is the remains of a cat, is the remains of a porcupine, etc. Why should I think that it is?
How is my saying, "No, the chunk of material in your picture is not an organism, and No, the chunk of material in your picture is not a dinosaur, and No, the chunk of material in your picture is not a bird," a refusal, on my part, to answer a question? And, what (if any) question are you saying I am refusing to answer?
Yeah. So? I also said that no rock-like chunk of material, like what appears in your picture, is a dinosaur. Neither is it a bird. Did you know that some things can be BOTH non-dinosaur AND non-bird AND non-animal?
If by "creature", you mean "organism", again, I say that, so far as I can tell, you posted no picture of a creature. Why should I beg the question you're begging?
Wait...refresh my memory. I ask lots and lots of questions, no? To which (if any) of my questions are you referring, here, by your phase, "the same question..."?
What's especially hilarious is that you, and others, think that the picture you posted displays the remains of A FISH!!!
Alate_One
Well-known member
Because if you crack open a rock and it has something in it that looks a bit like the bones of things walking around today, what else should I think it is?
Are you one of those people that thinks Satan put fossils in the ground to confuse us?
If you can't accept the evidence of objects in front of you I don't know how we can have a conversation since you don't even accept reality.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
I've not cracked into a rock and found something that looks like bones.
Now, the picture you posted--is it a photograph of something you claim to have found in the ground, or is it a photograph of something someone else claims to have found in the ground?
No. I'm one of those people who think that Satan put Darwinists and other lying, Bible-despising irrationalists into his service to try to confuse people.
Why should anybody believe that the provenance of something in a picture handed out by Darwinists is what Darwinists and other lying, Bible-despising irrationalists claim it is?
Did Satan put Piltdown Man in the ground to try to confuse people?
Translation: "If you can't take Darwinism's word for it that the picture I posted is evidence for Darwinism, then I'll just have to take my leave of you and try to find some hapless mark, instead, who will fall for it."
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
https://theologyonline.com/forum/pol...axonomy/page43
We, of course, can count on User Name to continue to stonewall against the question I asked:
Why should anybody believe that the provenance of something in a picture handed out by Darwinists is what Darwinists and other lying, Bible-despising irrationalists claim it is?
I.e. Dinosaur fossils are a hoax.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
I.e. User Name continues to stonewall against the question I asked him:
Why should anybody believe that the provenance of something in a picture handed out by User Name is what User Name claims it is?
Oh, so dinosaur fossils are a hoax? Got it.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Oh, so you're a liar? Got it. Again.
That you are a liar, of course, is why you have to continue to stonewall against the question I've been asking you:
Why should anybody believe that the provenance of something in a picture handed out by User Name is what User Name claims it is?
Well if you think it might be a hoax, why don't you suss it out? Should be good for a laugh at least!