Scientists Question Darwinism

[Derf]

Pretty much as long as I wanted. Long as you have trees that can hold you. And I was pretty small at the time. Couldn't do long leaps across space as saimangs and gibbens do. But then, neither can chimps. You figure chimps aren't fully functional brachiators?

Are you beginning to see how "fully functional" is a slippery concept, good for obfuscation, and not much more, when it comes to organisms?

Yes, I do--especially when applied with the evolutionistic slant. Nothing is therefore fully functional, because nothing is as it will become in the future. I can definitely see how that is obfuscating. Thanks for pointing it out.

My point, exactly.

Amen!

But yours is an outdated concept, given the complexity we've seen at the molecular level. "Functional" is quite apparent. "Fully functional" might be misconstrued when we don't account for a cursed and groaning creation. I'm willing to drop the "fully", if that helps, but you've given plenty of evidence you understand the concept with your obfuscations.

We're talking about divine providence, not God. God can make things deterministic just as He can make them contingent. It doesn't meant that God has to be deterministic or contingent. The Creator is not the creation.

The way you used it was that God creates by contingency and necessity. I appreciate the clarification that those are things God inserts into His creation, rather than things that He used to create. As such, if it was created "necessarily", but not immediately (in the 6 days, using whatever framework you choose) then God just set it on a path to completion. This is a deistic concept of creation, and wrong, as evidenced when the bible says He created in 6 days and then rested. But even if that is the case, then it argues at least against a single common ancestor of all creatures, and at most against anything other than the "kinds" espoused by YE creationists.

It's necessary to creation, since He made it so. He's quite capable of that.

Now it's part of the creation, as you mentioned above. But if it's a part of creation, then He didn't create that part using necessity and contingency. I.e., He didn't create necessity and contingency using necessity and contingency. Thus it is only one possibly way God might have created. And is not evidenced in Genesis without some obfuscation.

Do you think God can lie?

That would be handled in a code of conduct, or a code of ethics, but not a code of creation.

What's wrapping you up here is that God is eternal. He doesn't change at all, and so He is and will be what He always is. The "I am that I am."

I don't see how I am wrapped up in that--maybe you could explain.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, I do--especially when applied with the evolutionistic slant. Nothing is therefore fully functional, because nothing is as it will become in the future.

If you think that's the "evolutionist slant", we have found the problem. No wonder you don't like evolution; you have no idea what it is.

"Fully functional" is not a term often seen in science, since it's so slippery. You seem to think that every living thing is "fully functional" because it lived.

As you see, the various series of transitional forms cited by your fellow YE creationist as "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory" often show increasing functionality in various ways. Are all of them "fully functional", or are none of them "fully functional", or do you pick one in the series and announce that full functionality begins there?

But yours is an outdated concept, given the complexity we've seen at the molecular level.

Molecular biology has damaged YE creationism beyond repair. Not only does DNA document the same phylogenies first noted on the basis of anatomy, the more we dig into the nature of molecular life, the more it shows us common descent.

Biologists as early as Huxley predicted that dinosaurs would be shown to be the ancestors of birds, and that there must have been feathered dinosaurs. Now we have many of them. But molecular biology made an unexpected contribution. One T. rex fossil had a little bit of heme remaining in the bone. That heme turned out to be more like that of birds than it was like heme of other reptiles. That finding is completely incomprehensible to creationists, but it's a prediction of evolutionary theory.

Highly conserved molecules like cytochrome C, don't vary much across taxa, since they are very fundamental molecules involved in oxidative phosphorylation. But they do vary a bit, at sites that aren't actively involved in the enzymatic process. Comparing those differences across the taxa, we get the same phylogenies obtained by DNA and by homologies of structure.

Again, completely incomprehensible to creationists, but a prediction of evolutionary theory. No, molecular biology is no friend of YE creationism.

"Functional" is quite apparent.

It's a word that one can use pretty much as one wishes.

"Fully functional" might be misconstrued when we don't account for a cursed and groaning creation.

As you know, God didn't curse creation for any but humans. He is a just God, after all. Animals don't have to farm to make a living, and female animals don't suffer giving birth. It was for us, not for them.

I'm willing to drop the "fully", if that helps, but you've given plenty of evidence you understand the concept with your obfuscations.

I'm asking hard questions, and showing you that the entire concept is a failure at explaining the transitionals we see.

The way you used it was that God creates by contingency and necessity.

He is God, after all.

I appreciate the clarification that those are things God inserts into His creation,

I never told you that. God never has to tinker with creation. He made such that it will do His will, without Him having to patch it up now and then. When He inserts things, they are miracles, and He does them to teach us something, not because He must do so.

rather than things that He used to create. As such, if it was created "necessarily", but not immediately (in the 6 days, using whatever framework you choose) then God just set it on a path to completion. This is a deistic concept of creation, and wrong, as evidenced when the bible says He created in 6 days and then rested.

No. God remains intimately involved with every particle of the world. We wouldn't even exist if He didn't. You're missing the point. He set up rules by which the world works and that is how He creates things in this world, excepting miracles. Deism is something very different. Do you see why?

But even if that is the case, then it argues at least against a single common ancestor of all creatures,

But your assumption is wrong, leading to a faulty conclusion.

Now it's part of the creation, as you mentioned above. But if it's a part of creation, then He didn't create that part using necessity and contingency. I.e., He didn't create necessity and contingency using necessity and contingency.

He merely willed the universe into being. Perhaps you could explain your idea a little more carefully?

 

[7djengo7]

Biologists as early as Huxley predicted that dinosaurs would be shown to be the ancestors of birds, and that there must have been feathered dinosaurs.

Have you not heard that "birds are dinosaurs"? Do not your people, "science", say so, right here?

“There is no doubt that birds are dinosaurs,” says Luis Chiappe, director of the Dinosaur Institute at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. “The evidence is so overwhelming, I would put it next to whether you’re going to question if humans are primates.”

So, when you say that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, what you're saying is that dinosaurs are the ancestors of dinosaurs. Bravo! Now, could you tell us something that "dinosaurs would be shown to be the ancestors of" that is NOT a dinosaur?

 

[The Barbarian]

Have you not heard that "birds are dinosaurs"? Do not your people, "science", say so, right here?

In the same sense that you are a therapsid reptile, birds are dinosaurs. mammals evolved from therapsids, and birds evolved from dinosaurs. The old "lumper vs. splitter" thing.
https://www.coursehero.com/file/p53...roups-together-or-separate-o-Lumpers-seek-to/

So, when you say that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, what you're saying is that...

...dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds. Yes. See the "lumper/splitter" site to learn about it.

Bravo! Now, could you tell us something that "dinosaurs would be shown to be the ancestors of" that is NOT a dinosaur?

Birds are the only known descendants of dinosaurs.

Remember, "Birds are dinosaurs in the same sense that humans are reptiles."

 

[Stripe]

Simple fix: Birds aren't dinosaurs and people aren't reptiles.

God created each after its kind.

 

[7djengo7]

Here's what I wrote:

So, when you say that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, what you're saying is that dinosaurs are the ancestors of dinosaurs.

But, you truncated what I wrote, and added an ellipsis:

So, when you say that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, what you're saying is that...

Then, you pasted this to it:

...dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds. Yes.

I actually said:

1. "So, when you say that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, what you're saying is that dinosaurs are the ancestors of dinosaurs."​

I did not say:

2. "So, when you say that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, what you're saying is that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds."​

You said "Yes" to #2, which is something I did not say. You did not say "Yes" to #1, which is what I did say. Why are you cowering from saying "Yes" to #1?

In a direct reply to this post, simply write the following, and nothing more:

"Yes: When I, The Barbarian, say that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, what I am saying is that dinosaurs are the ancestors of dinosaurs."

Should be easy for you to do, unless you're embarrassed to admit that is what you are saying.

In the same sense that you are a therapsid reptile, birds are dinosaurs.

In no sense, whatsoever, am I a reptile of any sort, seeing as I'm a human being. If you'd like to call yourself a "serpent", however, why then, I welcome you to do just that; I shall not protest one iota.

mammals evolved from therapsids

What (if anything) beyond merely "mammals ARE therapsids" do you imagine you mean by this?

birds evolved from dinosaurs

What (if anything) beyond merely "birds ARE dinosaurs" do you imagine you mean by this?

The old "lumper vs. splitter" thing. https://www.coursehero.com/file/p53...roups-together-or-separate-o-Lumpers-seek-to/

Ah. The old "I can't, myself, hope to even begin to explain what I like to pretend I'm an expert on, so I'm gonna have to outsource to someone who--I hope--can explain"-shtick. Yeah, like you're really going to fool me by trying to divert me with a link to spam.

You gotta try to answer on your own two feet, man. Thus far, you've failed to do so.

Birds are the only known descendants of dinosaurs.

No bird is known to be, nor is, a descendant of any dinosaur(s).

But, since you say that birds are dinosaurs, what you've just handed us is that "[dinosaurs] are the only known descendants of dinosaurs." Bravo!

Guess what: Birds are the only known descendants of birds. And, birds are the only known ancestors of birds.

Remember, "Birds are dinosaurs in the same sense that humans are reptiles."

In other words, "Birds are NOT dinosaurs in any sense, whatsoever." Yes.

 

[The Barbarian]

But, you truncated what I wrote, and added an ellipsis:

I removed the part you wrongly inserted. That's not what I said. And then I restored the quote to what I actually said.

Why you changed what I said, is not the issue. I'm making sure you didn't make a mistake. Birds evolved from dinosaurs.

In no sense, whatsoever, am I a reptile of any sort, seeing as I'm a human being.

You are a therapsid reptile in exactly the sense that birds are dinosaurs. Mammals evolved from therapsids, just as birds evolved from dinosaurs.

If you'd like to call yourself a "serpent", however, why then, I welcome you to do just that; I shall not protest one iota.

Therapsids weren't serpents. Calm yourself, and you'll do better.

What (if anything) beyond merely "mammals ARE therapsids" do you imagine you mean by this?

Just as birds evolved from dinosaurs, mammals evolved from therapsid reptiles.

What (if anything) beyond merely "birds ARE dinosaurs" do you imagine you mean by this?

I meant that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Just as mammals evolved from therapsids.

(Barbarian helps 7djengo7 understand the "lumper vs. splitter" issue in taxonomy)

Ah. The old "I can't, myself, hope to even begin to explain what I like to pretend I'm an expert on,

As I showed you, it's not hard to understand. Some taxonomists like to emphasize the similarities within large groups and others like to emphasize the differences within those groups.

No bird is known to be, nor is, a descendant of any dinosaur(s).

All birds are known to be descendants of dinosaurs. Would you like to learn how we know?

But, since you say that birds are dinosaurs

I said that birds are descended from dinosaurs. I've told you that several times, now. You aren't a very honest person, are you?

what you've just handed us is that...

Barbarian wrote:
"birds are the only known descendants of dinosaurs."

Guess what: Birds are the only known descendants of birds.

As you just learned, birds are the only known descendants of dinosaurs.

In other words, "Birds are NOT dinosaurs in any sense, whatsoever."

No, you have that wrong, too. Birds are dinosaurs in the same sense that mammals are therapsid reptiles.

 

[The Barbarian]

:chuckle:

 

[7djengo7]

That's not what I said.

But, that's what you meant. When you say that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, then, inasmuch as you claim that birds ARE dinosaurs, you, necessarily, mean that dinosaurs are the ancestors of dinosaurs (specifically, of those dinosaurs that you say the birds are).

Birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Not only is that not true, but I don't even grant you that it is false. It doesn't even rise to the level of being false; it is pure nonsense.

You are a therapsid reptile in exactly the sense that birds are dinosaurs.

Trying to demean me, again, I see. You're a gentleman and a scholar in exactly the sense that a rollin'-in-the-muck sow is a gentleman and a scholar.

Therapsids weren't serpents.

Oh, but I never thought they were, so, thanks, I guess.

mammals evolved from therapsids, and birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Just as birds evolved from dinosaurs, mammals evolved from therapsid reptiles.

Even parrots, eh? Polly wanna cracker?

birds evolved from dinosaurs

What (if anything) beyond merely "birds ARE dinosaurs" do you imagine you mean by this?

I meant that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

So, when you say, "birds evolved from dinosaurs", what you mean is "birds evolved from dinosaurs"? Thank you for your brilliant explanation, Professor. I see I've sounded you out, in depth. Don't feel too bad, though. Any other Darwin cheerleader will, necessarily, ring just as hollow as you do, concerning such a question.

As I showed you, it's not hard to understand.

You showed me nothing other than that it's not hard for you to send me a link to spam, as an attempt to divert my attention, and that it's downright impossible for you to try to do your own teaching, when directly asked, embarrassing questions about your own nonsense.

All birds are known to be descendants of dinosaurs.

Since you say that all birds are dinosaurs, all you're telling us, here, is that some dinosaurs are known to be descendants of dinosaurs.

Would you like to learn how we know?

Would you like to stop beating your wife?

I said that birds are descended from dinosaurs. I've told you that several times, now.

Polly wannanother cracker?

You aren't a very honest person, are you?

Why, as a matter of fact, I am. Are you?

Barbarian wrote:
"birds are the only known descendants of dinosaurs."

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!! By saying that, you're saying that no animals except birds are known descendants of dinosaurs! You're excluding all those dinosaurs which you would say are NOT birds from being known descenants of dinosaurs!

No, you have that wrong, too.

Nah. You're wrong.

Birds are dinosaurs in the same sense that mammals are therapsid reptiles.

In other words, "Birds are dinosaurs in NO sense, whatsoever." Again, I agree.

 

[ok doser]

Ya got more patience than me, 7D :thumb:

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
That's not what I said.

But, that's what you meant.

It always amazes me that creationists feel empowered to read minds and declare what people meant, whenever creationists don't like what is said. You're not a very honest person, are you?

When you say that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, then, inasmuch as you claim that birds ARE dinosaurs,

I don't. Splitter, you know. You just made up a story and pretended I said it.

I said that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds. As I showed you, birds are no more dinosaurs than you are a reptile.

What you said, was of course, nonsense. You're merely trying to get me to say what you want me to say. Everyone sees it. Who are your hoping to fool?

Trying to demean me, again, I see.

You've done a much, much better job of that than I could.

You're a gentleman and a scholar in exactly the sense that a rollin'-in-the-muck sow is a gentleman and a scholar.

You're upset that this worked out badly for you, and have abandoned any attempt at reason, and are calling names.

So, when you say, "birds evolved from dinosaurs", what you mean is "birds evolved from dinosaurs"?

You could have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment if you had told the truth from the start.

Thank you for your brilliant explanation, Professor. I see I've sounded you out, in depth. Don't feel too bad, though. Any other Darwin cheerleader will, necessarily, ring just as hollow as you do, concerning such a question.

And we have meltdown. You might want to observe Derf and Lon in these arguments. They manage to keep their dignity and integrity, even while disagreeing.

Worth a try. Since you've lost any attempt to reason at this point, I think you're nicely done.

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian chuckles:That's not what I said.It always amazes me that creationists feel empowered to read minds and declare what people meant, whenever creationists don't like what is said. You're not a very honest person, are you?I don't. Splitter, you know. You just made up a story and pretended I said it.I said that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds. As I showed you, birds are no more dinosaurs than you are a reptile. What you said, was of course, nonsense. You're merely trying to get me to say what you want me to say. Everyone sees it. Who are your hoping to fool?You've done a much, much better job of that than I could.You're upset that this worked out badly for you, and have abandoned any attempt at reason, and are calling names.You could have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment if you had told the truth from the start.And we have meltdown. You might want to observe Derf and Lon in these arguments. They manage to keep their dignity and integrity, even while disagreeing. Worth a try. Since you've lost any attempt to reason at this point, I think you're nicely done.

And we have a meltdown.

 

[7djengo7]

...inasmuch as you claim that birds ARE dinosaurs,

I don't.

Oh, but you do:

In the same sense that you are a therapsid reptile, birds are dinosaurs.

When you say, "birds are dinosaurs", do you not mean that birds are dinosaurs???
By "birds are dinosaurs", you don't mean that birds are not dinosaurs, do you?

I said that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds.

Yeah, I got that you said that. You've only chirped that over, and over, and over....

Does Polly wanna cracker?

You're merely trying to get me to say what you want me to say.

Not merely.
Trying, and succeeding.

Everyone sees it.

The more, the merrier!

Either it is the case that birds are dinosaurs, or it is not the case that birds are dinosaurs. It is not the case that birds are dinosaurs. No rationally-thinking person will ever claim (as Disney's Nat Geo claims, and as you have claimed) that birds are dinosaurs.

When called out on the fact that you claim that birds are dinosaurs, you simply try (in transparently pathetic futility) to disown it, and say, "I don't." Why are you ashamed of your claiming that birds are dinosaurs if you think it is true that birds are dinosaurs?

Barbarian chuckles

Ah, so you're more comfortable speaking of yourself in the third person, in a manner like Disney's Marvel Comics' Hulk, and Disney's Sesame Street's Elmo?

Which of these would Barbarian be willing to claim to be the case?

1. Birds are dinosaurs
2. Birds are not dinosaurs

OK, we already know that Barbarian, now, tells us that Barbarian does not claim #1 to be the case ("I don't.") That, of course, leaves only #2. So, repudiating #1, is Barbarian, then, willing to claim #2 to be the case? One (and only one) of the two must, of course, be the case.

Now, ponder just how abjectly, irrationally stupid Barbarian's "science" must be for him to ever need to stonewall against this question. Any rationally-thinking person will be ready, and willing, to say, "Of course birds are NOT dinosaurs!" So, let us now watch Barbarian stonewall against this question.

You're merely trying to get me to say what you want me to say.

Not merely. For instance, here, rather than get you to answer a simple question, I'm going to get you to clam up and stonewall against answering it:

Which one of the two, following, mutually contradictory propositions is the true one, and which the false?

1. Birds are dinosaurs
2. Birds are not dinosaurs

By stonewalling against this question, you're admitting that your "science" cannot tell you which proposition is the true one, and which proposition is the false one. What a worthless "science", indeed!

Answer: #2 is the true one, and #1 is the false one.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian points out that he doesn't say birds are dinosaurs)

Oh, but you do:

Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
In the same sense that you are a therapsid reptile, birds are dinosaurs.

So you're telling me that you're a therapsid reptile? That would be extraordinary, since they are thought to have died out over a hundred million years ago, and they are generally regarded to have been illiterate.

You have some evidence for your claim?

For the non-trolls, taxonomy recognizes ancestry, but considers birds to be a separate taxon from dinosaurs. They are both members of the diapsid (two openings of the skull behind the eye) Archosaura, consisting of pterosaurs, crocodiles and their like, dinosaurs, and birds. This presents a problem, since birds are in a separate class, Aves.

It's similar to mammals, which evolved from another group of reptiles, the synapsid (one opening in the skull behind the eye) thecodonts, or mammal-like reptiles. One of best known is Dimetrodon, the large, sail-backed reptile, often confused with dinosaurs. Later therapsids were very mammal-like, and just as it is with dinosaurs and birds, it's hard to draw the line where therapsids end and mammals begin. The dividing line is reptiles have the jaw joint at the articular bone, and mammals have it at the dentary bone. But there are some (eg. Diarthrognathus)that have both joints. And mammals are in a separate class, mammalia.

I remain skeptical of 7djengo7's claim that he is a therapsid reptile for the reasons I mentioned above. There's no evidence that they were literate or given to make absurd claims.

 

[Stripe]

(Barbarian points out that he doesn't say birds are dinosaurs)COLOR="#800000"]Oh, but you do:Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View PostIn the same sense that you are a therapsid reptile, birds are dinosaurs.[/COLOR]So you're telling me that you're a therapsid reptile? That would be extraordinary, since they are thought to have died out over a hundred million years ago, and they are generally regarded to have been illiterate.You have some evidence for your claim?For the non-trolls, taxonomy recognizes ancestry, but considers birds to be a separate taxon from dinosaurs. They are both members of the diapsid (two openings of the skull behind the eye) Archosaura, consisting of pterosaurs, crocodiles and their like, dinosaurs, and birds. This presents a problem, since birds are in a separate class, Aves. It's similar to mammals, which evolved from another group of reptiles, the synapsid (one opening in the skull behind the eye) thecodonts, or mammal-like reptiles. One of best known is Dimetrodon, the large, sail-backed reptile, often confused with dinosaurs. Later therapsids were very mammal-like, and just as it is with dinosaurs and birds, it's hard to draw the line where therapsids end and mammals begin. The dividing line is reptiles have the jaw joint at the articular bone, and mammals have it at the dentary bone. But there are some (eg. Diarthrognathus)that have both joints. And mammals are in a separate class, mammalia.I remain skeptical of 7djengo7's claim that he is a therapsid reptile for the reasons I mentioned above. There's no evidence that they were literate or given to make absurd claims.

The meltdown continues.

 

[Ktoyou]

The meltdown continues.

dinosaurs are real horror show! I like King Kong beating up tyrannosaurus.K:

 

[The Barbarian]

dinosaurs are real horror show! I like King Kong beating up tyrannosaurus.K:

I always liked Godzilla whipping up on Rodan and Ghidora. I like eating at Teriyaki Madness, because they play Japanese monster films all day.

I discovered that the guy who played Godzilla was a well-regarded actor, who took his career seriously. He often visited zoos, observing large reptiles to improve his performance as Godzilla. Haruo Nakajima has an asteroid named after him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruo_Nakajima

 

[7djengo7]

Here is The Barbarian lying:

(Barbarian points out that he doesn't say birds are dinosaurs)

Here is The Barbarian saying that birds are dinosaurs:

In the same sense that you are a therapsid reptile, birds are dinosaurs.

Here is The Barbarian saying, again, that birds are dinosaurs:

Remember, "Birds are dinosaurs in the same sense that humans are reptiles."

Now, you wrote:

So you're telling me that you're a therapsid reptile?

To whom (if anyone) are you talking, here? To whom (if anyone) are you referring by the pronoun, 'you'? As anyone can see, your post, #494, was not a Reply to any TOL poster, in particular. Maybe you're talking to yourself. (After all, you're obviously fond of often talking about yourself in the third person, like a weirdo. Perhaps you also enjoy talking to yourself in the second person.)

So you're telling me that you're a therapsid reptile?

If you are talking to me, the answer to your question is, obviously, No. I'm a human being. Only an abject idiot could call a human being a reptile. What keeps me from calling myself a reptile? Easy answer: I'm not an abject idiot. Notice how I've never, once, called myself a reptile; that is why you have, obviously, not been able to quote me as having done so. And yet, I can, and do, quote you as having affirmed that "birds are dinosaurs". Why am I able to do that? Simple: Because you have affirmed, repeatedly, on TOL, that "birds are dinosaurs".

You, though--you are calling me a reptile:

You are a therapsid reptile in exactly the sense that birds are dinosaurs.

When you say to a human, "You are a therapsid reptile", do you mean "You are a therapsid reptile", or, instead, do you mean, "You are NOT a therapsid reptile"?

I expressly denied that I am a reptile:

In no sense, whatsoever, am I a reptile of any sort, seeing as I'm a human being.

To my denial of your claim, you (instead of agreeing with me, and saying something such as, "You're correct, 7djengo7: you are, in no sense, whatsoever, a reptile, since you are a human being") reacted by merely reiterating your idiotic claim:

You are a therapsid reptile in exactly the sense that birds are dinosaurs.

Note, also: Since, curiously, you have not once, called yourself, personally, a reptile, but have, repeatedly, singled me out, calling me a reptile, you have, thereby, made yourself out to be a hypocrite when you, earlier, accused me of name-calling. That's what you're doing, and you know it: name-calling. Henceforth, I request that you stop calling me a reptile. Believe you me, I'll have no qualm, whatsoever, pointing out your very specific, malicious name-calling to the TOL moderators.

Only an abject idiot could say that humans are reptiles! Wouldn't you agree?

Now, do you, The Barbarian, say that humans are reptiles?

Remember, "Birds are dinosaurs in the same sense that humans are reptiles."

Yeah, you do say that. Thanks.

That would be extraordinary,

Bravo! You just called your claim that humans are reptiles "extraordinary"! You hit the nail on the head with that judgment! For, not only are you claiming a falsehood when you claim that humans are reptiles, but you are, in so claiming, claiming something that is extraordinarily idiotic to claim.

since they ["therapsid reptiles"] are thought to have died out over a hundred million years ago, and they are generally regarded to have been illiterate.

Since you say that humans are "therapsid reptiles", here, you are saying that humans "are thought to have died out over a hundred million years ago, and they are generally regarded to have been illiterate". What an extraordinarily idiotic thing for you to claim.

You have some evidence for your claim?

By "you", here, are you referring to yourself--The Barbarian--in the second person? If, instead, you're addressing me, here, then tell me what claim you're referring to by your phrase, "your claim". You, of course, are going to need to directly quote my exact words, wherein you pretend I have claimed whatever it is you are calling "your claim". See, I can, and do, quote your own words, wherein you have claimed idiotic things such as that "birds are dinosaurs" and that "humans are reptiles". You're the claim-maker, here, by calling me a reptile.

For the non-trolls,

So noble and magnanimous of you, to be honest enough to distinguish yourself from us non-trolls, and to condescend to try to lay out your "science" in a cloud of vacuous jargon that, perhaps, us non-trolls could one day hope to be able to meaninglessly parrot as prolifically as you, yourself, as a Darwin cheerleader, meaninglessly parrot it.

taxonomy recognizes ancestry,

To whom are you referring by the word "taxonomy"? See, I, for one, never thought that taxonomy is a person; that being the case, I, for one, never thought that taxonomy recognizes, or can recognize, anything. People--persons--recognize things; non-persons do not have cognitive capabilities; non-persons do not recognize anything. So, would you say that taxonomy is a person?

but considers birds to be a separate taxon from dinosaurs.

So, when you, and Disney's Nat Geo, claim that (and I quote) "birds are dinosaurs", you do not mean to say that birds are dinosaurs, but, instead, you mean to say "birds [are] a separate taxon from dinosaurs"??

Also, as is the case for every, last Darwin cheerleader, unfortunately for you, when you say (for instance) "taxon", you are meaninglessly parroting a word which you have absolutely zero hope of coherently explaining. (Perhaps we'll have the opportunity to flesh out this fact in further posts.) Just as is the case when you pompously flap on, and on, and on, with words like "species", "evolution" and others: you are merely meaninglessly parroting such words.

I remain skeptical of 7djengo7's claim that he is a therapsid reptile

Again, try to directly quote my exact words, wherein you pretend I claimed that. Why can't you? That's right: because you're lying about me, as I've never--not even once--claimed that, nor anything that even remotely resembles it. Yet, you, on the other hand, have claimed that, and I've already quoted your exact words, wherein you've claimed that. So, here, you're admitting that you "remain skeptical" of your own claim! And, of course, that's an idiotic thing to do. Since you, yourself, admit that you "remain skeptical" of your own claim, I have a hunch that nobody else is bound to take your claim--your abjectly idiotic claim--seriously, either.

 

[The Barbarian]

I wrote that birds are dinosaurs in the same sense that you are a therapsid reptile. You then affirmed that meant that birds are dinosaurs. Which is your claim that you are a therapsid reptile.

You aren't smart enough to pull off what you're trying to do here. But since you're now reduced to trolling, you go into the troll file. Bye-bye.

 

[7djengo7]

I wrote that birds are dinosaurs in the same sense that you are a therapsid reptile. You then affirmed that meant that birds are dinosaurs.

When you say that I "affirmed that meant that birds are dinosaurs", what is the referent of your pronoun "that"?

I never even once affirmed that what you wrote ("birds are dinosaurs in the same sense that you are a therapsid reptile") means that birds are dinosaurs. Not at all.

What I have been affirming, rather, is the fact that your claiming that "birds are dinosaurs" means that you are claiming that birds are dinosaurs. The fact that you also wrote the words, "in the same sense that you are a therapsid reptile", doesn't, somehow, magically cancel out the fact that you are claiming that birds are dinosaurs.

I've invited you, numerous times, to come out and affirm, flat out, which of these two mutually contradictory propositions is the true one, and which is the false one:

1. birds are dinosaurs
2. birds are not dinosaurs

So far, you have persistently stonewalled against this question, because to answer it must needs embarrass you. But, you embarrass yourself equally by stonewalling against it, too. I would actually give you a bit of credit, and probably actually "Thank" a post of yours, were you to write a post in which you clearly, without equivocation, came out and confessed the truth that BIRDS ARE NOT DINOSAURS.

You could simply write, "Birds are not dinosaurs!" Or, "Birds are not dinosaurs in any sense, whatsoever!"

However, were you to confess the TRUTH, that BIRDS ARE NOT DINOSAURS, you know as well as I know, that you will be directly contradicting what Disney's Nat Geo (one of the big-name organs of "science") has affirmed. And, of course, who are you? You, of course, don't want to be seen as out of step with your masters from mainstream "science".

Which is your claim that you are a therapsid reptile.

Again, I've never made any such claim: that's why you can't quote me as having made such a claim.

Your phrase, "your claim that you are a therapsid reptile" is without a referent--meaningless--since I have never claimed to be a reptile.

You aren't smart enough to pull off what you're trying to do here.

Already pulled it off with my first post. I forced you to have to lie, stonewall, and dodge, to try (and fail) to save face for the stupidities you are proud, as a Darwin cheerleader, to parrot.

But since you're now reduced to trolling, you go into the troll file. Bye-bye.

Feel free to cower and run away! I, for my part, have no plan to go anywhere. By all means, put me on ignore; I can continue to read your posts, and I can continue to pit your ravings as a Darwin cheerleader against your ravings as a Darwin cheerleader.