Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Scientists Question Darwinism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Barbarian
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 7djengo7
    replied
    Here is The Barbarian lying:
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    (Barbarian points out that he doesn't say birds are dinosaurs)
    Here is The Barbarian saying that birds are dinosaurs:

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    In the same sense that you are a therapsid reptile, birds are dinosaurs.
    Here is The Barbarian saying, again, that birds are dinosaurs:

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Remember, "Birds are dinosaurs in the same sense that humans are reptiles."
    Now, you wrote:
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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.)

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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:

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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:

    Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    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:

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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?

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Remember, "Birds are dinosaurs in the same sense that humans are reptiles."
    Yeah, you do say that. Thanks.

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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?

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    Originally posted by Ktoyou View Post
    dinosaurs are real horror show! I like King Kong beating up tyrannosaurus.
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Ktoyou
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    The meltdown continues.
    dinosaurs are real horror show! I like King Kong beating up tyrannosaurus.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    (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.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    (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.
    Last edited by The Barbarian; July 15, 2019, 05:31 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 7djengo7
    replied
    Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    ...inasmuch as you claim that birds ARE dinosaurs,
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    I don't.
    Oh, but you do:

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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?

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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?

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    You're merely trying to get me to say what you want me to say.
    Not merely.
    Trying, and succeeding.

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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?

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    Barbarian chuckles:
    That's not what I said.

    Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Ya got more patience than me, 7D

    Leave a comment:


  • 7djengo7
    replied
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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).

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Therapsids weren't serpents.
    Oh, but I never thought they were, so, thanks, I guess.

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    mammals evolved from therapsids, and birds evolved from dinosaurs.
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Just as birds evolved from dinosaurs, mammals evolved from therapsid reptiles.
    Even parrots, eh? Polly wanna cracker?

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    birds evolved from dinosaurs
    Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    What (if anything) beyond merely "birds ARE dinosaurs" do you imagine you mean by this?
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Would you like to learn how we know?
    Would you like to stop beating your wife?

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    I said that birds are descended from dinosaurs. I've told you that several times, now.
    Polly wannanother cracker?

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    You aren't a very honest person, are you?
    Why, as a matter of fact, I am. Are you?

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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!

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    No, you have that wrong, too.
    Nah. You're wrong.

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 7djengo7
    replied
    Here's what I wrote:

    Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    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:

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    ...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.

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    mammals evolved from therapsids
    What (if anything) beyond merely "mammals ARE therapsids" do you imagine you mean by this?

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    birds evolved from dinosaurs
    What (if anything) beyond merely "birds ARE dinosaurs" do you imagine you mean by this?

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    The old "lumper vs. splitter" thing. https://www.coursehero.com/file/p53h...mpers-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.

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Remember, "Birds are dinosaurs in the same sense that humans are reptiles."
    In other words, "Birds are NOT dinosaurs in any sense, whatsoever." Yes.

    Leave a comment:


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

    God created each after its kind.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X