Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

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

  • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    I clicked thanks on what he said before he edited his post to what it is now.
    Sorry about that, JR.
    All my ancestors are human.
    PS: All your ancestors are human.
    PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
      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.
      I like how The Barbarian refuses to cite which (if any) passage(s) of Scripture he is pretending to discuss.

      What the heck is "neither male nor female were there at the beginning of creation" supposed to mean? What (if anything) does The Barbarian mean by his words (and not the Bible's words), "were there"?

      According to Matthew 9:14 KJV, Jesus said, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female." And, according to Mark 10:6 KJV, Jesus said, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

      The lying, Scripture-despising con-artist, The Barbarian, refuses to actually quote Scripture in his attacks upon it. Hmmm. Why is that? Why can't he quote, or at least cite, what passage of Scripture he is talking about when he says that "God says that neither male nor female were there at the beginning of creation"?

      Notice that Jesus does not say, "But from the beginning of the [six-day period of] creation God made them male and female." Rather, He says, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." By the noun, κτίσεως (rendered "creation"), Jesus is not referring to the period of God's creation of the heavens and the earth, etc. Rather, He is referring to that which God, during that period of time, created: aka, "the creature". By the phrase, ἀρχῆς κτίσεως (rendered "the beginning of the creation"), Jesus is not referring to God's commencement of His creative work. Rather, He is referring to the earliest days of the existence of what God, in His creative work, has created--that is, to the earliest days of the existence of the creature, the heavens and the earth, etc. Day 6 in that (so far) less-than-10,000-year period of time of the existence of God's creature is, indeed, one of the earliest days of that creature. Week 1 is, indeed, the beginning of the existence of that which God created. Some time billions upon billions of years after Week 1 can only be called "the beginning" by the raving minds of Darwinists and other assorted circus clowns.
      All my ancestors are human.
      PS: All your ancestors are human.
      PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
        I like how The Barbarian refuses to cite which (if any) passage(s) of Scripture he is pretending to discuss.
        The answer is simple... he's not.
        All of my ancestors are human.
        Originally posted by Squeaky
        That explains why your an idiot.
        Originally posted by God's Truth
        Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
        Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
        (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

        1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
        (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

        Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
          Sorry about that, JR.
          No worries

          Comment


          • Barbarian enjoys making things up and pretending that he should be understood. Then he claims to be popular when his nonsense is exposed.
            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
            E≈mc2
            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
            -Bob B.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
              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?
              I think I have said that.
              By "describe [anchiornis or a microraptor] as birds", do you mean "say that they are birds"?
              Yes, obviously.
              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?
              Had you guessed, perhaps, that in my opinion you would not have disputed that these two species are dinosaurs?

              Stuart

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                I think I have said that.
                Of course you have.

                Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                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].
                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?

                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?
                • The ancestors of dinosaurs were dinosaurs
                • The ancestors of non-dinosaurs were dinosaurs
                Have fun continuing to stonewall against the question, Stuu.
                All my ancestors are human.
                PS: All your ancestors are human.
                PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                  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?
                  • The ancestors of dinosaurs were dinosaurs
                  • The ancestors of non-dinosaurs were dinosaurs
                  Have fun continuing to stonewall against the question, Stuu.
                  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.

                  “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                  - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                    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?
                    What Alate_One said.

                    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?
                    • The ancestors of dinosaurs were dinosaurs
                    • The ancestors of non-dinosaurs were dinosaurs
                    Have fun continuing to stonewall against the 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.

                    Stuart

                    Comment


                    • "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.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                        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.

                        One of your problems is that you can't answer the most elementary questions:


                        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?



                        Thanks to the law of excluded middle (which you, in your commitment to your irrationality, despise), these are your only options, Alate_One: 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.

                        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
                        Why can't you answer this question, Professor?





                        All my ancestors are human.
                        PS: All your ancestors are human.
                        PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                          What Alate_One said.
                          Oh, sad. Because Alate_One has also stonewalled against my question, thus far, just like you have done.

                          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

                          Enjoy your continuance in your stonewalling, Stuu and Alate_One!!



                          All my ancestors are human.
                          PS: All your ancestors are human.
                          PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                            "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.
                            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

                            Which one is it, The Barbarian?? It's one or the other. If you mean neither, you mean nothing. C'mon, Professor, time to deliver the goods. Why can't you answer this elementary question?

                            All my ancestors are human.
                            PS: All your ancestors are human.
                            PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                              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.
                              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."


                              All my ancestors are human.
                              PS: All your ancestors are human.
                              PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                                Why can't you answer this question, Professor?
                                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?

                                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."
                                "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.

                                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.
                                “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                                - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X