Why don't Darwinists say that birds are fish?

[7djengo7]

We're told by Darwinists that dinosaurs are ancestors of birds, and that birds are dinosaurs.
But, are we not told, also, that fish are ancestors of dinosaurs?

400-Million Year-Old Fish Discovered Is Ancestor of Dinosaurs, Humans

So, if both fish, and dinosaurs, are ancestors of birds, then why do Darwinists not say (alongside "birds are dinosaurs") that birds are fish?

And, are not single-cell organisms supposed to be ancestors of birds? So, why do Darwinists only say that birds are dinosaurs, and not say that birds are single-celled organisms?

I agree that only a raving idiot could say that birds are single-celled organisms, and that birds are fish, but then, just the same, only a raving idiot could say that birds are dinosaurs.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Oh gee, I dunno, the same way that Crash Bandicoot isn't the same as Sonic the Hedgehog?

:rain:

 

[7djengo7]

Oh gee, I dunno, the same way that Crash Bandicoot isn't the same as Sonic the Hedgehog?

:rain:

Stop begging for attention. Try to answer the questions I asked, or leave.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Stop begging for attention. Try to answer the questions I asked, or leave.

Why on earth do you still insist that people are "begging you for attention" when you receive an answer you don't like? You've had all the answers you could possibly need in multiple threads as it as and I sure wasn't accusing you of begging for "my attention" when you quoted me earlier tonight in a separate thread with all the repetitive "poser" garbage that is more than ironic. Get a grip.

 

[Right Divider]

Why on earth do you still insist that people are "begging you for attention" when you receive an answer you don't like?

:rotfl:

 

[7djengo7]

Why on earth do you still insist that people are "begging you for attention" when you receive an answer you don't like? You've had all the answers you could possibly need in multiple threads as it as and I sure wasn't accusing you of begging for "my attention" when you quoted me earlier tonight in a separate thread with all the repetitive "poser" garbage that is more than ironic. Get a grip.

LOL

You consistently, throughout your posts, stonewall against all the questions you're asked, and then you lie about that fact by claiming that you've answered them. Not only have you not answered the questions, but you have not even tried to answer them.

Where, in the OP, did I address you, Arthur Brain? That's right: nowhere. I didn't call out for you: "Hey, Arthur Brain, will you please come and start trolling my most recent thread, as you've trolled my other threads!" Yet, you took it upon yourself to do just that, reacting to my OP in your customarily degenerate way, without even trying to answer the questions I asked in the OP--indeed, without even trying to make it appear as though you imagine you could answer them. Of course, as you and I both know, you cannot answer the questions I asked in the OP. So yeah, you trolling poser, stop begging for attention--stop trolling my thread. Stop trying to divert attention away from questions that necessarily embarrass you and your fellow Darwinists, by your attempts to change the subject to your favorite video game and Pokemon characters. Think about that, you juvenile delinquent: instead of trying to say something meaningful in response to the questions I asked in the OP, you used your first post to ignore those questions altogether, and to start talking about your favorite things.

As with other threads you've trolled, all you've done in this latest thread is brought attention to the fact that, aware of the questions I asked in the OP, you know that you have no hope of answering them. Your posts are showcases of your confused pride at your incompetence to answer the questions I asked. Why are you so proud of your perpetual incompetence to answer the questions I ask?

Again, here're the questions you've stonewalled against:

Why do Darwinists say things as idiotic and false as that birds are dinosaurs, while they apparently have at least enough sense to not say something as idiotic and false as that birds are fish? Why do Darwinists say things as idiotic and false as that birds are dinosaurs, while they apparently have at least enough sense to not say something as idiotic and false as that birds are single-celled organisms?

You can't answer these questions: you are incompetent to account for your gross inconsistency. It's beyond the scope of your bag of slogans, and your conditioning as a Darwin cheerleader, to even have a clue as to how to go about trying to save face for yourself in encounters with such questions.

On the other hand, perhaps, though you (so far as I can tell) have enough sense not to say, publicly, that birds are fish, and that birds are single-celled organisms--perhaps you really do believe that birds are fish, and that birds are single-celled organisms. After all, if you're stupid enough to be able to say that birds are dinosaurs, then you are, ipso facto, stupid enough to believe that birds are fish, and that birds are single-celled organisms. Since you're stupid enough to not be able to affirm that the goldfish population of a fishbowl in which one, and only one goldfish lives is a goldfish population of 1, you're easily stupid enough to believe that birds are fish, and that birds are single-celled organisms.

 

[chair]

[h=1]Are Birds Really Dinosaurs?[/h] Ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates and they will probably tell you that yes, birds (avians) are dinosaurs. Using proper terminology, birds are avian dinosaurs; other dinosaurs are non-avian dinosaurs, and (strange as it may sound) birds are technically considered reptiles. Overly technical? Just semantics? Perhaps, but still good science. In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of birds being the descendants of a maniraptoran dinosaur, probably something similar (but not identical) to a small dromaeosaur. What is this evidence?

 

[7djengo7]

[h=1]Are Birds Really Dinosaurs?[/h] Ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates and they will probably tell you that yes, birds (avians) are dinosaurs. Using proper terminology, birds are avian dinosaurs; other dinosaurs are non-avian dinosaurs, and (strange as it may sound) birds are technically considered reptiles. Overly technical? Just semantics? Perhaps, but still good science. In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of birds being the descendants of a maniraptoran dinosaur, probably something similar (but not identical) to a small dromaeosaur. What is this evidence?

You did not even read the OP of this thread to which you have just reacted, parrotlike. If you'd read my OP, you'd have been made aware, by my very first sentence, therein, that I am/was already aware that Darwinists say that birds are dinosaurs. I already know that Darwinists say that birds are dinosaurs; why did you feel the need to devote a post to telling me that Darwinists say that birds are dinosaurs?

Go back, read my OP, and then try to answer the questions I asked in it. Failing to do so, any further posts you write in this thread are nought but a continuation of your trolling of this thread.

 

[chair]

We're told by Darwinists that dinosaurs are ancestors of birds, and that birds are dinosaurs.
But, are we not told, also, that fish are ancestors of dinosaurs?

400-Million Year-Old Fish Discovered Is Ancestor of Dinosaurs, Humans

So, if both fish, and dinosaurs, are ancestors of birds, then why do Darwinists not say (alongside "birds are dinosaurs") that birds are fish?

And, are not single-cell organisms supposed to be ancestors of birds? So, why do Darwinists only say that birds are dinosaurs, and not say that birds are single-celled organisms?

I agree that only a raving idiot could say that birds are single-celled organisms, and that birds are fish, but then, just the same, only a raving idiot could say that birds are dinosaurs.

I posted that for those who are intellectually honest and might run into this thread. You'd do well to read the link I posted as well. But that would require some intellectual honesty.

 

[User Name]

[h=1]Is this Bird a Living Dinosaur?[/h]

 

[7djengo7]

I posted that for those who are intellectually honest and might run into this thread. You'd do well to read the link I posted as well. But that would require some intellectual honesty.

Any honest person who might run into this thread, having read my OP, and then your reactions to it, will admit that you have not answered the questions I asked in my OP.

Why do Darwinists--having no scruples against their rank stupidity of saying that birds are dinosaurs--refuse to say that birds are fish? Why do Darwinists--having no scruples against their rank stupidity of saying that birds are dinosaurs--refuse to say that birds are single-celled organisms?

Why do you say I'd "do well" to read the document to which you provided a link in your post?

In one sense, I admit I've done well to click the link you posted, and to have read the first few lines of the document to which that link is directed: for, by having done so, I learned that you didn't even write a shred of the text you posted in your irrelevant and reactive post, #7.

So, chair, stop being a copy/paste poser--stop stonewalling against the questions which this thread--in its very title, and OP--is manifestly about:

Why, chair, do you refuse to say that birds are fish, since you claim that fish are ancestors of birds? Why, chair, do you refuse to say that birds are single-celled organisms, since you claim that single-celled organisms are ancestors of birds?

The link you gave sure doesn't lift a finger to try to answer these questions, chair. So, your link has failed you in this thread, just as dismally as you, yourself, have failed in this thread.

 

[7djengo7]

[h=1]Is this Bird a Living Dinosaur?[/h]

You should try to answer the questions I asked in my OP, rather than to spam my thread as you've just done. Why can't you answer the questions I asked in my OP?

 

[Stuu]

We're told by Darwinists that dinosaurs are ancestors of birds, and that birds are dinosaurs.
But, are we not told, also, that fish are ancestors of dinosaurs?

400-Million Year-Old Fish Discovered Is Ancestor of Dinosaurs, Humans

So, if both fish, and dinosaurs, are ancestors of birds, then why do Darwinists not say (alongside "birds are dinosaurs") that birds are fish?

And, are not single-cell organisms supposed to be ancestors of birds? So, why do Darwinists only say that birds are dinosaurs, and not say that birds are single-celled organisms?

I agree that only a raving idiot could say that birds are single-celled organisms, and that birds are fish, but then, just the same, only a raving idiot could say that birds are dinosaurs.

If you are asking for a serious reply you might consider whether it is helpful that you have already called your respondent a raving idiot.

Neil Shubin, co-discoverer of Tiktaalik, titled his book 'Your Inner Fish'.

At the level of phylum, all chordates like us (including dinosaurs and the dinosaurs alive today that we call birds) have common ancestry in fish. In that sense we are all fish.

You would have to go to the level of domain to classify us as eukarya, descendants of single-celled organisms.

I'd say this is another case where it is important for an OP writer to be precise with language use.

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

At the level of phylum, all chordates like us (including dinosaurs and the dinosaurs alive today that we call birds) have common ancestry in fish. In that sense we are all fish.

Obviously you're quite happy to proclaim your solidarity with other raving idiots who are willing to say that humans are fish. You've just told me that you are a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate animal with gills and fins and living wholly in water.
That's what you are telling me, when you say that you, Stuu, are a fish: you are telling me that you, Stuu, are a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate animal with gills and fins and living wholly in water.

In no sense, whatsoever, is any man or woman a fish. Nor is any bird a fish. Nor is any dinosaur a fish. Nor is any other non-fish a fish.

 

[7djengo7]

You would have to go to the level of domain to classify us as eukarya, descendants of single-celled organisms.

Here, again, you've stonewalled against the question I asked:

Since you say that for Joe to have a fish for his ancestor is for Joe, himself, to be a fish, then why--refusing to be consistent with yourself--do you refuse to say, also, that for Fred to have a single-celled organism for his ancestor is for Fred, himself, to be a single-celled organism?

 

[Stuu]

Obviously you're quite happy to proclaim your solidarity with other raving idiots

I am obviously not a raving idiot.

who are willing to say that humans are fish.

...that humans have common fish ancestry with other vertebrates. We are fish in that sense.

You've just told me that you are a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate animal with gills and fins and living wholly in water.

No, I was careful with language, unlike my interlocutor.

In no sense, whatsoever, is any man or woman a fish. Nor is any bird a fish. Nor is any dinosaur a fish. Nor is any other non-fish a fish.

Well we are all fish in the sense that we are descended from a common fish ancestor. In other respects we are not fish because we are adapted differently from dinosaurs, including birds.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Here, again, you've stonewalled against the question I asked: Since you say that for Joe to have a fish for his ancestor is for Joe, himself, to be a fish, then why--refusing to be consistent with yourself--do you refuse to say, also, that for Fred to have a single-celled organism for his ancestor is for Fred, himself, to be a single-celled organism?

I thought I had said that. We are eukarya, a form of single-celled organism in the sense that we are descended from a population of them, even though we are no longer single-celled animals.

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

I am obviously not a raving idiot.

Ah, but, on the contrary, you obviously are a raving idiot, since you wrote this:

...that humans have common fish ancestry with other vertebrates. We are fish in that sense.

Only a raving idiot can say that something can be a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate animal with gills and fins and living wholly in water (aka a fish) WITHOUT BEING a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate animal with gills and fins and living wholly in water.

No, I was careful with language, unlike my interlocutor.

By your willingness and ability to say, in all seriousness (nay, whilst you are being "careful with language") that something that is NOT a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate animal with gills and fins and living wholly in water is a fish, you have demonstrated that you are, indeed, a raving idiot.

Well we are all fish in the sense that we are descended from a common fish ancestor.

So, Mr. Limpet, you must be stupid enough to imagine, also, that you are a great, great, great, great, great grandmother, since you are descended from a great, great, great, great, great grandmother.

In other respects we are not fish because we are adapted differently from dinosaurs, including birds.

In no sense, whatsoever, is any human a fish.
In no sense, whatsoever, is any dinosaur a fish.
In no sense, whatsoever, is any bird a fish.
In no sense, whatsoever, is any bird a dinosaur.

Now, why don't you tell me what, exactly, you would say is the sine qua non of being a fish. What would you say makes every fish a fish, the absence of which debars every thing that is not a fish from being a fish?

 

[7djengo7]

I thought I had said that. We are eukarya, a form of single-celled organism in the sense that we are descended from a population of them, even though we are no longer single-celled animals.

Stuart

Here, again, you've stonewalled against the question I asked: Since you say that for Joe to have a fish for his ancestor is for Joe, himself, to be a fish, then why--refusing to be consistent with yourself--do you refuse to say, also, that for Fred to have a single-celled organism for his ancestor is for Fred, himself, to be a single-celled organism?

Where, in this thread, Stuu, prior to this present post, have I written either the word, 'eukarya', or the word, 'eukaryote'? That's right: nowhere.

I did not write, "....why--refusing to be consistent with yourself--do you refuse to say, also, that for Fred to have a eukaryote for his ancestor is for Fred, himself, to be a eukaryote?"

You, being a Darwinist, say that Fred has a single-celled organism for his ancestor, and so, I ask what debars you from being consistent between your predication about Fred and your predication about Joe. What repels you against saying, on the one hand, that Fred, a man, is a single-celled organism, despite the fact that you are happy with, and proud of yourself for saying, on the other hand, what is equally stupid and false: viz., that Joe, a man, is a fish?

 

[7djengo7]

humans have common fish ancestry with other vertebrates. We are fish in that sense.

Since you are also ridiculous enough to assert the falsehood that mammals have common ancestry with non-mammals, you're obviously ridiculous enough to assert the falsehood that mammals are non-mammals.