How do creationists answer these questions: Are you an Ape? A Mammal? A Vertebrate?

[AV1611VET]

Aman, I've got to hand it to you -- I scanned ahead and found nary a single nugget of meaningful information in the entire post. Just doubletalk seguing into the usual regurgitated whimsy.

With the exception of mankind & womankind, kinds are animals designed to populate the earth via punctuated equilibrium.

 

[TLK Valentine]

With the exception of mankind & womankind, kinds are animals designed to populate the earth via punctuated equilibrium.

Please, AV -- you can't top that level of doubletalk, and you shame yourself with such a halfhearted attempt.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please, AV -- you can't top that level of doubletalk, and you shame yourself with such a halfhearted attempt.

What doubletalk?

 

[Aman777]

Well, that was utterly meaningless.

Well, that was utterly meaningless.

Well, that was utterly meaningless.

Well... you get the idea.

Aman, I've got to hand it to you -- I scanned ahead and found nary a single nugget of meaningful information in the entire post. Just doubletalk seguing into the usual regurgitated whimsy.

I salute you, man.

Dear Valentine, I am sorry for your inability to understand simple things. Perhaps you could find an adult who can actually read and comprehend, to explain to you that it is YOUR post which adds NOTHING to the discussion. Try to do better. Your negativity reminds me of the "do nothing" Republicans, whining about the government, while doing everything they can to shut it down.

In Love,
Aman

 

[TLK Valentine]

Dear Valentine, I am sorry for your inability to understand simple things.

Oh, believe me, Aman, this was one of the simplest things I've ever understood around here -- you were asked a question, and had too much pride to admit you didn't know, so you tried to blow smoke.

A- for effort, man.

Perhaps you could find an adult who can actually read and comprehend, to explain to you that it is YOUR post which adds NOTHING to the discussion.

Then the score remains tied, 0-0. Don't be going all ad hom just because you've been caught.

Try to do better. You're negativity reminds me of the "do nothing" Republicans, whining about the government, while doing everything they can to shut it down.

As opposed to the "do nothings" of the scientific community, whining about science, while doing everything they can to shut it down? I think you'll find those guys are usually cut form the same cloth.

 

[EternalDragon]

Exactly. Birds are just differently appearing dinosaurs.

That gave me a good laugh. Wait, are you being serious?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Exactly. Birds are just differently appearing dinosaurs.

Birds lived with the dinosaur, are found in the strata at the same time, in the stomachs of fossilized dino, so can not be dino. Since you do not classify dino as aves, then dino are not birds, never have been. They are of their own kind. It is quite simple really. Once again, mistaking changes in appearance as transitional.

You once believed dino were reptiles, but no longer. Not sure if you think they are mammals or not, can't get any definite answer from an evolutionist in this regard, but I know you do not classify them as aves, so birds they were not.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Most of your post is just a reworded version of the same twaddle you've been peddling out since I got to this forum and long before, so there's nothing really to comment on, but I'll ask this question again since I've yet to get a straight, consistent answer from you.

What is a kind? What are the criteria for it? What makes two animals a kind and what makes two animals not a kind? Do not give me example - giving examples of something is typically what you do after you define something, not in lieu of it.

I'll let you answer that question since science has already defined it. What are Felidae? What are Canidae? What are Avialae? It's your own evolutionary definition, so if you don't know what it is, don't blame me.

Just do not ask me to accept your fallacious sub-classifications, simply because as we all know, scientists like to name things and play the name game. baby dino ring a bell?

 

[Split Rock]

Birds lived with the dinosaur, are found in the strata at the same time, in the stomachs of fossilized dino, so can not be dino. Since you do not classify dino as aves, then dino are not birds, never have been. They are of their own kind. It is quite simple really. Once again, mistaking changes in appearance as transitional.

Of course dinosaurs were not aves... aves evolved from certain dinosaurs. This hardly precludes them from living at the same time as dinosuars. Aves therefore are a clade of dinosaurs (theropods, specifically).

You once believed dino were reptiles, but no longer. Not sure if you think they are mammals or not, can't get any definite answer from an evolutionist in this regard, but I know you do not classify them as aves, so birds they were not.

They are still classified as reptiles, though some scientists think they deserve their own classes under vertebrates/ chordates.

There.. that was simple enough, wasn't it?

 

[Split Rock]

That gave me a good laugh. Wait, are you being serious?

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Superclass: Tetrapoda
Clade: Eumaniraptora
Clade: Avialae
Gauthier, 1986
Class: Aves
Linnaeus, 1758[2]
Bird - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Dear Valentine, I am sorry for your inability to understand simple things.
​

Oh, believe me, Aman, this was one of the simplest things I've ever understood around here -- you were asked a question, and had too much pride to admit you didn't know, so you tried to blow smoke.

Dear Valentine, I answered your question. You just didn't like the answer, so you are currently trying to refute it by not answering what I posted, but simply being cute. It's typical for Evols who have NO idea what they are speaking about.

If you cannot understand Genesis, I can understand why you are so Scripturally illiterate. Remember that it was YOU who couldn't understand what kinds are. I told you, but you seem to have chosen to remain willingly ignorant of God's Truth, like the Scoffers of the last days in ll Peter 3:3-7.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Of course dinosaurs were not aves... aves evolved from certain dinosaurs. This hardly precludes them from living at the same time as dinosuars. Aves therefore are a clade of dinosaurs (theropods, specifically).


They are still classified as reptiles, though some scientists think they deserve their own classes under vertebrates/ chordates.

There.. that was simple enough, wasn't it?

Sorry science says they are NOT reptiles, try again.

Dinosaur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Through the first half of the 20th century, before birds were recognized to be dinosaurs, most of the scientific community believed dinosaurs to have been sluggish and cold-blooded. Most research conducted since the 1970s, however, has indicated that all dinosaurs were active animals with elevated metabolisms and numerous adaptations for social interaction."

Reptile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Reptiles, the class Reptilia, are an evolutionary grade of animals, comprising today's turtles, crocodilians, snakes, lizards, and tuatara, as well as many extinct groups. A reptile is any amniote (a tetrapod whose egg has an additional membrane, originally to allow them to lay eggs on land) that is neither a mammal nor a bird.[1] Unlike mammals, birds, and certain extinct reptiles, living reptiles have scales or scutes (rather than fur or feathers) and are cold-blooded."

Your evolutionists can't even give consistent deffinitions. reptiles are cold blooded, but dino are now believed to have elevated metabolisms - read NOT cold-blooded.

Well, which is it? What, can't even get your own classifications right?

 

[lasthero]

Sorry science says they are NOT reptiles, try again.

From the very article you're quoting:

Although the word dinosaur means "terrible lizard", the name is somewhat misleading, as dinosaurs are not lizards. Instead, they represent a separate group of reptiles which, like many extinct forms, did not exhibit characteristics traditionally seen as reptilian, such as a sprawling limb posture or ectothermy.

You had to see this. I mean, you couldn't have missed it; it's right at the top of the page.

Your evolutionists can't even give consistent deffinitions. reptiles are cold blooded, but dino are now believed to have elevated metabolisms - read NOT cold-blooded.

Birds are warm-blooded, so it should hardly come as a shock that their ancestors developed this trait at some point.

Regardless, that's not how classifications work. You'll note that your description also says that reptiles lay eggs, however there are reptiles that give birth to live young, and there are mammals that lay eggs. The fact is that life is complex and under no obligation to conform itself into neat little boundaries. There are exceptions to the any rule, and dinosaurs being warm-blooded is one such exception. Despite this, they fit most classification of being a reptile, and you will not find a single scientist that says otherwise. That you have to cherry-pick from an article that explicitly disagrees with you is very telling. Being warm-blooded no more makes dinosaurs mammals than laying eggs makes monotremes reptiles.

 

[essentialsaltes]

That gave me a good laugh. Wait, are you being serious?

I'm trying to use language that seems to be more comfortable to creationists. Justatruthseeker agrees that there are "changes in appearance within that same kind".

Although creationists have not given a satisfactory definition of kind, biologists who have studied the matter have found that there is a whole hierarchy of kinds. Kinds within kinds. And the history of the earth shows the development of these kinds within kinds. Dogs and wolves are related at one level of kindedness. Birds and dinosaurs are related at a higher level of kindedness. If you focus on a higher level of kindedness, the fact of evolution is not much more than "changes in appearance within that same kind".

 

[TLK Valentine]

Dear Valentine, I answered your question. You just didn't like the answer, so you are currently trying to refute it by not answering what I posted, but simply being cute. It's typical for Evols who have NO idea what they are speaking about.

You posted gibberish -- everyone (but you) saw it for what it was.

If you cannot understand Genesis, I can understand why you are so Scripturally illiterate. Remember that it was YOU who couldn't understand what kinds are. I told you, but you seem to have chosen to remain willingly ignorant of God's Truth, like the Scoffers of the last days in ll Peter 3:3-7.

In Love,
Aman

You really have yourself convinced that you meant something, don't you?

That's... adorable.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

From the very article you're quoting:



You had to see this. I mean, you couldn't have missed it; it's right at the top of the page.



Birds are warm-blooded, so it should hardly come as a shock that their ancestors developed this trait at some point.

Regardless, that's not how classifications work. You'll note that your description also says that reptiles lay eggs, however there are reptiles that give birth to live young, and there are mammals that lay eggs. The fact is that life is complex and under no obligation to conform itself into neat little boundaries. There are exceptions to the any rule, and dinosaurs being warm-blooded is one such exception. Despite this, they fit most classification of being a reptile, and you will not find a single scientist that says otherwise. That you have to cherry-pick from an article that explicitly disagrees with you is very telling. Being warm-blooded no more makes dinosaurs mammals than laying eggs makes monotremes reptiles.

And yet your very own science says reptiles are cold-blooded, and you now claim dino were NOT cold-blooded. So which is it, are reptiles cold-blooded or not? Are dino cold-blooded or not? As I said, your very own definitions are contradictory because in reality you have not a clue.

Face it, you have in reality no clue at all because you can't even define things without contradicting yourself at every turn.

That's exactly why I posted this, because they say they are reptiles and that reptiles are cold-blooded. Then they go right on to say that dino since the 1970's are now believed not to be cold-blooded, but still want to classify them as reptiles. Sounds like double-talk and total confusion to me. I don't think they or you know what they are, never have.

But you are confused by sciences contradictory statements, to which I can totally understand why. Reptiles are cold-blooded, dino are reptiles, but dino are not cold-blooded. Yep makes perfect sense if you are an evolutionist I guess. Just face the facts, you claim two different things because you have not a single clue as to what they really are. but hey, it's your classification system not mine, so I guess you need to fix your contradictory statements. You can't fake your way out of this or double-talk your way thru it. One or the other definition is incorrect, so which is it?

Are dino reptiles? If so they were cold-blooded. But you no longer believe they were cold-blooded, so were not reptiles. But lets keep the definitions the same as always so we can say whatever we need to at any given time and not be pinned down to one definition.


Lol, you evolutionists are so ignorant when it comes to what your own science says about it.

 

[lasthero]

And yet your very own science says reptiles are cold-blooded, and you now claim dino were NOT cold-blooded.

Being cold-blooded is a common trait for extant reptiles, yes. There's nothing that says that ALL reptiles have to be cold-blooded. Warm-blooded and cold-blooded are not like switches - they're actually very grey terms. Mammals are thought to be warm-blooded, but bats are poikilothermic while they sleeep. Many sharks are also capable of maintaining body heat in certain parts of their body, like warm-blooded animal would. It's more like a spectrum.

At any rate, you're still wrong. You won't find any scientist that says that, simply because dinosaurs are believed to be warm-blooded, that they're not reptiles, anymore than you'll find a scientist who says monotremes are reptiles because they lay eggs.

Sounds like double-talk and total confusion to me.

I'm sure a great many things confuse you.

But you are confused by sciences contradictory statements

Not really, it's a pretty simple concept. Dinosaurs differ from the majority of reptiles in one aspect, but the vast majority of their features are consistent with that of other reptiles. They have scales, lay eggs, and have other features consistent with other reptiles. Again, that they are warm-blooded no more makes them not reptiles than giving birth to live young makes vivaporous lizards not reptiles. It's really not a complex concept.

Are dino reptiles?

Yup.

If so they were cold-blooded.

Not necessarily. Again, animals are under no obligation to conform to the neat standards set by humans.

Lol, you evolutionists are so ignorant when it comes to what your own science says about it.

Put your money where your mouth is and find a scientist that refers to dinosaurs as anything but reptiles.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm trying to use language that seems to be more comfortable to creationists. Justatruthseeker agrees that there are "changes in appearance within that same kind".

Although creationists have not given a satisfactory definition of kind, biologists who have studied the matter have found that there is a whole hierarchy of kinds. Kinds within kinds. And the history of the earth shows the development of these kinds within kinds. Dogs and wolves are related at one level of kindedness. Birds and dinosaurs are related at a higher level of kindedness. If you focus on a higher level of kindedness, the fact of evolution is not much more than "changes in appearance within that same kind".

There are not kinds within kinds. There are not several kinds of dogs, they all fall under one kind, canine. There are different breeds within that kind, but not species. A pug is a canine, just as a wolf is a canine. It is evolutionists that have a name game problem along with a species problem, because in reality you have not a clue as to how to define things.

Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just as you once thought baby dino were separate species within the same kind. Evolutionists are simply confused as to how to define anything because your definitions are so contradictory. My other argument a prime example. They claim dino are reptiles, but reptiles are cold-blooded. yet since the 1970's they no longer believe they are cold-blooded, yet they still classify them as reptiles.

This is the problem, they are at a loss as to how to classify them, so they classify them under several different things all at the same time. Definitions which contradict one another at every turn. When pointed out they simply ignore it and try to worm their way out instead of just admitting the problem.

Turtles another prime example, even your own evolutionists argue amongst themselves how to define them, because they have made a mockery of the classification system so that everyone can get their names in the book with their own discovered species. Ego's of scientists, this is your problem.

Tenured professors required to publish papers to keep tenure, even when they got nothing to say, so they add Fairie Dust to keep their positions, muddling the system even more.

Your classification system is a complete and utter mess because of the ego's of scientists and their need to play the name game.

I am not blaming you, you are just parroting what those needing to keep their jobs throw out, but perhaps you need to understand that all you do is confuse your entire classification system beyond repair.

 

[lasthero]

There are not kinds within kinds.

Define 'kinds'. Actually give a definition, not examples. Until you do that, there's no point in having a discussion about what is and is not a kind.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Tenured professors required to publish papers to keep tenure, even when they got nothing to say, so they add Fairie Dust to keep their positions, muddling the system even more.

Your classification system is a complete and utter mess because of the ego's of scientists and their need to play the name game.

Ah, one big ol' conspiracy theory, is that it?