What Would Falsify the Flood?

[Black Akuma]

No, we have a lot of evidene that suggests that dinosaurs were warm blooded.

That doesn't mean they're not reptiles.

No, their legs were directly underneath their bodies.

That doesn't mean that they weren't reptiles.

The Saurischian dinosaurs were actually very closely related to modern day birds.

That doesn't mean they weren't reptiles.

I agree with all of this, I'm not arguing it in the least, but none of it changes the fact that dinosaurs are reptiles.

 

[Kylie]

That doesn't mean they're not reptiles.

That doesn't mean that they weren't reptiles.

So they LACK two of the defining features of being reptiles, and yet you think they are still reptiles?

That doesn't mean they weren't reptiles.

I agree with all of this, I'm not arguing it in the least, but none of it changes the fact that dinosaurs are reptiles.

Is a bird a reptile?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So they LACK two of the defining features of being reptiles, and yet you think they are still reptiles?



Is a bird a reptile?

According to the cladistics yes, but then by those rules we are fish. I am not disagreeing with that at all. It just matters how you define "reptiles".

What I love about cladistics is that it takes away the creationist claim of "kind after kind".

 

[Black Akuma]

So they LACK two of the defining features of being reptiles, and yet you think they are still reptiles?

Egg-laying is a 'defining feature' of reptiles. Giving birth to live young is a 'defining feature' of mammals.

Monotremes lay eggs. Are monotremes not mammals?

Vivaporous lizards give birth to live young. Are vivaparous lizards not reptiles?

Is a bird a reptile?

In a manner of speaking.

 

[Kylie]

Egg-laying is a 'defining feature' of reptiles. Giving birth to live young is a 'defining feature' of mammals.

Rubbish. Fish lay eggs but are not reptiles. There are species of lizard and shark that give birth to live young, and they are not mammals.

Monotremes lay eggs. Are monotremes not mammals?

Yes, they are, but I never mentioned egg laying, did I? I mentioned a constant blood temperature and leg position.

Vivaporous lizards give birth to live young. Are vivaparous lizards not reptiles?

Again, not one of the things I mentioned. What you are talking about is not a defining feature of reptiles. Show me things that only reptiles have and no other group and then show me that they apply to dinosaurs. Then I will accept your assertion that dinosaurs are reptiles. Until then, dinosaurs aren't reptiles.

In a manner of speaking.

And in what manner of speaking is that?

 

[USincognito]

I think you guys agree with, but are talking past each other. The characteristics for inclusion or exclusion will vary depending on the verbiage used to decribe the grouping and the context it provides.

As an example, terrestrial tetrapods means land dwelling beings that have four feet. Yet a bear (land dwelling/four feet), a human (land dwelling/technically only two feet), a snake (land dwelling/no limbs at all), and a whale (marine dwelling/no feet and hands that are more like fish fins) are all terrestrial tetrapods.

 

[USincognito]

Is a bird a reptile?

Yes. And so are humans... in the same way that humans are monkeys because we're catharrhines, and fish because we're sarcoptyrigians. That doesn't mean, however, that we are "monkeys" nor does it mean we are "fish".

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists don't believe in the square/cube law.

Why should we, if God suspended it?

All I hear scientific methodists saying is: "I wouldn't have done it. The Ark wouldn't have worked!"

But the Bible says:

Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

It does not say:

By science Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Faith is believing something, even when science says otherwise.

 

[Kylie]

But if God can do all those miracles required to make the arc work, why did he bother with the flood at all?

 

[Kylie]

I think you guys agree with, but are talking past each other. The characteristics for inclusion or exclusion will vary depending on the verbiage used to decribe the grouping and the context it provides.

As an example, terrestrial tetrapods means land dwelling beings that have four feet. Yet a bear (land dwelling/four feet), a human (land dwelling/technically only two feet), a snake (land dwelling/no limbs at all), and a whale (marine dwelling/no feet and hands that are more like fish fins) are all terrestrial tetrapods.

Well, yes, I suppose that, cladistically, dinosaurs would be reptiles. But then again, so would people.

 

[Golan]

But if God can do all those miracles required to make the arc work, why did he bother with the flood at all?

That's where creationists get caught in a trap.
They want their bible to be 100% true but if it is it makes their God look like an incompetent fool.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's where creationists get caught in a trap.

Set by Satan?

They want their bible to be 100% true...

That's right.

... but if it is it makes their God look like an incompetent fool.

You might want to clean your [mental] glasses off then and read Psalm 14:1.

 

[Golan]

That's where creationists get caught in a trap.
They want their bible to be 100% true but if it is it makes their God look like an incompetent fool.

Set by Satan?

The trap was set by your bible and you all fell into it, now you want to blame another fictitious character.
Satan, the Christians scapegoat, the one who clears up the mess made by their God, he who is blamed.

Christians are like a child whose face is covered in chocolate, when asked if they took the chocolate they say 'no'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But if God can do all those miracles required to make the arc work, why did he bother with the flood at all?

AV worships a very evil, childish, and not very wise God.

Why? No one knows. The God he invented uses English as his language of choice. Specifically the English of King James. Worse yet, that version of the Bible is supposed to be more accurate than the sources it was translated from.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV worships a very evil, childish, and not very wise God.

That would be just about right.

Why? No one knows.

Isaiah knows.

Isaiah 5:20a Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;

The God he invented uses English as his language of choice.

Nope.

Specifically the English of King James.

Nope.

Worse yet, that version of the Bible is supposed to be more accurate than the sources it was translated from.

Yup.

Which is more accurate? Windows 95 or Windows 8?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isaiah knows.

Nope, referring to a failed book of myth is not evidence.

Nope.

Sure it is. You have even claimed that the language "pre-Babel" was English.

Nope.

If not that then English with a "Joisey" accent.

Yup.

Which is more accurate? Windows 95 or Windows 8?

Neither. "Accurate" is not a word that would be applied to them. And this is not a put down of Microsoft. It was a foolish used of the word.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope, referring to a failed book of myth is not evidence.

I didn't.

Sure it is.

No.

You have even claimed that the language "pre-Babel" was English.

That's right ... and I stand behind that claim.

If not that then English with a "Joisey" accent.

Jacobean English.

Yup.

Yup what?

Neither. "Accurate" is not a word that would be applied to them.

Then your point can take a hike.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't.

Yes, you did. I know your memory is short. Go back and look at your post again.

No.

AV, Ninth Commandment warning.

That's right ... and I stand behind that claim.

Good, now you have admitted that you do have that belief.

acobean English.

Why not with a "Joisey" accent?

Then your point can take a hike.

And AV admits that he is fully wrong again.

Whenever AV is wrong he admits by saying "then ..... can take a hike".

This is as close as an admission of being wrong as he will give out when being wrong galls him.

Thank you AV

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, Ninth Commandment warning.

Maybe you'd better go back and look at what I'm really denying, scientist, before you play that trump card.

Go back to your original statement and read it again ... then read my reply to what you wrote, Mr. Scientific Methodist, and see how I can look stupid, when I'm really making you look scientific.

Of course, if you have forgotten, I'll be more than happy ... in view of the movie file in my profile* ... to do it for you.

* [youtube]8Vx1BTBhg4c[/youtube]

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe you'd better go back and look at what I'm really denying, scientist, before you play that trump card.

Go back to your original statement and read it again ... then read my reply to what you wrote, Mr. Scientific Methodist, and see how I can look stupid, when I'm really making you look scientific.

Of course, if you have forgotten, I'll be more than happy ... in view of the movie file in my profile* ... to do it for you.

* [youtube]8Vx1BTBhg4c[/youtube]

No need. I know what you denied.


Then you contradicted yourself.


I will let it stand there.