11 Mar 11
Originally posted by RJHindsWhy do you have such a hard time admitting that you were wrong? Why is it so important to you that the Biblical account matches the scientific order when you fully admit that you don't believe the scientific account is correct in any way shape or form?
To Twhitehead:
I said order, order, order,order, order, order.
That is sequence. Can't you process that
through your Twhitehead? I'm done.
RJHinds
11 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI do not doubt that some of the stories collected in the bible were based on real events and places. If the tales that the creators of those stories produced were not so based, they would have had no credibility with the people they were striving to influence. I see no reason, however, to assume that consequent to this the leap to uncritical acceptance of the more outré episodes therein is warranted.
why not cat dude? its simply corroborative that's all. For example, were the Assyrian's extremely cruel? The Bible describes Nineveh as a city of bloodshed, a lair of Lions? We know from archaeology that this is the case, they were exceptionally cruel, flaying prisoners alive, building mounds from their skulls, impaling them etc, its simply corr ...[text shortened]... rchaeology is simply used to corroborate the text. Why it should be a problem i do not know?
There is considerable corroborative evidence supporting much ancient literature, but in very few cases do otherwise rational people disregard their critical faculties when engaged in study - pretty much only when the 'leap of faith' has been made.
11 Mar 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadFrom the US Parks and wildlife web page:
The international school of Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile
So tell us, which order of reptiles includes birds:
Crocodilia (crocodiles, gavials, caimans, and alligators): 23 species
Sphenodontia (tuataras from New Zealand): 2 species
Squamata (lizards, snakes, and worm lizards): approximately 7,900 species
Testudines (turtles and ...[text shortened]... y a coincidence is another question.
I will ask you again: why is it so important to you?[/b]
Reptilia, presented as a Class in our classification, includes turtles (Testudines), snakes and lizards (Lepidosauria), crocodiles and their relatives (Crocodilia), and birds (Aves), as well as a number of extinct groups.
its not important to me, it seems very important to you...so much so that you are willing to persist in an untruth.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd if you don't like my US Parks and Wildlife reference, try this one from Berkley:
The international school of Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile
So tell us, which order of reptiles includes birds:
Crocodilia (crocodiles, gavials, caimans, and alligators): 23 species
Sphenodontia (tuataras from New Zealand): 2 species
Squamata (lizards, snakes, and worm lizards): approximately 7,900 species
Testudines (turtles and y a coincidence is another question.
I will ask you again: why is it so important to you?[/b]
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
Quote: 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.
now admit that you're wrong, or be forever labeled a close minded simpleton
11 Mar 11
Originally posted by RJHindsLook up the relationship between information and entropy within a sequence. If you can handle the jargon I think you'll find the ideas you're trying to express are discussed and analyzed in information theory.
To Twhitehead:
I said order, order, order,order, order, order.
That is sequence. Can't you process that
through your Twhitehead? I'm done.
RJHinds
11 Mar 11
Originally posted by Dowardpwned
And if you don't like my US Parks and Wildlife reference, try this one from Berkley:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
Quote: 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 ...[text shortened]... dromaeosaur.
now admit that you're wrong, or be forever labeled a close minded simpleton
11 Mar 11
Originally posted by DowardI am perfectly aware of that classification system. However, you are misrepresenting it by claiming that the clade 'Reptilia' is equivalent to 'Reptiles'. It is not.
From the US Parks and wildlife web page:
Reptilia, presented as a Class in our classification, includes turtles (Testudines), snakes and lizards (Lepidosauria), crocodiles and their relatives (Crocodilia),[b] and birds (Aves), as well as a number of extinct groups.
its not important to me, it seems very important to you...so much so that you are willing to persist in an untruth.[/b]
I have looked at the US Parks website and checked the page on reptiles and surprise, surprise, there are no birds mentioned. Instead birds have their own separate page.
I think you really need to read through the wikipedia page if you want to truly understand the situation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile
11 Mar 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI asked a friend who's a palaeontologist. He wasn't happy about it but said that if forced to answer yes or no, 'is a bird a reptile', he'd have to say yes, since they're a member of the class reptilia. Just thought I'd explain why I conceded the point.
I am perfectly aware of that classification system. However, you are misrepresenting it by claiming that the clade 'Reptilia' is equivalent to 'Reptiles'. It is not.
I have looked at the US Parks website and checked the page on reptiles and surprise, surprise, there are no birds mentioned. Instead birds have their own separate page.
I think you real ...[text shortened]... ia page if you want to truly understand the situation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile
11 Mar 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadCounterpwned
I am perfectly aware of that classification system. However, you are misrepresenting it by claiming that the clade 'Reptilia' is equivalent to 'Reptiles'. It is not.
I have looked at the US Parks website and checked the page on reptiles and surprise, surprise, there are no birds mentioned. Instead birds have their own separate page.
I think you real ...[text shortened]... ia page if you want to truly understand the situation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile
11 Mar 11
2 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatThe fact remains, whether one likes it or not, Bible contains an accurate depiction of events, corroborated by archaeology, nor is it a case of 'some of these stories', for you have just read how entire books are considered to be accurately portrayed. It seems to me that you only dispute those which have a supernatural element. Even in those cases and specifically the events recorded in the gospels concerning the life of the Christ, after a detailed study of the text, an accurate portrayal is readily discernible.
I do not doubt that some of the stories collected in the bible were based on real events and places. If the tales that the creators of those stories produced were not so based, they would have had no credibility with the people they were striving to influence. I see no reason, however, to assume that consequent to this the leap to uncritical acceptan ...[text shortened]... cal faculties when engaged in study - pretty much only when the 'leap of faith' has been made.