Interesting find that further shows the relation between dinosaurs and birds

[Greg Jennings]

Nope... another strawman.

So "kinds" is useful or no? You're all about kinds. Is "kinds" something you've given up on?

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html


Lots more false conclusions on fossils...if interested.

I messed up. Their necks are similar. The skeleton in question lacked feathers, so I can see how a mistake might get made.

Thats not true, although bones can sing almost any song you want.*

Which part? That you can't tell a cat from a dog, or that you can't tell a dinosaur from a bird? Both?

And no, if have enough of a skeleton OR a unique piece of anatomy then experts can determine what is what. As you say, sometimes mistakes are initislly made when little is available, but the correct answer is always reached soon via peer review.

You mean the tail vertebrae with feathers.

What birds are you aware of that even have tail vertebra at all?

True... it likely belonged to a creature or bird about the size of a sparrow.*

It belonged to a dinosaur according to all who examined it, but your denial of this isn't new so I won't dwell

Did the amber creature have a long bony tail? We don't know. Archaeopteryx had a long bony tail....*http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/10/18/rsbl.2011.0884

Indeed. It also had teeth and claws. Hence why it's difficult to place as either a dinosaur or a bird. It's a transitional fossil in that it shows a blend of dinosaur and bird anatomy, though I'm pretty sure it isn't a direct bird ancestor.

Again I'll ask this to make sure it is seen: what birds are you aware of that sport tail vertebra at all? They have a tiny tailbone (actually highly similar to the one we have), but nothing beyond that

 

[Stripe]

Perhaps I should rephrase: your ideas are incorrect, AND you have nothing to back them up with.

But you're not going to explain why they are incorrect, or acknowledge the necessity of what I say. :idunno:

I've been through many classes on the matter recently, and unless my professors are secretly idiots then you are wrong.

But you're not going to explain how or why. You're just going to insist that popularity is on your side.

You have admitted that your ideas only come from yourself.

Nope.

Try again, sunshine.

They aren't backed up by anything.

Nope.

Fact. To make rocks, you need three ingredients. Tsunami and floods only provide two. You can never make a conglomerate with a flood or a tsunami.

Facts.

Sorry.

Yet you want me to take them seriously

I don't care what you believe. Just don't come in here and demand that I must be wrong because a lot of other people said so. Give us reasons. It's called a discussion. :up:

even though I have much more qualified people telling me your ideas are full of crap

I have qualified people telling me your ideas are nonsense. :idunno:

Does it matter who has the most people on their side?

And I'm still trying to get you to show me something that agrees with you that, "conglomerates don't form anymore." But you're never going to provide that are you? If you do, I'll trove through the Internet to get you a tsunami rock

You're not very good at this, are you?

That you can find rocks shows that in the past the conditions were right to form them. What we see today does not form them.

Things had to be different in the past to form all the rocks we see.

There are three ingredients; floods and tsunami today only provide two of them.

Please explain how saying truthfully that my facts are backed up by science and yours are not.....is begging the question?

Because when you say "science," you mean "theory."

Your ideas are not science any more than mine are. Your backing by what is popularly believed is not science any more than those who adhere to what I believe bring any evidence to the table for my side.

This is your version of 6days' "strawman." You yell it repeatedly when you're cornered factually

Nope. Facts.

Rocks require three ingredients to form. You only have two, therefore your ideas fail.

Then you can provide one source agreeing with you? When asked if you have one source agreeing with your conglomerate info, you said "Yeah. Me :thumb:"

Yep. :thumb:

I'm the one saying you need three ingredients to make a rock. If you don't believe me, feel free to explain why I'm wrong or just do like you promised and ignore me. :thumb:

What you should not do is wail about how many people are on your side as if that was going to do anything to add to the conversation.

If you can't see the issue there, then you're stupid. Plain and simple.

 

[Greg Jennings]

But you're not going to explain why they are incorrect, or acknowledge the necessity of what I say. :idunno:

But you're not going to explain how or why. You're just going to insist that popularity is on your side.

Nope.

Try again, sunshine.

Nope.

Fact. To make rocks, you need three ingredients. Tsunami and floods only provide two. You can never make a conglomerate with a flood or a tsunami.

Facts.

Sorry.

I don't care what you believe. Just don't come in here and demand that I must be wrong because a lot of other people said so. Give us reasons. It's called a discussion. :up:

I have qualified people telling me your ideas are nonsense. :idunno:

Does it matter who has the most people on their side?

You're not very good at this, are you?

That you can find rocks shows that in the past the conditions were right to form them. What we see today does not form them.

Things had to be different in the past to form all the rocks we see.

There are three ingredients; floods and tsunami today only provide two of them.

Because when you say "science," you mean "theory."

Your ideas are not science any more than mine are. Your backing by what is popularly believed is not science any more than those who adhere to what I believe bring any evidence to the table for my side.

Nope. Facts.

Rocks require three ingredients to form. You only have two, therefore your ideas fail.

Yep. :thumb:

I'm the one saying you need three ingredients to make a rock. If you don't believe me, feel free to explain why I'm wrong or just do like you promised and ignore me. :thumb:

What you should not do is wail about how many people are on your side as if that was going to do anything to add to the conversation.

If you can't see the issue there, then you're stupid. Plain and simple.

Rather than continue trading edited copies of each others phrases, let's do this more productively: one topic at a time.

What are the three ingredients needed to make a rock? Please provide the source that you obtained the information from so that I know you aren't making things up

 

[Stripe]

Rather than continue trading edited copies of each others phrases, let's do this more productively: one topic at a time.

What are the three ingredients needed to make a rock? Please provide the source that you obtained the information from so that I know you aren't making things up

If you don't know the three ingredients to make rocks, you're not worth discussing this with.

You should get your money back from whatever course you're on. :up:

 

[Greg Jennings]

If you don't know the three ingredients to make rocks, you're not worth discussing this with.

You should get your money back from whatever course you're on. :up:

As far as I'm concerned, far more than three ingredients can make a rock AND far fewer. I'm not finding your three ingredients for sedimentary rocks anywhere, either. Why don't you prove to me that you're right? Just tell me the three ingredients, or link to a source listing them. I've never heard of them and they're nowhere to be found on any site google searched for. Maybe your self taught geology has different terminology from real geology?


Maybe you're thinking of the three kinds of rocks? Is that what you meant?


Yeah I'm pretty sure you're trolling now. Made me search for something that doesn't exist. I should've known better

 

[Stripe]

As far as I'm concerned, far more than three ingredients can make a rock AND far fewer.

:dizzy:

I'm not finding your three ingredients for sedimentary rocks anywhere, either.

You could try reading this thread.

I've never heard of them

Then you're not qualified to discuss this subject.

Yeah I'm pretty sure you're trolling now. Made me search for something that doesn't exist. I should've known better

Let's stick with that. :wave2:

 

[Jonahdog]

If you don't know the three ingredients to make rocks, you're not worth discussing this with.

You should get your money back from whatever course you're on. :up:

Once again, Stripe is asked a direct question and weasels out.

 

[6days]

So "kinds" is useful or no?

Sure...in context; not in your strawmen.

Which part? (that bones sing any song you want) That you can't tell a cat from a dog, or that you can't tell a dinosaur from a bird? Both?*

Coelacanth as example...

The evolutionist 'song' was it was a transitional fish to land creature that went extinct 70 million years ago. *They knew it has gone extinxt long ago since man and coelacanth are not found in the same layers. The story was this creature swam in shallow seas...it had a lung...it had limbs for crawling on land.

However...

Coelacanths still are alive today...they live at great depths....they don't have lungs....and the 'limbs' are fins that act like a rudder.*

And no, if have enough of a skeleton OR a unique piece of anatomy then experts can determine what is what. As you say, sometimes mistakes are*initislly*made when little is available, but the correct answer is always reached soon via peer review.

Correct answers have little to do with peer review, but instead with good science. Sometimes corrections can be made quickly as in the case of Darwinius Masillae (Ida). Other times evolutionists have been very slow at admitting mistakes as with *Piltdown and Haeckels forgery.*

What birds are you aware of that even have tail vertebra at all?

Some extinct birds like*Jeholornis had long tails. Birds that live today have a pygostyle of only about 6 vertebrae.

(archaeopteryx) also had teeth and claws. Hence why it's difficult to place as either a dinosaur or a bird. ...

MANY creatures have unique design features. For example the coelacanths have a swim bladder. Only an evolutionist could think that this is a primitive lung and the fish is on his way to becoming an amphibian.*

 

[Greg Jennings]

:dizzy:

You could try reading this thread.

Then you're not qualified to discuss this subject.



Let's stick with that. :wave2:

How does it feel to be made a fool again?

Remember, try to keep up :thumb:

 

[Greg Jennings]

Sure...in context; not in your strawmen

Is there a bird kind? Is there a dinosaur kind? YOU are the one always espousing the greatness of your "biblical creation model." If it's so flawless, then why do you whine about strawmen whenever I ask about it?

Because you are a creationist, and want your ideas to be accepted free of thought and data. Any amount of critical thinking leads to one of many irreconcilable contradictions between the geologic/fossil record and Genesis.

Coelacanth as example...

The evolutionist 'song' was it was a transitional fish to land creature that went extinct 70 million years ago. *They knew it has gone extinxt long ago since man and coelacanth are not found in the same layers. The story was this creature swam in shallow seas...it had a lung...it had limbs for crawling on land.

However...

Coelacanths still are alive today...they live at great depths....they don't have lungs....and the 'limbs' are fins that act like a rudder.*

I could be wrong, but I don't remember the coelacanth being supposed to be a direct ancestor of amphibians. It is a lobe-finned fish (the more primitive of the common bony fish) and is closely related to the lungfish, which breathes air and has a lung, hence the name. Some modern lungfish have two.
In short, I think you're confusing the coelacanth for the entire love-finned group of fish in regards to evolution. Lobe-finned fish ARE thought to have eventually given rise to amphibians, but not the coelacanth specifically. Something that looked and acted a lot like an air-breather (like the lungfish) is the target

Correct answers have little to do with peer review, but instead with good science. Sometimes corrections can be made quickly as in the case of Darwinius Masillae (Ida). Other times evolutionists have been very slow at admitting mistakes as with *Piltdown and Haeckels forgery.*

Pilt down was corrected by fellow "evolutionists". How long did that take to get corrected again?

You've been corrected on Haekel before. I'm not wasting time on this

Some extinct birds like*Jeholornis had long tails. Birds that live today have a pygostyle of only about 6 vertebrae.

Now that was an excellent answer! But it leads us back to the fact that birds and dinosaurs are virtually identical. Here is an illustration of a jeholornis skeleton:

Note how the fingers have just started to lengthen and develop into wings. THAT is what we look for in a transitional. A slight change from the previous form.

Tell me, what makes this a bird instead of a dinosaur?

MANY creatures have unique design features.

So do cats and dogs look the same? No
Do they both have hair? Yes
Live birth? Yes
Diet? No. Dogs are omnivores, cats are carnivores.
Similar skull structure? Not at all
Geologic record supporting one came from the other? No. The lineages diverged millions of years ago


Now, do therapod dinosaurs and birds look the same? Depending on the species, but some are almost identical, yes
Both have feathers? Check
Eggs? Yes
Diet? Two-legged Dinos were mainly carnivores or insectivores, just as the majority of birds are today. Otherwise, both groups dabble in plant-eating also
Skull structure? Between birds and dinosaurs, it's often difficult to tell them apart.
Geologic record supporting one came from the other? Absolutely. We see dinosaurs for millions of years before birds show up (Jurassic I think). Only someone who has no understanding of geochronology would argue otherwise
Wings? Present in some but not all species from both groups
Beaks? Present in some dinosaurs, and most birds
Teeth? Dinosaurs had em. Only primitive birds do. All extinct
Fingers/claws? Dinosaurs had em. Among birds, only primitive species and modern baby hoatzins have them

The point of this checklist being that you can't find two groups that are identical like dinosaurs and birds are. Your best try was cats and dogs, and that's woefully short of a good comparison

For example the coelacanths have a swim bladder. Only an evolutionist could think that this is a primitive lung and the fish is on his way to becoming an amphibian.*

Because in arapaima (anothet lobe fin) the swim bladder has been converted to breathe air, and in lungfish it has been fully converted into a full-time breathing apparatus. It's not about the coelacanth. It's about the lobe-finned group. And in that group, we see progressive changes. Those could be summed up in three stages, with an example being used for each.

Pelagic lobe-fin is the coelacsnth (lives in the open ocean)
Air-breather is the arapaima
Air-breather with adaptations to survive for long periods of time on land is the lungfish

It's not science's fault that you can't see logical progression, and the fossil record backs that transitional story

 

[6days]

*Is there a bird kind? Is there a dinosaur kind?

God created different kinds of birds and land animals.

*

If it's so flawless, then why do you whine about strawmen whenever I ask about it?

Why do you whine, when your dishonest arguments are pointed out? You misrepresented what I had said.*

*Any amount of critical thinking leads to one of many irreconcilable contradictions between the geologic/fossil record and Genesis.*

Yes, I agree evolutionism and creationism have irreconcilable differences. *They are two opposing worldviews....two opposing interpretaions of our history.*

I could be wrong, but I don't remember the coelacanth being supposed to be a direct ancestor of amphibians.

Evolutionists had hoped coelacanths were that missing link. The Smithsonian admits "contrary to prior speculation, (coelacanths) probably isn't the common ancestor of all land animals"

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...en-sea-and-land-25025860/#JuGS16IlxlIb7LLF.99

I had mentioned coelacanths as an example of false conclusions evolutionists make... getting bones to sing their song.*

*

Pilt down was corrected by fellow "evolutionists". How long did that take to get corrected again?

The hoax was a result of a false belief system - evolutionism. That belief system had nothing to do with exposing, or correcting the hoax.*

You ask how long it took to correct... *LONG. It was still being pushed as fact in journals almost 40 years later.

*

You've been corrected on Haekel before. I'm not wasting time on this*

Not sure what you mean by 'corrected'?

Haeckel drew phoney embryos to promote his belief system.

How long before this hoax was exposed? If I recall...I think 100+ years later some evolutionists were still teaching that human embryos had gill slits.

*But it leads us back to the fact that birds and dinosaurs are virtually identical.

I think you mean that there are some similarities, sometimes?*

There isn't too much in common between a brontosaurus and a sparrow. *And, I'm sure you would agree that similarity is only considered as evidence for the belief system when it fits the storyline. (Then its called*homologous

instead of*analogous)

Note how the fingers have just started to lengthen and develop into wings.

Pardon me if the only thing I see lengthening is a 'just so story'.*

THAT is what we look for in a transitional. A slight change from the previous form.

Yes... you look for it, and that is why there have been so many shoddy conclusions.*

Tell me, what makes this a bird instead of a dinosaur?

Is it warm blooded? Does it have avian lungs?

Because in arapaima (anothet lobe fin) the swim bladder has been converted to breathe air, and in lungfish it has been fully converted into a full-time breathing apparatus.

Thats pretty funny Greg. I think you mean that you believe it has been converted. I believe the evidence shows lungfish, mud guppies, arapaima all show evidence of design.*

*It's not about the coelacanth. It's about the lobe-finned group. And in that group, we see progressive changes. Those could be summed up in three stages, with an example being used for each.

Thats rather naieve.*

Evolutionists always seem to believe..... or try make others believe, that a few simple steps and a scale turns into a feather... that a few simple amino acids will make a gene...that a light spot on a worm is 'simple' (it's actually complex), and in ten easy steps voila you have a sophisticated vision system.*

It's not science's fault that you can't see logical progression, and the fossil record backs that transitional story

You can see any similarity you wish. You might see similarity between 'sonar/ echolocation' *systems between bats and whales. You might see similarity between a monkey and a man... however similarity only counts as evidence for common ancestry if it fits the story.


Likewise, with fossils wishful thinking arranges patterns to make up stories. Palentologist David Raup says "Also, *there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin his Advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general these have not been found - yet the Optimist has died hard and some Pure Fantasy has crept into textbooks."*http://www.quotter.net/2_top-david-m-raup_wishful-thinking-quotes_1

 

[Greg Jennings]

God created different kinds of birds and land animals.

Why do you whine, when your dishonest arguments are pointed out? You misrepresented what I had said.*

Yes, I agree evolutionism and creationism have irreconcilable differences. *They are two opposing worldviews....two opposing interpretaions of our history.*

Evolutionists had hoped coelacanths were that missing link. The Smithsonian admits "contrary to prior speculation, (coelacanths) probably isn't the common ancestor of all land animals"

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...en-sea-and-land-25025860/#JuGS16IlxlIb7LLF.99

I had mentioned coelacanths as an example of false conclusions evolutionists make... getting bones to sing their song.*



The hoax was a result of a false belief system - evolutionism. That belief system had nothing to do with exposing, or correcting the hoax.*

You ask how long it took to correct... *LONG. It was still being pushed as fact in journals almost 40 years later.

Not sure what you mean by 'corrected'?

Haeckel drew phoney embryos to promote his belief system.

How long before this hoax was exposed? If I recall...I think 100+ years later some evolutionists were still teaching that human embryos had gill slits.



I think you mean that there are some similarities, sometimes?*

There isn't too much in common between a brontosaurus and a sparrow. *And, I'm sure you would agree that similarity is only considered as evidence for the belief system when it fits the storyline. (Then its called*homologous

instead of*analogous)

Pardon me if the only thing I see lengthening is a 'just so story'.*



Yes... you look for it, and that is why there have been so many shoddy conclusions.*
Is it warm blooded? Does it have avian lungs?

Thats pretty funny Greg. I think you mean that you believe it has been converted. I believe the evidence shows lungfish, mud guppies, arapaima all show evidence of design.*

Thats rather naieve.*

Evolutionists always seem to believe..... or try make others believe, that a few simple steps and a scale turns into a feather... that a few simple amino acids will make a gene...that a light spot on a worm is 'simple' (it's actually complex), and in ten easy steps voila you have a sophisticated vision system.*



You can see any similarity you wish. You might see similarity between 'sonar/ echolocation' *systems between bats and whales. You might see similarity between a monkey and a man... however similarity only counts as evidence for common ancestry if it fits the story.


Likewise, with fossils wishful thinking arranges patterns to make up stories. Palentologist David Raup says "Also, *there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin his Advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general these have not been found - yet the Optimist has died hard and some Pure Fantasy has crept into textbooks."*http://www.quotter.net/2_top-david-m-raup_wishful-thinking-quotes_1

Getting too big again. I'm going to reel it back in a bit.


Dinosaurs have neither warm nor cold blood. It's literally right in the middle, just as we'd expect to see as a cold-blooded reptile became more bird like
https://www.google.com/amp/www.lati...abolism-20140613-story,amp.html?client=safari

Yes, therapods have avian respiratory systems. Just like birds, with air sacs and stored air in bones. Your case grows thinner.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/11/071108-dinosaurs.html


So, can you tell me one difference between a therapod dinosaur and a bird? You can't! Doesn't that bother you since they should be so distinct according to your biblical creation model? If you're stuck with "dinosaurs are mesothermic and birds are endothermic", then your only piece of evidence actually supports dinosaur to bird transition

 

[User Name]

Coelacanth as example...

The evolutionist 'song' was it was a transitional fish to land creature that went extinct 70 million years ago. *They knew it has gone extinxt long ago since man and coelacanth are not found in the same layers. The story was this creature swam in shallow seas...it had a lung...it had limbs for crawling on land.

However...

Coelacanths still are alive today...

 

[6days]

*Dinosaurs have neither warm nor cold blood.

Possibly... perhaps some had a limited ability to self regulate like turtles do. Some scientists think they were warm blooded. Other scientists think they were cold blooded like surviving 'descendants' -aligators.*

*
Yes, therapods have avian respiratory systems. Just like birds, with air sacs and stored air in bones. Your case grows thinner.

Your article does mention they studied archaeopteryx (a bird) and "other dinosaurs". *I'm not surprised extinct birds are very similar to modern birds. They were not able to study lungs or air sacs, but did study bones suggesting therapods had an efficient respiratory system.*

Also... not surprised that birds like "Archaeopteryx seemed to emerge fully fledged with the characteristics of modern birds,”

*
So, can you tell me*one*difference between a therapod dinosaur and a bird? You can't!

Are you arguing that therapods were classified incorrectly? *(That they are aves...not reptilia?) Perhaps so for some types.... you might want to check why they are not classified as aves. Were they warm blooded like birds? Were they feathered? Did they have avian lings? *I have already argued that the 'dinosaur' you mention in the OP may be a bird.*

*
Doesn't that bother you since they should be so distinct

This is exciting times for Christians as science helps reveal the truth of scripture...and the majesty of our Creator.*

*No... it doesnot bother me that there are similar design features found throughout creation. *For example we can look at similarities...and uniqueness of echolocation like systems in the platypus, whale and bat. We see evidence of our Creator.... and evidence against common ancestry.*

 

[Greg Jennings]

Possibly... perhaps some had a limited ability to self regulate like turtles do. Some scientists think they were warm blooded. Other scientists think they were cold blooded like surviving 'descendants' -aligators.*

Your article does mention they studied archaeopteryx (a bird) and "other dinosaurs". *I'm not surprised extinct birds are very similar to modern birds. They were not able to study lungs or air sacs, but did study bones suggesting therapods had an efficient respiratory system.*

Also... not surprised that birds like "Archaeopteryx seemed to emerge fully fledged with the characteristics of modern birds,”

Are you arguing that therapods were classified incorrectly? *(That they are aves...not reptilia?) Perhaps so for some types.... you might want to check why they are not classified as aves. Were they warm blooded like birds? Were they feathered? Did they have avian lings? *I have already argued that the 'dinosaur' you mention in the OP may be a bird.*

This is exciting times for Christians as science helps reveal the truth of scripture...and the majesty of our Creator.*

*No... it doesnot bother me that there are similar design features found throughout creation. *For example we can look at similarities...and uniqueness of echolocation like systems in the platypus, whale and bat. We see evidence of our Creator.... and evidence against common ancestry.*

Ok, so you admit to just about every piece of evidence in favor of therapod to bird transition, but deny their relation completely.

Now, why would you do that? Could THIS be why?: "The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science."
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

You won't find a statement like that on ANY actual scientific organization's website.

 

[6days]

*Ok, so you admit to just about every piece of evidence in favor of therapod to bird transition, but deny their relation completely.

You are going in circles. I said right from the beginning of this thread that the fossil actually appears to be a bird. Then you argued that there is no difference between therapods and birds. So.... if it looks like a bird... walks like a bird.... breathes like a bird...has feathers like a bird...then maybe its a bird.*

*

*"The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout.*Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes*but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science."
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/*

Yes... history and science helps to confirm the inerrant truth of God's Word.*

 

[Greg Jennings]

You are going in circles. I said right from the beginning of this thread that the fossil actually appears to be a bird. Then you argued that there is no difference between therapods and birds. So.... if it looks like a bird... walks like a bird.... breathes like a bird...has feathers like a bird...then maybe its a bird.*

If birds are the same as dinosaurs, then my worldview is actually confirmed.

If birds are the same as dinosaurs, then your worldview needs some serious updating. Are biblical "kinds" not in anymore?

Yes... history and science helps to confirm the inerrant truth of God's Word.*

Except in the hundreds of millions of ways it doesn't

 

[6days]

If birds are the same as dinosaurs, then my worldview is actually confirmed.

If your belief system causes you to believe that brontosaurus was a bird...great. But you are out of step with reality.*

If birds are the same as dinosaurs...

They aren't. Dinosaurs are classified as reptilia; birds are classified as aves.*

Are biblical "kinds" not in anymore?*

"Kinds" are in! Dogs produce dogs; birds produce birds etc.*

 

[Greg Jennings]

If your belief system causes you to believe that brontosaurus was a bird...great. But you are out of step with reality.*

You know as well as I do that I wasn't talking about four-legged dinosaurs, but I shouldn't be surprised by this obvious attempt at undermining my credibility

They aren't. Dinosaurs are classified as reptilia; birds are classified as aves.*

Then explain to me what makes a bird a bird and a dinosaur a dinosaur

"Kinds" are in! Dogs produce dogs; birds produce birds etc.*

Then what is the difference between the "bird" kind and the "dinosaur" kind? A useful term has to be....well.....useful. I've asked you this at least twice in the past week, and if you can't answer it this time I think it's time to admit that "kinds" is a useless term

 

[6days]

Dinosaurs are classified as reptilia; birds are classified as aves.

Then explain to me what makes a bird a bird and a dinosaur a dinosaur

*

Explain to me what the difference is between reptilia and aves... then, you have your answer. Are you arguing that some dinosaurs may be incorrectly classified?*

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/Reptilia

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/aves

Kinds" are in! Dogs produce dogs; birds produce birds etc.

Then what is the difference between the "bird" kind and the "dinosaur" kind?

Already answered. Crows reproduce crows. Ducks reproduce ducks. Cows reproduce cows.*Tongtianlong reproduced*Tongtianlong.*

... time I think it's time to admit that "kinds" is a useless term

Actually, its quite useful if we are dicussing Biblical context. It is much more specific than rubbery words such as 'species'. Google- Species Problem "The*species problem*is the set of questions that arises when*biologists*attempt to define what a*species*is.