This discussion took place due to the Quora site question Are dinosaur bones the remains of the Nephilim described in Genesis?
A certain Carlos Caro replied
No. That is absurd and stupid.
The Nephilim have no basis in archaeology or history and only exist in myths, where they are described as giants, not as feathery animals.
Dinosaurs are the precursors to modern birds. This is not debated anymore in science.
American Museum of Natural History
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/fighting-dinos/birds-living-dinosaurs
LiveScience
Are Birds Dinosaurs?
Modern birds can trace their origins to theropods, a branch of mostly meat-eaters on the dinosaur family tree.
https://www.livescience.com/are-birds-dinosaurs.html
Natural History Museum, UK
Why are birds the only surviving dinosaurs?
Watch our animation to find out.
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/why-are-birds-the-only-surviving-dinosaurs.html
Scientific American
How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds
Modern birds appeared to emerge in a snap of evolutionary time. But new research illuminates the long series of evolutionary changes that made the transformation possible
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-dinosaurs-shrank-and-became-birds/
Gizmodo
How Do We Know Birds Are Dinosaurs?
Birds aren’t descended from dinosaurs. They are dinosaurs.
https://gizmodo.com/how-do-we-know-birds-are-dinosaurs-1847254312
Berkley
Dinosaur-Bird Relationships
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? Emu We’ll spare you the exhaustive amount of available cladistic studies; those alone would make a large book if compiled. Dr. Jacques Gauthier, during his time as a graduate student of Professor Kevin Padian here at Berkeley, did his dissertation research on this subject, creating the first well accepted, detailed phylogeny of the diapsids . His work provided strong, compelling support for the theory that birds are theropod dinosaurs . If we look back into the history of the issue, it is apparent that many comparative anatomists during the 16th through 19th centuries noticed that birds were very similar to traditional reptiles. In 1860, shortly after the publication of Charles Darwin’s influential work On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection , a quarry worker in Germany spotted an unusual fossil in the limestone of the Solnhofen Formation (late Jurassic period). This fossil turned out to be the famous ‘London specimen’ of Archaeopteryx lithographica . It was a beautiful example of a “transitional form” between two vertebrate groups (traditional reptiles and birds); just what Darwin expected would eventually be found. Archaeopteryx , generally accepted as being the oldest known bird, is an important link between birds and other coelurosaurs that has helped to illuminate the evolutionary history (phylogeny) of the group. It is now widely held to be the ancestor of all living birds; this is a common misconception. In fact, recent expeditions in China, Mongolia, Madagascar, Argentina, and elsewhere may uncover dinosaurs that usurp the “urvogel” status of Archaeopteryx . Many scientists, including Thomas Henry Huxley (a staunch supporter of Darwin), saw incredible similarities between birds and the theropod dinosaurs (especially the coelurosaurs). Others since Huxley also hinted at the striking resemblances. However, birds were still not well accepted as dinosaur descendants — such hypotheses as A. Walker’s “crocodylomorph” ancestor and G. Heilman’s “thecodont” ancestor held sway for most of the 19th and 20th century, or else birds were simply dismissed as originating from some unknown reptile that didn’t matter anyway. That would change. Dr. J.H. Ostrom ‘s 1969 description of Deinonychus antirrhopus and its similarities to Archaeopteryx was the major step: his work since the 1970’s has provided the impetus for a paradigm sh
https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
National Geographic
Finally, You Can See Dinosaurs in All Their Feathered Glory
A new exhibit in New York challenges the popular view of dinos as green, scaly beasts and showcases their links to today’s birds.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/160405-dinosaurs-feathers-birds-museum-new-york-science
Scientists don’t even debate it. They use the terms avian and non-avian dinosaurs. It’s background information to their research.
PLOS Biology
Decelerated dinosaur skull evolution with the origin of birds
The evolutionary radiation of birds has produced incredible morphological variation, including a huge range of skull form and function. Investigating how this variation arose with respect to non-avian dinosaurs is key to understanding how birds achieved …
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7437466/
I could pull up endless examples, but you’re not here for that, are you? You’re here to spread ignorance, fundamentalism, and hate, right Dorie Bentjen?
These are your questions, right?
Atheists, have you prepared your anuses for God’s wrath?
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Atheists-have-you-prepared-your-anuses-for-God-s-wrath
Was the Holocaust God’s way of punishing the Jewish community for murdering Christ?
https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Holocaust-God-s-way-of-punishing-the-Jewish-community-for-murdering-Christ
Why did the Jews murder Jesus?
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Jews-murder-Jesus
Is sodomy considered a sacrament in the Catholic Church?
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Is-sodomy-considered-a-sacrament-in-the-Catholic-Church
So the answers to your question is, “No, they are not. Dinosaur bones are divided into avian and non-avian dinosaurs. I eat dino meat right off the bone frequently; my favorite is a lovely fried chicken place near my home, though I do love me some arroz con pollo. And your question isn’t sincere; just a way for you to spread your ignorance and hate.”
I, Ken Ammi, replied
Friend, what you subjectively find to be absurd and stupid is not a standard.
That “Nephilim…only exist in myths” is a positive affirmation you must prove.
Also, they are only “described as giants” by utterly unreliable guys whom God rebukes.
Carlos Caro
Ok. The dinosaurs were not giants and became birds. Are the Nephilim proto-birds? See above. We’re done.
Now prove the Nephilim exist. And prove they were proto-birds. While you’re at it, prove your mass-murdering baby-drowning god exists. Apply the same standards to yourself.
I’ll wait.
Ken Ammi
I’m afraid you confused the order of things since I’m the one waiting: recall, “That ‘Nephilim…only exist in myths’ is a positive affirmation you must prove.”
Carlos Caro
Nonsense. Russell’s teapot, chungus. You are absolutely terrible at logic.
Here’s another positive affirmation.
“Ken Ammi understands Russell’s teapot and how it applies in this case. He understands burden of proof and that when a person states something like, ‘This is just a myth,’ that is not a transfer to make someone prove a negative. Ken Ammi understands that proving a negative is not possible and the statement, ‘This is just a myth,’ is effectively a null hypothesis about a thing’s existence that has to be overcome.”
Ken Ammi
Do you believe that humans are accidentally existing apes?
If so, what’s your issue with one such accidentally existing ape being (allegedly) terrible at accidental logic?
Simple: you made a positive affirmation, you were called on it to prove it, you can’t. Lesson learned is that if you can’t prove a positive affirmation just don’t make it.
FYI, the statement “proving a negative is not possible” is a claim to have proved a negative.
Also, of course we can prove negatives: no foot exists at the end of my arm—done.
Carlos Caro
You clearly are very bad at logic. You did not recognize Russell’s Teapot. You clearly do not have any knowledge of the background in the field given your rather juvenile attempt to prove that you can prove a negative. You’re not just wrong; you’re “would fail freshman philosophy” wrong.
No, my guy. That’s not how it works. If it did, in theory you could always change whether an affirmation is positive or negative simply by switching a word around. That is clearly false. Watch.
Positive Affirmation: There is an empty can of cola on my desk.
Negative Affirmation?: It is not the case there are no empty cans of cola on my desk.
Logically, the two statements are equivalent. No, you can’t change it from positive to negative through such a simple trick of language.
Also, of course we can prove negatives: no foot exists at the end of my arm—done.
Wrong. You have proven no such thing. All you have proven is you do not perceive a foot at the end of your arm. It’s an invisible and massless foot foot. Prove me wrong.
You surely see what’s coming? It becomes trivially easy to move the goal posts. That’s why the burden of proof rests on the person making the positive claim.
I recommend you actually try looking into Russell’s Teapot and understand this stuff before you pop off in a manner that merely proves your ignorance. I’ll even link it for you. It firmly establishes where burdens of proof fall in critical thinking. If you want the more humorous version, I’ll give you the Dragon in the Garage and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. And if you want the extra credit, try reading about Descartes’ doubts and the Burden of Proof.
You might catch up to a freshman. You make errors that are absolutely laughably bad. Just stop, my guy. You are way out of your depth.
Russell’s teapot – Laurie R. King
www-youtube-com/watch?v=FsN3DCCT…
people-whitman-edu/~herbrawt/cla…
The Burden of Proof
Ken Ammi
You don’t seem to want to apply your worldview’s implications to your worldview—good for you that being consistent isn’t a universal imperative on Atheism.
Now, you say I am “very bad at logic” as a jump to a merely asserted conclusion, without bothering to tell me how an accidentally existing ape ought to be good at accidental logic.
You merely assert I “did not recognize Russell’s Teapot…clearly do not have any knowledge of the background in the field,” etc. which seems to imply you’re actually incapable of counter-arguing.
So, you seem to be saying that you feel free to make negative affirmation without proof.
Speaking of simple trick of language: by definition, according to the law of identify, a foot is the five toed appendage at the end of our legs so running away from that by referring to a foot as “an invisible and massless foot foot” is just a category error—not that it matters on Atheism, nor “to move the goal posts” nor is there any such a thing as a “burden of proof” either “on the person making the positive claim” nor on anyone.
Carlos Caro
Ok. You reject the idea of a burden of proof.
Fine. I am free to claim that Ken Ammi is a brain-dead puppy-eater and am not burdened with a burden of proof. I can even frame it “negatively,” as you are unable to tell the difference between a negative affirmation and simply using the word not.
“It is not the case that Ken Ammi refrains from eating puppies, and it is not the case that Ken Ammi is actually sapient and persists outside of a persistent vegetative space.”
Since burden of proof is not a real thing, I will now claim it and it is now true.
Get away from me, you brain-dead puppy-eater.
Dude…you are laughably bad at this. Seriously.
Kem Ammi
I’m not aware of rejecting the idea of a burden of proof but I do recall that there’s no universal imperative for a burden of proof on your worldview. Thus, either you are the one rejecting the burden of proof or you just have a subjective personal preference for it—like you prefer some ice cream flavors over others.
Now, what, on your worldview, is wrong with an accidentally existing ape being subjectively “laughably bad at this” within an existence wherein there’s no universal imperative for an accidentally existing ape to be good at it?
Carlos Caro
Again, you literally seem to have no idea how burden of proof works. I’ve explained how it works repeatedly and pointed to multiple examples from philosophy already and you with what can only be called amazingly willful hardheadedness refuse to get the idea.
It’s not my worldview, dude. It’s the basics of how we know anything.
Do you think I made a bunch of videos about the burden of proof in philosophy and Russell’s teapot just for you? Do you think I went and published those discussions from philosophy classes at major universities? Or, hang it all, that maybe I just googled one because it’s a famous point in elementary philosophy so I didn’t have to do any work to find it well-explained? This is some basic stuff and you seem to not get it regardless of how often it’s explained. And like the absolute idiot you are, you still think it’s my worldview and not how knowledge works.
I’ve provided the illustrations. I’ve provided multiple academic and non-academic sources backing it up. You have nothing but incoherent babble. Nothing backs you up.
At this point, the evidence for me is conclusive. You are either willingly and willfully stupid or else simply trolling. Goodbye. I cannot make you learn the basics of how thought works. I am not going to waste my time on this.
Ken Ammi
At this point I’ll note that just merely repeating your well-within-the-box-Atheist-group think-talking points-du jour is merely doubling(or quintupling, or at whatever number we are) down on you beginning by jumping to asserted conclusions and continuing to provide evidence (nearing proof now) that you’re literally incapable of, for example, actually arguing for your worldview in order to conclude that I have the burden of proof works.
This isn’t yet about how the BoP works, but about why it’s an issue in the first place, on your worldview.
You’re merely asserting and demanding, I’m just asking why you do so, on your worldview.
See, when you attempt to run away from your worldview and assert, “It’s the basics of how we know anything” you’re coming at this from a worldview according to which there’s no universal imperative for accidentally existing apes to know accidental reality in the first place.
Have you really never considered the implications of your worldview and incorporated them into your worldview?
You seem to be saying that I should bear the burden because accidentally existing pages, one named Russell, made videos, published those discussions, etc. said so. Well, you may be impressed by that—to the point of being a childish jerk to anyone who dares to question you—but I’m not.
So, rather than saying I ought because other people also demand that I ought, why not actually find a way to argue your point rather than becoming increasingly emotive?
Likewise, you say “the evidence for me is conclusive” but that’s just a subjective assertion and you began with a conclusion, again, since you don’t bother saying why imply we ought to only base our views on evidence.
And in the end, in typical Atheism 101 fashion, you failed, you were a jerk, and you ran away.
Well, I was, sadly, right as that most recent and last comment of mine, “has been deleted and is only visible to you” and then, “Adding comments disabled” for the whole thread.
It’s very, very common for Atheist on Quora to rely on censorship so they can remain in their safe-spaces.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.