(February 22, 2017 at 1:53 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(February 22, 2017 at 1:12 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: *emphasis mine*
Point me to where I mention anything about the "Theory of relativity". The word relative has existed long before Einstein thought of the theory. I said the scripture described time being relative by definition.  Why would ancient peoples even consider that time could differ according to point of view when they measured time according to the sun?

Also "psychological relativity" is just nonsense in this case, no one has ever psychologically perceived that 1 day = 1000 years.

Just below the part of my previous post you emphasized... check it out... I made a prediction and stopped you in your tracks before you could conclude your line of reasoning.
Like I said, Bite me!

(You never mentioned the Theory of Relativity... but you were going to conflate those two, sooner or later.. .now you know better!)

This isn't the first time I've had this discussion, If I was going to equate the two, don't you think I would have done it before now?

(February 22, 2017 at 1:53 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(February 22, 2017 at 1:12 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: What I mean by "genetic modification" are genetically modified seeds, also known as GMO's.

Are GMO seeds sterile? All of them?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012...eds-busted

Quote:Myth 1: Seeds from GMOs are sterile.

No, they'll germinate and grow just like any other plant. This idea presumably has its roots in a real genetic modification (dubbed the Terminator Gene by anti-biotech activists) that can make a plant produce sterile seeds. Monsanto owns the patent on this technique, but has promised not to use it.

Now, biotech companies — and Monsanto in particular — do seem to wish that this idea were true. They do their best to keep farmers from replanting the offspring from GMOs. But they do this because, in fact, those seeds will multiply.

*emphasis mine*

I thought we already discussed this.

We agreed that genetic variations can exist that don't constitute a change in species , and that different species CANNOT produce fertile offspring.

Genetic modification covers a wide range of possibilities (but it was quantified by "hybrid"), so I think I was clear in what I meant by:

(February 21, 2017 at 10:42 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Each seed must produce after it's kind, 'kind' means species, humans belong to the same species.

What you need to do is provide an example is of completely separate species producing fertile offspring.

This begs the question, is the GMO considered to be a different species than the original? If so are the offspring of the GMO fertile?

(February 22, 2017 at 1:53 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(February 22, 2017 at 1:12 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: *emphasis mine*
In the bible "kind" or "sort" means "species"

"Kind" "sort" and "Species" are synonymous

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Kind

Damn... that "biology-online" site quotes Comfort... Ray Comfort?!... in the second definition... and the Bible itself...
LOL!!
I'm sorry, but I can't accept it as an authority.

Try to use an unbiased dictionary:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/kind?s=t

Quote:noun
1. a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category:
Our dog is the same kind as theirs.
2. nature or character as determining likeness or difference between things:
These differ in degree rather than in kind.
3. a person or thing as being of a particular character or class:
He is a strange kind of hero.
4. a more or less adequate or inadequate example of something; sort:
The vines formed a kind of roof.
5. Archaic.
   the nature, or natural disposition or character.
   manner; form.
6. Obsolete. gender; sex.

No mention of species... but something close in #1.

*emphasis mine*
Really dude? That's the same definition for species.

form the same site
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/species?s=t

Quote:Species
1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.

You've called me disingenuous a number of times, what would you call what you just tried to pull?

Heck If you would just look down a little further in your own link for "kind", you'd see

Quote:Synonyms
1. order, genus, species; breed; set.

So yeah, they mean the same thing.  

(February 22, 2017 at 1:53 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(February 22, 2017 at 1:12 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I am a firm believer that many dimensions exist beyond the 3rd dimension, after all when we speak of an after life were simply speaking of entering into another dimension.

Why are you such a firm believer in that?
Why is belief required?

As I've stated, it comes down to personal conviction.

(February 22, 2017 at 1:53 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(February 22, 2017 at 1:12 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: *emphasis mine*
http://www.universetoday.com/111603/does...ence-time/

Didn't you state that:

How do you reconcile the above statement with the concept of a photon experiencing zero time?

Did you even read what you quoted? I underlined it just for you. And yes, it matches perfectly with what I was saying.

Uhh no, you completely contradict what I posted.

You stated that:

(February 22, 2017 at 5:36 am)pocaracas Wrote: Look closer at the second sentence above the one you bolded... here, I'll repeat it: "No time" is not "stopped time".
From the photon's reference, time doesn't go by, but there is time.

You made it clear that "no time" (zero time) IS NOT the same as "stopped time", furthermore you go on to say that "time doesn't go by, but there is time.". implying that time exists, it's just stopped.

"Existing time" albeit stopped and "zero time" contradict one another, you say so yourself.

(February 22, 2017 at 10:48 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 22, 2017 at 1:53 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Just below the part of my previous post you emphasized... check it out... I made a prediction and stopped you in your tracks before you could conclude your line of reasoning.
Like I said, Bite me!

(You never mentioned the Theory of Relativity... but you were going to conflate those two, sooner or later.. .now you know better!)

This isn't the first time I've had this discussion, If I was going to equate the two, don't you think I would have done it before now?

(February 22, 2017 at 1:53 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Are GMO seeds sterile? All of them?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012...eds-busted

*emphasis mine*

I thought we already discussed this.

We agreed that genetic variations can exist that don't constitute a change in species , and that different species CANNOT produce fertile offspring.

Genetic modification covers a wide range of possibilities (but it was quantified by "hybrid"), so I think I was clear in what I meant by:

(February 21, 2017 at 10:42 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Each seed must produce after it's kind, 'kind' means species, humans belong to the same species.

What you need to do is provide an example is of completely separate species producing fertile offspring.

This begs the question, is the GMO considered to be a different species than the original? If so are the offspring of the GMO fertile?

(February 22, 2017 at 1:53 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Damn... that "biology-online" site quotes Comfort... Ray Comfort?!... in the second definition... and the Bible itself...
LOL!!
I'm sorry, but I can't accept it as an authority.

Try to use an unbiased dictionary:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/kind?s=t


No mention of species... but something close in #1.

*emphasis mine*
Really dude? That's the same definition for species.

form the same site
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/species?s=t

Quote:Species
1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.

You've called me disingenuous a number of times, what would you call what you just tried to pull?

Heck If you would just look down a little further in your own link for "kind", you'd see

Quote:Synonyms
1. order, genus, species; breed; set.

So yeah, they mean the same thing.  

(February 22, 2017 at 1:53 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Why are you such a firm believer in that?
Why is belief required?

As I've stated, it comes down to personal conviction.

(February 22, 2017 at 1:53 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Did you even read what you quoted? I underlined it just for you. And yes, it matches perfectly with what I was saying.

Uhh no, you completely contradict what I posted.

You stated that:

(February 22, 2017 at 5:36 am)pocaracas Wrote: Look closer at the second sentence above the one you bolded... here, I'll repeat it: "No time" is not "stopped time".
From the photon's reference, time doesn't go by, but there is time.

You made it clear that "no time" (zero time) IS NOT the same as "stopped time", furthermore you go on to say that "time doesn't go by, but there is time.". implying that time exists, it's just stopped.

"Existing time" albeit stopped and "zero time" contradict one another, you say so yourself.

GMO's such as the modern day Banana are modified so they do not have seeds so ergo they are not fertile. A GMO plant  is just a modified version of the plant 
that makes it easier for farmers to plant and harvest are they different radically no they are only different on the genetic level. To make it simple like so i have a corn plant
bugs like to eat the corn i modify the corn on the genetic level giving pesticide gene and my harvest is saved. 

Species there are different kinds of species. Dogs have many species and the dog we see today came from wolves and then to the extinct Dire Wolf. 
Snakes and Cats at a point billions of years ago shared a common ancestor and snakes around that time had legs. So evolution it's amazing creation is really a dumb
idea because hey we humans are flawed genetically if we can fix our own problems with gene editing what the hell was god doing even creating us.

(February 22, 2017 at 10:48 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 22, 2017 at 1:53 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Just below the part of my previous post you emphasized... check it out... I made a prediction and stopped you in your tracks before you could conclude your line of reasoning.
Like I said, Bite me!

(You never mentioned the Theory of Relativity... but you were going to conflate those two, sooner or later.. .now you know better!)

This isn't the first time I've had this discussion, If I was going to equate the two, don't you think I would have done it before now?

Beats me...
Why would you bring up the relativity of time present in the bible, then?

(February 22, 2017 at 10:48 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 22, 2017 at 1:53 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Are GMO seeds sterile? All of them?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012...eds-busted

*emphasis mine*

I thought we already discussed this.

We agreed that genetic variations can exist that don't constitute a change in species , and that different species CANNOT produce fertile offspring.

Genetic modification covers a wide range of possibilities (but it was quantified by "hybrid"), so I think I was clear in what I meant by:

(February 21, 2017 at 10:42 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Each seed must produce after it's kind, 'kind' means species, humans belong to the same species.

What you need to do is provide an example is of completely separate species producing fertile offspring.

This begs the question, is the GMO considered to be a different species than the original? If so are the offspring of the GMO fertile?

Most GMOs are fertile... it's what I quoted before.

If they are a different species... I'd think so, but I'm not sure... I've never read anything on that subject.

But I get the feeling that you are constantly talking about cross-breeding - A GMO life-form crossed with a non-GMO life-form. Is this it?

(February 22, 2017 at 10:48 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 22, 2017 at 1:53 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Damn... that "biology-online" site quotes Comfort... Ray Comfort?!... in the second definition... and the Bible itself...
LOL!!
I'm sorry, but I can't accept it as an authority.

Try to use an unbiased dictionary:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/kind?s=t


No mention of species... but something close in #1.

*emphasis mine*
Really dude? That's the same definition for species.

form the same site
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/species?s=t

Quote:Species
1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.

You've called me disingenuous a number of times, what would you call what you just tried to pull?

Heck If you would just look down a little further in your own link for "kind", you'd see

Quote:Synonyms
1. order, genus, species; breed; set.

So yeah, they mean the same thing.  

I didn't scroll down that far...
Goes to show how it's just some common usage of the word...

Hey, synonyms!
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/species?s=t

Quote: breed
category
collection
description

division
group
kind
likes

lot
nature
number
order

sort
stripe
type

yeah... better be careful with those...
In Biology, kind is an imprecise word that is best avoided.

(February 22, 2017 at 10:48 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 22, 2017 at 1:53 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Why are you such a firm believer in that?
Why is belief required?

As I've stated, it comes down to personal conviction.

And how did you get convinced?

(February 22, 2017 at 10:48 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 22, 2017 at 1:53 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Did you even read what you quoted? I underlined it just for you. And yes, it matches perfectly with what I was saying.

Uhh no, you completely contradict what I posted.

You stated that:

(February 22, 2017 at 5:36 am)pocaracas Wrote: Look closer at the second sentence above the one you bolded... here, I'll repeat it: "No time" is not "stopped time".
From the photon's reference, time doesn't go by, but there is time.

You made it clear that "no time" (zero time) IS NOT the same as "stopped time", furthermore you go on to say that "time doesn't go by, but there is time.". implying that time exists, it's just stopped.

"Existing time" albeit stopped and "zero time" contradict one another, you say so yourself.

It has now become clear to me that you cannot grasp the concept of "absence of time".
I think no further explanation will do, as our language is, at best, clumsy in these matters.
But I'll try once more... I'm stubborn!

When I used "no time", I meant "absence of time".

Imagine time as an axis, a straight line.
From the point of view of a photon traveling at the speed of light in vacuum, it comes into existence at some point in this axis and reaches its destination at the same point. This is what I mean by "time doesn't go by, but there is time".

The absence of time, means that the axis itself isn't there to work with. There is no time. Time is absent. There is no point in time for the photon to exist in the first place.

LITSFTT

(February 23, 2017 at 6:54 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(February 22, 2017 at 10:48 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: *emphasis mine*
Really dude? That's the same definition for species.

form the same site
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/species?s=t
You've called me disingenuous a number of times, what would you call what you just tried to pull?

Heck If you would just look down a little further in your own link for "kind", you'd see


So yeah, they mean the same thing.  

I didn't scroll down that far...
Goes to show how it's just some common usage of the word...

Hey, synonyms!
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/species?s=t

Quote:    breed
   category
   collection
   description

   division
   group
   kind
   likes

   lot
   nature
   number
   order

   sort
   stripe
   type

yeah... better be careful with those...
In Biology, kind is an imprecise word that is best avoided.

*emphasis mine*
Don't even try It. Before I address the rest of your post, we're  going to settle this first.

"kind" is not an imprecise word, It was mentioned in the definition for species.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/species?s=t

Quote:Species
1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.

I posted the definition from biology-online because I wanted the definition as it pertained to biology, but my source wasn't good enough for you remember? You were LOL'ing at it actually, ok fine.

Now that YOUR source proves that your wrong, you want to talk about "In Biology, kind is an imprecise word"....   Too late for that since you refused to accept the definition from a site focused on biology.

The only thing left for you to do is admit you were wrong, and acknowledge that "kind" and "species" mean the same thing.

(February 24, 2017 at 11:37 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 23, 2017 at 6:54 am)pocaracas Wrote: I didn't scroll down that far...
Goes to show how it's just some common usage of the word...

Hey, synonyms!
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/species?s=t

yeah... better be careful with those...
In Biology, kind is an imprecise word that is best avoided.

*emphasis mine*
Don't even try It. Before I address the rest of your post, we're  going to settle this first.

"kind" is not an imprecise word, It was mentioned in the definition for species.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/species?s=t

Quote:Species
1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.

I posted the definition from biology-online because I wanted the definition as it pertained to biology, but my source wasn't good enough for you remember? You were LOL'ing at it actually, ok fine.

Now that YOUR source proves that your wrong, you want to talk about "In Biology, kind is an imprecise word"....   Too late for that since you refused to accept the definition from a site focused on biology.

The only thing left for you to do is admit you were wrong, and acknowledge that "kind" and "species" mean the same thing.

okay... if that's how you want to play it...
Your "biology" source used Ray Comfort and the bible as references for accepting "kind" as equivalent to species... If that's how things work on that site, then I'm not going to trust it. I told you so.
Oh, and look at how they describe their dictionary: " an editable-dictionary with thousands of terms".... editable... makes you wonder who added those references to Comfort and the Bible...

My source has kind as a synonym for species... but it's not a synonym for a biological species...well... actually, it's not defined...
Maybe this other source will help:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Species+(biology)

Quote:spe·cies (spē′shēz, -sēz)
n. pl. species
1. Biology A group of closely related organisms that are very similar to each other and are usually capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. The species is the fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus. Species names are represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.
2. Logic A class of individuals or objects grouped by virtue of their common attributes and assigned a common name; a division subordinate to a genus.
3. Chemistry A set of atoms, molecules, ions, or other chemical entities that possess the same distinct characteristics with respect to a chemical process or measurement.
4. A kind, variety, or type: "No species of performing artist is as self-critical as a dancer" (Susan Sontag).
5. Roman Catholic Church
a. The outward appearance or form of the Eucharistic elements that is retained after their consecration.
b. Either of the consecrated elements of the Eucharist.

Note that it's "kind", outside of biology.

I thought you'd get that detail from the list of synonyms I gave you, courtesy of the thesaurus... but no...
Shall I proceed in teaching you that the same word can have several meanings? And each meaning has it's own synonyms?
And, in Biology, that synonym doesn't work?
Context matters in English... who'da thunk?

(February 24, 2017 at 11:58 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(February 24, 2017 at 11:37 am)Huggy74 Wrote: *emphasis mine*
Don't even try It. Before I address the rest of your post, we're  going to settle this first.

"kind" is not an imprecise word, It was mentioned in the definition for species.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/species?s=t

I posted the definition from biology-online because I wanted the definition as it pertained to biology, but my source wasn't good enough for you remember? You were LOL'ing at it actually, ok fine.

Now that YOUR source proves that your wrong, you want to talk about "In Biology, kind is an imprecise word"....   Too late for that since you refused to accept the definition from a site focused on biology.

The only thing left for you to do is admit you were wrong, and acknowledge that "kind" and "species" mean the same thing.

okay... if that's how you want to play it...
Your "biology" source used Ray Comfort and the bible as references for accepting "kind" as equivalent to species... If that's how things work on that site, then I'm not going to trust it. I told you so.
Oh, and look at how they describe their dictionary: " an editable-dictionary with thousands of terms".... editable... makes you wonder who added those references to Comfort and the Bible...

My source has kind as a synonym for species... but it's not a synonym for a biological species...well... actually, it's not defined...
Maybe this other source will help:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Species+(biology)

Quote:spe·cies  (spē′shēz, -sēz)
n. pl. species
1. Biology A group of closely related organisms that are very similar to each other and are usually capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. The species is the fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus. Species names are represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.
2. Logic A class of individuals or objects grouped by virtue of their common attributes and assigned a common name; a division subordinate to a genus.
3. Chemistry A set of atoms, molecules, ions, or other chemical entities that possess the same distinct characteristics with respect to a chemical process or measurement.
4. A kind, variety, or type: "No species of performing artist is as self-critical as a dancer" (Susan Sontag).
5. Roman Catholic Church
a. The outward appearance or form of the Eucharistic elements that is retained after their consecration.
b. Either of the consecrated elements of the Eucharist.

Note that it's "kind", outside of biology.

I thought you'd get that detail from the list of synonyms I gave you, courtesy of the thesaurus... but no...
Shall I proceed in teaching you that the same word can have several meanings? And each meaning has it's own synonyms?
And, in Biology, that synonym doesn't work?
Context matters in English... who'da thunk?

Oh, so now were going to double down?

In the Bible "kind" and "sort" refers to "species", no if and's or buts, in fact if you look at some of the newer translations, "kind" is translated to "species".

Quote:Genesis 1 King James Version (KJV)
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Quote:Genesis 1 Tree of Life Version (TLV)
21 Then God created the large sea creatures and every living creature that crawls, with which the water swarms, according to their species, as well as every winged flying creature, according to their species. And God saw that it was good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

Quote:In his biology, Aristotle used the term γένος (génos) to mean a kind, such as a bird or fish, and εἶδος (eidos) to mean a specific form within a kind, such as (within the birds) the crane, eagle, crow, or sparrow. A kind was distinguished by its attributes; for instance, a bird has feathers, a beak, wings, a hard-shelled egg, and warm blood. A form was distinguished by being shared by all its members, the young inheriting any variations they might have from their parents. Aristotle believed all kinds and forms to be distinct and unchanging. His approach remained influential until the Renaissance

There you go, "kind" used in the context of biology, what now?

When the Bible was written even the most insightful people in the world had no clue what any concept of specie meaningful to biology is, much less the third rate opportunistic hucksters and superstitious morons who would actually have contributed to writing your bible. So fuck off.

(February 24, 2017 at 2:34 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: When the Bible was written even the most insightful people in the world had no clue what any concept of specie meaningful to biology is, much less the third rate opportunistic hucksters and superstitious morons who would actually have contributed to writing your bible.  So fuck off.

Look you ignoramus, the bible defines a "kind" or "species" as group that can produce fertile offspring, THAT IS THE SAME CRITERIA USED IN MODERN BIOLOGY!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

Quote:A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which two individuals can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction.

This just goes to show, no matter how much evidence you show an atheist, they'll refuse to see reason... ala Denmark 

(February 24, 2017 at 2:12 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 24, 2017 at 11:58 am)pocaracas Wrote: okay... if that's how you want to play it...
Your "biology" source used Ray Comfort and the bible as references for accepting "kind" as equivalent to species... If that's how things work on that site, then I'm not going to trust it. I told you so.
Oh, and look at how they describe their dictionary: " an editable-dictionary with thousands of terms".... editable... makes you wonder who added those references to Comfort and the Bible...

My source has kind as a synonym for species... but it's not a synonym for a biological species...well... actually, it's not defined...
Maybe this other source will help:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Species+(biology)


Note that it's "kind", outside of biology.

I thought you'd get that detail from the list of synonyms I gave you, courtesy of the thesaurus... but no...
Shall I proceed in teaching you that the same word can have several meanings? And each meaning has it's own synonyms?
And, in Biology, that synonym doesn't work?
Context matters in English... who'da thunk?

Oh, so now were going to double down?

In the Bible "kind" and "sort" refers to "species", no if and's or buts, in fact if you look at some of the newer translations, "kind" is translated to "species".

Quote:Genesis 1 King James Version (KJV)
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Quote:Genesis 1 Tree of Life Version (TLV)
21 Then God created the large sea creatures and every living creature that crawls, with which the water swarms, according to their species, as well as every winged flying creature, according to their species. And God saw that it was good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

Quote:In his biology, Aristotle used the term γένος (génos) to mean a kind, such as a bird or fish, and εἶδος (eidos) to mean a specific form within a kind, such as (within the birds) the crane, eagle, crow, or sparrow. A kind was distinguished by its attributes; for instance, a bird has feathers, a beak, wings, a hard-shelled egg, and warm blood. A form was distinguished by being shared by all its members, the young inheriting any variations they might have from their parents. Aristotle believed all kinds and forms to be distinct and unchanging. His approach remained influential until the Renaissance

There you go, "kind" used in the context of biology, what now?

Did you read that?
"the term génos to mean a kind, such as a bird or fish, and eidos to mean a specific form within a kind"... There you go - kind is not species!
Kind as an imprecise term. Do all fish interbreed?

Also, if my history serves me right, Biology, the science, came a bit after Aristotle's time...


Oh and, species is also applied to asexual living entities... fungi, bacteria... how does your definition of kind, requiring that a pair breeds offspring that can themselves breed, hold up?