(March 18, 2018 at 5:01 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: The bible clearly defines a 'kind' as that which is able to produce fertile offspring, every "seed" must bring forth after it's "kind".

Modern biological definition of species is the same, but they consider geography (these animals don't meet in the wild and therefore don't mate and produce offspring) and physical limitations (a tiger and houscat).

Now if you can artificially inseminate a house cat / Tiger and it produces fertile offspring then according to the biblical definition, they are of the same "species".

Dogs and wolves CAN produce fertile offspring, and therefore are the same "species" biblically.

if you seek scientific knowledge from the Bible you are childish at best.

(March 18, 2018 at 8:04 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(March 18, 2018 at 7:24 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Apparently the broadest definition ever . Including stuff in biology that ranked above Species.

---

Then of course is the question are black and grey crows the same kind . 

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...two-crows/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...rbreeding/

Huggy believes the Bible to be true by definition, and any words that appear to him to imply the truth of the Bible must itself also be true.   For him the work of the lord is but to make even more words appear to himself to imply the Bible to be true.   When he has gone through the trouble of making more words appear to himself to imply the Bible to have been true, he is offended that such appearance is not discerned at all by others who, one would imagine, are through training and habit be better at discerning things than he.    So he speak in a didactic tone and post in enlarged font as if what appears to him to be true is actually something to be inculcated as vindicating favor to those others.

I didn't post from the bible dummy, I posted from the dictionary.

Quote:I didn't post from the bible dummy, I posted from the dictionary.

Not his point moron

(March 18, 2018 at 8:30 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 18, 2018 at 8:04 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Huggy believes the Bible to be true by definition, and any words that appear to him to imply the truth of the Bible must itself also be true.   For him the work of the lord is but to make even more words appear to himself to imply the Bible to be true.   When he has gone through the trouble of making more words appear to himself to imply the Bible to have been true, he is offended that such appearance is not discerned at all by others who, one would imagine, are through training and habit be better at discerning things than he.    So he speak in a didactic tone and post in enlarged font as if what appears to him to be true is actually something to be inculcated as vindicating favor to those others.

I didn't post from the bible dummy, I posted from the dictionary.

The comprehension you exhibit when reading my post is on par with the comprehension you exhibit when looking at the dictionary, I see.

I didn’t say you posted from the Bible. I said you posted words words which appear to you to imply the Bible to be true, but which have no such appearance whatsoever to anyone who is actually qualified to understand their meanings.

(March 18, 2018 at 6:53 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(March 18, 2018 at 6:41 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: *emphasis mine*

Once again, you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with the dictionary; but what do I know, you're the best debater of the forums

No matter how much mental gymnastics you apply, 'species' and 'kind' are synonymous, no if and or buts.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/species

---

http://www.ligerworld.com/are-the-ligers-sterile.html

And you missed my point entirely

Big surprise

And once again turning to common usage .

---

also love how he ignored the rest of the post .

---

Calling a Genus , Class, Order, and Family subcategories of  species is dumb . And the rest of definitions is just you imposing none biology terms into the mix allowing you to stretch the term as broad as you like .Once again simply putting up dictionary definitions has failed you .Kind is  not biological classification .

The term 'biology' didn't exist until the early 19th century muppet... the scripture existed long before that. I explained how it classified a species, if you don't like it, tough.

---

(March 18, 2018 at 8:35 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(March 18, 2018 at 8:30 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I didn't post from the bible dummy, I posted from the dictionary.

The comprehension you exhibit when reading my post is on par with the comprehension you exhibit when looking at the dictionary, I see.

I didn’t say you posted from the Bible.  I said you posted words words which appear to you to imply the Bible to be true, but which have no such appearance whatsoever to anyone who is actually qualified to understand their meanings.

Look you mental midget, the OP stated in the title of this thread and in his post that 'kind' is not defined.

This is false because it is clearly defined in the dictionary as being synonymous with 'species', and therefore having the same definition.

This has nothing to do with the bible.

Got it?

(March 18, 2018 at 8:43 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 18, 2018 at 6:53 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: And you missed my point entirely

Big surprise

And once again turning to common usage .

---

also love how he ignored the rest of the post .

---

Calling a Genus , Class, Order, and Family subcategories of  species is dumb . And the rest of definitions is just you imposing none biology terms into the mix allowing you to stretch the term as broad as you like .Once again simply putting up dictionary definitions has failed you .Kind is  not biological classification .

The term 'biology' didn't exist until the early 19th century muppet... the scripture existed long before that.  I explained how it classified a species, if you don't like it, tough.

---

(March 18, 2018 at 8:35 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: The comprehension you exhibit when reading my post is on par with the comprehension you exhibit when looking at the dictionary, I see.

I didn’t say you posted from the Bible.  I said you posted words words which appear to you to imply the Bible to be true, but which have no such appearance whatsoever to anyone who is actually qualified to understand their meanings.

Look you mental midget, the OP stated in the title of this thread and in his post that 'kind' is not defined.

This is false because it is clearly defined in the dictionary as being synonymous with 'species', and therefore having the same definition.

This has nothing to do with the bible.

Got it?

Uh, no.  Reality and Science doesn’t obey the dictates of common dictionaries.   Got it?

Quote:The term 'biology' didn't exist until the early 19th century muppet... the scripture existed long before that. I explained how it classified a species, if you don't like it, tough.

Just because it defined kind as something first does not make its definition correct  or valid Idiot  . Yes you did and it's an invalid  definition in biology which is what were discussing . Yes i don't like it because it's wrong naive and silly which is why people in the 19th century and beyond it's not used and why modern taxonomy is . Thus Kinds is reduced to a non terminology in regards to modern biology . And if  you don't like that tough.

Quote:Look you mental midget, the OP stated in the title of this thread and in his post that 'kind' is not defined.

This is false because it is clearly defined in the dictionary as being synonymous with 'species', and therefore having the same definition. 

This has nothing to do with the bible.

Got it?

Actually no because kind is not a valid definition for species in biology. Which is why it's not used in biology . Thus it remains undefined and only retains validity in the imaginations of creationists . Dumbass .

---

What species means in biology. Nowhere does the term kind hold validity . And of course in terms of extent biology it is even less credible. And no common dictionary will change that.

(March 18, 2018 at 9:30 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Actually no because kind is not a valid definition for species in biology. Which is why it's not used in biology . Thus it remains undefined and only retains validity in the imaginations of creationists . Dumbass .

https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/t...iology/v-1

Quote:The issue of natural kinds in biology is important because such kinds serve as a basis for prediction and explanation in science. Furthermore, biological kinds are taken to be real categories in nature. For these reasons, the topic of natural kinds in biology is of special interest to the philosophy of science and metaphysics.

You were saying?

That goes for your butt boi Anomalocaris also.

Your still wrong Huggy . Kind is not a valid term in modern taxonomy . And kind as species as defined by the dictionary is not a valid term in biology either . 


What species means in science your is not a valid term in that regard 

Tough luck

(March 18, 2018 at 10:48 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 18, 2018 at 9:30 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Actually no because kind is not a valid definition for species in biology. Which is why it's not used in biology . Thus it remains undefined and only retains validity in the imaginations of creationists . Dumbass .

https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/t...iology/v-1

Quote:The issue of natural kinds in biology is important because such kinds serve as a basis for prediction and explanation in science. Furthermore, biological kinds are taken to be real categories in nature. For these reasons, the topic of natural kinds in biology is of special interest to the philosophy of science and metaphysics.

You were saying?

That goes for your butt boi Anomalocaris also.

Butt boi?   Tsk tsk.  What would Jesus do to your butt when he heard such language..   I guess you don't really believe in him to use such language, do you now...

You do realize you actually have to quote from articles in the field before you can pretend to have gotten you paws on a gotcha in that field, right? Quoting carpenter about iron working might be cute, but doesn't say you have any clue about what the fuck you are talking about.

And you know quoting within the field just get you to the pretend stage, right?

You actually need to understand the article and be able to assess it's standing in the field before you get past the clowning around stage, right? You need to, gasp, study the subject! But if you did that, Where would you find time to be jesus' butt boi?

Try some humility.  No amount is enough for you but any amount would be a enormous improvement for you.