(March 18, 2015 at 11:17 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(March 18, 2015 at 6:08 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Seriously? you Muppet....
Here is what I said.
And your definition.

I think we've isolated the problem. Apparently you don't understand the difference between the words same and new.

You claimed that the species after a speciation event were the same species. That means that they could still interbreed and produce viable offspring capable of reproduction. The definition I provided clearly noted that in the aftermath of a speciation event, there is a new species at hand. It is a different species.

You see, "same" means unchanged; "new" means not previously present. The fact that you have to ignore this distinction gives great insight into the vapidity of your opinion. No one cares what you think the word means. What matters is its meaning in the context of biology. Your inability to understand that has no bearing on the issue, at all. Because scientists, and folks here, don't give a shit about your errors of comprehension -- or incomprehension, really -- insofar as the theory of evolution is concerned.

You're either a really bad liar, or a really stupid person.

Well, I guess that's an excluded-middle fallacy on my part; it's entirely possible that you are an incredibly stupid liar. Yeah, that sounds right.

Later, 'Tater.

You still don't get it, but I already knew you wouldn't, I forgot you still believe Denmark has a secular government, so really nothing i say is going to register.

We were never discussing the context of "biology" we are discussing what the Bible defines as a species, obviously modern "biology" didn't exist when the old testament was written.

The Bible states every seed must bring forth of it's KIND. In other words if two creatures could produce fertile offspring they were of the same KIND.

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

And this is the definition I've been going by this whole time, seeing how the bible word for species is sort/kind.

I have stated that the Bible supports evolution but each species must evolve from itself, so you still can't claim speciation proves everything evolved from a single point, it just proves that a species evolced from it's parent species, and if the speciated animal can produce fertile offspring with the previous species, IT IS CONSIDERED THE SAME SPECIES.

A donkey and horse belong to the same genus but cannot produce fertile offspring, therefore they are different species.

A husky and poodle can in fact produce fertile offspring, therefore they are the same species... Got it?


Also, you completely avoided my question about the Africans and Vietnamese according to your definition.

(March 18, 2015 at 2:04 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: And this is the definition I've been going by this whole time, seeing how the bible word for species is sort/kind.

Do you always go by definitions that are contextually incorrect when discussing things? Why do you think that's at all acceptable?

(March 18, 2015 at 1:34 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Oh no you don't, you dishonest fuck. Your point wasn't that scientists sometimes get things wrong. That goes without saying, and no one would argue with that. Scientists spend their whole careers trying to prove themselves wrong.

(March 18, 2015 at 7:53 am)Huggy74 Wrote: According to "science" a meteor hit the planet and caused an extinction level event, and also according to scientific calculations, the hydrogen bomb was supposed to do the same thing, except it didn't. Must I go through all the cases where science has proven to be wrong?

If the Bible backtracked as much as "science" does, I defiantly wouldn't believe in it.

You were trying to discredit science by saying science backtracked from a consensus.

What part of speaking off the top of my head don't you understand.
This is what I said?

Quote:also according to scientific calculations, the hydrogen bomb was supposed to do the same thing (destroy the planet), except it didn't.

Is that statement true or false?

(March 18, 2015 at 1:34 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Your whole point was that science thought the H-Bomb was going to destroy the world, and you posted that blurb to prove that point.

my actual quote was "according to scientific calculations". Again, is that statement true or false?

(March 18, 2015 at 1:34 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: The rest of the blurb revealed with clarity that "science" did not in fact accept that hypothesis. One man made a claim and his colleagues tested it and proved it wrong. Moreover Teller's motivation for making that hypothesis was a very real part of his assertion.

One scientist being wrong happens every day, and pointing that out does absolutely nothing to serve your original point.

It would seem that he wasn't the only on to make the same error.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2003/septe...t-924.html

Quote:It was later discovered his calculations were wrong -- and a dozen other men made similar mistakes later -- but work stopped until the flaw was found.

(March 18, 2015 at 2:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

Quote:It was later discovered his calculations were wrong -- and a dozen other men made similar mistakes later -- but work stopped until the flaw was found.

Scientists make mistakes; but science is self-correcting.

(March 18, 2015 at 2:04 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: We were never discussing the context of "biology" we are discussing what the Bible defines as a species, obviously modern "biology" didn't exist when the old testament was written.

Ah, so the Bible is wrong about biology. Thanks, that clears things up a lot.

---

(March 18, 2015 at 2:04 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Also, you completely avoided my question about the Africans and Vietnamese according to your definition.

Probably because it is the irrelevant output of a febrile moron.

(March 18, 2015 at 2:06 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 18, 2015 at 2:04 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: And this is the definition I've been going by this whole time, seeing how the bible word for species is sort/kind.

Do you always go by definitions that are contextually incorrect when discussing things? Why do you think that's at all acceptable?

I've always made it clear in what context I'm in, This isn't the first time I've explained sort/kind. You guys really need to remove the 30 day limit on threads that way people could just be referred back to a thread where this has already been discussed to death.

The strange thing is, you act like you have amnesia and this is the first time this topic has been discussed.

(March 18, 2015 at 2:29 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 18, 2015 at 2:06 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Do you always go by definitions that are contextually incorrect when discussing things? Why do you think that's at all acceptable?

I've always made it clear in what context I'm in, This isn't the first time I've explained sort/kind. You guys really need to remove the 30 day limit on threads that way people could just be referred back to a thread where this has already been discussed to death.

The strange thing is, you act like you have amnesia and this is the first time this topic has been discussed.

I don't care what context you're speaking in, I care about the contextually appropriate meaning of words. You are discussing evolution, and so the honest thing to do is use the definitions of words as they can be applied to evolution and, more broadly, the biological sciences. You need to be discussing evolution according to what evolution is defined as, and I can't believe this is some controversial statement to you. You don't get to just decide you're going to use a different contextual definition of a word, and then demand that everyone else has to use the same definition.

(March 18, 2015 at 7:53 am)Huggy74 Wrote: According to "science" a meteor hit the planet and caused an extinction level event, and also according to scientific calculations, the hydrogen bomb was supposed to do the same thing, except it didn't. Must I go through all the cases where science has proven to be wrong?

If the Bible backtracked as much as "science" does, I defiantly wouldn't believe in it.

So what you are saying is that we should all read each of your sentences as a singular entity that has no relation to the sentences around it? When we read that quote of yours above, we should ignore all of the bold stuff when digesting the unbolded part?

Are we to take it that when you included that sentence right in the middle of all those other sentences that made it seem like you meant Teller's calculations were an example of scientific consensus later proven wrong, what you meant was that Teller's hypothesis was a good example of an assertion that was tested and proven false?

Because, once again, you dishonest shit, that point would not help your message in the least.

We're either in a play reality where the bible is true, and discussing that, or we're in real life having a scientific discussion. You have to choose one. If you can't distinguish between them, you really are done for. Science does not care about anything the bible says. The bible has to call science to its aid in order to demonstrate anything about it is true.

This is aimed at every theist... if we're having a scientific discussion, and you pull stuff out of the bible as if it's true, you may as well just admit defeat. Science does not have to validate mythical books. If it doesn't, that's too bad. But pulling stuff out of those books is never going to be relevant in a scientific discussion, unless you're actually trying to demonstrate, with science, why that part of the book is true.

Rant over. For now

(March 18, 2015 at 2:37 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: So what you are saying is that we should all read each of your sentences as a singular entity that has no relation to the sentences around it?

Exactly, that why I used a period instead of a comma.

I see you avoided my questions, shocking.