(March 18, 2015 at 2:56 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(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.

You must have a really hard time communicating with people. I apologize. From here on out, Huggy, any time you use a period, I will assume that each individual sentence does not have any relationship to the ones around it. Just know that when everyone else uses a period, that doesn't necessarily mean that the sentences surrounding the sentence you're reading have nothing whatsoever to do with that sentence. For clarity's sake, though, could you refrain from placing one of those sentences that are to be taken completely as a lone entity right in the middle of a paragraph in which it fits as part of a bigger point you're trying to make? Just to avoid confusion, you know. It will cut down on the number of times that we are compelled to call you a lying fuck.

(March 18, 2015 at 2:56 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I see you avoided my questions, shocking.

I just needed to get that first part out of the way. The answer to both questions is true.

A scientist made some calculations and made the assertion that the Atomic bomb would ignite the atmosphere. His assertions were tested and proven to be incorrect. Which is what science does.

Are you saying that you didn't say this to prove (with the other examples in that same paragraph---but not connected!) that scientific consensus backtracked?

(March 18, 2015 at 2:04 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: 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?

BS.
Kind=/=Species
How many "Kinds" of ants are there?
The bible doesn't mention the word species once, it is therefore incapable of defining the word. Not that I expect any form of honesty from a creationist...
As the definition of evolution and speciation relate to the scientific definition of species any "bible definition" is irrelevant.
Please, amuse me and continue your attempt at retroactive arse-covering.

(March 19, 2015 at 7:25 am)Mr Greene Wrote: BS.
Kind=/=Species
How many "Kinds" of ants are there?
The bible doesn't mention the word species once, it is therefore incapable of defining the word.
Not that I expect any form of honesty from a creationist..

Because it uses the word "kind" which is a synonym of "species", how many times must I link the definition?

(March 19, 2015 at 7:25 am)Mr Greene Wrote: As the definition of evolution and speciation relate to the scientific definition of species any "bible definition" is irrelevant.

Not when we are discussing things in relation to the bible.

(March 19, 2015 at 7:25 am)Mr Greene Wrote: Please, amuse me and continue your attempt at retroactive arse-covering.

If you think that I'm back tracking, provide the quote and I'll prove where I've said the exact same thing in a previous thread.

(March 18, 2015 at 2:56 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(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.

In that case, please stop using the word "context", because you clearly don't know what the fuck context is.

Dumbfuck.

(March 19, 2015 at 10:38 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(March 18, 2015 at 2:56 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Exactly, that why I used a period instead of a comma.

I see you avoided my questions, shocking.

In that case, please stop using the word "context", because you clearly don't know what the fuck context is.

Dumbfuck.

Or "species", or "evolution"...or "theory"..or "science"...

In today's episode of The Jesus Freaks Will Hate This: Huggy once again proves he doesn't understand the concept of denotation.

(March 19, 2015 at 9:04 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Because it uses the word "kind" which is a synonym of "species", how many times must I link the definition?

The bible is not a science textbook ... only a moron would treat it as such.

---

(March 19, 2015 at 10:39 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Or "species", or "evolution"...or "theory"..or "science"...

The scary part is that some school saw fit to graduate him.

(March 19, 2015 at 9:04 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 19, 2015 at 7:25 am)Mr Greene Wrote: BS.
Kind=/=Species
How many "Kinds" of ants are there?
The bible doesn't mention the word species once, it is therefore incapable of defining the word.
Not that I expect any form of honesty from a creationist..

Because it uses the word "kind" which is a synonym of "species", how many times must I link the definition?

As stated previously Kind does not equal species.

(March 19, 2015 at 9:04 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 19, 2015 at 7:25 am)Mr Greene Wrote: As the definition of evolution and speciation relate to the scientific definition of species any "bible definition" is irrelevant.

Not when we are discussing things in relation to the bible.

we were discussing things in relation to evolution; the bible is irrelevant (it's hard to think of a situation where it could be relevant)

(March 19, 2015 at 9:04 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 19, 2015 at 7:25 am)Mr Greene Wrote: Please, amuse me and continue your attempt at retroactive arse-covering.

If you think that I'm back tracking, provide the quote and I'll prove where I've said the exact same thing in a previous thread.

See reversion to "Kind" and the lack of definition entailed, precisely because the word is not a synonym of species, and therefore allows creationists the freedom to claim that speciation events have not affected their precious snowflake beliefs.

(March 19, 2015 at 9:04 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Because it uses the word "kind" which is a synonym of "species", how many times must I link the definition?

If you actually think that, then it's kind of breathtaking that you've managed to find a way to use neither of those words accurately.

Quote:Not when we are discussing things in relation to the bible.

Which we weren't. We were discussing evolution, which isn't the bible. Quit trying to dishonestly force bad definitions onto good science; you can't just use a definition that wasn't considered in the definition of evolution, and then pretend that that definition was the one being used, that's ridiculous and dishonest.

And if you disagree with that, then I'm going to define "bible" as a large, spiked dragon dildo, and since now that word has that definition, that's therefore the only definition there ever was, so why are you wanting to discuss things in relation to large spiked dragon dildos, Huggy?

(March 19, 2015 at 10:39 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(March 19, 2015 at 10:38 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: In that case, please stop using the word "context", because you clearly don't know what the fuck context is.

Dumbfuck.

Or "species", or "evolution"...or "theory"..or "science"...

Or "honesty", or "integrity", or "humility", or "sophistry", or "interesting".