(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?

None. We know the definition for 'species'. It's that 'kind' is a synonym for 'species' that you must establish. A great many of your co-religionists disagree with you on that point.

If I were you, I would go with 'kind=family", as I suggested earlier. It gets you out of nearly all of the problems you're having by insisting that 'kind' and 'species' are synonyms.

(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"...

http://atheistforums.org/thread-27805-po...#pid729650

(August 13, 2014 at 3:12 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(August 13, 2014 at 3:09 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Ok, answer this. What is the very first step in any scientific discovery?

What a strange question.. I would say the first step would be to verify the result.

"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye". - Jesus

*Rubs his temples gently*

Isn't there a rule against being hideously, blatantly, and unapologetically dishonest over, and over, and over again?

I'd suggest reading the immediate subsequent posts to the one Huggy linked to see what a lying twat he's being.

(March 19, 2015 at 11:47 am)Huggy74 Wrote: "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye". - Jesus

That's not very helpful. For the record, I would say the first step in scientific discovery is the observation that leads one to make a testable hypotheisis.

(March 19, 2015 at 11:42 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(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?

None. We know the definition for 'species'. It's that 'kind' is a synonym for 'species' that you must establish. A great many of your co-religionists disagree with you on that point.

If I were you, I would go with 'kind=family", as I suggested earlier. It gets you out of nearly all of the problems you're having by insisting that 'kind' and 'species' are synonyms.

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

Quote:Full Definition of SPECIES
1 a : kind, sort

Quote:Related to SPECIES
Synonyms
bracket, category, classification, division, family, genus, grade, group, kind, league, order, rank(s), rubric, set, class, tier, type

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species

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

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kind

Quote:kind
: a group of people or things that belong together or have some shared quality : a particular type or variety of person or thing

Quote:Related to KIND
Synonyms
breed, class, description, feather, genre, ilk, kidney, sort, like, manner, nature, order, species, strain, stripe, type, variety

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kind

Quote:kind
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:

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

(March 19, 2015 at 11:53 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(March 19, 2015 at 11:47 am)Huggy74 Wrote: "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye". - Jesus

That's not very helpful. For the record, I would say the first step in scientific discovery is the observation that leads one to make a testable hypotheisis.

Yes, it is. I didn't understand his question in the linked post, as I assumed he meant after the observation as he's talking about 'making a discovery'. I explictly say that like three posts later. He's using that to suggest that I don't understand science...when I literally correct myself a few posts later.

---

And again Huggy simultaneously runs to the dictionary for hard definitions while at the same time bemoaning the fact they we don't understand the 'context' of his terms.

(March 19, 2015 at 11:53 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(March 19, 2015 at 11:47 am)Huggy74 Wrote: "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye". - Jesus

That's not very helpful. For the record, I would say the first step in scientific discovery is the observation that leads one to make a testable hypotheisis.

Exactly, he can't claim that someone "doesn't know science" when he clearly demonstrated that he doesn't.

You are a dishonest twat Huggy. I thought bearing false witness was against the ten commandments.

(March 19, 2015 at 11:57 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(March 19, 2015 at 11:53 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: That's not very helpful. For the record, I would say the first step in scientific discovery is the observation that leads one to make a testable hypotheisis.

Yes, it is. I didn't understand his question in the linked post, as I assumed he meant after the observation as he's talking about 'making a discovery'. I explictly say that like three posts later. He's using that to suggest that I don't understand science...when I literally correct myself a few posts later.

That was the excuse you made AFTER you were corrected.

(March 19, 2015 at 12:04 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 19, 2015 at 11:57 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Yes, it is. I didn't understand his question in the linked post, as I assumed he meant after the observation as he's talking about 'making a discovery'. I explictly say that like three posts later. He's using that to suggest that I don't understand science...when I literally correct myself a few posts later.

That was the excuse you made AFTER you were corrected.

Obviously I can only correct myself after being shown that I misunderstood the question you unbelievably dense motherfucker.