Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 27, 2024, 5:34 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Creationist "Kind" - A Classification with No Definition
#81
RE: Creationist "Kind" - A Classification with No Definition
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.
Sigh it's not taxonomic classification now is it? .Though it is a term used in  philosophy of science and metaphysics. It's Not  a taxonomic classification(like below) as your asserting  . Which is what's used to classify animals. I have already said as much . 


[Image: 550px-Taxonomic_Rank_Graph.svg.png]
 

When you can point to Kind as a taxonomy or classification like the ones above .Then you have a case  and butt bio seriously Dodgy  



(March 18, 2018 at 11:41 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:
(March 18, 2018 at 10:48 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/t...iology/v-1


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.
The interesting thing is he's still wrong .As kind is not a taxonomic classification. like Genus, Order, Domain . And his dictionary definition of species still sucks as it has higher taxonomic orders defined under species. That's not were taxonomy places it .
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.

Inuit Proverb

Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Creationist "Kind" - A Classification with No Definition - by Amarok - March 19, 2018 at 12:00 am

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  This is Kind of Sad Minimalist 0 449 August 19, 2017 at 9:14 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Different kind of Traffic Stop Minimalist 3 1329 May 13, 2015 at 3:28 pm
Last Post: vorlon13
Tongue Stuff Creationist Say Cholley71 0 778 April 21, 2013 at 1:47 am
Last Post: Cholley71
  Every Debate With A Creationist.... Minimalist 4 2814 September 13, 2011 at 7:43 am
Last Post: searchingforanswers
  Funny pics of all kind Ace Otana 74 54849 September 16, 2010 at 11:59 am
Last Post: Eilonnwy
  Top 10 creationist arguments Dotard 4 1389 February 10, 2010 at 8:22 am
Last Post: Pippy



Users browsing this thread: 8 Guest(s)