(February 26, 2017 at 3:29 pm)dyresand Wrote:(February 24, 2017 at 8:35 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
The point is the word "kind" is clearly being use in a biological context, showing that "kind" and "species" are interchangeable.
Aristotle defining what constitutes a kind/species incorrectly has no bearing on this, as Genesis (written before Aristotle existed) DOES define what constitutes a kind/species correctly.
The word kind in a species isn't the right word. Species is the correct term kind there is no kind the word kind in reality is only really used like
there is many kinds (species of canines). Like the dire wolf was a species that did exist but is extinct. People miss use the word kind with species as kinds
don't exist. Because the word kinds in reality is a not a well defined word when you are talking about biological species.
Are you seriously going to imply that Oxford and Cambridge scholars didn't have proper command over the English language?
More example of "kind" being used in reference to biology.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natur...#NatKinBio
Quote:Kripke (1971, 1972) and Putnam (1975a) use animal kinds as examples of natural kinds for which a posteriori essences can be found.
Quote:Thus biological kinds (species, genera, etc.) do have essential properties, and these are historical rather than intrinsic properties.
The mental gymnastics you atheists employ to avoid admitting when you're wrong is nothing short of amazing. You guys exhibit the same psychology as religious zealots, unable to accept any information that conflicts with your world view. Why is it so hard to admit that the word "kind" was used to refer to a biological species? Does the need to feel intellectually superior mean having to avoid reality?
For example, You guys voted Esquilax and Robvalue as the best debaters...
Exquilax gets destroyed in every argument we've ever had (he claims to not remember being part of it, but he's the one that started the whole Denmark being secular argument), and Robvalue will straight up put you on ignore when confronted with facts, but somehow they're the best debaters...
I guess everyone needs something to believe in.