LHC disproves ghosts

[Anomalocaris]

When the Bible was written even the most insightful people in the world had no clue what any concept of specie meaningful to biology is, much less the third rate opportunistic hucksters and superstitious morons who would actually have contributed to writing your bible.  So fuck off.

Look you ignoramus, the bible defines a "kind" or "species" as group that can produce fertile offspring, THAT IS THE SAME CRITERIA USED IN MODERN BIOLOGY!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which two individuals can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction.

This just goes to show, no matter how much evidence you show an atheist, they'll refuse to see reason... ala Denmark 

Really? Show me where in any unmodernized version of your idiotic bible where it says a kind is an classification that matches modern biological definition, at least for sexually reproducing complex organisms?

[dyresand]

Look you ignoramus, the bible defines a "kind" or "species" as group that can produce fertile offspring, THAT IS THE SAME CRITERIA USED IN MODERN BIOLOGY!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

This just goes to show, no matter how much evidence you show an atheist, they'll refuse to see reason... ala Denmark 

Really?   Show me where in any unmodernized version of your idiotic bible where it says a kind is an classification that matches modern biological definition, at least for sexually reproducing complex organisms?

Don't bother Huggy's mental gymnastics of defending his imaginary friend are too strong. 
This is why Religion in the modern age is bad and evil. He is a perfect example of why religion is holding humanity back in a 
nutshell.

[Alex K]

It takes a lot for me to turn away in disgust from a thread with "LHC" in the title...

[Huggy Bear]

Oh, so now were going to double down?

In the Bible "kind" and "sort" refers to "species", no if and's or buts, in fact if you look at some of the newer translations, "kind" is translated to "species".





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species



There you go, "kind" used in the context of biology, what now?

Did you read that?
"the term génos to mean a kind, such as a bird or fish, and eidos to mean a specific form within a kind"... There you go - kind is not species!
Kind as an imprecise term. Do all fish interbreed?

Also, if my history serves me right, Biology, the science, came a bit after Aristotle's time...


Oh and, species is also applied to asexual living entities...  fungi, bacteria... how does your definition of kind, requiring that a pair breeds offspring that can themselves breed, hold up?

The point is the word "kind" is clearly being use in a biological context, showing that "kind" and "species" are interchangeable.

My source has kind as a synonym for species... but it's not a synonym for a biological species...well... actually, it's not defined...

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.

[dyresand]

Did you read that?
"the term génos to mean a kind, such as a bird or fish, and eidos to mean a specific form within a kind"... There you go - kind is not species!
Kind as an imprecise term. Do all fish interbreed?

Also, if my history serves me right, Biology, the science, came a bit after Aristotle's time...


Oh and, species is also applied to asexual living entities...  fungi, bacteria... how does your definition of kind, requiring that a pair breeds offspring that can themselves breed, hold up?

The point is the word "kind" is clearly being use in a biological context, showing that "kind" and "species" are interchangeable.

My source has kind as a synonym for species... but it's not a synonym for a biological species...well... actually, it's not defined...

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.

[Huggy Bear]

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

Kripke (1971, 1972) and Putnam (1975a) use animal kinds as examples of natural kinds for which a posteriori essences can be found.

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.