Do you agree with these statements?

[pitabread]

What do science standards have to do with the pandemic?

The fact that you even have to ask that question kind of proves my point. What a sad state of affairs.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh the irony. He's an "evocreo."

Nope.

I'm sure even pita will disagree with you on this, since, as (s)he pointed out, most of them differ with me.

 

[AV1611VET]

The fact that you even have to ask that question kind of proves my point. What a sad state of affairs.

Then tell me who's found the cure?

Russia? China? Biafra?

Let's not just pick on U.S.

 

[HitchSlap]

They still zebras too, ain't they?

Now you're starting to get it.

 

[pitabread]

Then tell me who's found the cure?

Russia? China? Biafra?

Let's not just pick on U.S.

A response to a pandemic isn't strictly about "who's found the cure".

That's just an attempt at deflection, missing the point and reaffirming a completely lack of understanding of the role of science and health professionals in a global pandemic.

The ignorance on display here is kinda scary.

I hope at least you are adhering to pandemic safety measures, because a lot of people in the U.S. aren't and it's really hurting your country.

 

[AV1611VET]

A response to a pandemic isn't strictly about "who's found the cure".

That's just an attempt at deflection, missing the point and reaffirming a completely lack of understanding of the role of science and health professionals in a global pandemic.

The ignorance on display here is kinda scary.

I hope at least you are adhering to pandemic safety measures, because a lot of people in the U.S. aren't and it's really hurting your country.

You're right.

It was a low blow.

 

[pitabread]

You're right.

It was a low blow.

Well, "science can take a hike" is not something I'd be proud of parading around these days.

 

[HitchSlap]

Nope.

I'm sure even pita will disagree with you on this, since, as (s)he pointed out, most of them differ with me.

If you answered "yes," then you accept ToE. Claiming science and magic are compatible violates the law of the excluded middle. You can't have your cake and throw it too.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you answered "yes," then you accept ToE.

Nope -- they is still zebras.

There's a herd of zebras in question one, and a herd of zebras in question seven.

 

[Strathos]

Nope -- they is still zebras.

There's a herd of zebras in question one, and a herd of zebras in question seven.

I missed you, buddy. Hope you're staying safe in these trying times.

 

[HitchSlap]

Nope -- they is still zebras.

There's a herd of zebras in question one, and a herd of zebras in question seven.

Exactly! Sorry buddy.

 

[AV1611VET]

I missed you, buddy. Hope you're staying safe in these trying times.

Thank you, my friend! God bless you!

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly! Sorry buddy.

That spells "microevolution."

The OP drips with microevolution.

Not macroevolution.

 

[SelfSim]

Nope -- they is still zebras.

There's a herd of zebras in question one, and a herd of zebras in question seven.

Yep but 'zebra' in question seven has a changed meaning compared with question one.

The difference you seek between 'kind' and 'species' doesn't come down to the definition of the word. The difference is in the context surrounding the word. Science has a documented repeateable objective method. Creationism doesn't. Both use human words and meanings .. so what .. we are humans, after all!

 

[HitchSlap]

That spells "microevolution."

The OP drips with microevolution.

Not macroevolution.

You're not qualified to make this assertion.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

This confuses me.

The "claim" is that two words are synonymous.

If one word can't be demonstrated, then neither can the other; since they are both the same.

A car is an automobile: does an automobile have "zero demonstrability"?

The synonymous claim is a creationist claim. And it's back-to-front. If kind is the original classification, then the creationist claim should not be "kind = <scientific classification>" it should be "<scientific classification> = kind". Then we need to look at the definition of kind to see which scientific classification is closest. So let's go - what's the definition of kind?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep but 'zebra' in question seven has a changed meaning compared with question one.

This totally baffles me.

Are they zebras, or aren't they?

It appears they are.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're not qualified to make this assertion.

Just a hunch.

 

[HitchSlap]

Just a hunch.

Probably heartburn. Fortunately for us, there are people who study these things, and they don't say what you do.

 

[AV1611VET]

So let's go - what's the definition of kind?

I'm more interested in synonyms than definitions.

But for the record, a google search (of "genus") yielded this definition, which I like:

"a principal taxonomic category that ranks above species and below family, and is denoted by a capitalized Latin name, e.g. Leo."

Thus a kind is a principal taxonomic category that ranks above species and below family, and is denoted by a capitalized Latin name, e.g. Leo.