Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, it does not. To support that claim you would need to provide proper context. In fact I double checked. You are wrong as usual. It did not refute Estrid's claim. It appears that you suffered a failure to understand context, again.It refutes Estrid's claim.
The order is there. You refuse to see it. I could give endless examples of what is not a "fish" using cladistics. Shellfish are not "fish" using the standards that I use. You do not appear to have a system of classification.
Of course. He's right upfront about it. He says so in his tagline. And he doesn't much deviate from it. "The Bible says it, that settles it." Forget context. Forget logic. Forget reason. That's why we had the Dark Ages.No, it does not. To support that claim you would need to provide proper context. In fact I double checked. You are wrong as usual. It did not refute Estrid's claim. It appears that you suffered a failure to understand context, again.
Let's not forget bats ain't birds."By the standards that you use".
Exactly.
For those of more objective bent,
Kingdom phylum class is still meaningful.
Sharkies is in a different class from your
Crossopters. Or Actinopters, ftm.
I know we got lumpers n splitters.
Many tho try to be realistic and not mistake
a cow for a fish.
You and your crazed sycophants
have hypertrophy of the lumpificator.
Most such are pencil neck geeks, morally weak,
or simply insane.
We trust you've merely drifted too far from
the shore and will turn back before it's too late.
And how do we "true Christians" manage to stay monotheistic with so many sects?We don't have to have been Christian to notice that there are 40K sects of different true Christians ...
I flew into Ankara for a couple of days, but just to deliver a lengthy presentation, so had practically no exposure to the traffic.I've been to 5 outa 6 but I vote Turkey. Through the night, bad roads, monster trucks, freeway speeds, one lane going this way, one going t'other and one in the midddle if you want to roll the dice.
It's a valid point. One you constantly make light of but valid nonetheless. If there was a god out there directing all this nonsense it might see fit to tell you HOW to worship it. Instead you have 40,000 different versions all claiming to have the ONE TRUE PATH® to heaven.And how do we "true Christians" manage to stay monotheistic with so many sects?
I just posted that as a joke that allows a deliberately silly literal reading of the Bible to show that people are fish.I guess I won't seek the background of this
exchange, but it does illustrate what I was saying
about how we as land dwellers tend to lump
all the aquatics into one category, " fish".
Like all insects are " bugs", but in a grander scale.
People of education and refinement know
clams and sharks are not fish, but just let it
go when the unilliminatti among us
mangle biology so in their speech.
I just posted that as a joke that allows a deliberately silly literal reading of the Bible to show that people are fish.
As to your issues with what people are calling fish. I've always seen cartilaginous fishes like rays and sharks called fish, even if they aren't as similar.
I think the colloquial English classification "fish" more or less means: water breathing vertebrates not descended from land animals.
But if you created a clade to catch all those creatures, you'd end up lumping in all terrestrial vertebrates as well. Which is where the "Human are fish" thing comes from.
Given the problems with lumping some things into clades then excluding others, how would you suggest defining "fish" and "not fish"?Agreed. I know the reason for it and spent long
hours memorizing bones, the gill arch to jaw to ear,
all that.
But I object to calling people fish.
We arent fish, and it makes an entirely
valid and interesting field of study look
ridiculous to the uneducated .
Given the problems with lumping some things into clades then excluding others, how would you suggest defining "fish" and "not fish"?
It is not the fault of others if you misapply a classification system."By the standards that you use".
Exactly.
For those of more objective bent,
Kingdom phylum class is still meaningful.
Sharkies is in a different class from your
Crossopters. Or Actinopters, ftm.
I know we got lumpers n splitters.
Many tho try to be realistic and not mistake
a cow for a fish.
You and your crazed sycophants
have hypertrophy of the lumpificator.
Most such are pencil neck geeks, morally weak,
or simply insane.
We trust you've merely drifted too far from
the shore and will turn back before it's too late.
I see that you still do not understand how to use a classification system. You appear to have forgotten the line i gave you at the start of this discussion. For those that do not understand cladistics we can use the term "vertebrates".Of course not. Ask Subduction. He says they are fish.
...you know that humans are a part of Osteichthys, right?Why stop at fish? Why not cephalochordates?
Common ancestors and all.
Prollu coz nobody takes a hook and line and says
they will go cephalochordating.
Bony fish, Osteichthys or however it's spelled,
those are fish.
Chondr- whatever are sharks and rays. Not fish.
Different classes, a pretty high level of distinction.
How about worms? There's what, three phyla
of very different animals but theys little, long,
and skinny so theys all worms.
For those who never studied biology, figure
spiders, grasshoppers, and pillnugs are all bugs while
all long wriggly things are worms, and,
swimmy things are all fish, go for it.
I like some useful meaning in words.
"Bats are fish" is just stupid.
As for the inveterate lumpers and divers other base
and ignoble citizens, why not replace all nouns with "thing",
make namenclature even simpler.
Given the problems with lumping some things into clades then excluding others, how would you suggest defining "fish" and "not fish"?
It is not the fault of others if you misapply a classification system.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?