For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

[AV1611VET]

The only ones I've heard talking about True Christians are Christians.

QV please: Post 966

 

[Subduction Zone]

A system that makes so little distinction that a whale is a fish
isn't much of a system.
Everything that isn't a fish must be a plant or a bug.
Terrif.

Sorry, but you are looking at the classification system improperly. What cladistics does as a classification system is to tell us when a group's oldest common ancestor arrived on the scene. As I said earlier for those that cannot grasp this we have other terms that are not so uncomfortable for them to use.

 

[Subduction Zone]

QV please: Post 966

And how does that help you? In fact it appears to refute your claim. I love it how all of your QV's refute your own claims. Just another way that you have of admitting that you are wrong ahead of time. It saves us so much work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As somebody who normally considers the two of you to be rational, a question for each since I have lost track, what is the classification system you are using and a little why if you please?

I have been using cladistics. Which classifies based upon descent. @Estrid can explain the justification of her classification system herself.

Cladistics - Wikipedia

 

[Astrid]

Sorry, but you are looking at the classification system improperly. What cladistics does as a classification system is to tell us when a group's oldest common ancestor arrived on the scene. As I said earlier for those that cannot grasp this we have other terms that are not so uncomfortable for them to use.

Its me looking at it wrong when it's you figures that whales and sharks are both fish.

A scheme to bring order instead delivers that garbage.

 

[Astrid]

Then why can you catch them by fishing? Matthew 4:19

you should try reading the Bible.

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.

 

[pitabread]

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".

I've never seen anyone try to claim that everything that lives in water is a "fish", so I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from. But the term "fish" does get use in conjunction with other aquatic animals admittedly. However, stand-alone usage does typically refer to a subset of those aquatic animals.

I suspect that a lot of this disagreement is probably a language issue and how terms like "fish" get used relative to formal classification systems versus informal usage.

People of education and refinement know
clams and sharks are not fish

Except sharks are fish, both from the perspective of taxonomy and cladistics, and in informal English language usage of the word "fish".

You appear to be operating with a different definition of the word "fish" than the rest of us.

 

[Astrid]

I've never seen anyone try to claim that everything that lives in water is a "fish", so I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from.

I suspect that a lot of this disagreement is probably a language issue and how terms like "fish" get used relative to formal classification systems versus informal usage.



Except sharks are fish, both from the perspective of taxonomy and cladistics, and in informal English language usage of the word "fish".

If you're operating with a different definition of the word "fish", it's non-standard usage.

I was exaggerating a bit, but it's a "fishery" for whales, clams, tuna,
sea cucumbers, any living thing except maybe seaweed.

Our friend had it that people are fish.
If you want to take it down a notch and call
sharks and cyclostomes "fish", have at it.

 

[AV1611VET]

In fact it appears to refute your claim.

It refutes Estrid's claim.

 

[Phred]

It refutes Estrid's claim.

Sorry. The Bible is not an accurate book for... well, anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry. The Bible is not an accurate book for... well, anything.

What's the Bible have to do with it?

Estrid said the only ones she's heard talking about true Christians are Christians.

I showed her where an atheist mentioned Hitler being a Christian.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What's the Bible have to do with it?

Estrid said the only ones she's heard talking about true Christians are Christians.

I showed her where an atheist mentioned Hitler being a Christian.

Did the atheist say Hitler was a true Christian, or just a Christian?

 

[AV1611VET]

Did the atheist say Hitler was a true Christian, or just a Christian?

Does the atheist know the difference?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Does the atheist know the difference?

Yep. So, which epithet did he use - true Christian or Christian?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep. So, which epithet did he use - true Christian or Christian?

He said "Christian," as opposed to "true Christian;" and I'm asking if he knows the difference.

If not, perhaps he was conflating the two terms?

You said, 'yep,' but I assume that was so you could advance your point.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

He said "Christian," as opposed to "true Christian;" and I'm asking if he knows the difference.

If not, perhaps he was conflating the two terms?

You said, 'yep,' but I assume that was so you could advance your point.

Thank you. You said an atheist had mentioned "true Christian", but you now accept the quote you provided does not support that assertion.

Point made. We can move on.

 

[AV1611VET]

We can move on.

Nope.

You spoke for him ... perhaps he's willing to back one of us up?

(And I can guess which one. )

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Nope.

You spoke for him ... perhaps he's willing to back one of us up?

(And I can guess which one. )

The one who demonstrated you to be wrong, right? Truth has no importance, your pride is at stake.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its me looking at it wrong when it's you figures that whales and sharks are both fish.

A scheme to bring order instead delivers that garbage.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does the atheist know the difference?

Quite often yes. At least in the U.S most atheists were Christian at one point in time. And quite often it was a better understanding of the Bible that led to their atheism.