Bob Enyart LiveGreetings to the brightest audience in the country. I am Bob Enyart...... discuss Bob's shows here! Bob's show is aired live on the radio and rebroadcast at: KGOV.com
I have a visitors comment from you that says different.
How long has it been since I was angry with you? You want me to be more precise? Barbarian is the only one who consistently gets me angry and has done so for a longer period of time than anyone else. Satisfied now, or are you going to make another sarcastic comment that is meant to slander me?
Didn't read my link did you? You assume specially created kinds (aka holobaramins) exist when there is no evidence to say they do.
Your link brings nothing to the discussion where we are.
The definition I have is solid and immutable. There is no room for equivocation.
It matters not that I assert this as the definition I will use. I need little evidence to show that "Kind" is clearly defined and "Species" is vague and malleable.
All this has been covered. What you need to do is concede the point, and perhaps we can move on....
And you've probably never seen a unicorn either, but we have a really great definition of all the characteristics a unicorn would have. Perhaps unicorns are real too.
Why, OH, Why!!!!! Don't these ~~christians~~ know what the "UNICORN" WAS????? -- THEY ARE CHRISTIANS, OR ARE THEY???
The "UNICORN" was Jesus riding into Jerusalem on the donkey!! - SEEE!! - That was a colt with the "ONE HORN", -- The One Horn being, The ONE KING!!!!! --- That's the only UNICORN that ever existed, and it was REAL IN PARABLE!!! -- That's the ONLY WORD EVIDENCE anywhere in Scripture, therefore, that has to be the Truth!!
Paul -- 060912
---Gal. 4:16.
---"Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth"???
And you've probably never seen a unicorn either, but we have a really great definition of all the characteristics a unicorn would have. Perhaps unicorns are real too.
Slogan/motto:
Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
Isaiah 1:17
Reputation:
June 9th, 2012, 09:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripe
All this has been covered. What you need to do is concede the point, and perhaps we can move on....
Yes, we've been over how wrong and moronic you are by asserting you're right over and over without supporting evidence.
You don't even have the ability to list a number of creatures that belong to your "kinds". I can certainly do that with clades and many species and give you the reasons for their grouping.
You don't have a point to concede. Saying something over and over doesn't make it true. You must live in some alternative reality.
“We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.
Slogan/motto:
Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
Isaiah 1:17
Reputation:
June 9th, 2012, 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack
They are.
I present Rhinoceros unicornis.
Somehow I don't think that, matches this:
Unicornis just means "one horned", it's a rhino that happens to have one horn instead of two.
Besides, we don't call these unicorns and they're obviously related. (maybe Stripe could tell us if they're the same kind!)
Of course rhinos obviously share some characteristics with extinct animals like this . . .
If having one horn-like projection is the only definition of a unicorn, this is one too:
“We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.
I'm afraid it doesn't meet the precise definition, which I haven't quite got around to providing you with yet.
The precise definition found in the Bible?
Oh, wait, the Bible never says what it means when referring to a unicorn. Of course, it is only an English translation that uses that word, so what did the original word, in the original language mean?
Just making the perfect analogy for your argument regarding kinds. I knew you wouldn't get it because you have trouble with reading for comprehension and also with abstract thought.
Let's see if I can put it in a way that you might actually get...
Oh, wait, the Bible never says what it means when referring to a unicorn. Of course, it is only an English translation that uses that word, so what did the original word, in the original language mean?
Go ahead...
Apparently Lighthouse didn't get my analogy either. And yet, everyone else understood it immediately.
You're in appropriate company, Stripe. Oh wait, I need to be clearer, don't I?
Slogan/motto:
Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
Isaiah 1:17
Reputation:
June 9th, 2012, 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
Your analogy sucks because you used a term that doesn't mean what you think it means.
No, Flipper's reference makes sense in context. Modern popular culture has a great definition of unicorns. The point being, you can define something that doesn't actually exist quite well. Unfortunately nothing like them exists or has ever existed.
If there is an animal that was the basis for unicorn legends, it was likely this (An extinct rhino called Elasmotherium) The size and shape of the horn has to be inferred from the skull since rhino horns are not bony and do not preserve well (though there is a huge bony base where a horn would presumably be):
Sidenote: The hebrew word found in the old testament, re’em sometimes translated as "Unicorn", probably referred to aurochs, the wild progenitors of modern cattle based on a similar word in Assyrian.
“We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.
No, Flipper's reference makes sense in context. Modern popular culture has a great definition of unicorns. The point being, you can define something that doesn't actually exist quite well. Unfortunately nothing like them exists or has ever existed.
If there is an animal that was the basis for unicorn legends, it was likely this (An extinct rhino called Elasmotherium) The size and shape of the horn has to be inferred from the skull since rhino horns are not bony and do not preserve well (though there is a huge bony base where a horn would presumably be):
Sidenote: The hebrew word found in the old testament, re’em sometimes translated as "Unicorn", probably referred to aurochs, the wild progenitors of modern cattle based on a similar word in Assyrian.
Modern paleontologists aren't the only ones in history to go around investigating and pondering the meanings of ancient bones. Stone age and bronze age man probably found tyranosaurus rex bones and inferred a dragon. Similarly, they probably dug up the beast pictured here and imagined a much frailer looking animal called a unicorn.
Stripe
Linear Mode
