Remember me
▼ Content

Tell your old college professors to check out climate-debate.com for biogeochemistry



Page 5 of 6<<<3456>
19-05-2022 06:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:Imagine the difficulty of the biology instructor.

... with such a poor command of the English language, because he conflates a biology textbook with a grammar textbook, that his understanding of biology amounts to a belief that amphibious characteristics preclude an animal from being an amphibian.

Such a biology instructor is probably about to be fired for the third time this month and is probably looking at native American reservations as a potential final resort for holding down a job. So yeah, such a biology instructor has issues, that's for sure.

Im a BM wrote:A student is trying to explain that alligators are amphibians.because they are obviously amphibious ... and all of the other instructors say that that is how the English language works. In fact, on a recent English exam, explains the student, one of the questions was "What is the noun for an animal that is amphibious?" and the correct answer is "amphibian."

Of course the student is correct. The instructor has real issues if he needs for the students to teach the class.

It's looking like reservation time.

.

Too bad that no one else on Earth believes that an alligator is an amphibian.

You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.


But alligators are still reptiles and not amphibians.

You already said this. Argument by repetition. They are both.
Swan wrote:
However only people with an IQ of 100 or better can understand that not everything that is amphibious is an amphibian.
IQ is a meaningless number. Argument from randU fallacy.

You don't understand English. It's obvious.


Indeed an IQ is a meaningless number to the morons who are too dumb to be tested, like you are.

130

Got references in both high and low places

Argument from randU fallacy. Void authority fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-05-2022 15:31
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2139)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Seals and sea lions are also not amphibians.

Did you miss the images showing that they are clearly amphibian?





.

You can clearly see in these images above that sea lions are amphibian.


Seals are amphibious mammals as they all have fully developed lungs and need to surface for air. Too bad that you have not and will never produce proof that seals are not mammals.

LOL by your logic these are also amphibians


Enjoy your stupididity

CIAO chucky
Edited on 19-05-2022 15:55
19-05-2022 17:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Swan wrote:Seals are amphibious mammals

Yes. Absolutely. Seals and sea lions, and otters and polar bears and ducks and geese and penguins are all amphibian mammals.

I'm glad you acknowledge agreeing with me.

I think we're done.

Swan wrote:LOL by your logic these are also amphibians

Nope. That's not my logic.

One way to kill a human is to leave him in water. Humans are not able to survive in water as on land.



.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-05-2022 20:12
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2139)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Seals are amphibious mammals

Yes. Absolutely. Seals and sea lions, and otters and polar bears and ducks and geese and penguins are all amphibian mammals.

I'm glad you acknowledge agreeing with me.

I think we're done.

Swan wrote:LOL by your logic these are also amphibians

Nope. That's not my logic.

One way to kill a human is to leave him in water. Humans are not able to survive in water as on land.



.


Seals are not amphibian mammals, that is a genetic impossibility, what seals are is amphibious mammals. Again by your schizzo logic all mammals that swim are amphibians, which makes you an amphibian.

LOL so are you also an amphibian?

Or just a certified government troll shitforbrains

19-05-2022 23:06
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2139)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Seals are amphibious mammals

Yes. Absolutely. Seals and sea lions, and otters and polar bears and ducks and geese and penguins are all amphibian mammals.

I'm glad you acknowledge agreeing with me.

I think we're done.

Swan wrote:LOL by your logic these are also amphibians

Nope. That's not my logic.

One way to kill a human is to leave him in water. Humans are not able to survive in water as on land.



.


Seals are not amphibian mammals, that is a genetic impossibility, what seals are is amphibious mammals. Again by your schizzo logic all mammals that swim are amphibians, which makes you an amphibian.

LOL so are you also an amphibian?

Or just a certified government troll shitforbrains


Game set match
19-05-2022 23:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Seals are amphibious mammals

Yes. Absolutely. Seals and sea lions, and otters and polar bears and ducks and geese and penguins are all amphibian mammals.

I'm glad you acknowledge agreeing with me.

I think we're done.

Swan wrote:LOL by your logic these are also amphibians

Nope. That's not my logic.

One way to kill a human is to leave him in water. Humans are not able to survive in water as on land.



.


Seals are not amphibian mammals, that is a genetic impossibility, what seals are is amphibious mammals.

Still trying to figure out English, eh?
Swan wrote:
Again by your schizzo logic all mammals that swim are amphibians, which makes you an amphibian.

Word stuffing.
Swan wrote:
LOL so are you also an amphibian?

RQAA.
Swan wrote:
Or just a certified government troll shitforbrains

Insult fallacy.

No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-05-2022 01:23
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2139)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Seals are amphibious mammals

Yes. Absolutely. Seals and sea lions, and otters and polar bears and ducks and geese and penguins are all amphibian mammals.

I'm glad you acknowledge agreeing with me.

I think we're done.

Swan wrote:LOL by your logic these are also amphibians

Nope. That's not my logic.

One way to kill a human is to leave him in water. Humans are not able to survive in water as on land.



.


Seals are not amphibian mammals, that is a genetic impossibility, what seals are is amphibious mammals.

Still trying to figure out English, eh?
Swan wrote:
Again by your schizzo logic all mammals that swim are amphibians, which makes you an amphibian.

Word stuffing.
Swan wrote:
LOL so are you also an amphibian?

RQAA.
Swan wrote:
Or just a certified government troll shitforbrains

Insult fallacy.

No argument presented.


Seals are not amphibian mammals, that is a genetic impossibility, what seals are is amphibious mammals. Again by your schizzo logic all mammals that swim are amphibians, which makes you an amphibian.

LOL so are you also an amphibian?

Or just a certified government troll shitforbrains

It's ok, we know that you are a government shithead
20-05-2022 02:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Seals are amphibious mammals

Yes. Absolutely. Seals and sea lions, and otters and polar bears and ducks and geese and penguins are all amphibian mammals.

I'm glad you acknowledge agreeing with me.

I think we're done.

Swan wrote:LOL by your logic these are also amphibians

Nope. That's not my logic.

One way to kill a human is to leave him in water. Humans are not able to survive in water as on land.



.


Seals are not amphibian mammals, that is a genetic impossibility, what seals are is amphibious mammals.

Still trying to figure out English, eh?
Swan wrote:
Again by your schizzo logic all mammals that swim are amphibians, which makes you an amphibian.

Word stuffing.
Swan wrote:
LOL so are you also an amphibian?

RQAA.
Swan wrote:
Or just a certified government troll shitforbrains

Insult fallacy.

No argument presented.


Seals are not amphibian mammals, that is a genetic impossibility, what seals are is amphibious mammals. Again by your schizzo logic all mammals that swim are amphibians, which makes you an amphibian.

LOL so are you also an amphibian?

Or just a certified government troll shitforbrains

It's ok, we know that you are a government shithead



Chanting. Paradox. Argument by repetition. Insult fallacies. Irrational. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 20-05-2022 02:11
20-05-2022 03:38
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2139)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Seals are amphibious mammals

Yes. Absolutely. Seals and sea lions, and otters and polar bears and ducks and geese and penguins are all amphibian mammals.

I'm glad you acknowledge agreeing with me.

I think we're done.

Swan wrote:LOL by your logic these are also amphibians

Nope. That's not my logic.

One way to kill a human is to leave him in water. Humans are not able to survive in water as on land.



.


Seals are not amphibian mammals, that is a genetic impossibility, what seals are is amphibious mammals.

Still trying to figure out English, eh?
Swan wrote:
Again by your schizzo logic all mammals that swim are amphibians, which makes you an amphibian.

Word stuffing.
Swan wrote:
LOL so are you also an amphibian?

RQAA.
Swan wrote:
Or just a certified government troll shitforbrains

Insult fallacy.

No argument presented.


Seals are not amphibian mammals, that is a genetic impossibility, what seals are is amphibious mammals. Again by your schizzo logic all mammals that swim are amphibians, which makes you an amphibian.

LOL so are you also an amphibian?

Or just a certified government troll shitforbrains

It's ok, we know that you are a government shithead



Chanting. Paradox. Argument by repetition. Insult fallacies. Irrational. No argument presented.


Again your photos showing your belief mammals swimming makes them amphibians clearly indicates that you believe that since humans can swim that they are amphibian too. So are you an amphibian as you said that seals are?

You may resume wanking now
20-05-2022 06:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Seals are amphibious mammals

Yes. Absolutely. Seals and sea lions, and otters and polar bears and ducks and geese and penguins are all amphibian mammals.

I'm glad you acknowledge agreeing with me.

I think we're done.
Seals are not amphibian mammals, that is a genetic impossibility,

Sorry, you just agreed that seals are amphibian mammals. Look at your quote. It's not my fault that you don't understand English well enough to know that the adjectives "amphibious" and "amphibian" are essentially the same word and are interchangeable. You don't get to declare otherwise.

Swan wrote: what seals are is amphibious [amphibian] mammals.

Very good. You get a cookie. I wanted to give you Haloperidol but they stopped making the Flinstones chewables.

Swan wrote: Again by your schizzo logic all mammals that swim are amphibians, which makes you an amphibian.

Nope. For the second time, that's not my logic. I don't claim that sharks are amphibians. I don't claim that merely swimming constitutes an amphibian.

It has to be "double life" (per the root meaning of amphibian) whereby life and survival activities occur both on land and in the water. I included images of polar bears and sea lions hunting/feeding both on land and in water, as an example.

So, I realize that despite this not being any sort of competition, you nonetheless found a way to lose. How did that happen?

Anyway, don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

.
20-05-2022 17:22
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2139)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Seals are amphibious mammals

Yes. Absolutely. Seals and sea lions, and otters and polar bears and ducks and geese and penguins are all amphibian mammals.

I'm glad you acknowledge agreeing with me.

I think we're done.
Seals are not amphibian mammals, that is a genetic impossibility,

Sorry, you just agreed that seals are amphibian mammals. Look at your quote. It's not my fault that you don't understand English well enough to know that the adjectives "amphibious" and "amphibian" are essentially the same word and are interchangeable. You don't get to declare otherwise.

Swan wrote: what seals are is amphibious [amphibian] mammals.

Very good. You get a cookie. I wanted to give you Haloperidol but they stopped making the Flinstones chewables.

Swan wrote: Again by your schizzo logic all mammals that swim are amphibians, which makes you an amphibian.

Nope. For the second time, that's not my logic. I don't claim that sharks are amphibians. I don't claim that merely swimming constitutes an amphibian.

It has to be "double life" (per the root meaning of amphibian) whereby life and survival activities occur both on land and in the water. I included images of polar bears and sea lions hunting/feeding both on land and in water, as an example.

So, I realize that despite this not being any sort of competition, you nonetheless found a way to lose. How did that happen?

Anyway, don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

.


I agreed that seals are amphibious mammals that since they are mammals can obviously not be amphibians.

LOL in your schizzo mind any animal that can swim is an amphibian, you probably think that you are related to Kevin Costner in waterworld

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Tell us about your amphibian Aunt Millie
20-05-2022 18:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Seals are amphibious mammals

Yes. Absolutely. Seals and sea lions, and otters and polar bears and ducks and geese and penguins are all amphibian mammals.

I'm glad you acknowledge agreeing with me.

I think we're done.

Swan wrote:LOL by your logic these are also amphibians

Nope. That's not my logic.

One way to kill a human is to leave him in water. Humans are not able to survive in water as on land.



.


Seals are not amphibian mammals, that is a genetic impossibility, what seals are is amphibious mammals.

Still trying to figure out English, eh?
Swan wrote:
Again by your schizzo logic all mammals that swim are amphibians, which makes you an amphibian.

Word stuffing.
Swan wrote:
LOL so are you also an amphibian?

RQAA.
Swan wrote:
Or just a certified government troll shitforbrains

Insult fallacy.

No argument presented.


Seals are not amphibian mammals, that is a genetic impossibility, what seals are is amphibious mammals. Again by your schizzo logic all mammals that swim are amphibians, which makes you an amphibian.

LOL so are you also an amphibian?

Or just a certified government troll shitforbrains

It's ok, we know that you are a government shithead



Chanting. Paradox. Argument by repetition. Insult fallacies. Irrational. No argument presented.


Again your photos showing your belief mammals swimming makes them amphibians clearly indicates that you believe that since humans can swim that they are amphibian too. So are you an amphibian as you said that seals are?

You may resume wanking now

Not my photos. Word stuffing. RQAA. Insult fallacy. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-05-2022 18:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Seals are amphibious mammals

Yes. Absolutely. Seals and sea lions, and otters and polar bears and ducks and geese and penguins are all amphibian mammals.

I'm glad you acknowledge agreeing with me.

I think we're done.
Seals are not amphibian mammals, that is a genetic impossibility,

Sorry, you just agreed that seals are amphibian mammals. Look at your quote. It's not my fault that you don't understand English well enough to know that the adjectives "amphibious" and "amphibian" are essentially the same word and are interchangeable. You don't get to declare otherwise.

Swan wrote: what seals are is amphibious [amphibian] mammals.

Very good. You get a cookie. I wanted to give you Haloperidol but they stopped making the Flinstones chewables.

Swan wrote: Again by your schizzo logic all mammals that swim are amphibians, which makes you an amphibian.

Nope. For the second time, that's not my logic. I don't claim that sharks are amphibians. I don't claim that merely swimming constitutes an amphibian.

It has to be "double life" (per the root meaning of amphibian) whereby life and survival activities occur both on land and in the water. I included images of polar bears and sea lions hunting/feeding both on land and in water, as an example.

So, I realize that despite this not being any sort of competition, you nonetheless found a way to lose. How did that happen?

Anyway, don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

.


I agreed that seals are amphibious mammals that since they are mammals can obviously not be amphibians.

LOL in your schizzo mind any animal that can swim is an amphibian, you probably think that you are related to Kevin Costner in waterworld

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Tell us about your amphibian Aunt Millie

Paradox. Irrational. Word stuffing. Insult fallacies. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-05-2022 21:55
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2139)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Seals are amphibious mammals

Yes. Absolutely. Seals and sea lions, and otters and polar bears and ducks and geese and penguins are all amphibian mammals.

I'm glad you acknowledge agreeing with me.

I think we're done.
Seals are not amphibian mammals, that is a genetic impossibility,

Sorry, you just agreed that seals are amphibian mammals. Look at your quote. It's not my fault that you don't understand English well enough to know that the adjectives "amphibious" and "amphibian" are essentially the same word and are interchangeable. You don't get to declare otherwise.

Swan wrote: what seals are is amphibious [amphibian] mammals.

Very good. You get a cookie. I wanted to give you Haloperidol but they stopped making the Flinstones chewables.

Swan wrote: Again by your schizzo logic all mammals that swim are amphibians, which makes you an amphibian.

Nope. For the second time, that's not my logic. I don't claim that sharks are amphibians. I don't claim that merely swimming constitutes an amphibian.

It has to be "double life" (per the root meaning of amphibian) whereby life and survival activities occur both on land and in the water. I included images of polar bears and sea lions hunting/feeding both on land and in water, as an example.

So, I realize that despite this not being any sort of competition, you nonetheless found a way to lose. How did that happen?

Anyway, don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

.


I agreed that seals are amphibious mammals that since they are mammals can obviously not be amphibians.

LOL in your schizzo mind any animal that can swim is an amphibian, you probably think that you are related to Kevin Costner in waterworld

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Tell us about your amphibian Aunt Millie

Paradox. Irrational. Word stuffing. Insult fallacies. No argument presented.

The fact is Watson that all amphibians are amphibious however not all creatures that are amphibious are amphibians. Not that you can distinguish the literary and scientific classification differences

We could do this for decades and I would never slip
20-05-2022 22:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Seals are amphibious mammals

Yes. Absolutely. Seals and sea lions, and otters and polar bears and ducks and geese and penguins are all amphibian mammals.

I'm glad you acknowledge agreeing with me.

I think we're done.
Seals are not amphibian mammals, that is a genetic impossibility,

Sorry, you just agreed that seals are amphibian mammals. Look at your quote. It's not my fault that you don't understand English well enough to know that the adjectives "amphibious" and "amphibian" are essentially the same word and are interchangeable. You don't get to declare otherwise.

Swan wrote: what seals are is amphibious [amphibian] mammals.

Very good. You get a cookie. I wanted to give you Haloperidol but they stopped making the Flinstones chewables.

Swan wrote: Again by your schizzo logic all mammals that swim are amphibians, which makes you an amphibian.

Nope. For the second time, that's not my logic. I don't claim that sharks are amphibians. I don't claim that merely swimming constitutes an amphibian.

It has to be "double life" (per the root meaning of amphibian) whereby life and survival activities occur both on land and in the water. I included images of polar bears and sea lions hunting/feeding both on land and in water, as an example.

So, I realize that despite this not being any sort of competition, you nonetheless found a way to lose. How did that happen?

Anyway, don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

.


I agreed that seals are amphibious mammals that since they are mammals can obviously not be amphibians.

LOL in your schizzo mind any animal that can swim is an amphibian, you probably think that you are related to Kevin Costner in waterworld

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Tell us about your amphibian Aunt Millie

Paradox. Irrational. Word stuffing. Insult fallacies. No argument presented.

The fact is Watson that all amphibians are amphibious however not all creatures that are amphibious are amphibians. Not that you can distinguish the literary and scientific classification differences

We could do this for decades and I would never slip


Paradox. Semantics fallacy. Science isn't a classification. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-05-2022 03:39
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2139)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Seals are amphibious mammals

Yes. Absolutely. Seals and sea lions, and otters and polar bears and ducks and geese and penguins are all amphibian mammals.

I'm glad you acknowledge agreeing with me.

I think we're done.
Seals are not amphibian mammals, that is a genetic impossibility,

Sorry, you just agreed that seals are amphibian mammals. Look at your quote. It's not my fault that you don't understand English well enough to know that the adjectives "amphibious" and "amphibian" are essentially the same word and are interchangeable. You don't get to declare otherwise.

Swan wrote: what seals are is amphibious [amphibian] mammals.

Very good. You get a cookie. I wanted to give you Haloperidol but they stopped making the Flinstones chewables.

Swan wrote: Again by your schizzo logic all mammals that swim are amphibians, which makes you an amphibian.

Nope. For the second time, that's not my logic. I don't claim that sharks are amphibians. I don't claim that merely swimming constitutes an amphibian.

It has to be "double life" (per the root meaning of amphibian) whereby life and survival activities occur both on land and in the water. I included images of polar bears and sea lions hunting/feeding both on land and in water, as an example.

So, I realize that despite this not being any sort of competition, you nonetheless found a way to lose. How did that happen?

Anyway, don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

.


I agreed that seals are amphibious mammals that since they are mammals can obviously not be amphibians.

LOL in your schizzo mind any animal that can swim is an amphibian, you probably think that you are related to Kevin Costner in waterworld

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Tell us about your amphibian Aunt Millie

Paradox. Irrational. Word stuffing. Insult fallacies. No argument presented.

The fact is Watson that all amphibians are amphibious however not all creatures that are amphibious are amphibians. Not that you can distinguish the literary and scientific classification differences

We could do this for decades and I would never slip


Paradox. Semantics fallacy. Science isn't a classification. No argument presented.


The fact is Watson that all amphibians are amphibious however not all creatures that are amphibious are amphibians. Not that you can distinguish the literary and scientific classification differences

We could do this for decades and I would never slip
21-05-2022 04:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Swan wrote:The fact is Watson that all amphibians are amphibious

Thus far, you are correct. I wish to commend you on this part before I rake you over the coals in the next part ... but for the moment, I just want to appreciate your temporarily lucid nature.

Well done.

Swan wrote: ... however not all creatures that are amphibious are amphibians.

Whoa there pard'ner, disconnect your heroin drip.

All amphibian creatures are most certainly amphibian, and are thus amphibians.

Let's see if your misunderstanding of English actually applies to anything at all:

* All fast animals can move fast, however not all animals that can move fast are fast. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All large animals have a large size, however not all animals with a large size are large animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All water-breathing animals breathe water, however not all animals that breathe water are water-breathing animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All hyperthermophiles need extremely high temperatures just to survive, however not all animals that need extremely high temperatures to survive are hyperthermophiles. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All extinct species are now extinct, however not all species that are extinct are extinct. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All amphibians are amphibian, however not all amphibian animals are amphibian. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

Oooops, we were talking about that one. Awkward duplication there, my bad.

* All hibernators hibernate, however not all animals that hibernate are hibernators. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All sexual animals reproduce via sexual activity, however not all animals that reproduce via sexual activity are sexual animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All playful animals are playful, however not all playful animals are playful. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All bottom-feeders feed at the bottom, however not all that feed at the bottom are bottom-feeders. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

... or maybe not. That's a sufficient sampling for me. I don't think your error is ever correct under any adjective-defined class, otherwise we could do this for decades and you would never be correct.

But hey, you get unlimited do-overs so use one to embrace the correct position, even if you previously sucked at English.

... but once again, great job on that first part. You rock.

.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-05-2022 14:28
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2139)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:The fact is Watson that all amphibians are amphibious

Thus far, you are correct. I wish to commend you on this part before I rake you over the coals in the next part ... but for the moment, I just want to appreciate your temporarily lucid nature.

Well done.

Swan wrote: ... however not all creatures that are amphibious are amphibians.

Whoa there pard'ner, disconnect your heroin drip.

All amphibian creatures are most certainly amphibian, and are thus amphibians.

Let's see if your misunderstanding of English actually applies to anything at all:

* All fast animals can move fast, however not all animals that can move fast are fast. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All large animals have a large size, however not all animals with a large size are large animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All water-breathing animals breathe water, however not all animals that breathe water are water-breathing animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All hyperthermophiles need extremely high temperatures just to survive, however not all animals that need extremely high temperatures to survive are hyperthermophiles. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All extinct species are now extinct, however not all species that are extinct are extinct. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All amphibians are amphibian, however not all amphibian animals are amphibian. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

Oooops, we were talking about that one. Awkward duplication there, my bad.

* All hibernators hibernate, however not all animals that hibernate are hibernators. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All sexual animals reproduce via sexual activity, however not all animals that reproduce via sexual activity are sexual animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All playful animals are playful, however not all playful animals are playful. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All bottom-feeders feed at the bottom, however not all that feed at the bottom are bottom-feeders. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

... or maybe not. That's a sufficient sampling for me. I don't think your error is ever correct under any adjective-defined class, otherwise we could do this for decades and you would never be correct.

But hey, you get unlimited do-overs so use one to embrace the correct position, even if you previously sucked at English.

... but once again, great job on that first part. You rock.

.


So your point is that humans are amphibians because they can swim and in fact some humans carry the moniker of seal. Sorry Ed, this is just not true, but you go right ahead and continue babbling that you are an amphibian
21-05-2022 17:01
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4323)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:The fact is Watson that all amphibians are amphibious

Thus far, you are correct. I wish to commend you on this part before I rake you over the coals in the next part ... but for the moment, I just want to appreciate your temporarily lucid nature.

Well done.

Swan wrote: ... however not all creatures that are amphibious are amphibians.

Whoa there pard'ner, disconnect your heroin drip.

All amphibian creatures are most certainly amphibian, and are thus amphibians.

Let's see if your misunderstanding of English actually applies to anything at all:

* All fast animals can move fast, however not all animals that can move fast are fast. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All large animals have a large size, however not all animals with a large size are large animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All water-breathing animals breathe water, however not all animals that breathe water are water-breathing animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All hyperthermophiles need extremely high temperatures just to survive, however not all animals that need extremely high temperatures to survive are hyperthermophiles. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All extinct species are now extinct, however not all species that are extinct are extinct. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All amphibians are amphibian, however not all amphibian animals are amphibian. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

Oooops, we were talking about that one. Awkward duplication there, my bad.

* All hibernators hibernate, however not all animals that hibernate are hibernators. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All sexual animals reproduce via sexual activity, however not all animals that reproduce via sexual activity are sexual animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All playful animals are playful, however not all playful animals are playful. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All bottom-feeders feed at the bottom, however not all that feed at the bottom are bottom-feeders. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

... or maybe not. That's a sufficient sampling for me. I don't think your error is ever correct under any adjective-defined class, otherwise we could do this for decades and you would never be correct.

But hey, you get unlimited do-overs so use one to embrace the correct position, even if you previously sucked at English.

... but once again, great job on that first part. You rock.

.


So your point is that humans are amphibians because they can swim and in fact some humans carry the moniker of seal. Sorry Ed, this is just not true, but you go right ahead and continue babbling that you are an amphibian


It's a phoolosophy mindfukk game. Sort of why I never took to philosophy in school. You can trust nothing said, usually irrelevant, and of no practical use or value. Can't believe you fools are still playing the amphibian-game. It's pretty much assured, that all the other repetitious, obsessive-compulsive arguments used on this site, are phoolosophic mindfukk games as well.
21-05-2022 17:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:The fact is Watson that all amphibians are amphibious

Thus far, you are correct. I wish to commend you on this part before I rake you over the coals in the next part ... but for the moment, I just want to appreciate your temporarily lucid nature.

Well done.

Swan wrote: ... however not all creatures that are amphibious are amphibians.

Whoa there pard'ner, disconnect your heroin drip.

All amphibian creatures are most certainly amphibian, and are thus amphibians.

Let's see if your misunderstanding of English actually applies to anything at all:

* All fast animals can move fast, however not all animals that can move fast are fast. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All large animals have a large size, however not all animals with a large size are large animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All water-breathing animals breathe water, however not all animals that breathe water are water-breathing animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All hyperthermophiles need extremely high temperatures just to survive, however not all animals that need extremely high temperatures to survive are hyperthermophiles. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All extinct species are now extinct, however not all species that are extinct are extinct. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All amphibians are amphibian, however not all amphibian animals are amphibian. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

Oooops, we were talking about that one. Awkward duplication there, my bad.

* All hibernators hibernate, however not all animals that hibernate are hibernators. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All sexual animals reproduce via sexual activity, however not all animals that reproduce via sexual activity are sexual animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All playful animals are playful, however not all playful animals are playful. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All bottom-feeders feed at the bottom, however not all that feed at the bottom are bottom-feeders. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

... or maybe not. That's a sufficient sampling for me. I don't think your error is ever correct under any adjective-defined class, otherwise we could do this for decades and you would never be correct.

But hey, you get unlimited do-overs so use one to embrace the correct position, even if you previously sucked at English.

... but once again, great job on that first part. You rock.

.


So your point is that humans are amphibians because they can swim and in fact some humans carry the moniker of seal. Sorry Ed, this is just not true, but you go right ahead and continue babbling that you are an amphibian

Word stuffing. Apparently you can't read either.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-05-2022 17:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:The fact is Watson that all amphibians are amphibious

Thus far, you are correct. I wish to commend you on this part before I rake you over the coals in the next part ... but for the moment, I just want to appreciate your temporarily lucid nature.

Well done.

Swan wrote: ... however not all creatures that are amphibious are amphibians.

Whoa there pard'ner, disconnect your heroin drip.

All amphibian creatures are most certainly amphibian, and are thus amphibians.

Let's see if your misunderstanding of English actually applies to anything at all:

* All fast animals can move fast, however not all animals that can move fast are fast. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All large animals have a large size, however not all animals with a large size are large animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All water-breathing animals breathe water, however not all animals that breathe water are water-breathing animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All hyperthermophiles need extremely high temperatures just to survive, however not all animals that need extremely high temperatures to survive are hyperthermophiles. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All extinct species are now extinct, however not all species that are extinct are extinct. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All amphibians are amphibian, however not all amphibian animals are amphibian. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

Oooops, we were talking about that one. Awkward duplication there, my bad.

* All hibernators hibernate, however not all animals that hibernate are hibernators. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All sexual animals reproduce via sexual activity, however not all animals that reproduce via sexual activity are sexual animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All playful animals are playful, however not all playful animals are playful. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All bottom-feeders feed at the bottom, however not all that feed at the bottom are bottom-feeders. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

... or maybe not. That's a sufficient sampling for me. I don't think your error is ever correct under any adjective-defined class, otherwise we could do this for decades and you would never be correct.

But hey, you get unlimited do-overs so use one to embrace the correct position, even if you previously sucked at English.

... but once again, great job on that first part. You rock.

.


So your point is that humans are amphibians because they can swim and in fact some humans carry the moniker of seal. Sorry Ed, this is just not true, but you go right ahead and continue babbling that you are an amphibian


It's a phoolosophy mindfukk game. Sort of why I never took to philosophy in school. You can trust nothing said, usually irrelevant, and of no practical use or value. Can't believe you fools are still playing the amphibian-game. It's pretty much assured, that all the other repetitious, obsessive-compulsive arguments used on this site, are phoolosophic mindfukk games as well.

No philosophy here...move along...move along...


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-05-2022 17:28
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2139)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:The fact is Watson that all amphibians are amphibious

Thus far, you are correct. I wish to commend you on this part before I rake you over the coals in the next part ... but for the moment, I just want to appreciate your temporarily lucid nature.

Well done.

Swan wrote: ... however not all creatures that are amphibious are amphibians.

Whoa there pard'ner, disconnect your heroin drip.

All amphibian creatures are most certainly amphibian, and are thus amphibians.

Let's see if your misunderstanding of English actually applies to anything at all:

* All fast animals can move fast, however not all animals that can move fast are fast. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All large animals have a large size, however not all animals with a large size are large animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All water-breathing animals breathe water, however not all animals that breathe water are water-breathing animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All hyperthermophiles need extremely high temperatures just to survive, however not all animals that need extremely high temperatures to survive are hyperthermophiles. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All extinct species are now extinct, however not all species that are extinct are extinct. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All amphibians are amphibian, however not all amphibian animals are amphibian. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

Oooops, we were talking about that one. Awkward duplication there, my bad.

* All hibernators hibernate, however not all animals that hibernate are hibernators. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All sexual animals reproduce via sexual activity, however not all animals that reproduce via sexual activity are sexual animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All playful animals are playful, however not all playful animals are playful. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All bottom-feeders feed at the bottom, however not all that feed at the bottom are bottom-feeders. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

... or maybe not. That's a sufficient sampling for me. I don't think your error is ever correct under any adjective-defined class, otherwise we could do this for decades and you would never be correct.

But hey, you get unlimited do-overs so use one to embrace the correct position, even if you previously sucked at English.

... but once again, great job on that first part. You rock.

.


So your point is that humans are amphibians because they can swim and in fact some humans carry the moniker of seal. Sorry Ed, this is just not true, but you go right ahead and continue babbling that you are an amphibian


It's a phoolosophy mindfukk game. Sort of why I never took to philosophy in school. You can trust nothing said, usually irrelevant, and of no practical use or value. Can't believe you fools are still playing the amphibian-game. It's pretty much assured, that all the other repetitious, obsessive-compulsive arguments used on this site, are phoolosophic mindfukk games as well.


Actually it's only a mindfukk game if you let your mind get fukked, which I never do because I am laughing way too much
Edited on 21-05-2022 17:40
21-05-2022 17:35
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2139)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:The fact is Watson that all amphibians are amphibious

Thus far, you are correct. I wish to commend you on this part before I rake you over the coals in the next part ... but for the moment, I just want to appreciate your temporarily lucid nature.

Well done.

Swan wrote: ... however not all creatures that are amphibious are amphibians.

Whoa there pard'ner, disconnect your heroin drip.

All amphibian creatures are most certainly amphibian, and are thus amphibians.

Let's see if your misunderstanding of English actually applies to anything at all:

* All fast animals can move fast, however not all animals that can move fast are fast. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All large animals have a large size, however not all animals with a large size are large animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All water-breathing animals breathe water, however not all animals that breathe water are water-breathing animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All hyperthermophiles need extremely high temperatures just to survive, however not all animals that need extremely high temperatures to survive are hyperthermophiles. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All extinct species are now extinct, however not all species that are extinct are extinct. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All amphibians are amphibian, however not all amphibian animals are amphibian. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

Oooops, we were talking about that one. Awkward duplication there, my bad.

* All hibernators hibernate, however not all animals that hibernate are hibernators. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All sexual animals reproduce via sexual activity, however not all animals that reproduce via sexual activity are sexual animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All playful animals are playful, however not all playful animals are playful. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All bottom-feeders feed at the bottom, however not all that feed at the bottom are bottom-feeders. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

... or maybe not. That's a sufficient sampling for me. I don't think your error is ever correct under any adjective-defined class, otherwise we could do this for decades and you would never be correct.

But hey, you get unlimited do-overs so use one to embrace the correct position, even if you previously sucked at English.

... but once again, great job on that first part. You rock.

.


So your point is that humans are amphibians because they can swim and in fact some humans carry the moniker of seal. Sorry Ed, this is just not true, but you go right ahead and continue babbling that you are an amphibian

Word stuffing. Apparently you can't read either.


Apparently you can read but can not discern the subtle English language linguistic differences between the words amphibian (Noun) and amphibious (adjective)

Again we could do this for decades and I would always be totally proficient.
22-05-2022 06:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
HarveyH55 wrote: Sort of why I never took to philosophy in school.

That, and because full-time philosophy academics don't know what they're talking about. They think they speak for dead people who were "really thmart."

HarveyH55 wrote: You can trust nothing said,

... but you can trust your own mind. If you can't trust that, you're in a world of hurt.

HarveyH55 wrote: usually irrelevant, and of no practical use or value.

Each person individually makes that determination.

HarveyH55 wrote: Can't believe you fools are still playing the amphibian-game.

HarveyH55 wrote:It's a phoolosophy mindfukk game.

No, Harvey, you are just a bit disgruntled because no one is talking about fuel for amphibian fossils.
.
Attached image:

22-05-2022 20:35
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2139)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: Sort of why I never took to philosophy in school.

That, and because full-time philosophy academics don't know what they're talking about. They think they speak for dead people who were "really thmart."

HarveyH55 wrote: You can trust nothing said,

... but you can trust your own mind. If you can't trust that, you're in a world of hurt.

HarveyH55 wrote: usually irrelevant, and of no practical use or value.

Each person individually makes that determination.

HarveyH55 wrote: Can't believe you fools are still playing the amphibian-game.

HarveyH55 wrote:It's a phoolosophy mindfukk game.

No, Harvey, you are just a bit disgruntled because no one is talking about fuel for amphibian fossils.
.


Gas is a fossil fuel as well as what powers your nose
22-05-2022 21:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:The fact is Watson that all amphibians are amphibious

Thus far, you are correct. I wish to commend you on this part before I rake you over the coals in the next part ... but for the moment, I just want to appreciate your temporarily lucid nature.

Well done.

Swan wrote: ... however not all creatures that are amphibious are amphibians.

Whoa there pard'ner, disconnect your heroin drip.

All amphibian creatures are most certainly amphibian, and are thus amphibians.

Let's see if your misunderstanding of English actually applies to anything at all:

* All fast animals can move fast, however not all animals that can move fast are fast. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All large animals have a large size, however not all animals with a large size are large animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All water-breathing animals breathe water, however not all animals that breathe water are water-breathing animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All hyperthermophiles need extremely high temperatures just to survive, however not all animals that need extremely high temperatures to survive are hyperthermophiles. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All extinct species are now extinct, however not all species that are extinct are extinct. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All amphibians are amphibian, however not all amphibian animals are amphibian. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

Oooops, we were talking about that one. Awkward duplication there, my bad.

* All hibernators hibernate, however not all animals that hibernate are hibernators. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.drum brakes

* All sexual animals reproduce via sexual activity, however not all animals that reproduce via sexual activity are sexual animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All playful animals are playful, however not all playful animals are playful. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All bottom-feeders feed at the bottom, however not all that feed at the bottom are bottom-feeders. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

... or maybe not. That's a sufficient sampling for me. I don't think your error is ever correct under any adjective-defined class, otherwise we could do this for decades and you would never be correct.

But hey, you get unlimited do-overs so use one to embrace the correct position, even if you previously sucked at English.

... but once again, great job on that first part. You rock.

.


So your point is that humans are amphibians because they can swim and in fact some humans carry the moniker of seal. Sorry Ed, this is just not true, but you go right ahead and continue babbling that you are an amphibian

Word stuffing. Apparently you can't read either.


Apparently you can read but can not discern the subtle English language linguistic differences between the words amphibian (Noun) and amphibious (adjective)

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again. There is a period at the end of a sentence in English. Maybe you'll learn English someday.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-05-2022 21:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: Sort of why I never took to philosophy in school.

That, and because full-time philosophy academics don't know what they're talking about. They think they speak for dead people who were "really thmart."

HarveyH55 wrote: You can trust nothing said,

... but you can trust your own mind. If you can't trust that, you're in a world of hurt.

HarveyH55 wrote: usually irrelevant, and of no practical use or value.

Each person individually makes that determination.

HarveyH55 wrote: Can't believe you fools are still playing the amphibian-game.

HarveyH55 wrote:It's a phoolosophy mindfukk game.

No, Harvey, you are just a bit disgruntled because no one is talking about fuel for amphibian fossils.
.


Gas is a fossil fuel as well as what powers your nose

Gas is not a fossil.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-05-2022 21:43
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2139)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:The fact is Watson that all amphibians are amphibious

Thus far, you are correct. I wish to commend you on this part before I rake you over the coals in the next part ... but for the moment, I just want to appreciate your temporarily lucid nature.

Well done.

Swan wrote: ... however not all creatures that are amphibious are amphibians.

Whoa there pard'ner, disconnect your heroin drip.

All amphibian creatures are most certainly amphibian, and are thus amphibians.

Let's see if your misunderstanding of English actually applies to anything at all:

* All fast animals can move fast, however not all animals that can move fast are fast. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All large animals have a large size, however not all animals with a large size are large animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All water-breathing animals breathe water, however not all animals that breathe water are water-breathing animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All hyperthermophiles need extremely high temperatures just to survive, however not all animals that need extremely high temperatures to survive are hyperthermophiles. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All extinct species are now extinct, however not all species that are extinct are extinct. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All amphibians are amphibian, however not all amphibian animals are amphibian. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

Oooops, we were talking about that one. Awkward duplication there, my bad.

* All hibernators hibernate, however not all animals that hibernate are hibernators. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.drum brakes

* All sexual animals reproduce via sexual activity, however not all animals that reproduce via sexual activity are sexual animals. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All playful animals are playful, however not all playful animals are playful. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

* All bottom-feeders feed at the bottom, however not all that feed at the bottom are bottom-feeders. Hmmmm ... nope. Let's try another one.

... or maybe not. That's a sufficient sampling for me. I don't think your error is ever correct under any adjective-defined class, otherwise we could do this for decades and you would never be correct.

But hey, you get unlimited do-overs so use one to embrace the correct position, even if you previously sucked at English.

... but once again, great job on that first part. You rock.

.


So your point is that humans are amphibians because they can swim and in fact some humans carry the moniker of seal. Sorry Ed, this is just not true, but you go right ahead and continue babbling that you are an amphibian

Word stuffing. Apparently you can't read either.


Apparently you can read but can not discern the subtle English language linguistic differences between the words amphibian (Noun) and amphibious (adjective)

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again. There is a period at the end of a sentence in English. Maybe you'll learn English someday.


Apparently you can read but can not discern the subtle English language linguistic differences between the words amphibian (Noun) and amphibious (adjective).

CIAO
22-05-2022 21:46
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2139)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: Sort of why I never took to philosophy in school.

That, and because full-time philosophy academics don't know what they're talking about. They think they speak for dead people who were "really thmart."

HarveyH55 wrote: You can trust nothing said,

... but you can trust your own mind. If you can't trust that, you're in a world of hurt.

HarveyH55 wrote: usually irrelevant, and of no practical use or value.

Each person individually makes that determination.

HarveyH55 wrote: Can't believe you fools are still playing the amphibian-game.

HarveyH55 wrote:It's a phoolosophy mindfukk game.

No, Harvey, you are just a bit disgruntled because no one is talking about fuel for amphibian fossils.
.


Gas is a fossil fuel as well as what powers your nose

Gas is not a fossil.

Gasoline is refined from crude oil which is considered a fossil fuel.

noun
plural noun: fossil fuels
a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms.

Except in your mom's basement where you live
23-05-2022 01:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Swan wrote:
noun
plural noun: fossil fuels
a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms.

Do you honestly believe that hydrocarbons form from decaying organic matter?
23-05-2022 02:43
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
HarveyH55 wrote:It's a phoolosophy mindfukk game.

Spot on Harvey.I have a high level of confidence that most educated humans reading Reptiles are Amphibians and not Reptiles which is what has been inferred in the original comment would be as bemused as I am and the constant denial of the term fossil fuel the same.
.Trees burn even when still growing
.Trees burn better if they are dead and dry
.Trees are organic and store hydrocarbons
.Organic matter is easier to pump to the surface when it has liquefied over time and heat and pressure
.Combustion
Hydrocarbon combustion refers to the chemical reaction where a hydrocarbon reacts with oxygen to create carbon dioxide, water, and heat. Hydrocarbons are molecules consisting of both hydrogen and carbon. They are most famous for being the primary constituent of fossil fuels, namely natural gas, petroleum, and coal.
IBDM you have been a great teacher as your determination to deny oil is organic has led me down many paths of discovery. Thank you.
.Sea lover sent me a goodbye note and I shall miss him and our times on the sofa.
I am not sure I can ever look at the Chesterfield the same way again without remembering the wild bending over the furniture

Goodbye My Lover
James Blunt
Did I disappoint you or let you down?
Should I be feeling guilty or let the judges frown?
'Cause I saw the end, before we'd begun
Yes, I saw you were blind and I knew I had won
So I took what's mine by eternal right
Took your soul out into the night
It may be over but it won't stop there
I am here for you if you'd only care
You touched my heart, you touched my soul
Changed my life and all my goals
And love is blind, and that I knew when
My heart was blinded by you
I've kissed your lips and held your head
Shared your dreams and shared your bed
I know you well, I know your smell
I've been addicted to you
Goodbye my lover
Goodbye my friend
You have been the one
You have been the one for me
Goodbye my lover
Goodbye my friend
You have been the one
You have been the one for me
I am a dreamer and when I wake
You can't break my spirit, it's my dreams you take
And as you move on, remember me
Remember us and all we used to be
I've seen you cry, I've seen you smile
I've watched you sleeping for a while
I'd be the father of your child
I'd spend a lifetime with you
I know your fears and you know mine
We've had our doubts but now we're fine
And I love you, I swear that's true
I cannot live without you
Goodbye my lover
Goodbye my friend
You have been the one
You have been the one for me
Goodbye my lover
Goodbye my friend
You have been the one
You have been the one for me
And I still hold your hand in mine
In mine when I'm asleep
And I will bear my soul in time
When I'm kneeling at your feet
Goodbye my lover
Goodbye my friend
You have been the one
You have been the one for me
Goodbye my lover
Goodbye my friend
You have been the one
You have been the one for me
I'm so hollow baby
I'm so hollow
I'm so, I'm so, I'm so hollow
I'm so hollow baby
I'm so hollow
I'm so, I'm so, I'm so hollow
23-05-2022 08:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
duncan61 wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:It's a phoolosophy mindfukk game.
Spot on Harvey.I have a high level of confidence that most educated humans reading Reptiles are Amphibians and not Reptiles which is what has been inferred in the original comment would be as bemused as I am and the constant denial of the term fossil fuel the same.

There is no such thing as fossil fuel. Fossils don't burn.
duncan61 wrote:
.Trees burn even when still growing
.Trees burn better if they are dead and dry
.Trees are organic and store hydrocarbons

Trees do not store hydrocarbons.
duncan61 wrote:
.Organic matter is easier to pump to the surface when it has liquefied over time and heat and pressure

What organic matter?
duncan61 wrote:
.Combustion
Hydrocarbon combustion refers to the chemical reaction where a hydrocarbon reacts with oxygen to create carbon dioxide, water, and heat. Hydrocarbons are molecules consisting of both hydrogen and carbon. They are most famous for being the primary constituent of fossil fuels, namely natural gas, petroleum, and coal.

There are no fossils in any gas, or any liquid. Coal may contain fossils, but they don't burn.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-05-2022 08:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: Sort of why I never took to philosophy in school.

That, and because full-time philosophy academics don't know what they're talking about. They think they speak for dead people who were "really thmart."

HarveyH55 wrote: You can trust nothing said,

... but you can trust your own mind. If you can't trust that, you're in a world of hurt.

HarveyH55 wrote: usually irrelevant, and of no practical use or value.

Each person individually makes that determination.

HarveyH55 wrote: Can't believe you fools are still playing the amphibian-game.

HarveyH55 wrote:It's a phoolosophy mindfukk game.

No, Harvey, you are just a bit disgruntled because no one is talking about fuel for amphibian fossils.
.


Gas is a fossil fuel as well as what powers your nose

Gas is not a fossil.

Gasoline is refined from crude oil which is considered a fossil fuel.

Crude oil is not a fossil.
Swan wrote:
noun
plural noun: fossil fuels
a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms.

Coal is carbon, not a fossil. Gasoline is a distillate from crude oil, not a fossil.
Crude oil is a renewable fuel. It does not come from any living organism.
A gas is not a fossil. A liquid is not a fossil.

Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-05-2022 09:58
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
I am looking at my wood fire.Do we use wood for fuel?Why does wood burn?
23-05-2022 10:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
duncan61 wrote:I am looking at my wood fire.Do we use wood for fuel?Why does wood burn?


Yes, wood certainly burns, although tmiddles insists that wood melts. He never explained that one although we asked for an explanation many times.

Yes, we certainly use wood for fuel, often to make smores.

Fossils, on the other hand, do not burn.

Fossils, on the other hand, are never used for fuel, not even to make smores.

Wood is therefore not a fossil, unless it becomes petrified, in which case it *is* a fossil and no longer burns.


Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

.
23-05-2022 13:13
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2139)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
noun
plural noun: fossil fuels
a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms.

Do you honestly believe that hydrocarbons form from decaying organic matter?

Why not believe this, since hydrocarbons are formed from decaying organic matter now in the forms of ethanol and methanol. Or are you too dumb to know that corn and algae is used to produce fuel
23-05-2022 19:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
noun
plural noun: fossil fuels
a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms.

Do you honestly believe that hydrocarbons form from decaying organic matter?

Why not believe this, since hydrocarbons are formed from decaying organic matter now in the forms of ethanol and methanol. Or are you too dumb to know that corn and algae is used to produce fuel


Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Denial of chemistry.

Why would hydrocarbons form from decaying organic matter? Please describe this process.
Corn and algae are not hydrocarbons.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-05-2022 19:47
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2139)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
noun
plural noun: fossil fuels
a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms.

Do you honestly believe that hydrocarbons form from decaying organic matter?

Why not believe this, since hydrocarbons are formed from decaying organic matter now in the forms of ethanol and methanol. Or are you too dumb to know that corn and algae is used to produce fuel


Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Denial of chemistry.

Why would hydrocarbons form from decaying organic matter? Please describe this process.
Corn and algae are not hydrocarbons.

Corn and algae are the organic matter tha tis used to form hydrocarbons in real time

Ethanol is a member of the alcohol hydrocarbon derivative family of chemicals. All alcohols are flammable and toxic to some degree. Hydrocarbon derivatives get their name from the fact they are hydrocarbons to start with and have other chemical elements added to create a new chemical that has some economic value.

At some point you will need more Vaseline
23-05-2022 21:31
James_
★★★★☆
(1099)
The enzyme that was discovered might allow for a scalable form of biofuel production. It basically
converts fatty acids into hydrocarbons without the need for further refinement. The enzyme that was discovered isn't being revealed.
Some will say hoax while others will say protecting intellectual property. After all, the enzyme cannot be patented or copyrighted so making it known offers no legal protection for other groups to pursue a way in which to financially exploit such a discovery.
https://www.cbinsights.com/research/algae-biofuel-enzyme/

It is interesting to note that by oxidizing only one C - H into CHO2 then the long fatty chain becomes a usable hydrocarbon. I guess this means when 17C and 35H are oxidized what happens to the odd hydrogen element? Does the one that forms the CHO2 move to the end of the long fatty chain? If so then 36H + 9O2 > 9H2O along with 17C + 17O2 > 17CO2.
So then would the electrons be converted into plasma energy which excites the other gasses in the combustion chamber or would the extra electrons change the ionization of gasses kind of like photons being fired from a CRT?
I just felt like getting into an argument with someone and you guys make it so easy. Does the carboxylic acid return the hydrogen element to the long fatty chain or not? It makes since if it does because then we wouldn't be asking is HO involved in this chemistry?

p.s., if such a discovery was made, the production method can be patented. That is a specific system which is not of nature. An example of this is that nuclear fission cannot be patented but the power plant's process can be. This is what has limited research into some of the newer designs. Cost of research/investment and possible financial returns.
Edited on 23-05-2022 21:35
23-05-2022 22:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
noun
plural noun: fossil fuels
a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms.

Do you honestly believe that hydrocarbons form from decaying organic matter?

Why not believe this, since hydrocarbons are formed from decaying organic matter now in the forms of ethanol and methanol. Or are you too dumb to know that corn and algae is used to produce fuel


Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Denial of chemistry.

Why would hydrocarbons form from decaying organic matter? Please describe this process.
Corn and algae are not hydrocarbons.

Corn and algae are the organic matter tha tis used to form hydrocarbons in real time

No hydrocarbons are in corn or algae.
Swan wrote:
Ethanol is a member of the alcohol hydrocarbon derivative family of chemicals.

No such thing. Alcohol is not a hydrocarbon either.
Swan wrote:
All alcohols are flammable and toxic to some degree. Hydrocarbon derivatives

No such thing as a 'hydrocarbon derivative'. Buzzword fallacy.
Swan wrote:
get their name from the fact they are hydrocarbons to start with

They are not hydrocarbons.
Swan wrote:
and have other chemical elements added to create a new chemical that has some economic value.

...such as...? Obviously you have no idea what a hydrocarbon is.
Swan wrote:
At some point you will need more Vaseline

That's not a hydrocarbon either.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Page 5 of 6<<<3456>





Join the debate Tell your old college professors to check out climate-debate.com for biogeochemistry:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What is Biogeochemistry?5716-05-2022 18:32
Biogeochemistry Debunked2016-05-2022 04:25
You work hard, to get your kids in college...1324-06-2019 23:01
Reality check: Maxime Bernier says CO2 isn't a pollutant. Climate scientists say he's wrong024-02-2019 04:38
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact