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

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

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.

Swan wrote:Seals are amphibious mammals

Swan wrote:LOL by your logic these are also amphibians

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.

.

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

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.

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

Swan wrote:
LOL so are you also an amphibian?

Swan wrote:
Or just a certified government troll shitforbrains

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.

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

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.

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,

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

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

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.

.

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

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

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.

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

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.

Swan wrote:The fact is Watson that all amphibians are amphibious

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

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.

.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

HarveyH55 wrote: Sort of why I never took to philosophy in school.

HarveyH55 wrote: You can trust nothing said,

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

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

HarveyH55 wrote:It's a phoolosophy mindfukk game.

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.
.

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

duncan61 wrote:
.Trees burn even when still growing
.Trees burn better if they are dead and dry
.Trees are organic and store hydrocarbons

duncan61 wrote:
.Organic matter is easier to pump to the surface when it has liquefied over time and heat and pressure

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.

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.

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.

duncan61 wrote:I am looking at my wood fire.Do we use wood for fuel?Why does wood burn?

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?

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

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.

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

Swan wrote:
Ethanol is a member of the alcohol hydrocarbon derivative family of chemicals.

Swan wrote:
All alcohols are flammable and toxic to some degree. Hydrocarbon derivatives

Swan wrote:
get their name from the fact they are hydrocarbons to start with

Swan wrote:
and have other chemical elements added to create a new chemical that has some economic value.

Swan wrote:
At some point you will need more Vaseline