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

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
What lizards?

"Certain lizards can also regrow a lost limb." - Parrot Boy

Some geckos and iguanas can replace a lost leg, for example.

sealover wrote:
Science is not lizards.

Never said it was, moron.

sealover wrote:
Lizards are not frogs.

Never said they were, moron.

sealover wrote:
Alligators are not amphibians.

Yes they are.

Hey goofy, alligators are not amphibians................

So you are still on a 100 percent wrong streak

Yes they are. You can't change what they are by bulverism, dude.

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
I've got a few decades living in Florida, and never heard mention of alligators being amphibians. They've always been reptiles. Nothing about them, would make me think otherwise. They wander quite a bit during mating season, and not always near water either.

They are both reptiles and amphibian. The live just as happily in the water as out of it. Yes, they DO wander quite a bit during mating season. They get everywhere.

sealover wrote:Primary school students have learned from universally agreed upon textbooks that alligators are NOT amphibians for more than 150 years.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:Primary school students have learned from universally agreed upon textbooks that alligators are NOT amphibians for more than 150 years.

Are you so lacking in confidence of your own understanding that you must defer to primary school students?

To the best of your understanding, do you believe alligators to be amphibious?

That is the only question being addressed here.

How would you rate your command of the English language? Would it be easier for you to discuss this in Spanish?

.

Swan wrote:Actually stupid alligators are reptiles in all languages.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually stupid alligators are reptiles in all languages.

Hey, genius, nobody has yet claimed that alligators are not reptiles. Once again, you have shown that you and English comprehension just do not mix.

You have successfully answered a question that was not asked and not answered the question that was asked.

I'll let you try again: Would you classify alligators as amphibious or not?

This time, focus on the question and the specific words in it.

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually stupid alligators are reptiles in all languages.

Hey, genius, nobody has yet claimed that alligators are not reptiles. Once again, you have shown that you and English comprehension just do not mix.

You have successfully answered a question that was not asked and not answered the question that was asked.

I'll let you try again: Would you classify alligators as amphibious or not?

This time, focus on the question and the specific words in it.

Never used the word amphibious... Most already got that it was a ridiculous semantics game. Two different words, similar, but different meanings. It silly semantic games, that discredit much of his claims. Usually, it's just baiting in to an argument/debate, which isn't worth playing anyway.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually stupid alligators are reptiles in all languages.

Hey, genius, nobody has yet claimed that alligators are not reptiles. Once again, you have shown that you and English comprehension just do not mix.

You have successfully answered a question that was not asked and not answered the question that was asked.

I'll let you try again: Would you classify alligators as amphibious or not?

This time, focus on the question and the specific words in it.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:Primary school students have learned from universally agreed upon textbooks that alligators are NOT amphibians for more than 150 years.

Are you so lacking in confidence of your own understanding that you must defer to primary school students?

To the best of your understanding, do you believe alligators to be amphibious?

That is the only question being addressed here.

How would you rate your command of the English language? Would it be easier for you to discuss this in Spanish?

.

sealover wrote:
Word games - "amphibious" versus amphibian.

Here is an example of the utter futility of engaging a troll in discussion.

Until this post below, the only word being discussed was amphibian.

WORD GAME TIME.

Apparently, the "only question being addressed here" is whether or not one believes alligators to be "amphibious".

The word "amphibian" has been used more than a dozen times by different participants in the discussion.

The word "amphibious" joins in for the first time with this underlying post.

Suddenly it becomes the "only question being addressed here".

Along with the personal insults about how stupid one has to be to believe what has been in primary school textbooks all over the world for 150 years.

I'm pretty sure nobody calls those military vehicles amphibians.

But, so what if they did? It is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Alligators are NOT amphibians by ANY definition. Perhaps they are amphibious, but until now that was never the question being discussed.

So, one might conclude that it is a huge waste of time to engage in discussion with anyone who has racked up more than 10,000 posts of insults and BS.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:Primary school students have learned from universally agreed upon textbooks that alligators are NOT amphibians for more than 150 years.

Are you so lacking in confidence of your own understanding that you must defer to primary school students?

To the best of your understanding, do you believe alligators to be amphibious?

That is the only question being addressed here.

How would you rate your command of the English language? Would it be easier for you to discuss this in Spanish?

.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
What lizards?

"Certain lizards can also regrow a lost limb." - Parrot Boy

Some geckos and iguanas can replace a lost leg, for example.

sealover wrote:
Science is not lizards.

Never said it was, moron.

sealover wrote:
Lizards are not frogs.

Never said they were, moron.

sealover wrote:
Alligators are not amphibians.

Yes they are.

Hey goofy, alligators are not amphibians................

So you are still on a 100 percent wrong streak

Yes they are. You can't change what they are by bulverism, dude.

Do you have a link saying that alligators are amphibians?

Nope because alligators are reptiles.

No matter I like retards like you

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
I've got a few decades living in Florida, and never heard mention of alligators being amphibians. They've always been reptiles. Nothing about them, would make me think otherwise. They wander quite a bit during mating season, and not always near water either.

They are both reptiles and amphibian. The live just as happily in the water as out of it. Yes, they DO wander quite a bit during mating season. They get everywhere.

Alligators are reptiles

Definition of alligator
1: either of two large carnivorous, thick-skinned, long-bodied, aquatic, crocodilian reptiles (Alligator mississippiensis of the southeastern U.S. and A. sinensis of China) that have a broad head with a slightly tapered, long, rounded, U-shaped snout and a special pocket in the upper jaw for reception of the enlarged lower fourth tooth
broadly : CROCODILIAN
2: leather made from alligator hide

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually stupid alligators are reptiles in all languages.

Hey, genius, nobody has yet claimed that alligators are not reptiles. Once again, you have shown that you and English comprehension just do not mix.

You have successfully answered a question that was not asked and not answered the question that was asked.

I'll let you try again: Would you classify alligators as amphibious or not?

This time, focus on the question and the specific words in it.

Never used the word amphibious... Most already got that it was a ridiculous semantics game. Two different words, similar, but different meanings. It silly semantic games, that discredit much of his claims. Usually, it's just baiting in to an argument/debate, which isn't worth playing anyway.

LOL he thinks that alligators are marine corps landing vehicles, but be nice because he is special

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually stupid alligators are reptiles in all languages.

Hey, genius, nobody has yet claimed that alligators are not reptiles. Once again, you have shown that you and English comprehension just do not mix.

You have successfully answered a question that was not asked and not answered the question that was asked.

I'll let you try again: Would you classify alligators as amphibious or not?

This time, focus on the question and the specific words in it.

Alligators are reptiles not amphibians, try using a dictionary instead of making shit up your entire life.

Amphibian

Definition of amphibian
1: an amphibious organism
especially : any of a class (Amphibia) of cold-blooded vertebrates (such as frogs, toads, or salamanders) intermediate in many characters between fish and reptiles and having gilled aquatic larvae and air-breathing adults
Unlike reptiles, most amphibians possess a smooth, moist skin and lay their shell-less eggs in water or wet places.
— Jeffrey P. Cohn
2: an amphibious vehicle
especially : an airplane designed to take off from and land on either land or water

sealover wrote:
Word games - "amphibious" versus amphibian.

sealover wrote:
Here is an example of the utter futility of engaging a troll in discussion.

Until this post below, the only word being discussed was amphibian.

WORD GAME TIME.

sealover wrote:
Apparently, the "only question being addressed here" is whether or not one believes alligators to be "amphibious".

The word "amphibian" has been used more than a dozen times by different participants in the discussion.

The word "amphibious" joins in for the first time with this underlying post.

Suddenly it becomes the "only question being addressed here".

Along with the personal insults about how stupid one has to be to believe what has been in primary school textbooks all over the world for 150 years.

sealover wrote:
I'm pretty sure nobody calls those military vehicles amphibians.

sealover wrote:
But, so what if they did? It is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

sealover wrote:
Alligators are NOT amphibians by ANY definition. Perhaps they are amphibious, but until now that was never the question being discussed.

sealover wrote:
So, one might conclude that it is a huge waste of time to engage in discussion with anyone who has racked up more than 10,000 posts of insults and BS.

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:
Word games - "amphibious" versus amphibian.

Please be patient with the resident schizzo

Swan wrote: Please be patient with the resident schizzo

sealover wrote:Word games - "amphibious" versus amphibian.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually stupid alligators are reptiles in all languages.

Hey, genius, nobody has yet claimed that alligators are not reptiles. Once again, you have shown that you and English comprehension just do not mix.

You have successfully answered a question that was not asked and not answered the question that was asked.

I'll let you try again: Would you classify alligators as amphibious or not?

This time, focus on the question and the specific words in it.

Alligators are reptiles not amphibians, try using a dictionary instead of making shit up your entire life.

Amphibian

Definition of amphibian
1: an amphibious organism
especially : any of a class (Amphibia) of cold-blooded vertebrates (such as frogs, toads, or salamanders) intermediate in many characters between fish and reptiles and having gilled aquatic larvae and air-breathing adults
Unlike reptiles, most amphibians possess a smooth, moist skin and lay their shell-less eggs in water or wet places.
— Jeffrey P. Cohn
2: an amphibious vehicle
especially : an airplane designed to take off from and land on either land or water

Dictionaries do not define any word. False authority fallacy. Try again.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: Please be patient with the resident schizzo

sealover wrote:Word games - "amphibious" versus amphibian.

Yes. Amphibious. That is the word in the question. No rational, honest adult would deny that some reptiles are amphibious. Ergo, looking at your denial, the natural conclusion is that you are not rational and honest.

You both had PLENTY of opportunity to acknowledge that alligators are amphibious ... but you both fight tooth and nail to portray alligators as NOT amphibious because they are reptiles.

What more should I expect from schizzos who believe that mangroves will save the ocean, or that the US government hires Putin to put our satellites into orbit, or that transporting sea water to the desert will terraform sand into fertile farms, or that people can teleport wherever using quantum entanglement?

... and now reptiles, such as alligators and snakes, somehow cannot be amphibious because they are reptiles.

You guys are geniuses. From now on, I take notes on everything you write.

I notice that neither of you have nary a peep for the images I present to you. You deny them because they are rather inconvenient. You want to claim that reptiles cannot be amphibious yet here you have images clearly showing amphibious reptiles ... so you descend into your word games and pretend the agreed-upon context for the discussion is the Wikipedia taxonomy.

Word games.

Would I be correct in assuming that you also deny that ducks are amphibious?

Would I be correct in presuming that you deny the amphibious nature of otters?

You guys didn't get very far in school, did you? You never learned what "amphibious" means and now you are too terrified to look it up.

[ Y O U * R E A L L Y * A R E * F A R * T O O * E M B A R R A S S E D ]
[ T O * A N S W E R * T H E * Q U E S T I O N * H O N E S T L Y ]
[ * S O * Y O U * P L A Y * Y O U R * S I L L Y * W O R D * G A M E S ]

.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: Please be patient with the resident schizzo

sealover wrote:Word games - "amphibious" versus amphibian.

Yes. Amphibious. That is the word in the question. No rational, honest adult would deny that some reptiles are amphibious. Ergo, looking at your denial, the natural conclusion is that you are not rational and honest.

You both had PLENTY of opportunity to acknowledge that alligators are amphibious ... but you both fight tooth and nail to portray alligators as NOT amphibious because they are reptiles.

What more should I expect from schizzos who believe that mangroves will save the ocean, or that the US government hires Putin to put our satellites into orbit, or that transporting sea water to the desert will terraform sand into fertile farms, or that people can teleport wherever using quantum entanglement?

... and now reptiles, such as alligators and snakes, somehow cannot be amphibious because they are reptiles.

You guys are geniuses. From now on, I take notes on everything you write.

I notice that neither of you have nary a peep for the images I present to you. You deny them because they are rather inconvenient. You want to claim that reptiles cannot be amphibious yet here you have images clearly showing amphibious reptiles ... so you descend into your word games and pretend the agreed-upon context for the discussion is the Wikipedia taxonomy.

Word games.

Would I be correct in assuming that you also deny that ducks are amphibious?

Would I be correct in presuming that you deny the amphibious nature of otters?

You guys didn't get very far in school, did you? You never learned what "amphibious" means and now you are too terrified to look it up.

[ Y O U * R E A L L Y * A R E * F A R * T O O * E M B A R R A S S E D ]
[ T O * A N S W E R * T H E * Q U E S T I O N * H O N E S T L Y ]
[ * S O * Y O U * P L A Y * Y O U R * S I L L Y * W O R D * G A M E S ]

.

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: Please be patient with the resident schizzo

sealover wrote:Word games - "amphibious" versus amphibian.

Yes. Amphibious. That is the word in the question. No rational, honest adult would deny that some reptiles are amphibious. Ergo, looking at your denial, the natural conclusion is that you are not rational and honest.

You both had PLENTY of opportunity to acknowledge that alligators are amphibious ... but you both fight tooth and nail to portray alligators as NOT amphibious because they are reptiles.

What more should I expect from schizzos who believe that mangroves will save the ocean, or that the US government hires Putin to put our satellites into orbit, or that transporting sea water to the desert will terraform sand into fertile farms, or that people can teleport wherever using quantum entanglement?

... and now reptiles, such as alligators and snakes, somehow cannot be amphibious because they are reptiles.

You guys are geniuses. From now on, I take notes on everything you write.

I notice that neither of you have nary a peep for the images I present to you. You deny them because they are rather inconvenient. You want to claim that reptiles cannot be amphibious yet here you have images clearly showing amphibious reptiles ... so you descend into your word games and pretend the agreed-upon context for the discussion is the Wikipedia taxonomy.

Word games.

Would I be correct in assuming that you also deny that ducks are amphibious?

Would I be correct in presuming that you deny the amphibious nature of otters?

You guys didn't get very far in school, did you? You never learned what "amphibious" means and now you are too terrified to look it up.

[ Y O U * R E A L L Y * A R E * F A R * T O O * E M B A R R A S S E D ]
[ T O * A N S W E R * T H E * Q U E S T I O N * H O N E S T L Y ]
[ * S O * Y O U * P L A Y * Y O U R * S I L L Y * W O R D * G A M E S ]

.

The false claim was made, that alligators were amphibians. No mention of amphibious. A stupid semantics game. Technically, you could throw most any living thing in water, and most would survive... This one though, goes beyond the usual silly though. This is why I tend to discount anything that goes against what I had learned else where, always leaving a 'doubtful-tag', rather than wasting time looking up such claims. Most likely some silly semantics game. If the words written are a joke, so is every post, every word... Can never be trusted again.

Swan wrote:Again simpleton [when I play my word games and pretend to force the discussion away from the English language at which I suck and towards the focused yet irrelevant Wikipedia taxonomy], amphibians have gills as juveniles.

AMPHIBIOUS at Dictionary.com

amphibious [am-fib-ee-uhs]

adjective
* living or able to live both on land and in water; belonging to both land and water.

* Also amphibian. capable of operating on both land and water:
amphibious vehicles.

* of or relating to military operations by both land and naval forces against the same object, especially to a military attack by troops landed by naval ships.

* trained or organized to fight, or fighting, on both land and sea:
amphibious troops.

* combining two qualities, kinds, traits, etc.; of or having a mixed or twofold nature.

AMPHIBIOUS at Dictionary.com

amphibious [am-fib-ee-uhs]

adjective
* living or able to live both on land and in water; belonging to both land and water.

* Also amphibian. capable of operating on both land and water:
amphibious vehicles.

* of or relating to military operations by both land and naval forces against the same object, especially to a military attack by troops landed by naval ships.

* trained or organized to fight, or fighting, on both land and sea:
amphibious troops.

* combining two qualities, kinds, traits, etc.; of or having a mixed or twofold nature.

Swan wrote:Are alligators amphibians?
Alligators are not amphibians. Instead, they are reptiles. Examples of animals that are amphibians include frogs, toads, salamanders, and newts. Amphibians have a complex life cycle, and they spend time on both land and in water. The skin of an amphibian needs to stay moist at all times because this is how they absorb oxygen.

On the other hand, the skin on reptiles is scaly and dry, and reptiles breathe through their lungs instead of through their skin. Other reptiles are crocodiles, lizards, snakes, and turtles.

Swan wrote:... nothing that you can babble here will make [me acknowledge that] an alligator [is amphibious] because alligators are reptiles.

Swan wrote:
I like retards which is why I like you

Actually Mr. Dahmer nothing that you can babble here will make an alligator into an amphibian because alligators are reptiles.

Are alligators amphibians?
Alligators are not amphibians. Instead, they are reptiles. Examples of animals that are amphibians include frogs, toads, salamanders, and newts. Amphibians have a complex life cycle, and they spend time on both land and in water. The skin of an amphibian needs to stay moist at all times because this is how they absorb oxygen.

On the other hand, the skin on reptiles is scaly and dry, and reptiles breathe through their lungs instead of through their skin. Other reptiles are crocodiles, lizards, snakes, and turtles.

However you are free to babble until the day you die and it seems that you will be doing just that

https://untamedanimals.com/are-alligators-amphibians/

squeal over wrote:Reality-based assertions about science are genuinely appreciated.

squeal over wrote:Swan may not want my respect, but that respect has been earned anyway.

squeal over wrote:Please continue to contribute reality-based assertions about science.

squeal over wrote:"Pivot" away from "amphibious" as the REAL question?

squeal over wrote: accepted classification system that has stood the test of time for "reproducibility" as per the Scientific Method.

squeal over wrote:The categories of "reptile" and "amphibian" are mutually exclusive.

squeal over wrote:"Watch for trolls who hide behind word games..." - IdaBM (probably spelled it wrong)

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually stupid alligators are reptiles in all languages.

Hey, genius, nobody has yet claimed that alligators are not reptiles. Once again, you have shown that you and English comprehension just do not mix.

You have successfully answered a question that was not asked and not answered the question that was asked.

I'll let you try again: Would you classify alligators as amphibious or not?

This time, focus on the question and the specific words in it.

Alligators are reptiles not amphibians, try using a dictionary instead of making shit up your entire life.

Amphibian

Definition of amphibian
1: an amphibious organism
especially : any of a class (Amphibia) of cold-blooded vertebrates (such as frogs, toads, or salamanders) intermediate in many characters between fish and reptiles and having gilled aquatic larvae and air-breathing adults
Unlike reptiles, most amphibians possess a smooth, moist skin and lay their shell-less eggs in water or wet places.
— Jeffrey P. Cohn
2: an amphibious vehicle
especially : an airplane designed to take off from and land on either land or water

Dictionaries do not define any word. False authority fallacy. Try again.

LOL so only schizzo's like you are allowed to define words. So again take your Chlorpromazine now please

Swan wrote:
Again simpleton amphibians have gills as juveniles

Swan wrote:
and alligators hatch with fully formed air breathing lungs from an egg and as such alligators are reptiles not amphibians

Swan wrote:
LOL otters are placental mammals not amphibians,

Swan wrote:
every third grader knows this, so please complete third grade before responding and mocking your mother more than you already have. Or did you already kill your mother and father?

HarveyH55 wrote:
The false claim was made, that alligators were amphibians.

HarveyH55 wrote:
No mention of amphibious. A stupid semantics game.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Technically, you could throw most any living thing in water, and most would survive...

HarveyH55 wrote:
This one though, goes beyond the usual silly though. This is why I tend to discount anything that goes against what I had learned else where, always leaving a 'doubtful-tag', rather than wasting time looking up such claims. Most likely some silly semantics game. If the words written are a joke, so is every post, every word... Can never be trusted again.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
The false claim was made, that alligators were amphibians. No mention of amphibious. A stupid semantics game. Technically, you could throw most any living thing in water, and most would survive... This one though, goes beyond the usual silly though. This is why I tend to discount anything that goes against what I had learned else where, always leaving a 'doubtful-tag', rather than wasting time looking up such claims. Most likely some silly semantics game. If the words written are a joke, so is every post, every word... Can never be trusted again.

He is not playing games as he clearly believes that everything including marine transports that is amphibious is an amphibian. Perhaps he had gills himself as a child

Swan wrote:Again [let me totally EVADE the question posed and the word "amphibious" altogether out of extreme intellectual cowardice by shifting to a different set of goalposts in a totally different stadium by saying ...] all alligators are classified as reptiles and not amphibians in part because amphibians breath thru their skin and gators use lungs. Nothing will change this, not that the local schizzo that does everything that they are told like you are required to.

Britannica Dictionary definition of AMPHIBIAN
amphibian /æmˈfɪbijən/ noun
plural amphibians
1 : an animal (such as a frog or toad) that can live both on land and in water
2 : an airplane or vehicle that can be used both on land and water

The Free Dictionary.
amphibian
noun An animal capable of living both on land and in water.
noun An aircraft that can take off and land on either land or water.
noun A tracked or wheeled vehicle that can operate both on land and in water.

Dictionary.com
amphibian [ am-fib-ee-uhn ]SHOW IPA
Definition of amphibian
noun
an amphibious plant.
an airplane designed for taking off from and landing on both land and water.
Also called amtrac. a flat-bottomed, armed, military vehicle, equipped with both tracks and a rudder, that can travel either on land or in water, used chiefly for landing assault troops.

AMPHIBIOUS at Dictionary.com

amphibious [am-fib-ee-uhs]

adjective
* living or able to live both on land and in water; belonging to both land and water.

* Also amphibian. capable of operating on both land and water:
amphibious vehicles.

* of or relating to military operations by both land and naval forces against the same object, especially to a military attack by troops landed by naval ships.

* trained or organized to fight, or fighting, on both land and sea:
amphibious troops.

* combining two qualities, kinds, traits, etc.; of or having a mixed or twofold nature.

Swan wrote:
I like retards which is why I like you

Actually Mr. Dahmer nothing that you can babble here will make an alligator into an amphibian because alligators are reptiles.

Swan wrote:
Are alligators amphibians?

Swan wrote:
Alligators are not amphibians. Instead, they are reptiles.

Swan wrote:
Examples of animals that are amphibians include frogs, toads, salamanders, and newts.

Swan wrote:
Amphibians have a complex life cycle, and they spend time on both land and in water. The skin of an amphibian needs to stay moist at all times because this is how they absorb oxygen.

Swan wrote:
On the other hand, the skin on reptiles is scaly and dry, and reptiles breathe through their lungs instead of through their skin. Other reptiles are crocodiles, lizards, snakes, and turtles.

Swan wrote:
However you are free to babble until the day you die and it seems that you will be doing just that

sealover wrote:
Reality-based assertions about science are genuinely appreciated.

sealover wrote:
Swan may not want my respect, but that respect has been earned anyway.
Please continue to contribute reality-based assertions about science.

sealover wrote:
This behavior does NOT obnoxiously derail any valid discussions.

sealover wrote:
"Pivot" away from "amphibious" as the REAL question?

sealover wrote:
"Watch for trolls who hide behind word games..." - IdaBM (probably spelled it wrong)

sealover wrote:
Linneaeus (must have spelled it wrong) was looking for similarities between organisms in order to create a universally accepted classification system that has stood the test of time for "reproducibility" as per the Scientific Method.

sealover wrote:
The categories of "reptile" and "amphibian" are mutually exclusive. Unambiguously defined, no less.

sealover wrote:
Genuine thanks for keeping it real.

sealover wrote:
And genuine respect earned for it.

Swan wrote:
Again all alligators are classified as reptiles and not amphibians

Swan wrote:
in part because amphibians breath thru their skin and gators use lungs.

Swan wrote:
Nothing will change this, not that the local schizzo that does everything that they are told like you are required to.

Swan wrote:I like retards which is why I like you

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually stupid alligators are reptiles in all languages.

Hey, genius, nobody has yet claimed that alligators are not reptiles. Once again, you have shown that you and English comprehension just do not mix.

You have successfully answered a question that was not asked and not answered the question that was asked.

I'll let you try again: Would you classify alligators as amphibious or not?

This time, focus on the question and the specific words in it.

Alligators are reptiles not amphibians, try using a dictionary instead of making shit up your entire life.

Amphibian

Definition of amphibian
1: an amphibious organism
especially : any of a class (Amphibia) of cold-blooded vertebrates (such as frogs, toads, or salamanders) intermediate in many characters between fish and reptiles and having gilled aquatic larvae and air-breathing adults
Unlike reptiles, most amphibians possess a smooth, moist skin and lay their shell-less eggs in water or wet places.
— Jeffrey P. Cohn
2: an amphibious vehicle
especially : an airplane designed to take off from and land on either land or water

Dictionaries do not define any word. False authority fallacy. Try again.

LOL so only schizzo's like you are allowed to define words. So again take your Chlorpromazine now please

Psychoquackery. I did not define 'amphibian'. Hallucination. The word has a specific meaning, is French in origin, and appeared in the English lexicon around 1610. I have already given you the eytomology of the word. RQAA.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
LOL so only schizzo's like you are allowed to define words. So again take your Chlorpromazine now please

Psychoquackery. I did not define 'amphibian'. Hallucination. The word has a specific meaning, is French in origin, and appeared in the English lexicon around 1610. I have already given you the eytomology of the word. RQAA.

ALLIGATOR

Kingdom Animalia – Animal, animaux, animals
Subkingdom Bilateria
Infrakingdom Deuterostomia
Phylum Chordata – cordés, cordado, chordates
Subphylum Vertebrata – vertebrado, vertébrés, vertebrates
Infraphylum Gnathostomata
Superclass Tetrapoda
Class Reptilia Laurenti, 1768 – répteis, reptiles, Reptiles
Order Crocodilia – crocodilo, jacaré, Crocodilians, crocodiles, alligators, caimans, gavials
Family Alligatoridae – Caimans, Alligators
Genus Alligator Cuvier, 1807 – Alligators
Direct Children:
Species Alligator mississippiensis (Daudin, 1802) – American Alligator, Aligator americano, Alligator, Gator, Florida Alligator, Mississippi Alligator, Louisiana Alligator
Species Alligator sinensis Fauvel, 1879 – Chinese Alligator, Yangtze Alligator, Yow Lung, T'o

Yawning at the sociopath troll who denies reality in favor of the little friends he keeps in his mind

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
LOL so only schizzo's like you are allowed to define words. So again take your Chlorpromazine now please

Psychoquackery. I did not define 'amphibian'. Hallucination. The word has a specific meaning, is French in origin, and appeared in the English lexicon around 1610. I have already given you the eytomology of the word. RQAA.

ALLIGATOR

Kingdom Animalia – Animal, animaux, animals
Subkingdom Bilateria
Infrakingdom Deuterostomia
Phylum Chordata – cordés, cordado, chordates
Subphylum Vertebrata – vertebrado, vertébrés, vertebrates
Infraphylum Gnathostomata
Superclass Tetrapoda
Class Reptilia Laurenti, 1768 – répteis, reptiles, Reptiles
Order Crocodilia – crocodilo, jacaré, Crocodilians, crocodiles, alligators, caimans, gavials
Family Alligatoridae – Caimans, Alligators
Genus Alligator Cuvier, 1807 – Alligators
Direct Children:
Species Alligator mississippiensis (Daudin, 1802) – American Alligator, Aligator americano, Alligator, Gator, Florida Alligator, Mississippi Alligator, Louisiana Alligator
Species Alligator sinensis Fauvel, 1879 – Chinese Alligator, Yangtze Alligator, Yow Lung, T'o

Yawning at the sociopath troll who denies reality in favor of the little friends he keeps in his mind

What has trying to say an alligator is not an amphibian have to do with your little friends you keep in your mind?

An alligator lives in the water. It also lives on the land. It is an amphibian. The problem that YOU don't know the meaning of this word is YOUR problem. I have already described it's etymology twice to you now.

Like usual for you, you also don't seem to know the meaning of 'sociopath', 'troll', 'reality', or 'climate change'.

Speaking Liberal here won't help you. Words in English have meaning. Words in Liberal do not. You apparently know very little English (or French) for that matter.

Swan wrote:All alligators are classified as reptiles, just the way it is kid.