Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: fortheDeclaration
Check out the definition in the OED, which I posted.

Neither definition from the OED that you provided demonstrates that whales are fish. One definition stated that whales are "fish-like", however that is a rather clear distinction indicating that they are not fish even though they may share characteristics in common. The definition of "fish" did not include whales at all. Neither dictionary definition that you have provided demonstrates that whales are either fish or non-mammals. Moreover, the final say in biological classification does fall to biologists, not to the Oxford English Dictionary.

Evolutionists think that by changing the terms they can change the reality.

I suspect that your claim that whales are fish and that they are not mammals will not be shared even by a good number of creationists.
331 posted on 03/25/2006 1:30:21 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies ]


To: Dimensio; fortheDeclaration

My apologies, I had forgotten the specifics of your inital claim regarding whales. You did not deny that they are mammals, but instead denied that they are animals. This, however, is also false, as all mammals are animals.


333 posted on 03/25/2006 1:32:58 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies ]

To: Dimensio
Check out the definition in the OED, which I posted. Neither definition from the OED that you provided demonstrates that whales are fish. One definition stated that whales are "fish-like", however that is a rather clear distinction indicating that they are not fish even though they may share characteristics in common. The definition of "fish" did not include whales at all. Neither dictionary definition that you have provided demonstrates that whales are either fish or non-mammals. Moreover, the final say in biological classification does fall to biologists, not to the Oxford English Dictionary.

Biologists are always changing their definitions.

Stop trying to play word games.

A whale can be considered a fish in the broad sense since it is in the water, hence 'fish-like'.

A 'fish' is defined by Websters 1828, 'an animal that lives in the water'

Evolutionists think that by changing the terms they can change the reality.

I suspect that your claim that whales are fish and that they are not mammals will not be shared even by a good number of creationists.

Well, if they don't then they are rejecting the definition that the Lord Jesus Christ gave it in Matthew 12:40 when He described the 'fish' which swallowed Jonah as a whale

337 posted on 03/25/2006 1:56:49 AM PST by fortheDeclaration (Gal. 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson