Replies

Biologists are always changing their definitions. When did biologists change the definitions of "fish" and "whale"?

Well, Webster has Fish defined as any animal in the sea, so whale qualifies.

Stop trying to play word games. I am not. I am pointing out that your definitions do not match the definitions used by biologists, nor have they ever matched since biologists began classifying organisms.

They do not match the definitions of modern biologists.

Besides, in word usage there is always a broader and narrower use of a word.

To use fish with whale in its broader sense is totally proper and accurate.

A whale can be considered a fish in the broad sense since it is in the water, hence 'fish-like'. Not when speaking of taxonomic classification, which is based upon very specific features of an organism.

Well, we are speaking about the legimate use of a term and if one calls a whale a fish, using the broad sense (as an animal in the water) it would be accurate based on the Webster defintion of the term.

A 'fish' is defined by Websters 1828, 'an animal that lives in the water' As I have pointed out, when speaking of biological terms, it is helpful to refer to the definitions used by biologists. In this case, your definition would appear to be significantly out of date.

No, we are not speaking of the word in its narrow term, but in its broad term, and fish in the broad sense can refer to any creature in the sea.

Evolutionists think that by changing the terms they can change the reality. No one is attempting to change reality. Whales are warm blooded, give live birth and the females of the species have mammaries. Those features are sufficient to classify whales as mammals rather than fish. Fish are not mammals.

If you want to narrow the definition, but if one wants to keep it in its broad sense, fish is still a legimate term to use for whale.

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 This appears to be an argument based in poor semantics rather than actual fact, given that the original language of the book of Matthew was not English.

Well every English translation before 1611 has whale for the Greek word.

So does the modern KJ21, Even the Spanish Bible (1865) has it.

In fact, according to biology the cete is a whale and the Greek word in Matthew is cetous.

As for the Webster definition being out of date, here is more recent one. .2.Any of various other aquatic animals.(The American College Dictionary, 1963)

" Besides, in word usage there is always a broader and narrower use of a word."

In this case, there is only one CORRECT usage.

" No, we are not speaking of the word in its narrow term, but in its broad term, and fish in the broad sense can refer to any creature in the sea."

In the correct sense, it is wrong, dead wrong.

" If you want to narrow the definition, but if one wants to keep it in its broad sense, fish is still a legimate term to use for whale."

But... it's very very wrong.

" They do not match the definitions of modern biologists."

Yes, modern as in the last 300 years or so.

" Well, Webster has Fish defined as any animal in the sea, so whale qualifies."

Not in my Webster's dictionary. Please provide the entire entry from Websters that says that a fish is any animal in the sea, and that there is no other meaning.

Well, Webster has Fish defined as any animal in the sea, so whale qualifies.

I am not familiar with the edition of Webster's dictionary that defines "fish" as "any animal living in the sea", however I have found a dictionary definition of "fish" thgat states "Any of numerous cold-blooded aquatic vertebrates of the superclass Pisces, characteristically having fins, gills, and a streamlined body and including specifically:

1. Any of the class Osteichthyes, having a bony skeleton.
2. Any of the class Chondrichthyes, having a cartilaginous skeleton and including the sharks, rays, and skates.

It would appear as though this definition is more specialized than yours. Why should I accept yours over the one that I have located?

Besides, in word usage there is always a broader and narrower use of a word.

When speaking in a specific field, there is typically only one correct usage, even if "layman" usage can have multiple meanings.

To use fish with whale in its broader sense is totally proper and accurate.

When speaking of biology, it is neither accurate nor proper.
Well, we are speaking about the legimate use of a term and if one calls a whale a fish, using the broad sense (as an animal in the water) it would be accurate based on the Webster defintion of the term.

However, if one is speaking of biology or taxonomic classifications, it is not proper.

If you want to narrow the definition, but if one wants to keep it in its broad sense, fish is still a legimate term to use for whale.

However, the focus of this discussion is biology. You cannot redefine accepted biological terms by demonstrating that certain words may have an alternate usage outside of discussions of biological science.

Well every English translation before 1611 has whale for the Greek word.

Taxonomic classifications that distinguished whales from fish did not exist prior to at least the mid 1750s. It is not logical to attempt to dispute established taxonomy by appealing to definitions of words from prior to the existence of taxonomy.

As for the Webster definition being out of date, here is more recent one. .2.Any of various other aquatic animals.(The American College Dictionary, 1963)

Selective usage of one specific dictionary definition when several exist does not change biological taxonomic classifications.

There is also the issue of your claim that whales are not animals. This is contradicted even by your American College Dictionary offering.

Well, Webster has Fish defined as any animal in the sea, so whale qualifies.

What Webster??? From Borneo?

1. any various cold-blooded, completely aquatic vertebrates, having gills, commonly fins, and typically an elongated body covered with scales.

Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary - Deluxe.

Whales are warm blooded, don't have gills and have hair not gills. Turtles don't have gills, breathe air and don't have scales.

The point here, is that this is just the kind of redefinition of words (WRONGLY!!!) that Creationistists, (read ID advocates) always indulge in. Change the meaning of words to mean whatever they want.

Evolution isn't FAITH, Creationism is. Intelligent Design isn't SCIENCE, evolution is. You can redefine for the masses all you want and it doesn't change the facts. Just because polls show that a majority of the masses don't understand reality, only points up how shoddy the American education system is, not how knowledgable the people are.

This discussion being a case in point.