AiG: "Evolution not a theory" and "Four power questions"

[abelcainsbrother]

If that is your hang up about creationism because you can't understand what different kinds of life means well you should have many,many more hangups when it comes to evidence life evolves.You need to deal with the lack of evidence life evolves first IMO.

I'm not letting you get away with it. You haven't defined what a "kind" is.
You present this "kind" as cop out in order for you to define evolution as any absurdity you wish.
When you use a term such as "kinds" (that it is not generally used, it's not precise or scientifically defined, it does not have an exact meaning), in order to describe something. It immediately begs the question of what exactly "kinds" is. It is a fair question. It is a question that should be answered if you want to proceed into having a meaningful conversation. And if you know what you are talking about when you say kinds, there shouldn't be any reason why it poses to much resistance for you to give a direct answer. If you think that it is obvious, then entertain us, just state the obvious for us.

There are so many times that you can refuse to answer this question, at witch point I will be happy do define it for you.

So again what do you mean by "kinds"?

As a side note:
Or you can just state that you can't. We both, know that this is not a matter that you won't answer the question, but rather that you can't do it without sounding unintelligible.
There is a reason why you can't, hence the reason why i'm asking. I just want you to realize this, so that we can move on to other matters to help explain why your preconception about evolution isn't correct.

The only way you could deny my definition of what a "kind" is would be for you to show a kind of life that produces another kind of life and you can't.Like I said don't look at life believing life evolves because it will confuse you about reality.Also I define evolution as non-demonstrated science promoted and believed to be true and I know you have no scientific evidence that demonstrates life evolves.You will only be able to give evidence that uses reproduction or adaptation as evidence life evolves so even if you deny my definition of what a "kind" is my definition is proven true that everybody sees and observes around them.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Abel, you understand the concept of a circular definition, right? Try and define "kind" without using the word "kind".

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Abel, you understand the concept of a circular definition, right? Try and define "kind" without using the word "kind".

Abel, you understand the concept of a circular definition, right? Try and define "kind" without using the word "kind".

I don't deny circular reasoning based on reality.I mean you have circular reasoning looking at life like it evolves.We all have circular reasoning,the difference is I admit it.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Abel, you understand the concept of a circular definition, right? Try and define "kind" without using the word "kind".

I don't deny circular reasoning based on reality.I mean you have circular reasoning looking at life like it evolves.We all have circular reasoning,the difference is I admit it.

In other words, you don't understand the concept of a circular definition. If you can only explain "kind" in reference to "kind", in what sense do you actually know what it means?

And please try to answer without making assumptions about what / how I think. It's generally neither correct nor relevant.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

The only way you could deny my definition of what a "kind" is would be for you to show a kind of life that produces another kind of life and you can't.Like I said don't look at life believing life evolves because it will confuse you about reality.Also I define evolution as non-demonstrated science promoted and believed to be true and I know you have no scientific evidence that demonstrates life evolves.You will only be able to give evidence that uses reproduction or adaptation as evidence life evolves so even if you deny my definition of what a "kind" is my definition is proven true that everybody sees and observes around them.

You have not defined "kind".

What do you mean by "kind"?

(Or admit that you don't know.)

 

[abelcainsbrother]

="SpecialFrog"]

Abel, you understand the concept of a circular definition, right? Try and define "kind" without using the word "kind".

I don't deny circular reasoning based on reality.I mean you have circular reasoning looking at life like it evolves.We all have circular reasoning,the difference is I admit it.

In other words, you don't understand the concept of a circular definition. If you can only explain "kind" in reference to "kind", in what sense do you actually know what it means?

And please try to answer without making assumptions about what / how I think. It's generally neither correct nor relevant.

Well first off,you give the impression you believe life evolves but if you don't then I apologize but I have already given my definition of a "kind" and I don't see why you deny it or have problems with it."kinds" are the different kinds of life that produce the same kind of life but also they were made by God "after his kind"or "after their kind" except for whales I think and man.Certain life in this world was created by God for this world and there is a difference between the Hebrew words for create and made.When God creates nothing was there until he creates it,but when he made things the materials were already there to make it.I hope this helps.

 

[SpecialFrog]

I have already given my definition of a "kind" and I don't see why you deny it or have problems with it."kinds" are the different kinds of life that produce the same kind of life but also they were made by God "after his kind"or "after their kind".

If you had never seen a frog before and I explained them to you by saying, "a frog is a type of frog that produces frogs", would you be able to identify one in the wild? If not, you understand the problem with your definition.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Well first off,you give the impression you believe life evolves but if you don't then I apologize but I have already given my definition of a "kind" and I don't see why you deny it or have problems with it."kinds" are the different kinds of life that produce the same kind of life but also they were made by God "after his kind"or "after their kind" except for whales I think and man.Certain life in this world was created by God for this world and there is a difference between the Hebrew words for create and made.When God creates nothing was there until he creates it,but when he made things the materials were already there to make it.I hope this helps.

This is not a definition.
A definition has a set of traits or properties that allows you to distinguish between that which is being defined from that which is not.

Example, by what you stated. Is a dog the same "kind" as a wolf? Is a dingo the same "kind" as a wolf? Is a lemon the same "kind" as an orange? Is a Zebra the same "kind" as a horse? Is the pig the same "kind" as a cow?

How do you tell the difference?

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I have already given my definition of a "kind" and I don't see why you deny it or have problems with it."kinds" are the different kinds of life that produce the same kind of life but also they were made by God "after his kind"or "after their kind".

If you had never seen a frog before and I explained them to you by saying, "a frog is a type of frog that produces frogs", would you be able to identify one in the wild? If not, you understand the problem with your definition.

Well first off remember Adam's first job given to him by God was taxonomy .But if I had never seen a frog before then I may not know what to call it but I'd still think this kind of creature produces after its kind.It would require male frogs and female frogs.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Well first off,you give the impression you believe life evolves but if you don't then I apologize but I have already given my definition of a "kind" and I don't see why you deny it or have problems with it."kinds" are the different kinds of life that produce the same kind of life but also they were made by God "after his kind"or "after their kind" except for whales I think and man.Certain life in this world was created by God for this world and there is a difference between the Hebrew words for create and made.When God creates nothing was there until he creates it,but when he made things the materials were already there to make it.I hope this helps.

This is not a definition.
A definition has a set of traits or properties that allows you to distinguish between that which is being defined from that which is not.

Example, by what you stated. Is a dog the same "kind" as a wolf? Is a dingo the same "kind" as a wolf? Is a lemon the same "kind" as an orange? Is a Zebra the same "kind" as a horse? Is the pig the same "kind" as a cow?

How do you tell the difference?

Wow! Nobody denies variations in reproduction but would we have dogs or dingo's had man not tinkered around and produced dogs?Don't turn it around on me and thing I deny what animal breeders were well aware of and still are,you can breed for specific traits.Would we have dogs if man had not intervened is the question.I don't think so.Corn also if man stopped producing corn it would no longer grow,man created it.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Wow! Nobody denies variations in reproduction but would we have dogs or dingo's had man not tinkered around and produced dogs?Don't turn it around on me and thing I deny what animal breeders were well aware of and still are,you can breed for specific traits.Would we have dogs if man had not intervened is the question.I don't think so.Corn also if man stopped producing corn it would no longer grow,man created it.

How do you tell the difference that dogs and wolfs are the same "kind" but dogs and cows are not the same "kind"?
And by your logic, the bible doesn't state that God created specifically dogs or cows or cangoroos, for all you know they could be the same kind.
Again what is your definition of "Kind"?

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Let me ask you this question if I did believe life evolved I'd become a theistic evolutionist,how come atheists seem to deny God?I mean you can still believe in God and accept evolution,so why don't you? I reject evolution because of a lack of evidence life evolves and to me it is like believing life evolves by faith,then blending the bible around it.It makes me uncomfortable as a Christian to do this,but a lot of them do plus I believe the gap theory and so don't need to accept evolution.Satan has faught hard to keep the truth about the gap theory suppressed.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Let me ask you this question if I did believe life evolved I'd become a theistic evolutionist,how come atheists seem to deny God?

I also think you we should brush our teeth everyday for good oral hygiene... What does that have to do with anything.
Atheism and evolution got nothing to do with each other. I think that evolution is sound and well established, and I am also an atheist.
There is nothing that says that an atheist couldn't think that evolution is hullabaloo.
I believe that god doesn't exist for reasons that got nothing to do with evolution.

I mean you can still believe in God and accept evolution,so why don't you?

That is a different topic that has got nothing to do with evolution.

I reject evolution because of a lack of evidence life evolves and to me it is like believing life evolves by faith,then blending the bible around it.It makes me uncomfortable as a Christian to do this,but a lot of them do plus I believe the gap theory and so don't need to accept evolution.Satan has faught hard to keep the truth about the gap theory suppressed.

Not so fast.
So do you acknowledge that you can not properly define what a "kind" is?

 

[SpecialFrog]

Abel, do you worry that your inability to explain your claims in a coherent manner is actually helping Satan in his effort to stop people from believing in "gap theory"?

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Abel, do you worry that your inability to explain your claims in a coherent manner is actually helping Satan in his effort to stop people from believing in "gap theory"?

I hope not but it is rea!ly simple to me what "kinds"represents even if I don't present in a scientific way.I try to explain things in a easy to understand way and not go over their head.Why must I present it in a scientific manner? It is reality around us if we don't look at it from an evolution perspective.Why must I put a wolf at the top then make a tree showing all of the different dogs breeds produced by man and not nature? Everybody already knows dogs were bread from wolves.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Abel, if you think you are achieving "easy to understand" you aren't reading what anyone is saying. You don't have to be "scientific" to be coherent.

 

[Collecemall]

Abel, do you worry that your inability to explain your claims in a coherent manner is actually helping Satan in his effort to stop people from believing in "gap theory"?

I hope not but it is rea!ly simple to me what "kinds"represents even if I don't present in a scientific way.I try to explain things in a easy to understand way and not go over their head.Why must I present it in a scientific manner? It is reality around us if we don't look at it from an evolution perspective.Why must I put a wolf at the top then make a tree showing all of the different dogs breeds produced by man and not nature? Everybody already knows dogs were bread from wolves.

Sort of off topic but I looked to try and find if this has been asked of you before but couldn't find an answer.

Abel, Is English your native language?

 

[ldmitruk]

Abel, you understand the concept of a circular definition, right? Try and define "kind" without using the word "kind".

Abel, you understand the concept of a circular definition, right? Try and define "kind" without using the word "kind".

I don't deny circular reasoning based on reality.I mean you have circular reasoning looking at life like it evolves.We all have circular reasoning,the difference is I admit it.

Abel,

To help you out here's what is meant by [showmore=circular definition]A circular definition is one that uses the term(s) being defined as a part of the definition or assumes a prior understanding of the term being defined. Either the audience must already know the meaning of the key term(s), or the definition is deficient in including the term(s) to be defined in the definition itself. Such definitions lead to a need for additional information that motivated someone to look at the definition in the first place and, thus, violate the principle of providing new or useful information. If someone wants to know what a cellular phone is, telling them that it is a "phone that is cellular" will not be especially illuminating. Much more helpful would be to explain the concept of a cell in the context of telecommunications, or at least to make some reference to portability. Similarly, defining dialectical materialism as "materialism that involves dialectic" is unhelpful. For another example, we can define "oak" as a tree which has catkins and grows from an acorn, and then define "acorn" as the nut produced by an oak tree. To someone who does not know which trees are oaks, nor which nuts are acorns, the definition is inadequate. Consequently, many systems of definitions are constructed according to the vicious circle principle in such a way that authors do not produce viciously circular definitions.[/showmore]

And here's what is meant by [showmore=circular reasoning]Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[2] Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[3]Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[2] Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[3]]Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[2] Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[3][/showmore]

I hope this helps clear up the confusion.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I'm not letting you get away with it. You haven't defined what a "kind" is.
You present this "kind" as cop out in order for you to define evolution as any absurdity you wish.
When you use a term such as "kinds" (that it is not generally used, it's not precise or scientifically defined, it does not have an exact meaning), in order to describe something. It immediately begs the question of what exactly "kinds" is. It is a fair question. It is a question that should be answered if you want to proceed into having a meaningful conversation. And if you know what you are talking about when you say kinds, there shouldn't be any reason why it poses to much resistance for you to give a direct answer. If you think that it is obvious, then entertain us, just state the obvious for us.

There are so many times that you can refuse to answer this question, at witch point I will be happy do define it for you.

So again what do you mean by "kinds"?

As a side note:
Or you can just state that you can't. We both, know that this is not a matter that you won't answer the question, but rather that you can't do it without sounding unintelligible.
There is a reason why you can't, hence the reason why i'm asking. I just want you to realize this, so that we can move on to other matters to help explain why your preconception about evolution isn't correct.

The only way you could deny my definition of what a "kind" is would be for you to show a kind of life that produces another kind of life and you can't. Like I said don't look at life believing life evolves because it will confuse you about reality.Also I define evolution as non-demonstrated science promoted and believed to be true and I know you have no scientific evidence that demonstrates life evolves.You will only be able to give evidence that uses reproduction or adaptation as evidence life evolves so even if you deny my definition of what a "kind" is my definition is proven true that everybody sees and observes around them.

This is not the case.

I've already dealt with this by showing that "kinds" is undefined and undefinable when I cited Senter's paper, which shows that - even using creationists' own definition of the term - "kinds" do produce other "kinds".

This shows that your definition is untenable.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Visaki]

Well first off remember Adam's first job given to him by God was taxonomy .But if I had never seen a frog before then I may not know what to call it but I'd still think this kind of creature produces after its kind.It would require male frogs and female frogs.

No, it wasn't. It was naming things. Merely naming things is not taxonomy

Also; are you saying that there is a "frog" kind since all frogs only ever produce other frogs?