abelcainsbrother
New Member
Dragan Glas said:Greetings,
="abelcainsbrother"]Master_Ghost_Knight said: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.
[/quote]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
Yes I know and remember the problem is I'm not a young earth creationist and think that because they've had no effect against evolution over time it has caused them to accept more evolution than I'm willing to accept and I don't go by AIG type evidence because it is flawed and I don't have to go by their evidence to back up what I believe the bible says.
I stick to my guns that kinds only produce their kind unless man intervenes and tampers with life to produce new things such as dogs and corn,neither one of these would have been produced by nature alone because kinds produce after their kind and it makes no difference what kind of life we discuss and even the evidence used as evidence for evolution proves and shows this is true.
Look at the evidence used as evidence life evolves and you'll see kinds always produce the same kind of life and you overlooked it and assumed it was evolving based on what you were taught but the evidence does not back up what you claim is happening.
The truth is both YEC are wrong and evolutionists but they just think they are both right and are locked into a never ending battle to prove each other wrong and are encouraged on both sides by the perception that you are wrong.
Evolutionists are encouraged because they say you are crazy to believe this earth is only 6000 years old so you must be wrong and the YEC hold up their bible and say you are wrong.