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

[abelcainsbrother]

Greetings,

="abelcainsbrother"]

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

[/quote]

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.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Yes I know and remember the problem is I'm not a young earth creationist

No, that doesn't have anything to do with the problem.

I stick to my guns that kinds only produce their kind

It's not a question of sticking to your guns, it is a question of your claim being literally meaningless.

If you said, "nusks only produce their nusk" it would not be any less meaningful than what you are saying. This may be a correct statement or an incorrect statement, but without a clear definition of "nusk" it is just noise.

Edited to replace my dummy word with one that doesn't show up in the Urban Dictionary.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Yes I know and remember the problem is I'm not a young earth creationist

No, that doesn't have anything to do with the problem.

I stick to my guns that kinds only produce their kind

It's not a question of sticking to your guns, it is a question of your claim being literally meaningless.

If you said, "nusks only produce their nusk" it would not be any less meaningful than what you are saying. This may be a correct statement or an incorrect statement, but without a clear definition of "nusk" it is just noise.

Edited to replace my dummy word with one that doesn't show up in the Urban Dictionary.

I'm making more sense than you trying to get me off topic of my point kinds produce after their kind even if you can't figure out what a kind of life is?I can

 

[Collecemall]

I'm making more sense than you trying to get me off topic of my point kinds produce after their kind even if you can't figure out what a kind of life is?I can

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Other than to say that no matter how you want to define it you're correct. That seems to be all you are saying. You're giving no indication of how one would tell one "kind" from another "kind". Concrete details that define what separates one form of life from another. So far your answer has been "a kind is a kind". There has to be a scientific definition of a "kind" somewhere. Surely you can commit to one of them. Otherwise it just appears you are trying to dodge answering with semantics.

I asked elsewhere but didn't get a response. Is English your native language?

 

[ldmitruk]

I'm making more sense than you trying to get me off topic of my point kinds produce after their kind even if you can't figure out what a kind of life is?I can

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Other than to say that no matter how you want to define it you're correct. That seems to be all you are saying. You're giving no indication of how one would tell one "kind" from another "kind". Concrete details that define what separates one form of life from another. So far your answer has been "a kind is a kind". There has to be a scientific definition of a "kind" somewhere. Surely you can commit to one of them. Otherwise it just appears you are trying to dodge answering with semantics.

I asked elsewhere but didn't get a response. Is English your native language?

Here's some help for Able on scientific definitions of kind.

Defining "Kinds": -- Do Creationist Apply Double Standards

I think he's going have trouble providing us with a straight answer, but what else is new.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I'm making more sense than you trying to get me off topic of my point kinds produce after their kind even if you can't figure out what a kind of life is?I can

So in other words. If a carrot were to give birth to an ostrich, then they would be the same kind by definition.
To you, the same kind is a relation between 2 things that can give birth to each other.
So when offer this gem:

Evolution would be the definition for evolution by scientists which is a certain group of life evolving and changing into other kinds of life over time.

You are basically saying
"Evolution is a certain thing giving birth to another thing which it does not give birth to."

Which has nothing to do with the progression of complexity across multiple generations thus generating an enormous variety of life, or the fact that you share a common ancestor with every living thing on earth.
Because as far as one thing can give birth to another thing, then that is the same kind, and that is ok with you.

The definition of kinds is painfully tautological, as there would be exactly nothing that could ever violate it. If you hypothesis that organism A couldn't give birth to organism B because they are not the same kind, and you were to find out that organism A gave birth to organism B, it is not that the relation that A can only give birth to the same kind that is wrong, but rather that A and B were the same kind all along. So you can never be wrong.

Then again, 2 brothers are not same kind because they can not give birth to each other.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I'm making more sense than you trying to get me off topic of my point kinds produce after their kind even if you can't figure out what a kind of life is?I can

So in other words. If a carrot were to give birth to an ostrich, then they would be the same kind by definition.
To you, the same kind is a relation between 2 things that can give birth to each other.
So when offer this gem:

Evolution would be the definition for evolution by scientists which is a certain group of life evolving and changing into other kinds of life over time.

You are basically saying
"Evolution is a certain thing giving birth to another thing which it does not give birth to."

Which has nothing to do with the progression of complexity across multiple generations thus generating an enormous variety of life, or the fact that you share a common ancestor with every living thing on earth.
Because as far as one thing can give birth to another thing, then that is the same kind, and that is ok with you.

The definition of kinds is painfully tautological, as there would be exactly nothing that could ever violate it. If you hypothesis that organism A couldn't give birth to organism B because they are not the same kind, and you were to find out that organism A gave birth to organism B, it is not that the relation that A can only give birth to the same kind that is wrong, but rather that A and B were the same kind all along. So you can never be wrong.

Then again, 2 brothers are not same kind because they can not give birth to each other.

You are making up stuff I did not say.I do not think evolution is a certain thing which it does not give birth to.My point is you are explaining how evolution happens without evidence that demonstrates it for instance you said evolution is a progression of complexity across multiple generations and my point is that when we look at the evidence in science used as evidence it does not back up or demonstrate what your definition said -evolution is a progression of complexity across multiple generations yet the evidence only shows reproduction or adaptation and this is my point,reproduction and adaptation prove kinds produce after their kind. You are assuming evolution is a progression of complexity across multiple generations despite what the evidence shows.

This means you are assuming that you share a common ancestor with every living thing on earth too.You first need evidence life evolves not that reproduction happens or life can adapt,we know this happens but we still do not know if life evolves.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

So basically what I'm hearing is because you don't like my definition of a kind and don't know what "kinds produce after their kind"means then you think you have tripped me up and that you can disregard my fabulous points about how the evidence in science used as evidence for evolution proves "kinds produce after their kind"but because you think you've tripped me up,you can disregard what I've explained.

Come on people and open your eyes! Reproduction and adaptation do not prove or show us life evolves and yet scientists think it does.

 

[Mugnuts]

 

[Collecemall]

we still do not know if life evolves.

I'm assuming you have a rat in your pocket because the rest of us know that it does. Some of these guys have even gone to great lengths to try and educate you about it but you prefer the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil approach to these forums. People here aren't exasperated with you because they can't defeat your arguments. They are exasperated because they can't overcome your ignorance. If you ever recognize the difference between the two it's going to be quite embarrassing.

 

[Visaki]

So basically what I'm hearing is because you don't like my definition of a kind and don't know what "kinds produce after their kind"means then you think you have tripped me up and that you can disregard my fabulous points about how the evidence in science used as evidence for evolution proves "kinds produce after their kind"but because you think you've tripped me up,you can disregard what I've explained.

Come on people and open your eyes! Reproduction and adaptation do not prove or show us life evolves and yet scientists think it does.

What you are hearing is wrong. The problem is that even you don't know what a "kind" is and your explanation of what you think it is is useless.

You can't accept the fact that evolution does happen because you can't, or won't, understand what evolution is but instead try to build a strawman definition of evolution. This is the whole reason you've been questioned about your defenition of the term "kind". You use it on your strawman definition of evolution (remember, the "Evolution would be the definition for evolution by scientists which is a certain group of life evolving and changing into other kinds of life over time") and parade it around like it actually meant something.

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

 

[abelcainsbrother]

So basically what I'm hearing is because you don't like my definition of a kind and don't know what "kinds produce after their kind"means then you think you have tripped me up and that you can disregard my fabulous points about how the evidence in science used as evidence for evolution proves "kinds produce after their kind"but because you think you've tripped me up,you can disregard what I've explained.

Come on people and open your eyes! Reproduction and adaptation do not prove or show us life evolves and yet scientists think it does.

What you are hearing is wrong. The problem is that even you don't know what a "kind" is and your explanation of what you think it is is useless.

You can't accept the fact that evolution does happen because you can't, or won't, understand what evolution is but instead try to build a strawman definition of evolution. This is the whole reason you've been questioned about your defenition of the term "kind". You use it on your strawman definition of evolution (remember, the "Evolution would be the definition for evolution by scientists which is a certain group of life evolving and changing into other kinds of life over time") and parade it around like it actually meant something.

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

No! The reason why I reject evolution is because there is no evidence in science that demonstrates life evolves and it requires more faith for me to believe life evolves compared to God made the different kinds of life to produce after their kind.If there was evidence that demonstrated life evolves I'd become a theistic evolutionist but I don't because I'm not going to believe by faith in scientists and what they say and then blend it into the bible that I already believe by faith.I cannot accept science on faith.

It is a fact frogs produce more frogs.Yes,frogs are one of many kinds of life that God made to produce after its kind,this is quite easy to see and believe,so I want to know why it seems to hang you up?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

So basically what I'm hearing is because you don't like my definition of a kind and don't know what "kinds produce after their kind"means

It's not that I don't like a definition of "kind", you have no definition. It is not that we don't understand what it means, it is rather that you don't understand that it doesn't mean anything.
I'm not trying to corner you into a gotcha moment. I'm trying to change your mind, I'm trying to make you realize the truth about something you are incorrect about.
You throw this excuse that "kind produces after their own kind" to hear no evidence and see no evidence. I'm trying to show you how deceptive your statement is. I'm trying to show you that "kinds" is a deceptive construct to put an arbitrary limitation that doesn't really exist.
I'm trying to show you that you don't really understand what evolution is when you try to square "Kind" of against evolution. I intend to show you that evolution is nothing more than an accumulation of gradual changes no different than what you already accept as "variations within kinds", and the idea that you have in your head about evolution being a "kind turning into another kind" really isn't evolution.
Bur for you to be able to understand that, you need to give up on this absurd idea of "kind", you need to understand what it is and why it is no good when talking about biology.

The conclusions I have written out for you in my previous post, follows directly from your statements. I have not taken you out of context, and I have given you ample opportunity for you to be as clear as possible about your concept of "kind". I know you don't agree with those nonsensical conclusions, but that is what you are saying without realizing that you are saying it when you speak about "kinds".

You unjustifiably demand evidence in order to be convinced otherwise about evolution, when you are not even at the level of understanding what evolution is, or what it is not, you are not able to recognize it or be able to tell it apart from anything else when you see it. How could you hope to understand what the evidence tells you when we present you with some?

So can we start from the basics? Can we at least get an accurate representation of evolution? And can we please agree that "kinds" don't really lead you anywhere?

Once when get that, then perhaps we can move forward about justifying when the concepts that we gather from the theory of evolution accurately describe the world we actually live in.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

So basically what I'm hearing is because you don't like my definition of a kind and don't know what "kinds produce after their kind"means

It's not that I don't like a definition of "kind", you have no definition. It is not that we don't understand what it means, it is rather that you don't understand that it doesn't mean anything.
I'm not trying to corner you into a gotcha moment. I'm trying to change your mind, I'm trying to make you realize the truth about something you are incorrect about.
You throw this excuse that "kind produces after their own kind" to hear no evidence and see no evidence. I'm trying to show you how deceptive your statement is. I'm trying to show you that "kinds" is a deceptive construct to put an arbitrary limitation that doesn't really exist.
I'm trying to show you that you don't really understand what evolution is when you try to square "Kind" of against evolution. I intend to show you that evolution is nothing more than an accumulation of gradual changes no different than what you already accept as "variations within kinds", and the idea that you have in your head about evolution being a "kind turning into another kind" really isn't evolution.
Bur for you to be able to understand that, you need to give up on this absurd idea of "kind", you need to understand what it is and why it is no good when talking about biology.

The conclusions I have written out for you in my previous post, follows directly from your statements. I have not taken you out of context, and I have given you ample opportunity for you to be as clear as possible about your concept of "kind". I know you don't agree with those nonsensical conclusions, but that is what you are saying without realizing that you are saying it when you speak about "kinds".

You unjustifiably demand evidence in order to be convinced otherwise about evolution, when you are not even at the level of understanding what evolution is, or what it is not, you are not able to recognize it or be able to tell it apart from anything else when you see it. How could you hope to understand what the evidence tells you when we present you with some?

So can we start from the basics? Can we at least get an accurate representation of evolution? And can we please agree that "kinds" don't really lead you anywhere?

Once when get that, then perhaps we can move forward about justifying when the concepts that we gather from the theory of evolution accurately describe the world we actually live in.

You are so close to realizing life does not evolve but for some reason you keep assuming for some reason.If you would stop assuming you would see life does not evolve despite variations in reproduction,now you can keep assuming it does if you want to,but there is no evidence that backs up your assumptions about life evolving.

The evidence actually proves and shows that even with variations in reproduction and adaptation life still does not evolve,so you can stop assuming and realize God made the different kinds of life to produce after their kind,stop assuming more until scientists prove and back up your assumptions about life evolving,little changes adding up to big changes,stop assuming and demand they prove it like you do when it comes to God,stop giving scientists a pass and demand they show and demonstrate life evolves instead of just declaring it does.Stop ignoring the lack of evidence and stop assuming.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

You throw the word assumption as if it were about to ran out. Projecting much?
We have evidence, but you haven't even reached the stage of actually understanding what evolution is or isn't. You are not in a position to be able to understand the evidence.
First learn how to stand, then how to walk, before trying to run.

Now, again, can we at least discard the absurd notion of "kind"?

 

[Visaki]

No! The reason why I reject evolution is because there is no evidence in science that demonstrates life evolves and it requires more faith for me to believe life evolves compared to God made the different kinds of life to produce after their kind.If there was evidence that demonstrated life evolves I'd become a theistic evolutionist but I don't because I'm not going to believe by faith in scientists and what they say and then blend it into the bible that I already believe by faith.I cannot accept science on faith.

Actually you reject evolution because you are, probably willfully, ignorant of what it is, starting with the definition.

It is a fact frogs produce more frogs.Yes,frogs are one of many kinds of life that God made to produce after its kind,this is quite easy to see and believe,so I want to know why it seems to hang you up?

Thanks for the answer. The reason why this seems to hang me up is simple; I suspected something that your answer confirmes and that is according to you a "kind" is fractally appliable to all life. This means that a "kind" is everything from species to kingdom, and therefore a totally useless definition.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

You throw the word assumption as if it were about to ran out. Projecting much?
We have evidence, but you haven't even reached the stage of actually understanding what evolution is or isn't. You are not in a position to be able to understand the evidence.
First learn how to stand, then how to walk, before trying to run.

Now, again, can we at least discard the absurd notion of "kind"?

Oh so I'm not qualified because I'm not a scientist? I go by evidence for evolution and I do not accept what man believes is true when there own evidence does not back it up.This is exactly how people are indoctrinated they believe what somebody says because they seem qualified instead of going by evidence.I guess I'm different because I don't care what a scientist says unless they have evidence behind it and they do not when it comes to life evolving.

Jesus warned of great deception in the last days and how are you not going to be deceived if you believe something based on qualification?I don't,evidence is what I go by,it is atheists who claim they do but really don't and so they are easily deceived but it can happen to even Christians too.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Oh so I'm not qualified because I'm not a scientist?

Didn't I say that, But now that you mention, it is totally true.

I go by evidence for evolution and I do not accept what man believes is true when there own evidence does not back it up.

That is all that is asked from you. But before you understand the evidence, you must understand the problem.
I can tell you everything about gramigles and how awesome they are, but is all for nothing if you don't know what gramigles are.
You are not approaching this from an enlightened position, you are not educated, you have no experience dealing with the topic, you clearly do not know what evolution is. You are not in the position of hearing what other people are saying, understand what do they mean and be able to reach a conclusion based on that information. You haven't reached level 1.

Don't come here thinking that you have a deeper insight, or some brilliant piece of information mysteriously by everyone else in academy for the last 3 centuries. Have no illusions about this.
If you are willing information is going to flow strictly from me to you, and that is it. Not because I'm close minded or unreasonable, You are to incompetent to be able to change anyone's mind, You might just as well try to reverse the spin of the earth for all the effort. To us you are nothing more than pitiable fool who doesn't understand simple things about the world he lives in. You are a guy that in my country would flunk 5th grade on a class about such a topic.
This a wake up call, snap out of it. Understand that you don't know, there is no shame in that, nobody is born knowing everything.
If you are willing to put the effort, and to follow along we can explain things to you, and we can show you how you are wrong about things, you will be able to have the evidence you need and you will be able to say "you are right about this, what I taught before was definitely wrong".
But you are not there yet! Every time we try to make you commit to something, every time we try to make you think you avoid it like it was filled with the plague. I mean, even until now, you have neither given a proper definition of Kind or admit that Kind has no proper definition and has no place in this conversation.
You just throw random accusations, put your fingers in your hears and say "lalalala, bible reference, lalalala you got no evidence, evolution is dumb!!!!", and you haven't be able to straight forward answer a simple question.

Jesus warned of great deception in the last days and how are you not going to be deceived if you believe something based on qualification?

So you think I'm the devil now? I'm clearly trying to deceive you just like the bible says, so I must be the devil then. Is that what you believe? Just straight out say it! Otherwise don't come to me with this shity excuse not to think.

 

[IBSpify]

If your definition of kind is "a kind reproduces after it's own kind" then i can claim that there are really only a handful of kinds.

Diapsids produce other diapsids, therefor all crocodiles, lizards, snakes, tuatara, birds and non-avian dinosaurs are one kind.

Heck i can take this farther, Eukaryote only produce other Eukaryotes, therefor all multicellular organisms are the same kind, that would be all plants, animals, and fungi.

Now do you see why your definition is worthless? by your own definition all animals are the same kind.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

If your definition of kind is "a kind reproduces after it's own kind" then i can claim that there are really only a handful of kinds.

Diapsids produce other diapsids, therefor all crocodiles, lizards, snakes, tuatara, birds and non-avian dinosaurs are one kind.

Heck i can take this farther, Eukaryote only produce other Eukaryotes, therefor all multicellular organisms are the same kind, that would be all plants, animals, and fungi.

Now do you see why your definition is worthless? by your own definition all animals are the same kind.

No you cannot until you present evidence that demonstrates life evolves.Do you see how you are assuming life evolves with no evidence in science to back it up?You cannot assume life evolves and then group life together like it evolves which is what you're doing.You do not know life evolves. I don't understand how so many people can ignore this fact.