Adolf Hitler - The World's Most Infamous Creationist

[Subduction Zone]

Since kinds reproduced after their kind at creation, all you have done is borrow a criteria of kinds! Let's not pretend you own it. It is what it is.

Wrong. All scientific evidence to date supports only evolution. You have not defined "kinds" so how could I be borrowing it? If you won't define it then I will simply co-opt the term. There is nothing wrong with that.



[/quote]Well, the pics were from the former state I think. So, yeah, you need it badly to enforce your ideas on critters there![/quote]

Wrong again. Since you have not given any evidence for your "former state" it remains a delusional state. Until you show evidence all you have are pipe dreams at the best.

"Are"? Don't you mean "were"? What we have now, in this state is not the purebreds of the created kinds. The example I used was lions do not now eat grass, nor the wolves. If they were pure created kinds, I would expect that they would. Therefore, since a kind in this present time and nature can be so different, I would not even be certain that the reproduction ability would be a solid absolute indicator of original kinds. Maybe. Maybe not. Unlike so called silly science, I do not like to make stuff up, or make big claims just for the sake of trying to be seen as wise.

Why would "created kinds" necessarily be carnivores, herbivores or omnivores? Again, you have shown no evidence to support your claims. And that was after evidence was asked for. I can give evidence for any of my claims and will do so upon request. You claim is busted since you provided no evidence after evidence was requested. Again, you lose.

So, besides a borrowed test from the bible kinds, you cannot even tell us about creatures fossilized in the pics I gave. OK. Maybe run along now. You are done.

I did not borrow anything from your book of myth. I told you twice now about your pictures of fossilized creatures. You ignored the answer twice. I don't think I will provide an answer to you a third time.

And you are crazy if you think I am going to run along after defeating you again. I am going to stick around and gloat a bit.

You have failed to provide evidence to support your claims. You have lost.

 

[dad]

Wrong. All scientific evidence to date supports only evolution.

Meaningless. Nothing points anywhere but to a creation that came with evolution.

You have not defined "kinds" so how could I be borrowing it?

You talked of reproduction. That was a trait of the created kinds that they would bring forth after their kind. Not like it was your idea!! Now, when you borrow stuff, try not to take credit yourself next time.

If you won't define it then I will simply co-opt the term. There is nothing wrong with that.

Ah, so now we see you are co opting stuff from God. Nice try.

Wrong again. Since you have not given any evidence for your "former state"..

The bible is evidence, and there is none other in science or elsewhere, except possibly some partial confirmation in ancient history. When YOU claim any other state than the one that was recorded as having actually existed, you are in a position of having not given evidence.

Why would "created kinds" necessarily be carnivores, herbivores or omnivores?

Because God apparently will not and did not include killing and hurting as part of His nature! The present state is an exception to that rule. In fact God gave special permission to us to chow down on meat here.

I can give evidence for any of my claims and will do so upon request.

Great, I always request evidence for a claim. So, whatever your claim was support the livin bejinkers out of it pronto. Next time don't wait for some special command to back your claims up.

I did not borrow anything from your book of myth. I told you twice now about your pictures of fossilized creatures. You ignored the answer twice. I don't think I will provide an answer to you a third time.

What you need to tell us is what these were related to and how you know by your little tests!! Otherwise you are kaput.

Now let's hope someone who is half a challenge will come along after your disgraceful ignominious fail here.


Excuse me if I rejoice in the victorious light of the truths God has given me and mankind. How sweet it is!

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Since kinds reproduced after their kind at creation, all you have done is borrow a criteria of kinds! Let's not pretend you own it. It is what it is.
...

Could you please give a definition for the creationist "kind"?

 

[dad]

Could you please give a definition for the creationist "kind"?

Easy. 'Extinct'. The original kinds as they were are long gone.

A lion was probably a kind, however with some differences from the lions of today. A wolf also. A raven as well. And of course, a dove.

Your question then was really more like 'could you define the created kinds as they exist today'?


To do that, we would need to know the original ones, and the changes that came on earth since then, including any change in basic nature.

Science is not equipped for the task. One could compile a list of kinds from the bible mentioned in the future, and past. However, one would expect fundamental differences could exist from today's variey of the kinds.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Meaningless. Nothing points anywhere but to a creation that came with evolution.

You are partially right. Nothing points to a creations. There is all sorts of evidence for evolution. You show that you know nothing of science if you deny this simple fact and that would mean that you lose all debates. With only a handwave.

You talked of reproduction. That was a trait of the created kinds that they would bring forth after their kind. Not like it was your idea!! Now, when you borrow stuff, try not to take credit yourself next time.

Give evidence of these created kinds. Remember, without evidence you lose. I have resurrected this old mantra for dad.

Again, without evidence you lose.

Ah, so now we see you are co opting stuff from God. Nice try.

No, not from God. From creationists. Now you are making the mistake that your unsupported beliefs are from God. Mantra time again:

Without evidence you lose.

The bible is evidence, and there is none other in science or elsewhere, except possibly some partial confirmation in ancient history. When YOU claim any other state than the one that was recorded as having actually existed, you are in a position of having not given evidence.

Wrong, I can give evidence for my claims. And the Bible is extremely weak evidence. It is about the weakest evidence that you can find. It has many thousands of different contradictory translations. It has many errors, it has many self contradictions, it has many failed prophesies, it has no true prophesies. It is no better of a source of evidence than the Vedas or even the Koran.

Because God apparently will not and did not include killing and hurting as part of His nature!

This is an unsupported personal interpretation of yours. If life was meant to be vegetarian we could see that in its internal organs. And one more time, without evidence you lose.

The present state is an exception to that rule. In fact God gave special permission to us to chow down on meat here.

Again, this is only a failed personal interpretation of yours. You have no real evidence. To be specific you have no scientific evidence. Without evidence you lose.

Great, I always request evidence for a claim. So, whatever your claim was support the livin bejinkers out of it pronto. Next time don't wait for some special command to back your claims up.

For what specific claim do you request evidence?

What you need to tell us is what these were related to and how you know by your little tests!! Otherwise you are kaput.

No, I have no need to do that. You are changing the test after the fact That is neither honest nor fair. Nor is it what a Christian would do.

Now let's hope someone who is half a challenge will come along after your disgraceful ignominious fail here.

You keep forgetting that you lost. Without evidence you lose. In fact all of your arguments have been so poor to date it took little more than a handwave to destroy them.

Without evidence you lose.

Excuse me if I rejoice in the victorious light of the truths God has given me and mankind. How sweet it is!

God has given you nothing. Remember, without evidence you lose.

Sadly you don't even know what evidence is nor will you ever learn. I will point out the flaws in the foolish ideas that you bring up. To date you have not brought up one iota of scientific evidence, and lest you forget:

Without evidence you lose.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Easy. 'Extinct'. The original kinds as they were are long gone.

A lion was probably a kind, however with some differences from the lions of today. A wolf also. A raven as well. And of course, a dove.

Your question then was really more like 'could you define the created kinds as they exist today'?


To do that, we would need to know the original ones, and the changes that came on earth since then, including any change in basic nature.

Science is not equipped for the task. One could compile a list of kinds from the bible mentioned in the future, and past. However, one would expect fundamental differences could exist from today's variey of the kinds.

You seem to be saying that when creationists use the word "kind", it literally has no meaning.

 

[dad]

You seem to be saying that when creationists use the word "kind", it literally has no meaning.

It seems mostly evos that use the word. It has lots of meaning for the past and future, but that is beyond the pay grade of science! If one knew the created kinds, one could look at today's version of the creature, and maybe actually learn something.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

It seems mostly evos that use the word. It has lots of meaning for the past and future, but that is beyond the pay grade of science! If one knew the created kinds, one could look at today's version of the creature, and maybe actually learn something.

No, when debating evolution, "kind" is used by creationists and ID proponents all the time.

But I have yet to see a creationist or ID proponent give a definition of what it means.

 

[dad]

You are partially right. Nothing points to a creations. There is all sorts of evidence for evolution.

All part of creation...ho hum.

You show that you know nothing of science if you deny this simple fact and that would mean that you lose all debates. With only a handwave.

The simple fact is that evolution is part of creation. If science knows or knows not, that is another issue.

Give evidence of these created kinds.

Never saw a raven or a lion or a wolf, or a dove? Stick your hand in a lion's mouth, and maybe the evidence will bite you.

No, not from God. From creationists. Now you are making the mistake that your unsupported beliefs are from God.

No need to wonder, we have His word. Gong.

Wrong, I can give evidence for my claims.

Waiting for...what? I think we all saw your fail once too often for you to be saying that again.

And the Bible is extremely weak evidence. It is about the weakest evidence that you can find. It has many thousands of different contradictory translations.

The original Hebrew or Greek can be referenced, it is lame to try to blame translations.

It has many errors,

In your head.

it has many self contradictions,

Never saw one yet.

it has many failed prophesies, it has no true prophesies.

Lie. Ask someone who know what they are talking about sometime.

This is an unsupported personal interpretation of yours. If life was meant to be vegetarian we could see that in its internal organs.

Oh? What organs? What is it you think we would see?

For what specific claim do you request evidence?

Which one were you talking about when I asked? Start there.

No, I have no need to do that. You are changing the test after the fact That is neither honest nor fair. Nor is it what a Christian would do.

So you whine when your tests is shown to be both bible based, and too limited to matter!

God has given you nothing.

Proof? How would you know, do you know Him? Why make hollow claims?

There is still room on the winning side you know. Cut the charade, and come on over. It beats losing.

 

[dad]

No, when debating evolution, "kind" is used by creationists and ID proponents all the time.

In context it is fine. Created life was made in kinds.

But I have yet to see a creationist or ID proponent give a definition of what it means.

Meant, I think you might mean. Or 'will mean' in the future. You require some time context. In this present time, the created kinds are mingled and evolved, and adapted with other kinds, so that science doesn't know which is which.

 

[AV1611VET]

But I have yet to see a creationist or ID proponent give a definition of what it means.

QV please: 1

Now you have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see that dad has still lost and has not addressed one of my points.

dad, you will always be a loser because without evidence you lose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

QV please: 1

Now you have.

So, here is the test to see if you have a working definition or not. How would you tell if two animals are of different "kinds" or not?

A description of particular kinds is not a definition.

ETA: Let me qualify this a bit for the "dad"s out there. What test would you use to see if two seemingly similar animals were of the same "kind" or not.

And of course what is funny about definitions like this is that creationists who often claim that there has not been enough time for evolution have to use a form of evolution orders of magnitude faster than anything observed in nature.

That is why we have to tell the creationists all of the time:

Without evidence you lose..

 

[AV1611VET]

So, here is the test to see if you have a working definition or not. How would you tell if two animals are of different "kinds" or not?

If they have different common ancestors, they are different kinds.

If the common ancestor of the horse and the elephant is the unicorn, then the horse and the elephant are the same kind.

This means only a unicorn had to board the Ark.

Same for birds.

Who're their common ancestor? the dragon?

If so, only dragons had to board the Ark.

Now we have two kinds aboard the Ark: the dragon and the unicorn.

Later, after the Flood, they will populate the earth with birds, horses and elephants.

See how that works?

 

[AV1611VET]

ETA: Let me qualify this a bit for the "dad"s out there. What test would you use to see if two seemingly similar animals were of the same "kind" or not.

As dad pointed out, the kinds went extinct.

For now, anyway.

Some of them are mentioned as existing during the Millennium Reign.

If you want to search for "kinds" today, you might as well search for manna or gopher wood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As dad pointed out, the kinds went extinct.

For now, anyway.

Some of them are mentioned as existing during the Millennium Reign.

If you want to search for "kinds" today, you might as well search for manna or gopher wood.

No, the kinds are still here.

What you just claimed was ridiculous. You just claimed that there is no life on Earth.

Try again. How would you tell whether two different groups of animals are of the same kind or not? Or are you admitting that your definition is worthless?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If they have different common ancestors, they are different kinds.

If the common ancestor of the horse and the elephant is the unicorn, then the horse and the elephant are the same kind.

This means only a unicorn had to board the Ark.

Same for birds.

Who're their common ancestor? the dragon?

If so, only dragons had to board the Ark.

Now we have two kinds aboard the Ark: the dragon and the unicorn.

Later, after the Flood, they will populate the earth with birds, horses and elephants.

See how that works?

Nope, it doesn't work. The test clearly implied that you don't know the ancestors. So far your definition is failing.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, the kinds are still here.

What you just claimed was ridiculous. You just claimed that there is no life on Earth.

Try again. How would you tell whether two different groups of animals are of the same kind or not? Or are you admitting that your definition is worthless?

Zone, I can understand your reluctance to learn this.

You want to keep intact the idea that no creationist has ever defined the word "kind" to anyone's satisfaction.

I understand ... but I have to disagree.

I'm not going to let you drag me through a John 9 inquiry, just so you can claim you're still ignorant because we can't educate you.

You scientists hold ignorance up to a high standard ... even rewarding one another when a new discovery shows your current paradigms to be wrong or insufficient.

In fact, you can't wait to be proven wrong by the next discovery.

Again, I understand.

I would much rather you go ahead and feign ignorance at our expense now, than I would be dragged through 20 questions.

It'll save time.

Please fast forward to ridicule mode and I'll go to read only mode and we'll consider it win-win.

How's that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Zone, I can understand your reluctance to learn this.

You want to keep intact the idea that no creationist has ever defined the word "kind" to anyone's satisfaction.

I understand ... but I have to disagree.

I'm not going to let you drag me through a John 9 inquiry, just so you can claim you're still ignorant because we can't educate you.

You scientists hold ignorance up to a high standard ... even rewarding one another when a new discovery shows your current paradigms to be wrong or insufficient.

In fact, you can't wait to be proven wrong by the next discovery.

Again, I understand.

I would much rather you go ahead and feign ignorance at our expense now, than I would be dragged through 20 questions.

It'll save time.

Please watch the insults. You should know by now that if anyone is blind it is you.

You definition failed the test I proposed. Once again, how would you tell if two similar creatures are of the same kind or not? That clearly implies you have no knowledge about their ancestors. If you say you can't then you are admitting that your definition is of no use. It is worthless since it only reinforces your prejudices.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope, it doesn't work. The test clearly implied that you don't know the ancestors. So far your definition is failing.

Good!