No, it doesn't.
It's a properly formed definition. It does not assume the truth of any theory.
So?
We have definitions for all sorts of things where individuals cannot easily be classified. A definition is not a classification system.
This is how this discussion always proceeds. The Darwinists cannot cope with a creationist having a simple and easy-to-understand definition, so they insist that the definition also be a classification system.
Darwinists hate reading.
Sure, it does.
It's called a rational conversation. We have ideas. We use words to convey those ideas. Those words have definitions. That we do not have all knowledge is no barrier to a sensible conversation.
And yet you're here, discussing it. :AMR:
It's your idea, man up and do your own science. :up:
Stripe, the man who has never knowingly fully answered a question!
You have provided no falsifiable
operational definition of kinds, so there is no functional use of your definition. You say it does not assume the truth of any theory, which prevents it from being a
theoretical definition.
So all we are left with is a
stipulative definition, a word play that fits very well your MO. A vague redefinition of the language that admits to no test or verification, no usage, no function or interest.
Brilliant. No content, but the illusion of engagement. Just as you did in the discussion of gravity — you are all mouth and no trousers.
