Well, don't ask me why bring it up when I was responding to your post. I was trying to help you understand what a kind is.
"Ducking and weaving and positing a bunch of things that have nothing to do with the questions I ask is not "pointing out fallacies" -- it is merely building strawmen and then lighting them."
The points I make have everything to do with the question you asked. Pretending they don't merely reinforces the logical fallacies your question is based on. You are the one building castles in the air and calling it a strawman when someone points that out.
"My question (still unanswered) was very simple -- it didn't need pph after pph of philosophical meanderings. I am sure you enjoyed posting them but they are just evading the issue."
Assuming that the basis for your beliefs is true 'a priori' and then arguing from there is merely truth by definition. That doesn't help you understand that you are basing your beliefs on 'a priori' assumptions, logical fallacies and non sequiturs. My points are not philosophical meanderings. Your beliefs are based on an 'a priori' acceptance of philosophical naturalism and we cannot have a discussion until you recognize that fact. Once you recognize that fact, the entire nature of the discussion changes to real issues, not arguments over defined truths as you now insist upon.
Science, in its current state merely is. I asked a simple yes/no question. You refuse to answer it.
This thread has degenerated into you just repeating yourself in your assertions of a bunch of gobbledygook and saying "logical fallacies" a lot (unfounded, as anyone who knows what logical fallacies really are can see).
Since we aren't even discussing the OP anymore and you continue to refuse to answer my very simple question, I am outta here.