I'm sorry? A species is defined by biologists as a reproductive group. If you dismiss everything said by scientists as atheistically biased, I think you should stop enjoying the benefits of evolutionary biology and astrophysics. Please, enjoy your life without electronics and healthcare.
And now we're equivocating again.
And really,
evolutionary biology created healthcare?
Evolutionary biology has created nothing. Actual biology has created the wondrous technologies we see today.
wat
You're handicapped. Evolution doesn't say God doesn't exist. You're putting ANOTHER strawman argument into this, and you still don't see it.
Wrong. Any synthesis attempted between God and evolution has completely and totally failed in all regards. There's no strawman involved, only fact.
Taking things out of context is also a bad fallacy to dance with, my intellectually challenged product of poor gene integration friend. A moon is a moon, even if it was once a piece of debris in space. My point is still valid, and yours still lacking any backing.
And...you've lost it. If a moon is once a piece of debris in space, than that takes quite a bit of a chunk out of the concept of stellar evolution. So, because some orbiting objects are space debris, and you consider them moons, that renders the stellar evolution concept invalid.
And besides, you think my point is void of any backing because of the supposed failure of one point? It's laughable to see just how desperate you really are.
It fits the factually correct model of how the solar system developed far better. His argument holds no ground. A seven degree difference is to be expected.
And yet again, you take it out of context, because the point isn't how large the inclination is, it's that there is an inclination at all. With the details of stellar evolution in place, there should be no variance whatsoever, and you can't deny that.
I'm sorry, but just because something is hard to imagine does not mean it's not true. Special relativity isn't exactly a walk in the park. Gravity alone accounts for the buildup of mass in the center of the universe. Angular momentum is not created by mass.
But at the same time, angular momentum is usually associated with mass as any moving object with mass in such a system is going to gain angular momentum, usually in direct relation
with how much mass is involved. This one's obvious. You are really reaching now.
You dismiss the entire scientific community because you assume it is a conspiracy. Are you going to be a hypocrite forever?
1. The entire scientific community also includes people who believe in creation, of which there are quite a few.
2. It's not a conspiracy, it's simple. Whoever creates the definition, controls the "science" involved. If I were to create a new "modern science", and I chose that the definition of this new science excludes the possibility of the existence of trees, then guess what? The "entire scientific community" now no longer believes that trees exist.
3. I'm not a hypocrite for asking you to actually read what I have to say and therefore have any validity to your argument at all.
As it stands, your point is completely invalid as you have not checked it against my point, which refutes your point. My point is valid because I've checked it against your point, and your point does nothing to actually refute mine. It's simple debating logic, folks, and Inverted doesn't want to understand a word of it because it means he loses.
You didn't refute one.
Are we resorting to outright lies in spite of the obvious facts in the previous posts? This has gone past affirmations and wishful thinking.
Ahem. A species is a species. You cannot have two separate types of species when only one can exist. Humans evolved from apes. We can tell this from science. You cannot define an ape as anything other than an ape, nor a human as anything other than a human.
Wrong. There is no evidence for ape-to-man evolution, and the evidence I provided in the links disprove any form of ape-to-man evolution. The only "science" backing that up is known as pseudoscience.
Those are two different sciences, two completely different ideas. We are not discussing how life came to be, but how it progressed over time.
Wrong again. Two very similar sciences, with two very similar goals, with interconnected ideas. You cannot separate the two, I'm very sorry to tell you.
Your arguments are showing a disturbing similarity. They all include about one line of refutation. The rest is just a bunch of insults and denial of the previous arguments. Hell, you just posted one website to argue with Inv3rted, and it hardly applied to the context. Then when he picked you apart, you argued that he only refuted a couple of your points.
1. You have obviously not read the entirety of my arguments, or you have, and just want to label it to be something it isn't so you can look down upon it. Shameful.
2. He only posted one website himself, and, both of our websites applied very well to the context, thank you.
3. He did not pick me apart. He took 3 lines of text out of context, refuted his straw-man version of each, and you say he picked me apart? What a conclusion to come to.
But I guess you have a track record of coming to completely irrational conclusions, don't you?
Poll