Read up on the definition of species, before you make handicapped assumptions. We are still apes. If you look at our immediate ancestors, you see very little change. But when you look at ourselves and then go further and further back in time, you see extreme changes. That is evolution. The line that is drawn by speciation is arbitrary and not scientific. You obviously don't know how evolution works.
Ahem. Your definition of species is only the definition of species as defined by an evolutionist, so obviously it's going to require evolution. As a result, this is the stupidest, most illogical defense of evolution I've ever heard. There are other definitions of species, ones that actually define it instead of force it to coincide with an otherwise hung-out-to-dry perspective.
Evolution has nothing to do with "something coming from nothing." That is the field of abiogenesis, or how life first started. Mixing up scientific fields now, are we? All this goes to show is a fundamental ignorance.
Oh, but it has everything to do with abiogenesis. See, evolution REQUIRES abiogenesis, in fact, spontaneous generation is its FOUNDATION! You obviously know nothing about the perspective you are defending, as what created life in the first place if life did not come from God? And if life didn't come from God, it certainly couldn't have become what we see today in the way God says it does, therefore, the only result is evolution preceded by spontaneous generation.
And because of the above, your entire view is knocked down by that one chapter. Besides, if you actually read all of it, you would find that only some of its evidences are against spontaneous generation, and the rest are all against the concept of evolution itself. So, please, go read it again, fully this time.
Everything on this page is not true. It says moons should be on an equatorial orbit, but this is not the case. Moons can be asteroids that are trapped by gravity or chunks of a planet sent into orbit by an impact. One handicapped mechanism for creation down.
Obviously he was using the word "moon" as defined thusly:
"A natural satellite revolving around a planet, excluding various objects that, without the gravitational pull of the aforementioned planet, would be considered as "asteroids" or "space debris"."
Equivocation is a bad fallacy to dance with, my friend.
It then goes on to speak of the oh so large variance in orbital planes of seven degrees. This is a very small amount. No disc is perfectly flat, so how do you expect an orbit to be perfectly aligned with its neighbors? This hypothesis would hold more dirt if the planets had much larger differences in orbital planes. Another one down.
Seven degrees can only be considered "small" in a highly relative fashion. It's enough to support his hypothesis, and whether it's up to your extremely high "grrrr creation grrrr" standards doesn't matter. It obviously fits his hypothesis scientifically.
"Angular Momentum. The Sun should have about 700 times more angular momentum than all the planets combined. Instead, the planets have 50 times more angular momentum than the Sun"
This is not true, and I don't know what sort of physics the other took in high school. I think that it is fairly obvious to anyone with half of a brain that the people on the exterior of a racetrack have to move faster to keep in line with those on the interior. Therefore the sun can move much slower than the outer planets. That's three.
If you looked at his references, he discusses it in more detail. "With the details of stellar evolution in place, it's hard to imagine the sun acquiring 99.9% of the mass of the solar system but only 2% of its angular momentum."
Oh, this will be fun.
Nevermind. I read everything on that page, and I was expecting some handicapation that the flood carved out the grand canyon. Instead I just got some vague references to Christian and Jewish mythology by Christians and Jews. How quaint.
This proves to everyone that you barely read anything I had to present, and the small samples you did read you read with a huge amount of bias.
Here is my question to you:
Why is it that I soundly refuted the entirety of your puny list of so-called "evidences", while you get to pick 3 out of my list and call it a day?
I invite you to actually read through everything in those links, and then refute every piece of it, as you asked me to do. Not this "lol i can pick out 3 parts and then misunderstand them to the point where they become an easily refutable straw man" crap.
Poll