Changes

::::::Two word for you: "chemical evolution".  Those two words are the piano on the back of your evolutionary paradigm. As far as so called "stellar evolution" that is part of the evolutionary paradigm/philosophy too. The paradigm is bankrupt though. As far as evolutionist accusations, $1.50 and an evolutionists accusation will get you a cup of coffee. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:17, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::Two word for you: "chemical evolution".  Those two words are the piano on the back of your evolutionary paradigm. As far as so called "stellar evolution" that is part of the evolutionary paradigm/philosophy too. The paradigm is bankrupt though. As far as evolutionist accusations, $1.50 and an evolutionists accusation will get you a cup of coffee. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:17, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Stellar evolution refers to the progress of stars through the Main Sequence, NOT the element cascade in their cores. Once again you are trying to use a non-standard definition, and once again you are giving evolutionists a perfect opportunity to dismiss us by saying we don't know what we're talking about. We are trying to PERSUADE people here, and how persuaded are people going to be when they see a FALLACIOUS argument here, use it against an evolutionist then get shown that actually evolutionists aren't saying anything like that? Not very, I would say. As for stellar evolution being part of the "evolutionary paradigm," well, what IS the evolutionary paradigm and why are you determined to concentrate on it rather that what's actually being taught in schools, which is the THEORY of evolution and has nothing to do with stars or the origin of life? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:25, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Stellar evolution refers to the progress of stars through the Main Sequence, NOT the element cascade in their cores. Once again you are trying to use a non-standard definition, and once again you are giving evolutionists a perfect opportunity to dismiss us by saying we don't know what we're talking about. We are trying to PERSUADE people here, and how persuaded are people going to be when they see a FALLACIOUS argument here, use it against an evolutionist then get shown that actually evolutionists aren't saying anything like that? Not very, I would say. As for stellar evolution being part of the "evolutionary paradigm," well, what IS the evolutionary paradigm and why are you determined to concentrate on it rather that what's actually being taught in schools, which is the THEORY of evolution and has nothing to do with stars or the origin of life? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:25, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Sam, anyone who reads the [[atheism]] and [[evolution]] articles and their respective sources and attached articles can clearly see that constellation of evolutionary nonsense (cosmic evolution, galactic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, chemical evolution, biological, etc. etc.) is merely mumbo jumbo without evidence. It is akin to astrology. Also, given your propensity to inadequately respond to comments and questions directed towards you, I hope you didn't get your hopes up in terms of me wanting to have a discussion with you. Lastly, given your  obsession with the atheism and evolution articles at Conservapedia and I think you are beginning to develop [[Essay: Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:03, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Sam, anyone who reads the [[atheism]] and [[evolution]] articles and their respective sources and attached articles can clearly see that constellation of evolutionary nonsense (cosmic evolution, galactic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, chemical evolution, biological, etc. etc.) is merely mumbo jumbo without evidence. It is akin to astrology. Also, given your propensity to inadequately respond to comments and questions directed towards you, I hope you didn't get your hopes up in terms of me wanting to have a discussion with you. Lastly, given your  obsession with the atheism and evolution articles at Conservapedia and I think you are beginning to develop [[Essay: Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:03, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::The theory of evolution, as believed in by evolutionists, discusses only one thing: the diversity of life. The "constellation" of cosmic, galactic etc evolution has absolutely nothing to do with it and by claiming such a connection you are HARMING OUR ARGUMENT. Why do you think evolutionists make so many claims of strawman fallacies? Because we make it easy for them. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:11, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::The theory of evolution, as believed in by evolutionists, discusses only one thing: the diversity of life. The "constellation" of cosmic, galactic etc evolution has absolutely nothing to do with it and by claiming such a connection you are HARMING OUR ARGUMENT. Why do you think evolutionists make so many claims of strawman fallacies? Because we make it easy for them. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:11, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder? Never heard of it. I wonder who discovered this fascinating new mental disorder? Not you, by any chance? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:13, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder? Never heard of it. I wonder who discovered this fascinating new mental disorder? Not you, by any chance? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:13, 17 September 2011 (EDT)