[allmendream]

You are absolutely ignorant of the Scientific method AND evolution if you think that the former is non-applicable to the latter. I suggest you review any number of Scientific journals dealing with evolution or phylogeny. Try...

www.mymedline.com

then enter the search term “evolution” and then tell me that of the thousands of Scientific articles cited you cannot find a single one that utilizes the Scientific method.

You think evolution is incapable of ‘adding information’ or ‘increasing complexity’, no?

If so then the mutations in an enzyme that formerly broke down an ester but was incapable of breaking down nylon; such that now it is a rather poor digester of ester but an excellent digester of nylon is certainly ‘adding information’. Formerly it couldn’t break down nylon, now it does little else. Evolution, and an example of increased “information”/”complexity” to boot.

So do you believe that hoofed and winged mammals were there right from the beginning? You can admit it. No need to be embarrassed.

[Sopater]

enter the search term “evolution” and then tell me that of the thousands of Scientific articles cited you cannot find a single one that utilizes the Scientific method.

I've got a better idea. Show me just one of them that uses the scientific method to support your claim that hoofed and winged mammals came from something other than hoofed and winged mammals.

So do you believe that hoofed and winged mammals were there right from the beginning? You can admit it. No need to be embarrassed.

Sure I do. I'm not embarrassed. Nor am I afraid to admit that my belief is based on faith. The difficult (or impossible) thing for the ToE koolaid drinker to swallow is that their theory is also based on faith.

Now, do you believe that hoofed and winged mammals evolved from bacteria? You can admit it, no need to be embarrassed. At least you have the support of the masses, that should give you some comfort in the absence of verifiable science.