Replies

The evidence that legs were created is the lack of evidence that legs evolved. We simply see creatures w/ legs appearing suddenly in the fossil record. The evidence for leg evolution is missing.

Wow, just how grossly ignorant of biology and paleontology does someone have to be to say something this blatantly wrong?

Actually, wishful thinking is what created the evolutionary 'genetic relationships' between living things.

Wrong again.

This relationship is also explained by a common designer.

No, it isn't. Try reading some science journals for a change instead of Jack Chick cartoons. There is a vast and overwhelming amount of evidence along multiple independent cross-confirming lines which match, in very specific details of both the similarities and the differences between species, at everything from the molecular level to the contents of DNA to morphological similarities to biogeography to the fossil record, which match to a very detailed degree the exact and specific features which would be produced by evolutionary common descent, and do NOT match the kinds of features which would be expected due to just a "common designer".

Run off and learn something about this topic before you spew any more complete nonsense about it.

It is the evolutionists who are sticking their heads in the sand and clinging desparately to a failed theory that was crafted long before the true complexity of biology was ever imagined.

Uh huh. Sure. You betcha. That's pretty funny coming from the guy who hasn't a clue as to the actual nature of the evidence, apparently because he's been sticking *his* head in the sand.

Everything is interpreted from the basic assumption that evolution is true, and the evolutionary reality proceeds from there.

Wrong again. Go learn something about how hypotheses are tested and validated, then try again when you aren't so clueless on the topic.

This does not make it an actual reality except in the minds of true evo believers.

Oh, the irony.

Efforts to re-define the Linnaean structure according to the Biblical kind framework is proceeding in the context of baraminology.

ROFL! Sorry, but hand-waving and force-fitting square pegs into round holes in order to try to pretend that the Bible is some kind of science textbook just doesn't cut it.

As for "baraminology", b_sharp's quotes from the baraminology charlatans pretty much says it all:

The first major scientific advancement to occur in science in the last 100 years in science has recently been developed.

"First major scientific advancment to occur in science in the last 100 years in science [sic]"? Just how ignorant *are* these yahoos? How about Einstein's General Relativity, for just one example? E=mc²? The discovery of DNA? The invention of the transistor? The sequencing of the genome? The discovery of the atomic nucleus? The discovery of continental drift? Most of the discoveries of quantum physics? How many more would you like? Just how stupid are these folks to be able to think that farting around by reclassifying animals into "Biblical groups" is the first "real" scientific advance since 1906? Oh, right, stupid enough to say things like:

This advancement is called baraminolgy, an advanced method of taxonomy (scientific classification) of earthly organisms. Its been known for many years that the evolutionary approach to taxonomic division of organisms is fraught with potential confusions. The systematic approach to classification, called phyletic systematics, used by evolutionists has grave difficulty placing numerous borderline organisms, organisms which superficially appear to contain features that span more than one species (A basic phyletic classification) eg. platypus. The platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) commonly known as the duckbilled platypus is an animal that has webbed feet, flat tail (much like a featherless bird's), a duck's bill and lays eggs for reproduction. Because the evolutionary method (EM) uses similarities to place organisms this animal is generally placed taxonomically with mammals, simply because its feathers resemble fur.

PLATYPUS FEATHERS? Yup, these creationists are complete idiots. Platypuses don't have feathers, sorry.

Nor does the rest of their idiotic rambling make any sense. And no, evolutionary biology has no "grave difficulty", or any problem at all, placing platypuses in the proper group. They're mammals. Period. They're not birds, as these dolts are apparently clueless enough to conclude, and THEY DON'T HAVE FEATHERS.

Here's what I wrote in reply to the last creationist moronic enough to think that platypuses had "bird" features just because their bill and a few other features VERY SUPERFICIALLY resemble features on some birds:

The duckbill platypus stands as a case in point. This creature possesses a combination of mammalian and avian (bird-like) features.
Just how stupid and grossly ignorant does someone have to be to claim that the platypus has "avian (bird-like) features"? Oh, right, stupid enough to be an anti-evolutionist.
Hint: While the platypus's "bill" may superficially *look* like a duck's bill at first glance, due to general shape, no one who has ever actually bothered to compare them could possibly say something as stupid as calling it an "avian feature". Structurally it's entirely different. Furthermore, the platypus's bill even generates an electric field and is a very sensitive electric sensor -- it uses electric fields in the same way that dolphins use echolocation and bats use sonar. How "avian" is that?
And the platypus's webbed feet are no more "avian" than the otter's. The webbed foot of an otter or platypus or seal could not possibly be mistaken for anything other than a mammal's foot, and only an idiot would call it an "avian feature", since it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the foot of a duck. Even the webbing itself is different.
As for egg-laying, the platypus's eggs are far more similar to the eggs of reptiles (to which they are far more closely related than birds) than to the eggs of birds. Other semi-reptilian features of the platypus (being more basal to the reptilian/mammal split than eutherian mammals) are using the same opening for reproduction and eliminating waste products, cervical ribs, local Vitamin-C synthesis in the kidney, and legs that extend outward from the body instead of extending downard under the body (playtpuses walk with a shuffling motion more like an reptile's than like most other mammals).
And that's even apart from all the DNA evidence clearly establishing that platypuses are basal mammals and not any close relation to birds.
Yet, evolutionists do not propose that mammals evolved from birds with the duckbill platypus representing a transitional form between these two groups.
Because they're not as stupid as the anti-evolutionists, and not ignorant enough to mistake a platypus's bill or foot or eggs for any kind of "avian" feature, because they very clearly aren't.
Only the anti-evolutionists are such shallow "thinkers" as to be fooled by the most superficial of appearances. Real biologists sit down and have an actual look.
I've got an idea -- why don't you anti-evolutionists try some arguments that aren't completely retarded for a change?

And remember, *these* are the clueless folks who want to dictate how science is taught to America's kids... "Teach the controversy -- platypuses have feathers, that's what our 'Biblical groups' curriculum says, and nothing else major has been done in science in the past 100 years!"