Quote:

---

Yes we "look like" fishes and reptiles but we dont look like birds
This is because we are in the same evolution line : fish - reptile - mammals
It seems strange but it is like that
People normally prefer birds over snakes but snakes are our closer relatives

---

Quote:

---

***Darkness was upon the face of the "deep" meaning the "water", therefore it is logical to conclude that the first, pre-adamite creation was destroyed by a pre-Noahic flood!

---

Quote:

---

Darkness was upon the face of the "deep"

---

'face' = surface, right? 'deep' = water or sea, right? Well, if 'darkness was upon the surface of the sea', it could simply mean 'it was night'.


As for the embryonic stages, please take a look at these pictures Nitro: http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/wwwhuman/Stages/Images/Cst800.jpg

Between 20 and 30 days we do look like what fish look like at a certain stage. Both our anatomy and morphology have huge similarities during that period of embryonic growth, só many similarities that it's a little hard to deny actually. A spoon and a fork share similarities because they have partially the same function, same goes for our 'embryonic-fish' stage, so an analogy would actually be more or less correct, as long as you remember that a fork is not a spoon nor vice-versa. We don't say we áre 'fishes' before we grow into humans, because that's ridiculous indeed.

Quote:

---

Just because a fork has similarities to a spoon does not mean one is derived from another.

---

The spoon was derived from a fork actually.

Cheers

Quote:

---

Why would this be logical?? Don't they mean 'deep' as in 'the sea'. Isn't it a bit far fetched to interpret this as a cryptic description of the effects of a 'flood'?

---

Quote:

---

Some link ? This is the ABC of evolutionism
For example the similarity of some human head bones with the one of the reptiles , in the early stage of life, has been found out by the famous German writer Goethe who was also a serious hobbyest scientist

---

This is providing us with a good example of the kind of confident announcement with which uninformed evolutionists abound. What you said is purely a presumption. Just because members of a family, or embryos, or silverware are apt to look alike, it is not at all safe to assume that all "look-alikes" are related. You present your statement as though it were factual, and it is a simple supposition without any positive proof whatever. Within the embryos there might be some similarity(there is not but I give you the benefit of the doubt) from an anatomical point of view, but it is quite another thing to state categorically that they are closely related to each other. Resemblance and relationship are by no means the same thing. You make this statement but you are not sure how far removed the relationship is, but the basic assumption still remains that the evolutionary relationship exists. All that the facts might appear to you for similarity(though you have shown me no comparitive links or pictures). Relationship is totally unprovable by an appeal to morphology. You are confusing hypothesis with fact.

I ask that you would at least show me the courtesy which I have shown you. If you think embryo bones and reptile bones are similar, please show me a photo, tell me of a book where you read it or at least tell me that maybe your Mommy told you so Give me something, anything, but please dont tell me that it is "the abc's of evolution" I already know the "abc's of evolution" and I know that the one your trying to tell me is pure speculation and presumption.

Quote:

---

The spoon was derived from a fork actually.

---

This is increasingly silly.


I dont see many similarities here.

Quote:

---

Somehow the standard 'evolutionary' generalisation just doesnt make sense, I mean, 3 million years to get to where we are now

---

Quote:

---

This is increasingly silly.

---

Hey, you brought it up, not me.

Quote:

---

I dont see many similarities here.

---

No offense but if you don't see the vast similarities between the entire top row of pictures then you must be blind for the truth, infact they are even marked in that picture. Truth is, those stages below that first row are stages that start after 30 days. So no wonder that the differences are bigger and bigger. Just like evolution itself, growth goes gradually, not in huge steps skipping the inbetween stuff Nitro!

Cheers

Quote:

---

No offense but if you don't see the vast similarities between the entire top row of pictures then you must be blind for the truth, infact they are even marked in that picture. Truth is, those stages below that first row are stages that start after 30 days. So no wonder that the differences are bigger and bigger. Just like evolution itself, growth goes gradually, not in huge steps skipping the inbetween stuff Nitro

---