All speculation. The embryos only look remotely similar, and even if they did, it does not prove that one evolved from another.

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'?

No, a flood is the logical conclusion to the existence of the "deep" in verse 2. The reason is that in verse 1 the original heavens and earth is created, right? In verse 2 it states that the earth "became" without form and void. To "become" is causative, something happened to the original earth for it to "become" without form and void, the presence of the "deep" covering the earth and verse two shows HOW it "became" without form and void. There was a pre-Noahic flood. There is more to this also.

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.