ICANT'S position in the creation debate

My original claim in which you responded to me, was this; My claim is therefore that his drawings are in modern biological textbooks. To prove this I have to show this is so, as you assumed me a liar. Here is a quote from a source; We have to assume both scientists are therefore also liars. LINKAny "other" subjects or ideas about what I am saying, I do not need to defend.If I said, "pies are tastey", and you thought I was saying; "pies are animals", would you expect me to now prove pies are animals?Infact, I wasn't lying. My claim is true, Haeckel's fraudulent misleading drawings are in modern biology books, which is all I claimed.

No, once again I am not saying that at all. Which proves you don't understand English.I have looked at the photographs and the embryo of a dog and a human was very different to the drawings you show. The tail is not as long in humans. The actual photographs show different shapes for different embryos.I believe the brancial arches do exist, but these rudimentary forms didn't always look the same exactly, in the photographs I saw in the seminar.It's not that I deny the existence, it's that they are not gill slits. I blob that looks like a penis and becomes an arm, isn't a penis-blob even if you name it that.My only point is that these aren't "gills" in humans, at any stage. That these might become gills in fish is logically irrelevant because we wouldn't call these "human lung arches", would we? If these rudimentary arches are 100% accurately the same as one stage, as human branchial arches, then prove this, otherwise I am not obliged to believe that these rudimentary shapes are the "same" things in fish, human, dog. Actual photographs are what is needed, as I repeat, I do not trust you in the least. If you can show a fish, a dog and a human photograph of embryos at the same stage of development, then i will change my mind. That is your homework, not mine, because it is you who wanted to persue this in detail when it wasn't the topic.If you are so confident they will be like the drawings, then show us. The likes of Gould disagree.I pointed out something sound when I said that if they never become gills at all, in anyway, in say, a human or a dog, then why should they be called gill slit? Why should we believe that slightly similar rudimentary shapes prove something about gills where there are no actual gills, only rudimentary shapes?Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

WAHAHAHAHAHA. It looks EXACTLY THE SAME.A human embryo looks NOTHING like the depiction.My friend, it's that mikey really did know what he was saying, that's your problem. If you care to look at a human embryo, you will at no time find it looking like the drawing you provided.As you can see in the following picture, the grotesque exaggeration in your presented drawings, is that of the region of the brancial arches, whereas reality seems to show something different; HUman embryoI could not find a photograph of anything that looked like your drawing, with those protruding "gill slits" that don't exist.

Can anyone notice the difference?In the drawing, we get a worm with gills, but in reality, we can not see these arches, as being anything meaningful. All we see is a human in a rudimentary form becomeing.............a human. Can we at any stage see any gills?Do all mammals start out as fish? Not from the photograph of a human!As we can see, anything before these developmental stages are not going to tell us anything about a recognized structure such as gills.Think; If you had never seen a human before, could you guess, from looking at these pictures, what a human was going to become? I know I couldn't. So then logically, how can such rudimentary "shapes" be called "gill slits" in the first place, when you could not relate such primal blobs to anything significant untill they are substantially formed.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Instead of guessing what he is saying, and then offering a false dichotomy, how about actually reading his statement.I.e. 100% of the "facts" show life coming from life, and that every single form is complex.Therefore, are we obliged, through "no facts whatsoever", to believe in rudimentary biological forms. That is my question.