disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less

[Billiards Ball]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

It is well-known that Haeckel did indeed "cheat" quite a bit to make his drawings. However, you have provided no evidence showing that vertebrate embryos do not share morphological similarity, particularly in early embryos. You have also not provided anything showing that human embryos do not have pharyngeal arches or tails. Mentioning a google search does not actually support your argument.

Thank you, but your post contained no documentation, either.

[one.opinion]

11 minutes ago, Billiards Ball said:

Thank you, but your post contained no documentation, either.

Right, but you were answering BeyondET’s question, but haven’t supplied any evidence to support what you say.

[Billiards Ball]

10 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Right, but you were answering BeyondET’s question, but haven’t supplied any evidence to support what you say.

Yes, I just like to point to double standards. Will you actually read the references I bother to post here?

[one.opinion]

33 minutes ago, Billiards Ball said:

10 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Right, but you were answering BeyondET’s question, but haven’t supplied any evidence to support what you say.

Yes, I just like to point to double standards. Will you actually read the references I bother to post here?

Whenever I make an unsubstantiated claim, feel free to call me on it. You may not agree with my support, but I will provide it.

I will absolutely read references that support your claims.

[Billiards Ball]

5 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Whenever I make an unsubstantiated claim, feel free to call me on it. You may not agree with my support, but I will provide it.

I will absolutely read references that support your claims.

Thank you, you are very kind and sincere. I apologize for the hassle, but I'm always wading through threads online where people are circumspect regarding their treasured views.

Haeckel issues and related issues: https://creation.com/haeckel-fraud-proven

I would also point to the fact that God uses a good tool belt of handy designs that do not immediately imply macroevolution. As an analogy, cars have wheels, airplanes have wheels and many boats have wheels for convenience, without them having evolved mechanistically one from another.

Thanks again!

[one.opinion]

On 3/20/2018 at 7:46 AM, Billiards Ball said:

Thank you, you are very kind and sincere. I apologize for the hassle, but I'm always wading through threads online where people are circumspect regarding their treasured views.

Oh believe me, I completely understand! And thank you for the kind words. I appreciate your gracious dialogue, as well. Although I don't always do a good job of it, I think it is important for brothers and sisters in Christ to treat each other as such in our discussions.

I don't think there is any doubt that Haeckel's drawings were definitely wrong, not even the most militaristic evolutionists would argue that. It's probably debatable whether or not his errors were intentional, but I think they probably were.

However, the post that most recently caught your attention was a question about how to explain the gills and tails that are observed in all vertebrate embryos. Calling them gills may be a bit of a stretch at the stage of development when they are observed, but pharyngeal arches (as well as tails) are present in early embryos of all vertebrates. These structures develop differently in the diverse vertebrate groups, but the fact that the early embryos share these features is highly suggestive of a common embryonic developmental path that has been modified in the different groups.

The article you posted contained references to work done by Michael Richardson. More commentary on his work (from an evolutionary viewpoint, I should admit) can be found here:

https://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/richardson

[BeyondET]

On March 19, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Billiards Ball said:

A good question, but you might be shocked to go online and learn how many of these 150-year-old concepts have since been debunked.

Do you have children, have you ever been to the doctor when they scan the womb. Ask any mother about that it's not some 150 year old concept, actually it's fairly new, the equipment to see into the womb wasn't around 150 years ago.

https://www.onhealth.com/content/1/fetal_development_stages

[Billiards Ball]

9 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

Do you have children, have you ever been to the doctor when they scan the womb. Ask any mother about that it's not some 150 year old concept, actually it's fairly new, the equipment to see into the womb wasn't around 150 years ago.

https://www.onhealth.com/content/1/fetal_development_stages

Sonograms show different details, unfortunately, many biology texts still show drawings made 150 years ago--now debunked.

[BeyondET]

15 minutes ago, Billiards Ball said:

Sonograms show different details, unfortunately, many biology texts still show drawings made 150 years ago--now debunked.

It's not debunked that photo on the site is a actual photo of a festis with the tail, that was you when you were in your mothers womb as well. 

I guess you assume upon conception the festis is fully grown? from what you have said it's clear you haven't ask any doctors and looked into any of that I feel as your just winging it, you can find a many of real pictures of that early stage of the festis.

provide me a photo of a 4 weeks festis sonogram that is different and the festis has no tail.

[BeyondET]

Even a fully grown Hunans have a tail bone, that is the long tail in a 4 weeks old festis. When the festis grows the tail shrinks, and the gill looking things develop into lungs for breathing air.