Assyrian
Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Do you care that your point wasn't valid? Debunking Haeckel's ideas about embryology does not debunk modern embryology or the evidence.
I think it is your understanding of evolution that fails the text here. Ever wonder why unborn babies have eyes when it is dark in the womb?
You're welcome. The biggest problem is that most papers are behind paywalls, but they do give abstracts of the papers.
So 109 different research teams employed monkeys to type up their papers and each monkey came up with the same meaningless phrase? Leading scientists put their reputation on the line by having their research papers written my monkeys and then submitted to prestigious academic journals for peer review? Wouldn't they want the peer reviewers to understand what they are saying, if so why would they include gobbledegook phrases in their explanations?
Do you think the scientists the academic journals asked to review each of the papers Troy Britain quoted are part of the same conspiracy? Did you look at that diagram?
It claim that the same specific genes control development of the same particular areas in the embryos of jawed fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, humans and other mammals. This is something that can easily be tested in labs in research facilities and universities throughout the world. If the scientists made it up they would be show up as frauds, Loads more research is going to done on these genes, if the identification of their basic roles and region where they are active is wrong, you are going to an awful lot of very annoyed scientists checking the original claims and complaining very loudly about it.
I had come across that illustration before and was trying to track it down. Troy's blog was well written and had links to the the original academic papers, If you want to judge him for his sense of humour and personal grooming, or for taking on Creationist websites you yourself know to avoid, then I suspect you are simply making excuses for yourself so you can avoid the obvious evidence for evolution. I used to be a creationist myself. I know what it's like.
An open mind? Long experience has taught me the sort of arguments to expect on Creationist sites, but my mind is open enough to evaluate the argument and see it has any validity or weight. How can you answer a creationist argument if you don't examine it to see what the argument is and the evidence and reasoning it is based on? There is a difference between expectation and honest assessment. If creationism doesn't fit reality, then the evidence simply won't their views and they won't be able to come up with any real arguments to support what simply isn't true. They have had over 200 years to argue against the age of the earth and 150 years to argue against evolution, in all that time they haven't come up with a decent argument. But I would change my views if this all changed and they suddenly started coming up with evidence to support their views, in the mean time the best way to argue against creationism is examining their arguments with honesty and integrity.
Upvote
0
