May 31, 2012 -- 3:23PM, davelaw40 wrote:

 "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"?

recapitulation theory has been totally discredited

You might be interested in the "Your Inner Fish" book, too. It has nothing to do with "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny."

May 31, 2012 -- 4:23PM, davelaw40 wrote:

May 31, 2012 -- 4:01PM, newsjunkie wrote:

May 31, 2012 -- 3:23PM, davelaw40 wrote:

 "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"?

recapitulation theory has been totally discredited

You might be interested in the "Your Inner Fish" book, too. It has nothing to do with "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny."

By examining fossils and DNA, Shubin shows us that our hands actually resemble fish fins, our head is organized like that of a long-extinct jawless fish, and major parts of our genome look and function like those of worms and bacteria.

Shubin makes us see ourselves and our world in a completely new light. Your Inner Fish is science writing at its finest—enlightening, accessible, and told with irresistible enthusiasm.

I totally agree!

May 31, 2012 -- 3:04PM, MMarcoe wrote:

May 31, 2012 -- 1:34PM, 57 wrote:

May 31, 2012 -- 1:05PM, newsjunkie wrote:

May 31, 2012 -- 12:36PM, Seefan wrote:

Here's a 9:38 min/sec video using the newest x-ray scanning technology that won its two inventors the Nobel Peace Prize that show the process from conception to birth. The question is after viewing this video with all of its fascinating steps is this a purely physical process design solely by nature or is it the result of a divine force within creation, mystical in practical application that allows for such a process?  The video starts off slowly but once the clips begin you may find it interesting and well worth the time and effort ......

www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fKyljukBE7... 
 

Does the belief that God has a hand in this process translate into all aspects of creation? 
 

That is fascinating. What is also fascinating is how similar developing embryos of other animals are to developing human embryos. I was amazed at how long it took the embryo to look distinctly human. You might be interested in a book called "Your Inner Fish"(by Neil Shubin) that shows how so much of our human anatomy -- our skin, limbs, eyes and vision, ears and hearing, developed from the same basic structures and DNA instructions that other animals have and use.
It's also fascinating and amazing that humans have figured so much of this out using science and the technologies like that used to make the video.

One would expect to see many similar characteristics between humans and the animal kingdom.  In fact it is extremely helpful in pointing out the common creator.  

Right -- as opposed to multiple creators. There seems to be an epidemic of polytheists out there whom we need to fight against by stressing this "common creator" thing.

Actually, what these "similar characteristics" point out are evolution and common descent. Your admission of common characteristics is one of the steps on your journey to accepting the theory of evolution as true. Once you've accepted it, you can dispense with the preposterous mental torture that creationists have had to endure in order to keep their failing model alive.

 

Evolutionism has been proven to be a failed theory....for example I have asked the evo-minded on many occasions to explain how mutations accumulate and form a new body appendage or system and italways, always never gets answered.  Even you have failed on numerous occasions to provide an answer.  This means ou have failed.  Evolutionism has failed.

May 31, 2012 -- 4:34PM, 57 wrote:

May 31, 2012 -- 4:01PM, newsjunkie wrote:

May 31, 2012 -- 3:23PM, davelaw40 wrote:

 "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"?

recapitulation theory has been totally discredited

You might be interested in the "Your Inner Fish" book, too. It has nothing to do with "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny."

I once saw a show n TV where a hypnosis took people back to their iner fish....he had them flopping around on the stage like a fish just hauled in on the floor of a boat.  What a joke. 

Do tell us why we should read such nonsense.

because it actually demonstrates a common design

you must not have read my exerpt from the Review