But a book written by bronze age men without pants is proof?
You all use the same dodges. Any evidence against your position is some kind of fabrication? I suppose your evidence for this is Piltdown Man (fraud from 1912) and/or Nebraska Man (misinterpretation from 1922)? You can't just run around saying "Lies! All lies!" every time you see something you don't like and expect credit for having the REAL science. If you don't like something in the Hylonomus to Asioryctes sequence, feel free to discredit away. I'm already familiar with most creationist obfuscation on the subject.
And don't be so sure there's nothing going on between embryology and evolution. Why do baby frogs look like fish? Why do baby horseshoe crabs look like trilobites? Why do hatchling lampreys look like basal chordates? Why do embryonic snakes and dolphins have legs?
And even if they are accurate it would be like saying that because trees and rivers and human veins have branches they must be related. Form follows function, it's a design concept, not a happy accident.
We're talking about viral infection scars here. What function? Creation science is about not seeing anything inconvenient.
My faith does not prevent me from using the scientific method, but warns me against "science falsely so-called".
Your faith seems to command you do quote some lawyerly misrepresentation from a few very dishonest sources. This hardly qualifies as using the scientific method.
Creationism is about supernatural explanations. It's about tearing down knowledge to make more room for mystery. All it offers is unlearning. It's deliberate stupidity, deliberate amnesia, deliberate fallacy. The Lord, if He exists, must be appalled at the lies perpetrated in His name.
Once drifting toward deism, I've become thoroughly agnostic from arguing with creationists. Still, I try to imagine that an anthropic being created the universe. If so, the universe must be assumed His primary work, the definitive masterpiece which is only summarized in anything that follows. Now, maybe some sacred text from some religion somewhere is the "true" word, His description of what He did. Even so, in the event of any conflict between his primary work, the universe itself, and the secondary work, deference must be made to the primary.
Your mission would seem to be distorting or dismissing the primary to protect the secondary. I'm really outside the discipline, but that looks like a basic theological error to me.
Indeed it is. The earbones shift from the jaw to the ear during mammal gestation. It was predicted that fossils would be found showing the same movement. They have been.
And just how did the human "evolve" with two missing chromosomes?
See Human Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes