Originally posted by Chrawnus
View Post
Well, after doing some more research it seems like what I thought looked like the beginning of human facial features is not at all (or atleast not the facial features that I thought they were), so while I guessed correctly, I did so on mistaken assumptions.
But even after acknowledging that fact there's still something about the middle picture that makes me want to say that it's more humanlike than the other ones. Or perhaps it's more correct to say that the top and bottom pictures are more clearly non-human than the middle picture.
ETA: After thinking some more about it, isn't it more than a bit ironic that I fell victim to pareidolia while looking at a picture of a human fetus?![tongue](https://theologyweb.com/campus/core/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
But even after acknowledging that fact there's still something about the middle picture that makes me want to say that it's more humanlike than the other ones. Or perhaps it's more correct to say that the top and bottom pictures are more clearly non-human than the middle picture.
ETA: After thinking some more about it, isn't it more than a bit ironic that I fell victim to pareidolia while looking at a picture of a human fetus?
![tongue](https://theologyweb.com/campus/core/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
![yes](https://theologyweb.com/campus/core/images/smilies/yes.gif)
Comment