Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You've stumbled upon the biggest shortcoming in education: assumptions.
I don't understand how creatures that were evolving lived through the catastrophic events recorded in the geologic record. Especially if their 'population' was greatly reduced.
Reasonable assumptions have to be made. One cannot always start from zero. For example when we discuss mattes here I make the assumption that those I am having a discussion with understand the English language. Is that an unreasonable assumption?
Reasonable assumptions have to be made. One cannot always start from zero. For example when we discuss mattes here I make the assumption that those I am having a discussion with understand the English language. Is that an unreasonable assumption?
Some teachers are competent, some are not. The subject is interesting and valuable, but one cannot force students to learn.I meant more like the assumptions that the teachers are competent, the subject is interesting or valuable, or the students are paying attention.
Typo, "matters'. My keyboard might be getting old. When I just retyped it the "r" did not think that I hit it hard enough.What are/is mattes?
So whoever designed women did so with hatred for them? I know they have some problems due to their design but...misogyny?
Your atempt to save face only makes it worse.
Typo, "matters'. My keyboard might be getting old. When I just retyped it the "r" did not think that I hit it hard enough.
LOL! Could be. I just gave mine a good upside down whacking and close to a meal came out.I have the same problem sometimes. Must be all the food crumbs.
You don't know what you, or I, am talking about.
Wouldn't dream of ignoring you - you are a constant source of entertainment and a great example of the hubris of ignorance in support of 'belief.'Given that my theory is so upsetting to you I think it best if you place me on ignore. Then you will have some rest from building all those straw men arguments.
"Mechanical" neurons? What are you ranting about?Sorry, I was referring to chemical, not mechanical, neurons. That would be the 'smoke signals'.
Why "theorize" about something when the answers are already in hand?The LRN 'sheds' tiny nerve fibers to the aortic arch as it passes beneath it. I theorize that this might be a pathway for communications from the heart to the larynx (many great discoveries begin with a theory).
None, because it doesn't.What is the purpose of the heart sending signals directly to the esophagus?
Umm... This is sort of hilarious to me."The extrinsic cardiac ganglia, located in the thoracic cavity, have direct connections to organs such as the lungs and esophagus and are also indirectly connected via the spinal cord to many other organs, including the skin and arteries."
Does the heart have to communicate with the brain to both manage itself and the function of other organs?
First part, makes sense, second part, loony nonsense.Many articles about the "mind of the heart" state that the heart sends more signals to the brain than it receives from the brain, and that in many cases the brain is subservient to the 'wishes' of the heart.
I'm sure it is.It is also elsewhere suggested that the 'gut' has much the same powers.
I just finished reading about the genome. I can't fathom how long that took to evolve (there was nothing in the article about that either). It would take quantum leaps of evolution to accomplish all that. I just don't think there's enough time even given millions of years, and, evolution doesn't operate in quantum leaps, like God does.
Design is in the eye of the beholder. There is no scientific definition. I could show you 'God's blueprint' and you still wouldn't see design. So there really is no point.
The problem may lie in the definition of evolution.
The argument, imo, boils down to either common ancestor or common designer. As I see common design I go with common designer.
Sure, but all things considered I believe the weight of evidence is against evolution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?