Evolution is mathematically impossible

[bhsmte]

That nothing serious is going on here.

No question. I am here for the entertainment value.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No question. I am here for the entertainment value.

We are in agreement on that.

(I get nasty when I'm serious, , so I try to avoid it.)

 

[VirOptimus]

Get what?

He is a selfconfessed troll, I really dont get why he isnt banned.

 

[tas8831]

You have a 'selective' memory.

Great post. Curious that you did not even try to support that assertion.

As is the norm.

Oh - some things you keep ignoring:



Demonstrating your ignorance over and over is NOT NOT NOT 'ad hominem.'

Did you think this:

"A cautionary tale on drawing conclusions after reading things in fields you have no demonstrable skill, education, or experience in."​

is an ad hominem? I'm betting you do. But see, competence in an area that you are making arguments in - and lets face it, you are not really asking questions, you are making what you think is an argument - is RELEVANT. Ad hominems are, by definition , focusing on an IRRELEVANT aspect of a person TO MAKE an argument. My ARGUMENTS are not that you are incompetent, for I EXPLAIN why you are wrong.

Get it yet?

But boy do creationists love to hurl these false accusations when they have been shown that they are wrong on things.

Poor things...

Some things you keep ignoring:

How much research has been done on neural pathways during upchucking?

Gee, golly, I guess nobody ever thought about such a thing.

Obviously, the gut must send vocalization signals directly to the larynx via the RLN, what a grand Creation!

"The noxious stimulus may cause release of serotonin from enterochromaffin cells of the digestive tract, which activates visceral afferents. The vagus nerves mediate responses from the stomach and proximal small intestine and the splanchnic nerves and spinal cord mediate responses from the entire small intestine. Emesis-related afferents from the periphery terminate primarily in the nucleus tractus solitarius and area postrema."
​

Nucleus tractus solitarius

Area postrema

Isn't it amazing how much information is actually out there, should one care to actually look for it and LEARN about it, rather than pontificating in the dark?

Oh - don't forget:

What is the purpose of the heart sending signals directly to the esophagus?​

None, because it doesn't.

"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?​

A cautionary tale on drawing conclusions after reading things in fields you have no demonstrable skill, education, or experience in.

You see, "cardiac" means 'pertaining to the heart', and in this context, refers to a region, i.e., 'near the heart'. Extrinsic means 'external to'. These ganglia are outside of the heart, and provide innervation to the heart AND to other organs. The heart does not use them to "manage itself and the function of other organs". Victoria Station, for example, does not allow only Victoria to get on trains...
The stomach has a 'cardiac region' (aka, 'cardia') - do you think this means that the stomach has its own heart?

Weird that you apparently stopped reading that webpage after you found your quote - a bit later, we see:

"The “afferent” (flowing to the brain) parasympathetic information travels from the heart to the brain through the vagus nerve to the medulla, after passing through the nodose ganglion. The sympathetic afferent nerves first connect to the extrinsic cardiac ganglia (also a processing center), then to the dorsal root ganglion and the spinal cord. Once afferent signals reach the medulla, they travel to the subcortical areas (thalamus, amygdala, etc.) and then to the cortical areas."

​

Nothing about stopping off at other organs. Or sending motor impulses to the larynx. Tell us - did you really just stop reading that when you got the quote you wanted, or did you read the whole thing and not understand it? or not think it mattered? Or hoped that nobody would be able to find it? I don't understand how you operate. It seems rather self-defeating.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Great post. Curious that you did not even try to support that assertion.

As is the norm.

Oh - some things you keep ignoring:



Demonstrating your ignorance over and over is NOT NOT NOT 'ad hominem.'

Did you think this:

"A cautionary tale on drawing conclusions after reading things in fields you have no demonstrable skill, education, or experience in."​

is an ad hominem? I'm betting you do. But see, competence in an area that you are making arguments in - and lets face it, you are not really asking questions, you are making what you think is an argument - is RELEVANT. Ad hominems are, by definition , focusing on an IRRELEVANT aspect of a person TO MAKE an argument. My ARGUMENTS are not that you are incompetent, for I EXPLAIN why you are wrong.

Get it yet?

But boy do creationists love to hurl these false accusations when they have been shown that they are wrong on things.

Poor things...

Some things you keep ignoring:


Gee, golly, I guess nobody ever thought about such a thing.

Obviously, the gut must send vocalization signals directly to the larynx via the RLN, what a grand Creation!

"The noxious stimulus may cause release of serotonin from enterochromaffin cells of the digestive tract, which activates visceral afferents. The vagus nerves mediate responses from the stomach and proximal small intestine and the splanchnic nerves and spinal cord mediate responses from the entire small intestine. Emesis-related afferents from the periphery terminate primarily in the nucleus tractus solitarius and area postrema."
​

Nucleus tractus solitarius

Area postrema

Isn't it amazing how much information is actually out there, should one care to actually look for it and LEARN about it, rather than pontificating in the dark?

Oh - don't forget:

What is the purpose of the heart sending signals directly to the esophagus?​

None, because it doesn't.

"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?​

A cautionary tale on drawing conclusions after reading things in fields you have no demonstrable skill, education, or experience in.

You see, "cardiac" means 'pertaining to the heart', and in this context, refers to a region, i.e., 'near the heart'. Extrinsic means 'external to'. These ganglia are outside of the heart, and provide innervation to the heart AND to other organs. The heart does not use them to "manage itself and the function of other organs". Victoria Station, for example, does not allow only Victoria to get on trains...
The stomach has a 'cardiac region' (aka, 'cardia') - do you think this means that the stomach has its own heart?

Weird that you apparently stopped reading that webpage after you found your quote - a bit later, we see:

"The “afferent” (flowing to the brain) parasympathetic information travels from the heart to the brain through the vagus nerve to the medulla, after passing through the nodose ganglion. The sympathetic afferent nerves first connect to the extrinsic cardiac ganglia (also a processing center), then to the dorsal root ganglion and the spinal cord. Once afferent signals reach the medulla, they travel to the subcortical areas (thalamus, amygdala, etc.) and then to the cortical areas."

​

Nothing about stopping off at other organs. Or sending motor impulses to the larynx. Tell us - did you really just stop reading that when you got the quote you wanted, or did you read the whole thing and not understand it? or not think it mattered? Or hoped that nobody would be able to find it? I don't understand how you operate. It seems rather self-defeating.

You hurl so many personal insults that you can't keep track of them.

Personal insults = ad homs.

You're welcome.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Any chance, you have personal human behaviors, that are difficult on other people? Or is it, just everyone else who has a problem?

Is that your only takeaway?

 

[Speedwell]

You hurl so many personal insults that you can't keep track of them.

Personal insults = ad homs.

You're welcome.

No, a personal insult by itself is not an "ad hom."

An ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy, not just an insult. It is an assertion that a person's argument is wrong not because of any internal structural failure of the argument itself but because of personal character flaws of the arguer unrelated to the argument. For instance:

"Speedwell's argument is wrong because it is illogical" is a criticism, not an ad hom.

"Speedwell's argument is wrong because it is illogical and he is a dork" is a criticism followed by a personal insult, not an ad hom.

Speedwell's argument is wrong because he is a dork" is an ad hom.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, a personal insult by itself is not an "ad hom."

An ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy, not just an insult. It is an assertion that a person's argument is wrong not because of any internal structural failure of the argument itself but because of personal character flaws of the arguer unrelated to the argument. For instance:

"Speedwell's argument is wrong because it is illogical" is a criticism, not an ad hom.

"Speedwell's argument is wrong because it is illogical and he is a dork" is a criticism followed by a personal insult, not an ad hom.

Speedwell's argument is wrong because he is a dork" is an ad hom.

Tas routinely mixes his attacks on my theory with personal attacks, impugning my intellect in regard to the topic. That's classic ad hominem.

 

[Speedwell]

You are cherry picking the definition.

No, I'm giving you the correct definition. An insult is just an insult, not an ad hominem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I'm giving you the correct definition. An insult is just an insult, not an ad hominem.

To simplify it even more "You are wrong and you are an idiot" is an insult.

"You are wrong because you are an idiot" is an ad hom.

Though tas may have insulted (sometimes the truth hurts) I did not see him say that anyone was wrong due to a lack of intelligence.

 

[tas8831]

You hurl so many personal insults that you can't keep track of them.

Personal insults = ad homs.

You're welcome.

LOL!

Super genius IQ, doesn't know what an ad hom is.

Perhaps if you didn't earn the remarks, you might not receive them - try being humble and honest for a bit. Stop trying to imply that you have special insights that you don't. Stop being so egotistical as to think that whether or not you understand something is enough to declare it legitimate or not. Stop moving the goalposts every time your claims are corrected and debunked. Stop minutiae-hunting to avoid having to admit error. Stop pretending that you can address any and all criticisms, or that you can 'see' things, then ignore requests to do so.

Like way back when you said you could "see" design in anatomy -

"All anatomy reveals very complex design, down to the molecular (specialized tissue) level. Pick any organ or system and look closely at the organization of it. This is purposeful design, thus creation."

Yet when I presented you with this:

OK - let me pick... the human obturator foramen*.

Please provide evidence that it was created.

Specialized tissues are not molecules.

But tell us all, exactly, which molecules associated with the obturator foramen were created and provide the evidence for this. Tell me about the inductive processes that produced the specialized tissues associated with it, and show me the evidence that those processes and tissues were created.

Merely saying they were does not count. And do not engage in the burden shifting fallacy by demanding I prove they were not created. YOU claimed they were created, now show that you have more than overconfident assertions.​

You actually replied with "So, you have no answers." And the best part - you apparently could not even tell that it wasn't human!

That is not how an honest person interacts with people. It IS how a poseur does.


*tried to get rid of the double-pic, but neither shows up in the editing window....

 

[tas8831]

Tas routinely mixes his attacks on my theory with personal attacks, impugning my intellect in regard to the topic. That's classic ad hominem.

First, you apparently don't know what a "theory" is, either.

You have no 'theory', you have a series of assertions premised on your ignorance of biology, bolstered by your egotism, driven by your desire to prop up your preferred ancient middle eastern mythology.

Your own antics impugn your intellect - refusing to admit even trivial errors, ignoring explanations of your many errors only to ask/present some tangential nonsense as 'vindication'... And of course making absurd proclamations in the first place - your whole 'gut/aorta send vocalization impulses to the larynx via the RNL' is a classic example.

You made that claim to try to rescue your notion of 'Design' because, it seems obvious, that you actually understand that it is 'bad design' and need to justify it because you believe that your deity is perfect. Freshman biology majors will learn the basic of neuron morphology and physiology and will understand the directionality of nerve impulse transmission and nerves and the basic physiology of the nervous system. THEY would not make the claims you do - claims that you, if at all, justify because they 'makes sense' to you.
WHO CARES if it makes sense to you? That you 'see' Design in things? You propose that the the fact that the extrinsic cardiac ganglia innervate both the heart and the esophagus that the heart must therefor send message TO the esophagus! 10 seconds on google would have squashed that notion, but you ran with it because... you think you are so smart that you just know things? I don't know. But you have thus far refused to admit your error, even when I quote YOUR OWN SOURCE explaining your error - and then you whine about me using 'ad homs' - the classic creationist escape clause.

'Alpha male' my butt...

 

[tas8831]

No, a personal insult by itself is not an "ad hom."

An ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy, not just an insult. It is an assertion that a person's argument is wrong not because of any internal structural failure of the argument itself but because of personal character flaws of the arguer unrelated to the argument. For instance:

"Speedwell's argument is wrong because it is illogical" is a criticism, not an ad hom.

"Speedwell's argument is wrong because it is illogical and he is a dork" is a criticism followed by a personal insult, not an ad hom.

Speedwell's argument is wrong because he is a dork" is an ad hom.

All true. I have never once claimed that OWG was wrong BECAUSE he is an egotist - I have suggested that his egotism blinds him to his errors, but this was not an argument or a counter-argument.

One need only look at my posts in which I clearly refute OWGs claims, often with the very sources he had used to 'support' them - I provide the 'documentation', which is routinely ignored by OWG, which is annoying, to be sure.

But this is not a purely OWG thing - most creationists engage in such antics. But most other YECs don't prop up their antics with declarations of their infallibility.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Tas, you are taking this thing waaaay more seriously than I am. I've moved on, so should you. You are not going to get the satisfaction you seek. So chill man.

P.S. There are other crazy posts of mine that you can attack.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

LOL!

Super genius IQ, doesn't know what an ad hom is.

Perhaps if you didn't earn the remarks, you might not receive them - try being humble and honest for a bit. Stop trying to imply that you have special insights that you don't. Stop being so egotistical as to think that whether or not you understand something is enough to declare it legitimate or not. Stop moving the goalposts every time your claims are corrected and debunked. Stop minutiae-hunting to avoid having to admit error. Stop pretending that you can address any and all criticisms, or that you can 'see' things, then ignore requests to do so.

Like way back when you said you could "see" design in anatomy -

"All anatomy reveals very complex design, down to the molecular (specialized tissue) level. Pick any organ or system and look closely at the organization of it. This is purposeful design, thus creation."

Yet when I presented you with this:

OK - let me pick... the human obturator foramen*.

Please provide evidence that it was created.

Specialized tissues are not molecules.

But tell us all, exactly, which molecules associated with the obturator foramen were created and provide the evidence for this. Tell me about the inductive processes that produced the specialized tissues associated with it, and show me the evidence that those processes and tissues were created.

Merely saying they were does not count. And do not engage in the burden shifting fallacy by demanding I prove they were not created. YOU claimed they were created, now show that you have more than overconfident assertions.​

You actually replied with "So, you have no answers." And the best part - you apparently could not even tell that it wasn't human!

That is not how an honest person interacts with people. It IS how a poseur does.


*tried to get rid of the double-pic, but neither shows up in the editing window....

Connect all the associated tissues and voila...design!

 

[bhsmte]

Is that your only takeaway?

No.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, a personal insult by itself is not an "ad hom."

An ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy, not just an insult. It is an assertion that a person's argument is wrong not because of any internal structural failure of the argument itself but because of personal character flaws of the arguer unrelated to the argument. For instance:

"Speedwell's argument is wrong because it is illogical" is a criticism, not an ad hom.

"Speedwell's argument is wrong because it is illogical and he is a dork" is a criticism followed by a personal insult, not an ad hom.

Speedwell's argument is wrong because he is a dork" is an ad hom.

Thanks for the clarification. I can go with that.

 

[tas8831]

Tas, you are taking this thing waaaay more seriously than I am. I've moved on, so should you. You are not going to get the satisfaction you seek. So chill man.

P.S. There are other crazy posts of mine that you can attack.

Cool escape hatch.

In reality, I know that you will never admit to your ignorance, and that this is a character flaw in many creationists. i suspect that while it may in large part be the fault of their egotism (and a healthy does of the Dunning-Kruger effect), I suspect that at some level, it is because that understand that to admit to ANY errors, is to have to admit that their positions on other issues might also be flawed - to include, perhaps, their positions on their religion. Can't have that - better to duck and dodge and cheat and move goal posts etc..

You and most other creationists do these things despite the fact that it is obvious to all that you are out of your depth, but unable to admit it. which is why I write the posts I do. That IS my satisfaction.

So how about explaining how you know the human obturator foramen is the product of 'design'?

 

[tas8831]

Connect all the associated tissues and voila...design!

Exhibit #273 why creationists need not be taken seriously.

 

[Ophiolite]

Tas, you are taking this thing waaaay more seriously than I am. I've moved on, so should you. You are not going to get the satisfaction you seek. So chill man.

P.S. There are other crazy posts of mine that you can attack.

It seems to me that this makes you guilty of trolling and goading. To quote the Donald, Sad.