The Fossil Record- As God Would Have Made It Through Time

doubtingmerle · Apr 22, 2018

xianghua said:
so you have no answer. thanks

I notice that you do not answer when I ask you questions about things that cannot possibly exist. Why should I answer your questions about things that could not possibly exist?

doubtingmerle · Apr 22, 2018

xianghua said:
its very simple. if the designer is eternal he doesnt need a designer. so we dont need more designers.

How do you know that external designers do not need a designer but internal ones do?

majj27 · Apr 22, 2018

doubtingmerle said:
How do you know that external designers do not need a designer but internal ones do?

Because the designer is a self-replicating Chevy Silverado and oh no we've hit maximum recursion ****MELON! MELON!**** OUT OF CHEESE ERROR **** PLEASE REINSTALL UNIVERSE AND REBOOT****

OldWiseGuy · Apr 22, 2018

doubtingmerle said:
if you are standing on an infinite stack of turtles, isn't that foundation a bit unstable?

I would say predictable.

OldWiseGuy · Apr 22, 2018

doubtingmerle said:
Do you care to refer me to the scientific journal that states we know this with absolute certainty? The words "absolute certainty" would be quite odd in a scientific writing.

I'm taking the word of tas8831. He seems to represent everything scientific.

OldWiseGuy · Apr 22, 2018

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You are stunningly wrong! Evolution is not the default position, it is simply the best supported theory!
It's comments like this that proves beyond a doubt that your critique of evolution is not a logical or intelligence problem on your end, it's simply a religious one.

So science does leave the creation door open?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Apr 22, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
So science does leave the creation door open?

An incredibly tiny locked door with a very tiny key that no-one can find.

doubtingmerle · Apr 22, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
I'm taking the word of tas8831. He seems to represent everything scientific.

He's my pope?

Jjmcubbin · Apr 22, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
So science does leave the creation door open?

Unfortunately, as far as I know, no. ID is a discarded theory and can never be restored, just like Larmarckism or mutation theory. If someday, evidence was discovered that did not agree with evolution, evolutionary theory will be discarded and a new theory would be formulated. The chances are small, since evolution agrees with all discoveries, but it may happen.
It will never be replaced by the previous theories though because they fail to explain current data, even if they explain future data, their inability to explain current data makes them useless.

theQuincunx5 · Apr 22, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
I would say predictable.

Do you see any value to evolution as a science?

We all agree that evolution is incomprehensible to you personally, just as parts of quantum mechanics are incomprehensible to most people, but those things we don't personally comprehend can actually have value to the professionals who work in that area and do understand it. Knowing that, can you agree that evolution appears to have value to people who do understand and utilize the biological sciences?

If so, how does that moderate your overall view of the factual nature evolution?

OldWiseGuy · Apr 22, 2018

theQuincunx5 said:
Do you see any value to evolution as a science?

We all agree that evolution is incomprehensible to you personally, just as parts of quantum mechanics are incomprehensible to most people, but those things we don't personally comprehend can actually have value to the professionals who work in that area and do understand it. Knowing that, can you agree that evolution appears to have value to people who do understand and utilize the biological sciences?

If so, how does that moderate your overall view of the factual nature evolution?

I agree it has value, and I've no doubt benefitted from it as well, but that doesn't affect my belief in creation.

tas8831 · Apr 23, 2018

tas8831 said:
Waiting for OWG to present his evidence that the motor impulses for vocalizations of any kind come from anywhere but the nucleus ambiguus.

Hello?

Bueller?

tas8831 · Apr 23, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
I'm taking the word of tas8831. He seems to represent everything scientific.

You are nothing if not entertainingly disingenuous.

I guess this goes back to me asking you to actually provide evidence for your claims?

How sad of you to decry such a horrible, horrible thing! To ask a creationist to provide support for a claim!

OldWiseGuy · Apr 23, 2018

tas8831 said:
You are nothing if not entertainingly disingenuous.

I guess this goes back to me asking you to actually provide evidence for your claims?

How sad of you to decry such a horrible, horrible thing! To ask a creationist to provide support for a claim!

The creation is supernatural. There is no scientific explanation.

theQuincunx5 · Apr 23, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
I agree it has value, and I've no doubt benefitted from it as well, but that doesn't affect my belief in creation.

Interesting. Thanks.

tas8831 · Apr 23, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
The creation is supernatural. There is no scientific explanation.

I do enjoy your question begging fallacies, however, it is obvious what we are talking about - the fact that you continually try to obfuscate also tells us much about your position.

I am obviously referring to your silly claims about the RLN transmitting motor information from the gut or aorta - both of which you have claimed. Your 'defense' of my refutation of this fantastically silly notion was that we might no know everything.

Cute - but the fact is, what we DO know refutes your naive proclamations, to wit:

"Waiting for OWG to present his evidence that the motor impulses for vocalizations of any kind come from anywhere but the nucleus ambiguus."

and this:

You implied you know about Gray's anatomy, right?

By the way - I ALREADY provided you with a source, but you probably just didn't bother to read it. Creationists are like that - they don't actually want to know how little they know.

So, since you think Google U makes you the expert you pretend to be, I found these in a couple of minutes:

The Neural Basis of Speech and Language (this is the one I linked for you before and you clearly ignored or more likely could not understand)
http://samples.jbpub.com/9781449652678/74738_CH02_FINAL.pdf

Vagus Nerve
http://www.caam.rice.edu/~cox/wrap/vagusnerve.pdf

Why, even Wiki:
General visceral afferent fibers - Wikipedia

From here:

General visceral afferent fibers

The general visceral afferent fibers (GVA) conduct sensory impulses (usually pain or reflex sensations) from the internal organs, glands, and blood vessels to the central nervous system.[1] They are considered to be part of the autonomic nervous system. However, unlike the efferent fibers of the autonomic nervous system, the afferent fibers are not classified as either sympathetic or parasympathetic.[2]

GVA fibers create referred pain by activating general somatic afferent fibers where the two meet in the posterior grey column.

The cranial nerves that contain GVA fibers include the facial nerve (CN VII), the glossopharyngeal nerve (CN IX), and the vagus nerve (CN X).[3]

Generally, they are insensitive to cutting, crushing or burning, excessive tension in smooth muscle and some pathological conditions produce visceral pain (referred pain).[4]

Pathway
Abdomen

In the abdomen, general visceral afferent fibers usually accompany sympathetic efferent fibers. This means that a signal traveling in an afferent fiber will begin at sensory receptors in the afferent fiber's target organ, travel up to the ganglion where the sympathetic efferent fiber synapses, continue back along a splanchnic nerve from the ganglion into the sympathetic trunk, move into a ventral ramus via a white ramus communicans, and finally move into the mixed spinal nerve between the division of the rami and the division of the roots of the spinal nerve. The GVA pathway then diverges from the sympathetic efferent pathway, which follows the ventral root into the spinal column, by following the dorsal root into the dorsal root ganglion, where the cell body of the visceral afferent nerve is located.[5] Finally, the signal continues along the dorsal root from the dorsal root ganglion to a region of gray matter in the dorsal horn of the spinal column where it is transmitted via a synapse to a neuron in the central nervous system.[2]

The only GVA nerves in the abdomen that do not follow the above pathway are those that innervate structures in the distal half of the sigmoid colon and the rectum. These afferent fibers, instead, follow the path of parasympathetic efferent fibers back to the vertebral column, where the afferent fibers enter the S2-S4 sensory (dorsal root) ganglia followed by the spinal cord.[5]
Pelvis

The course of GVA fibers from organs in the pelvis, in general, depends on the organ's position relative to the pelvic pain line. An organ, or part of an organ, in the pelvis is said to be "above the pelvic pain line" if it is in contact with the peritoneum, except in the case of the large intestine, where the pelvic pain line is said to be located in the middle of the sigmoid colon.[6] GVA fibers from structures above the pain line follow the course of the sympathetic efferent fibers, and GVA fibers from structures below the pain line follow the course of the parasympathetic efferents.[6] Pain from the latter fibers is less likely to be consciously experienced.[6]

References

Moore, Keith; Anne Agur (2007). Essential Clinical Anatomy, Third Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 635. ISBN 0-7817-6274-X.
Moore, Keith; Anne Agur (2007). Essential Clinical Anatomy, Third Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. pp. 34–35. ISBN 0-7817-6274-X.
Mehta, Samir et al. Step-Up: A High-Yield, Systems-Based Review for the USMLE Step 1. Baltimore, MD: LWW, 2003.
Susan,, Standring,. Gray's anatomy : the anatomical basis of clinical practice. ISBN 9780702052309. OCLC 920806541.
Moore, K.L., & Agur, A.M. (2007). Essential Clinical Anatomy: Third Edition. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 180. ISBN 978-0-7817-6274-8
Moore, Keith; Anne Agur (2007). Essential Clinical Anatomy, Third Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 220. ISBN 0-7817-6274-X.

Same source, on the special visceral afferent fibers - uh uh! this one actually mentions the larynx! Maybe this will be my Waterloo, and will provide evidence for the creationist's anatomical assertions?

Special visceral afferent fibers (SVA) are the afferent fibers that develop in association with the gastrointestinal tract.[1] They carry the special senses of smell (olfaction) and taste (gustation). The cranial nerves containing SVA fibers are the olfactory nerve (I), the facial nerve (VII), the glossopharyngeal nerve (IX), trigeminal nerve (V) and the vagus nerve (X). The facial nerve receives taste from the anterior two-thirds of the tongue; the glossopharyngeal from the posterior third. SVA fibers in the vagus originate in the larynx and pharynx.[2] The sensory processes, using their primary cell bodies from the inferior ganglion, send projections to the medulla, from which they travel in the tractus solitarius, later terminating at the rostral nucleus solitarius.[3]

Nope. Just more evidence that the creationist is out of his depth and that his claim of studying anatomy was a farce.

And wiki again on the RLN:

Recurrent laryngeal nerve - Wikipedia

Now please provide an actual source that shows that motor impulses for vocalizations can be produced anywhere other than the Nucleus ambiguus (which in turn receives inputs from the motor speech area).

Surely you know what that is, what with your keen grasp of the relevant anatomy, right?

Of course, you would have had to understand anatomy enough to know what to search for (e.g., vagus nerve, visceral afferents, etc.) which you obviously do not (and remember that according to you, if something is obvious it must be so). This is why your keyword search technique has, every time I have seen you employ it thus far, ended up making you look foolish for linking to articles that actually undermine your position.

Funny - note that I was easily able to provide sources that actually do support my position, yet the creationist cannot seem to be able to do it ever.

PREDICTION - this will be responded to with first a one or two liner blow off, probably bringing up some ancillary subject, and perhaps later with a tangential link to a creationist essay.

Bets?

Of note - my prediction was 100% true - my prophesy, as it were - you just blew all that off with a dopey one-liner, not understanding the relevance of what I had presented.

Logic dictates that due to your admission of ignorance on these topics coupled with your history if nevertheless making silly pontifications on these very subjects, that the only rational conclusion is that you are trolling for Jesus.

tas8831 · Apr 23, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
My point is that none of what I've read about evolution computes to me. I can't make sense of the general concept. I am incredulous even given the information.

And amazingly, you think this means that the problem lies with the information?

My gosh, the trollishness of the creationist...

xianghua · Apr 23, 2018

theQuincunx5 said:
That sounds like special pleading.

But also it clearly outlines the designer as God. And that makes it a religious belief.

It appears you have taken a religious belief in God and then decided that the way life makes sense is through a religious lens.

That's fine.

Can you also see that it is very difficult to differentiate between a life form designed to live in its eco-system and a life form that has arisen through millennia of evolutionary changes which weeks out features that are maladaptive to the ecosystem leaving only that which can exist in the ecosystem?

If you cannot see that this is a rather difficult thing to differentiate you are steadfastly defending religious faith.

Again, that is not bad per se. It just isn't science.

the claim that a robot need a designer isnt science?

Speedwell · Apr 23, 2018

xianghua said:
the claim that a robot need a designer isnt science?

Not when you claim that penguins are robots too.

tas8831 · Apr 23, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
I base this on my own observation and experience. Maybe this could be a litmus test for that. If you look into it you'll discover that I am correct.

I have looked into several of your claims and found that you are 100% wrong on each of them - why would this one be different?

Let me guess - you saw that claim in a creationist essay?

Or maybe you googled 'blind spots' and came across something like this:

"Peripheral Vision Problems - Blind Spots, Hemianopia and Tunnel Vision"

and ran with it?

But didn't bother to read and discover that these kinds of blinds spots are caused by things like strokes or trauma?

Because, you see, THE blind spot does not affect peripheral vision - try Wiki -

Optic disc - Wikipedia

Also one needs to have nearly perfect peripheral vision to detect them

In reality, there is a little exercise we do in A&P lab to detect it. Anyone can do it, it is pretty cool, actually. Give it a try for the first time.

Has virtually nothing to do with peripheral vision, considering the location of the optic disc.

They are 'up and out of the way'; great design.

No, they are just off to one side of the area of most acute vision:

My gosh - you cannot even make up things that sound sort of correct.

Let me help you - in the future, when confabulating things to support your religious beliefs, do not do so in the following subject areas:

anatomy
physiology
cell biology
evolution
phylogenetics
genetics

these are the subjects that I have either graduate-level education/experience in or have used in graduate and post-graduate research and thus understand via application.

Or just keep doing what you are doing and help me have some fun.

Anyway -

Even better design - have the axons exit around the periphery of the retina instead of converging near the macula, and have the blood vessels converge in the choroid instead of running through the retina. That way, there would be no blind spot at all - much better design.

Thanks for the entertainment!

The Fossil Record- As God Would Have Made It Through Time

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Mr. Owl has had quite enough

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency