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

[OldWiseGuy]

What percentage would you guess, are innocent?

One is too many.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Great.

But no speech or vocalization or vocal sounds are generated in the gut, or the 'aortic arch', or anywhere but the brain, and there are no 'reflexive' vocalizations that are produced via such gut-originated signals. Because there is no such thing.

And even if the gut could somehow produce motor impulses relevant to speech, they would not go directly to the larynx via the recurrent laryngeal nerve.


Again - why is it so hard for creationists to admit they are wrong about something?

Also:

"If the larynx needs a signal from the aortic arch that loop is a great way to facilitate the 'my heart was in my throat' response."


Please provide evidence that "the aortic arch" sends motor input to the larynx. Via the RLN.

Did you miss the "If"? It's the first word in my theory.

Articles such as this indicate that this study (which would include my theory) is still a work in progress. Maybe Aristotle and I are correct.

Visceral Influences on Brain and Behavior - ScienceDirect

 

[bhsmte]

One is too many.

Doesn't answer my question.

And what is your plan to get that number down to zero?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

@OldWiseGuy
Do you understand what those terms (assumption and speculation) mean in a scientific article? Hint: not what they mean in the laymen's terms.
And:
You have admitted that you have no understanding of evolution, so why do you think that you are in anyway educated to say that it is 'held together by speculation and assumption'?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Doesn't answer my question.

And what is your plan to get that number down to zero?

I'll tackle that as soon as I solve all the other problems in the world (I'm particularly interested in personal health).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

@OldWiseGuy
Do you understand what those terms (assumption and speculation) mean in a scientific article? Hint: not what they mean in the laymen's terms.
And:
You have admitted that you have no understanding of evolution, so why do you think that you are in anyway educated to say that it is 'held together by speculation and assumption'?

I can plainly see that it is, and worse. I hope evolutionists know that they have a tiger by the tail, a runaway train they can't get off of.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I can plainly see that it is, and worse. I hope evolutionists know that they have a tiger by the tail, a runaway train they can't get off of.

You're not answering my questions:
Do you understand what those terms (assumption and speculation) mean in a scientific article? Hint: not what they mean in the laymen's terms.
And:
You have admitted that you have no understanding of evolution, so why do you think that you are in anyway educated to say that it is 'held together by speculation and assumption'?

 

[tas8831]

Did you miss the "If"? It's the first word in my theory.

Is that your way of admitting you have no idea how the body of any animal actually works? "If" is supposed to save your ignorance of the nervous system? Sorry - if you are so ignorant of biology as to think that the gut - or the aortic arch - has any direct influence over 'vocalizations' (i.e., the production of sound in response to 'fear' or 'surprise', as you initially implied) you have no place even pretending to have produced a "theory" - which you ALSO do not seem to understand.



You don't have a theory, you have an ego and a religion.

Articles such as this indicate that this study (which would include my theory) is still a work in progress. Maybe Aristotle and I are correct.

Visceral Influences on Brain and Behavior - ScienceDirect

Nowhere in that article is there even a hint that the aortic arch or any other part of the gut can generate motor impulses that go to the larynx via the RLN.

You are, as is your norm, simply trying to muddy the waters to avoid having to admit that everyone on this forum with at least high school biology under their belt saw you crash and burn on these issues.

FAIL. Another typical FAIL on your part.


I didn't realize that Aristotle pretended to know things he didn't and refused to admit that he didn't know what he was talking about. Nor that he would try to cover up his ignorance by dodging, diverting, honing in on minutiae while ignoring his opponent's major points, etc.

But it is so cute that, perhaps embarrassed at your obvious ignorance regarding how the nervous system works, you now desperately seek (via keyword searches - how did that go you last time, hero?) any straw you can grasp to try to prop up your crumbling facade of relevant 'intelligence.' Sad.

And you are still running away from this bumpkin blabber:



" If the larynx needs a signal from the aortic arch that loop is a great way to facilitate the 'my heart was in my throat' response."

Please provide evidence that "the aortic arch" sends motor input to the larynx. Via the RLN.

You can run (and that is all you do), but you can't hide. Easier to just admit it and move on - but that is not how creationists operate, is it?

 

[tas8831]

You're not answering my questions:
Do you understand what those terms (assumption and speculation) mean in a scientific article? Hint: not what they mean in the laymen's terms.
And:
You have admitted that you have no understanding of evolution, so why do you think that you are in anyway educated to say that it is 'held together by speculation and assumption'?

I like that you are reminding him - and all of those reading threads he engages in - of the fact that he has not answered a simple straightforward question, and that he keeps dodging and muddying the waters.
I am doing the same - with the same results - regarding this ignorant claim of his (which he calls a "theory"):

"If the larynx needs a signal from the aortic arch that loop [the RLN] is a great way to facilitate the 'my heart was in my throat' response."

 

[tas8831]

I'll tackle that as soon as I solve all the other problems in the world (I'm particularly interested in personal health).

And I'm sure you think 'The Health Ranger' has all the answers....

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You're not answering my questions:
Do you understand what those terms (assumption and speculation) mean in a scientific article? Hint: not what they mean in the laymen's terms.
And:
You have admitted that you have no understanding of evolution, so why do you think that you are in anyway educated to say that it is 'held together by speculation and assumption'?

It's my theory based on observation.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Is that your way of admitting you have no idea how the body of any animal actually works? "If" is supposed to save your ignorance of the nervous system? Sorry - if you are so ignorant of biology as to think that the gut - or the aortic arch - has any direct influence over 'vocalizations' (i.e., the production of sound in response to 'fear' or 'surprise', as you initially implied) you have no place even pretending to have produced a "theory" - which you ALSO do not seem to understand.



You don't have a theory, you have an ego and a religion.


Nowhere in that article is there even a hint that the aortic arch or any other part of the gut can generate motor impulses that go to the larynx via the RLN.

You are, as is your norm, simply trying to muddy the waters to avoid having to admit that everyone on this forum with at least high school biology under their belt saw you crash and burn on these issues.

FAIL. Another typical FAIL on your part.


I didn't realize that Aristotle pretended to know things he didn't and refused to admit that he didn't know what he was talking about. Nor that he would try to cover up his ignorance by dodging, diverting, honing in on minutiae while ignoring his opponent's major points, etc.

But it is so cute that, perhaps embarrassed at your obvious ignorance regarding how the nervous system works, you now desperately seek (via keyword searches - how did that go you last time, hero?) any straw you can grasp to try to prop up your crumbling facade of 'intelligence.' Sad.

And you are still running away from this bumpkin blabber:



" If the larynx needs a signal from the aortic arch that loop is a great way to facilitate the 'my heart was in my throat' response."

Please provide evidence that "the aortic arch" sends motor input to the larynx. Via the RLN.

You can run (and that is all you do), but you can't hide. Easier to just admit it and move on - but that is not how creationists operate, is it?

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And I'm sure you think 'The Health Ranger' has all the answers....

I'm a disciple of Paul C. Bragg. He had most of the answers already.

I see where you're going here. You are using my disbelief in evolution as a litmus test to declare that I'm as 'dumb as a rock' and don't know anything about anything. Sweet.

Joe Blow: "OldWiseGuy, do you have the time?"

tas8831: "Don't ask him, he doesn't believe in evolution."

 

[xianghua]

otherwise that designer needs a designer which only results in an infinite regress and doesn't answer any questions.

basically we have 3 options:

1) a self replicating robot can evolve naturally.
2) a self replicating robot need a designer which need a designer too.
3) a self replicating robot created by an eternal designer.

what do you think its the simplest explanation?

 

[theQuincunx5]

basically we have 3 options:

1) a self replicating robot can evolve naturally.
2) a self replicating robot need a designer which need a designer too.
3) a self replicating robot created by an eternal designer.

what do you think its the simplest explanation?

"eternal designer"? What does that mean?

 

[theQuincunx5]

It's my theory based on observation.

In regards to evolution, what, exactly, is the extent of your observation? How many years did you work in a genetics lab? How many paleontology research projects have you been involved in?

It is quite easy to have an hypothesis about something, I've got plenty. Most of them are relatively uninformed by any actual experience in the field.

Here's one other, important question: do you disbelieve evolution because it lacks sufficient explanatory power to describe the data present or do you disbelieve evolution because it poses problems for you spiritually?

I have no real beef with that. If I thought that my immortal soul or even my "relationship with God" were endangered by accepting a particular set of data I'd just ignore the data and hope that the fullness of time would clear everything up. So I fully understand the "faith motivation" for not liking certain concepts.

But, if your problem with evolution is based solely on a lack of data, then you may have to determine if you are actually cognizant of all the data sufficient to gainsay the work of countless thousands of researchers who work with that data every single day and do find it compelling.

 

[tas8831]

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

A 'theory' is not a sentence starting with the word "if", sorry.
It is so inspiring to your fellow creationists how you totally ignore refutations of your assertions and demonstrations that even the things you cite as 'support' for your naive claims actually undermine your rubbish 'theories' with one-liner blow-offs.

The antic of a beta.

Still waiting:

" If the larynx needs a signal from the aortic arch that loop is a great way to facilitate the 'my heart was in my throat' response."

Please provide evidence that "the aortic arch" sends motor input to the larynx. Via the RLN.

 

[tas8831]

I'm a disciple of Paul C. Bragg. He had most of the answers already.

I see where you're going here. You are using my disbelief in evolution as a litmus test to declare that I'm as 'dumb as a rock' and don't know anything about anything. Sweet.

No, I am using your obvious ignorance of all things biological - to include your inability to understand even the lay science press articles you link to - to tentatively conclude that you don't know anything about anything.

And Paul Bragg - more of the same. Apple cider vinegar... Like I said...

Joe Blow: "OldWiseGuy, do you have the time?"

tas8831: "Don't ask him, he doesn't believe in evolution."

I am sure you can tell time. More like:



Joe Blow: "OldWiseGuy, do you think the recurrent laryngeal nerve's routing is evidence of Design in Nature?"


OWG: "Why of course - I used to design things, so I know design when I see it despite having no actual evidence of design - the bible says so, and that is that. Plus I have a high IQ and have studied biology so I know all I have to."


Joe Blow: "So, why do you think it is designed?"

OWG: "Well you see, like when you have a funny feeling and make a noise? That is totally vocalization impulses from your duodenum telling the voice box to make that noise, and those signals get to the voice box via the recurrent laryngeal nerve."

tas8831: "Don't ask him, he doesn't understand biology - he actually admitted as much, but can't bring himself to admit that he is in over his head. He rejects evolution because of his religious beliefs, not because of any actual evidence, and he thinks that he can impress people by claiming he has a high IQ even as his posts make it obvious that he is clueless. He ignores refutations of his claims, but dismisses explanations as to why his claims are bogus out of desperation."

OWG: "I stand by my claims."

Joe Blow: "I see what you mean, tas. He's got nothing."

Tas: "Yeah... And not just in biology - he also thinks some goofball health guru who lied about his age as well as being in the Olympics among other lies, is the best source of health knowledge. Don't waste your time on him."

Joe Blow: "Got that right."

OWG: "I stand by my theory."




Still waiting:

" If the larynx needs a signal from the aortic arch that loop is a great way to facilitate the 'my heart was in my throat' response."

Please provide evidence that "the aortic arch" sends motor input to the larynx. Via the RLN.

 

[tas8831]

It's my theory based on observation.

And yet you have admitted ignorance in biology, and demonstrated the same over the course of the last couple of weeks.

Why should anyone care - at all - what you think about evolution, much about your "theory"?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

In regards to evolution, what, exactly, is the extent of your observation? How many years did you work in a genetics lab? How many paleontology research projects have you been involved in?

It is quite easy to have an hypothesis about something, I've got plenty. Most of them are relatively uninformed by any actual experience in the field.

Here's one other, important question: do you disbelieve evolution because it lacks sufficient explanatory power to describe the data present or do you disbelieve evolution because it poses problems for you spiritually?

I have no real beef with that. If I thought that my immortal soul or even my "relationship with God" were endangered by accepting a particular set of data I'd just ignore the data and hope that the fullness of time would clear everything up. So I fully understand the "faith motivation" for not liking certain concepts.

But, if your problem with evolution is based solely on a lack of data, then you may have to determine if you are actually cognizant of all the data sufficient to gainsay the work of countless thousands of researchers who work with that data every single day and do find it compelling.

It's the third choice. I see purposeful, deliberate, design in nature (before ID came along). That precludes evolution.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

DP (are we going to go through this again?)