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

[OldWiseGuy]

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"?

You seem to care a great deal.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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

Fasting, not apple cider vinegar (although acv keeps popping up). And he did lie about his age, claiming he was 10 years older than he actually was. Great marketing ploy for his health program.

 

[tas8831]

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

You see it.

Creationists see it.

Neither you nor any other creationists have, despite more than a decade of requests (and that is just for the new crowd of 'we're not creationists, we're Intelligent Design advocates wink wink' ), have gone beyond merely declaring that you see it.

You have no supporting evidence. You have unsupported assertions.

Like every one of your claims in this thread.

 

[tas8831]

Great marketing ploy for his health program.

Marketing ploy = scam.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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"?

I don't know anything about economics either, but I'm pretty well off thanks to that very ignorance (when everyone else was selling, I bought).

 

[tas8831]

You seem to care a great deal.

No, I don't - I just enjoy humiliating wannabe bullies.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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"?

I don't know anything about economics either, but I'm pretty well off thanks to that very ignorance. When everyone else was selling, I bought.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Marketing ploy = scam.

Only if his followers were 'scammed'. He titled himself a "Life Extension Specialist", warning that adherents to his program would see their family and friends sicken and die before their time, while they would still enjoy vigorous health into advanced years. I have found that to be true, therefore his program is sound.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, I don't - I just enjoy humiliating wannabe bullies.

Funny, I don't feel humiliated. Do you feel bullied by me?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's my theory based on observation.

Still 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'?

And PLEASE answer both.

 

[theQuincunx5]

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

You "see" design. That sounds very nice, but for the sake of discussion, how do you differentiate between a "deliberately designed" feature in nature and one that arose through the process of nature weeding out the unworkable variants? Remember nature has a LOT of time and it is met with a reproducing object (life) that has mutations and variations which can induce changes in the progeny.

That's the big point: design is nearly impossible to "quantify" or even really qualify.

Was the puddle made to fit the body of water or does the water completely and perfectly fit the shape of the hole that is the puddle?

This is where parsimony comes in: if I am faced with two choices: evolution or ID and I select "ID" I am left with MORE questions (who was this designer? Where did THEY come from? Who designed the designer? Who designed the designer of the designer?) than if I were to go with evolution as an explanation.

Evolution describes and provides a mechanism for just about every single aspect of the data and does so without inducing larger and many more questions than it explains. (Plus we have plenty of evidence for evolution that we can see daily).

This doesn't necessarily mean that ID is wrong and Evolution is right...just that ceteris paribus there would be little reason to select ID over Evolution. Unless, of course, you have some insight into evolution that countless professionals who rely on it to do their jobs and who understand it inside and out do not.

Hence my question.

 

[tas8831]

Funny, I don't feel humiliated. Do you feel bullied by me?

Not even close. One does not have to feel bullied to see a bully. You don't feel humiliated because of the Dunning-Kruger effect - you are unable to see how poorly you are performing in these threads. Dopey one-liners in response to multiple paragraphs documenting how your supposed "supporting" articles actually undermine your claims are but one example that a passer-by would look at and conclude that you just got your hat handed to you and you had nothing to counter.

You can't see it because your ego tells you not to.

But everyone else can see it.

But I do find your posts tedious and farcical.

Unless/until you can come up with something of merit - something that you don't refute on your own with your keyword-searched supposed 'support' - I am just going to keep asking you to answer the question that proves that you are out of your depth:


"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.

I know you tried to beta out of this by implying that "if" somehow changes the meaning of this, but that makes no sense at all - you are not 'asking' if the pathway exists, you are not "theorizing" that it does, you are ASSUMING that it does.

You are NOT saying that the aortic arch sends signals to the larynx and the RLN might be a nice way to get them there IF that route was real, you are saying that the route is real (and that the aortic arch does something that it does not do) and the aortic arch can send 'vocalization signals' to the larynx 'if it needs them.'

Why is it so difficult for people like you to admit that you do not understand anatomy? Is it because you stated that you do, and to admit that you do not would damage your ego?

Well how do you think our ego is doing after having pretty much every single biological claim you've made demolished for all to see?

 

[tas8831]

I don't know anything about economics either, but I'm pretty well off thanks to that very ignorance. When everyone else was selling, I bought.

It is precious how you can no longer seem to answer any questions on here at all, except with off-topic ramblings.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not even close. One does not have to feel bullied to see a bully. You don't feel humiliated because of the Dunning-Kruger effect - you are unable to see how poorly you are performing in these threads. Dopey one-liners in response to multiple paragraphs documenting how your supposed "supporting" articles actually undermine your claims are but one example that a passer-by would look at and conclude that you just got your hat handed to you and you had nothing to counter.

You can't see it because your ego tells you not to.

But everyone else can see it.

But I do find your posts tedious and farcical.

Unless/until you can come up with something of merit - something that you don't refute on your own with your keyword-searched supposed 'support' - I am just going to keep asking you to answer the question that proves that you are out of your depth:


"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.

I know you tried to beta out of this by implying that "if" somehow changes the meaning of this, but that makes no sense at all - you are not 'asking' if the pathway exists, you are not "theorizing" that it does, you are ASSUMING that it does.

You are NOT saying that the aortic arch sends signals to the larynx and the RLN might be a nice way to get them there IF that route was real, you are saying that the route is real (and that the aortic arch does something that it does not do) and the aortic arch can send 'vocalization signals' to the larynx 'if it needs them.'

Why is it so difficult for people like you to admit that you do not understand anatomy? Is it because you stated that you do, and to admit that you do not would damage your ego?

Well how do you think our ego is doing after having pretty much every single biological claim you've made demolished for all to see?

So you are saying that all is known that can be known about the nervous system?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It is precious how you can no longer seem to answer any questions on here at all, except with off-topic ramblings.

That's just one of my bona fide's vs the 'experts'.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not even close. One does not have to feel bullied to see a bully. You don't feel humiliated because of the Dunning-Kruger effect - you are unable to see how poorly you are performing in these threads. Dopey one-liners in response to multiple paragraphs documenting how your supposed "supporting" articles actually undermine your claims are but one example that a passer-by would look at and conclude that you just got your hat handed to you and you had nothing to counter.

You can't see it because your ego tells you not to.

But everyone else can see it.

But I do find your posts tedious and farcical.

Unless/until you can come up with something of merit - something that you don't refute on your own with your keyword-searched supposed 'support' - I am just going to keep asking you to answer the question that proves that you are out of your depth:


"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.

I know you tried to beta out of this by implying that "if" somehow changes the meaning of this, but that makes no sense at all - you are not 'asking' if the pathway exists, you are not "theorizing" that it does, you are ASSUMING that it does.

You are NOT saying that the aortic arch sends signals to the larynx and the RLN might be a nice way to get them there IF that route was real, you are saying that the route is real (and that the aortic arch does something that it does not do) and the aortic arch can send 'vocalization signals' to the larynx 'if it needs them.'

Why is it so difficult for people like you to admit that you do not understand anatomy? Is it because you stated that you do, and to admit that you do not would damage your ego?

Well how do you think our ego is doing after having pretty much every single biological claim you've made demolished for all to see?

I'm saying that I believe that reflexive motor responses that originate in the viscera can be expressed by the larynx via the RLN. Why the hysteria?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

dp

 

[OldWiseGuy]

tp

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You "see" design. That sounds very nice, but for the sake of discussion, how do you differentiate between a "deliberately designed" feature in nature and one that arose through the process of nature weeding out the unworkable variants? Remember nature has a LOT of time and it is met with a reproducing object (life) that has mutations and variations which can induce changes in the progeny.

What can I say, I see design.

 

[theQuincunx5]

What can I say, I see design.

Your inability to address any of these points says far more about what you see and how you see it than anything else.

You know, I really hate doing more thinking about someone's topic than they do. It seems such a gross waste of my time, but it's hard not to do. You see, I have this impression that people actually think about their positions. Clearly I am mistaken in many cases.

You see design. Fine. That's your prerogative, but it is sad that you don't seem to really have thought much about it. Certainly not enough to actually discuss it.

Oh well.

 

[theQuincunx5]

What can I say, I see design.

Your inability to address any of these points says far more about what you see and how you see it than anything else.

You know, I really hate doing more thinking about someone's topic than they do. It seems such a gross waste of my time, but it's hard not to do. You see, I have this impression that people actually think about their positions. Clearly I am mistaken in many cases.

You see design. Fine. That's your prerogative, but it is sad that you don't seem to really have thought much about it. Certainly not enough to actually discuss it.

Oh well.

 

[xianghua]

"eternal designer"? What does that mean?

a designer without a beginning.

 

[bhsmte]

a designer without a beginning.

Prove this designer exists.