Vocal Nerve Unnecessarily Loops (Poor Design)

[BL2KTN]

I saw this video on YouTube and thought it might be worthwhile for creationists to check out. Adjust your reality to it however you wish:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_J-imkehU

 

[46AND2]

If you delete the "s" from the "https" part of your link address, it won't screw up the format of the page...

 

[BL2KTN]

Please let this thread stand as a sign for all. Every time I post a thread with content showing creationism is absurd, it gets no attention. Nobody wants to learn about the vocal nerve, nobody wants to study the hebrew idea of a hard sky dome (raqia) mentioned in Genesis 1.

The facts are unimportant - emotional attachment to beliefs are what drive most people on these forums.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That nerve is an extreme example of common descent.

In every animal you look at that has this nerve, it makes the exact same loop around the exact same structures. Which indeed results in ridiculous detours in animals like the Giraffe.

 

[justlookinla]

Please let this thread stand as a sign for all. Every time I post a thread with content showing creationism is absurd, it gets no attention. Nobody wants to learn about the vocal nerve, nobody wants to study the hebrew idea of a hard sky dome (raqia) mentioned in Genesis 1.

The facts are unimportant - emotional attachment to beliefs are what drive most people on these forums.

Nobody wants to recognize the fact that it's impossible for the indescribable complexity of life to occur by only a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless natural mechanism acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Nothing in nature would suggest such a view. Only the gullible who embrace Scienceism would have such a faith-based view.

 

[selfinflikted]

1. Show how it's impossible

2. Everything in nature suggests this view. It is only your supernatural beliefs (and incredulity) that suggest otherwise.

 

[justlookinla]

1. Show how it's impossible

There's no way to show it's remotely possible. The tremendous variety and indescribable complexity show's it's impossible for only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless naturalistic mechanisms to produce this from a single life form of long long ago.

2. Everything in nature suggests this view. It is only your supernatural beliefs (and incredulity) that suggest otherwise.

Nothing in anything which has been observed in nature would remotely suggest such a view, absolutely nothing. Bacteria evolving into bacteria as an example is incredibly stupid at best and purposely deceitful at worse.

 

[Loudmouth]

There's no way to show it's remotely possible. The tremendous variety and indescribable complexity show's it's impossible for only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless naturalistic mechanisms to produce this from a single life form of long long ago.

Please evidence your claim that it is impossible.

Nothing in anything which has been observed in nature would remotely suggest such a view, absolutely nothing. Bacteria evolving into bacteria as an example is incredibly stupid at best and purposely deceitful at worse.

And yet you won't accept humans evolving from a common ancestor shared with chimps even though it is primates evolving into primates.

 

[justlookinla]

Please evidence your claim that it is impossible.

Provide evidence that it's possible. Observable evidence. Until you do, the indescribable complexity and incredible variety of life renders it impossible.

And yet you won't accept humans evolving from a common ancestor shared with chimps even though it is primates evolving into primates.

Your claim. Prove it.

 

[Elendur]

Provide evidence that it's possible. Observable evidence. Until you do, the indescribable complexity and incredible variety of life renders it impossible.
...

You've severely misunderstood the default position and possibly the burden of proof.

You've claimed that it's impossible (post #5), you back it up.

When they ask you to demonstrate your claim, it's not an acceptable answer to demand that they show you wrong. This is known as shifting the burden of proof.

 

[Loudmouth]

Provide evidence that it's possible. Observable evidence. Until you do, the indescribable complexity and incredible variety of life renders it impossible.

The burden of proof is on you to support your own claims. You claimed it is impossible. Prove it.

Your claim. Prove it.

Already have proved it, over and over.

 

[selfinflikted]

Apologies. My quote function appears to be broken and I'm improvising.

There's no way to show it's remotely possible. The tremendous variety and indescribable complexity show's it's impossible for only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless naturalistic mechanisms to produce this from a single life form of long long ago.

You've made the claim that it's impossible. Please demonstrate how it's impossible, or retract your previous assertion.

Nothing in anything which has been observed in nature would remotely suggest such a view, absolutely nothing. Bacteria evolving into bacteria as an example is incredibly stupid at best and purposely deceitful at worse.

I'll give one example that does more than simply suggest it: Genetics. Also, I'm not sure what your gripe about bacteria is, honestly. They're a great example to use because they reproduce extremely rapidly, thus allowing us to observe successive generations in a short time frame.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Provide evidence that it's possible. Observable evidence. Until you do, the indescribable complexity and incredible variety of life renders it impossible.



Your claim. Prove it.

It has been proven possible. All that we need to show is that positive mutations occur and they have been selected. We can show that in the laboratory and in the field.

In the laboratory there is the long term E. coli experiment. In the field there aer many examples, but I will list two in humans alone.

Actually I will do this indirectly.

1. Can you drink milk?

2. The gene that causes sickle cell anemia is a positive mutation. It is up to you to find out why.

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[justlookinla]

There's been no observable ability of naturalistic mechanisms to produce anything close to the variety and complexity of life we observe today. That's because it's impossible. If you think it possible, simply give observable evidence. Otherwise I'm really not interested in your Godless, faith-base creationist views.

 

[AV1611VET]

I saw this video on YouTube and thought it might be worthwhile for creationists to check out.

This site gives an effective defense against the dysteleological argument.

To ignore the defense, based on the crediblity of the source, could result in a court decision that would surprise you -- if it ever went to court.

 

[justlookinla]

You've severely misunderstood the default position and possibly the burden of proof.

You've claimed that it's impossible (post #5), you back it up.

When they ask you to demonstrate your claim, it's not an acceptable answer to demand that they show you wrong. This is known as shifting the burden of proof.

I've given the proof for my claim, the complete and total lack of evidence that any such thing could occur.

 

[Loudmouth]

There's been no observable ability of naturalistic mechanisms to produce anything close to the variety and complexity of life we observe today.

Prove it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've given the proof for my claim, the complete and total lack of evidence that any such thing could occur.

That is not evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

It has been proven possible. All that we need to show is that positive mutations occur and they have been selected. We can show that in the laboratory and in the field.

In the laboratory there is the long term E. coli experiment. In the field there aer many examples, but I will list two in humans alone.

Actually I will do this indirectly.

1. Can you drink milk?

2. The gene that causes sickle cell anemia is a positive mutation. It is up to you to find out why.

Not a single thing you've posted would remotely suggest that only naturalistic mechanisms could produce the inexplicable complexity and tremendous variety of life we observe today.