Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
They have functioning make-an-eye genes but they are turned offGood example. Show me their eyes come back when removed from dark. I guess this could be tested in the lab.
You do realize that the cardiac plexus is near the base of the heart so curving around either the aorta or the subclavian isnt great design . It’s a Rube Goldberg construction based on where arteries were during fetal development and these arteries evolved from the gill archesDawkins is an evolutionist hack. In his demonstration of the poor design of the giraffe's RLN he 'hacked' right through the evidence of ID that has been observed by others, including "Gray's Anatomy", which states this about that:
"Indeed, hints of important functions for the RLN nerve can be seen in the old authority, Gray's Anatomy, which states regarding the normal human design:
As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.
So it seems that the RLN is innervating a lot more than just the larynx.
Pro-ID biologist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, in his article "The Laryngeal Nerve of the Giraffe: Does it Prove Evolution?," quotes a passage from a much more recent 1980 edition of Gray's Anatomy stating much the same thing:
As the recurrent laryngeal nerve curves around the subclavian artery or the arch of aorta, it gives several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the oesophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea and some filaments to the inferior constrictor [Constrictor pharyngis inferior]. "
(Gray's Anatomy, 1980, p. 1081, similarly also in the 40th edition of 2008, pp. 459, 588/589)
The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Does Not Refute Intelligent Design
Rather than being poor design it seems rather elegant to me.
you never heard of Ken Miller ?!?!?! At the Dover trial, he basically shot Micheal Behe out of the water! He wrote Finding Darwin’s God about why some scientists are theists and accept evolution and the old earth
If you exercise common sense and logic, you will find, something, anything from nothing has never been demonstrated, never has, never will. Nothing, (pre-big bang theory) cannot produce matter.
All the theories and hypothesis in the world will never change that fact.
Renders it impossible,
promoted by deluded charlatans.
(Also, something from nothing isn't a part of the Big Bang Theory).
Lets revisit this in 100 years.Since evolution only takes place in extant life on an extant planet (earth in this case) nothing in the first quote has anything to do with evolution, much less rendering it impossible.
The irony of someone who clearly understands nothing about evolution calling science advocates deluded charlatans is not lost on any of us.
So........ better give it up and become a believerThat's what the TOE claims started it all. ( Big bang, presto, something from nothing)
One can try to divorce the TOE from the origins of the universe, but the 2 are intricately tied together. Without the first, the second falls.
Let's not forget, the TOE is only a theory, never been observed or demonstrated.
And Noah's flood was just "discovered" by several high powered "scientists", ( they got the timeline wrong, it was about 4,000 years ago, not 1-2 hundred thousand)
And one of the latest studies came up with the following;
All humans may be descended from just TWO people and a catastrophic event almost wiped out ALL species 100,000 years ago, study suggests
- Genetic 'bar codes' of five million animals from different species were surveyed
- Research prompted speculation humans and animals sprang from single pair.
You source is a popular science page, not a scholarly publication. But I notice the important text of "But there’s absolutely no agreement about what came before the Big Bang." showing that the Big Bang theory does not in fact address where the initial conditions came from.This from stardate.org ;
Scientists pretty much agree that our universe — everything that we can see and touch — evolved from a single moment of creation, known as the Big Bang. It happened 13.8 billion years ago, and it created not just matter and energy, but space and time as well.
But there’s absolutely no agreement about what came before the Big Bang. Some say that there was nothing at all. It’s an idea supported by Stephen Hawking, who has said that the universe wasn’t created, it just is.
Impossible, ridiculous and untrue.
It's much easier to believe in intelligent design, and I LOVE the Intelligent Designer.
He is my Redeemer and my King!
Lets revisit this in 100 years.
By then, there will be no doubt who is a deluded charlatan.
Yep, something from nothing is an impossibility that cannot be demonstrated or observed.You source is a popular science page, not a scholarly publication. But I notice the important text of "But there’s absolutely no agreement about what came before the Big Bang." showing that the Big Bang theory does not in fact address where the initial conditions came from.
I understand that you find it easier to believe in an Intelligent Designer... but you'll need evidence to convince anyone else.
Can you actually present evidence that the Big Bang theory is in fact "impossible, ridiculous and untrue"?
Okay, you only need one of those "human" abilities? But if it's based on the individual, you still have the problem of some very young, sick or injured not counting as being part of the same species.
There's also the problem of this somewhat ad hoc method might work okay for a single species we actually belong to, but the scientific definition actually scales to the other life of the planet. You can't just have two species: "humans" and "not humans", well, I guess you could, but it wouldn't be very useful most of the time.
Yep, something from nothing {snip}
. The Dover trial transcripts were online ... fascinating reading . I’m not sure if they still are . If you can find them you’ll be fascinatedEh, I only know about Michael Behe because of this site. I don't follow the Intelligent Design controversy too closely.
. They still are at ncse- National Center for Science Education. That’s a screenshot not a link. The Dover trial transcripts were online ... fascinating reading . I’m not sure if they still are . If you can find them you’ll be fascinated
Here's the link: Kitzmiller Trial Transcripts. The Dover trial transcripts were online ... fascinating reading . I’m not sure if they still are . If you can find them you’ll be fascinated
What has been used as proof of the TOE is every creature's ability to adapt to it's environment.Why? The data are in now and it's clear that evolution has happened. There are literally millions of potential observations we could have made that would falsify evolution, but we have made none of them. What makes you think that something will happen in the next 100 years that will change the pattern we've been observing for the last 150 years?
Or are you just trying to avoid discussing the evidence we have now?
Repetition is a good teacher?You have been corrected repeatedly on this. Why do you keep repeating it?
I believe in context it's not a name, only a descriptionWhen all else fails, name call.
Yep, something from nothing is an impossibility that cannot be demonstrated or observed.
And I remain firmly convinced, as to the intelligence of..................... (Psalms 14:1)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?