|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, I don't know about you....but I am off bingeing before the world cup starts. Fine. When you recover, remember that we are still waiting for one shred of a scrap of a shred of a scintilla of a soupon of a reason why we should think that your bullshit about the recurrent laryngeal nerve is true. Just show me the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 1129 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. "A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 1127 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Coragyps writes: Can we sum up the last couple of pages by saying that since giraffes have a longer, more stretched recurrent laryngeal nerve than humans do, they can sing better than humans? What kind of stuff do giraffes like to sing? I think some people are getting carried away with all this stuff about giraffes. So they have a fifteen foot laryngeal nerve....big deal....they also have a twelve foot neck. Which one of these is the poorer design. Almost every other herbivore makes do with eating grass and a reasonable size neck. And you're worried about a fifteen foot nerve!!??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Almost every other herbivore makes do with eating grass and a reasonable size neck. And giraffes don't have to compete with every other herbivore, which is good. I'm betting if you'd just look up the meanings of the words "good" and "bad" this whole RLN as good design argument would evaporate. "Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2622 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Are you admitting that the designer does some stupid things with this giraffe example?
I thought your whole thing here was to show that the designer wasn't a complete idiot? Guess I was wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 1127 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
lyx2no writes: And giraffes don't have to compete with every other herbivore, which is good. Sheep hardly compete with cows or deer if at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2622 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
They already evolved to fill a specific niche.
Sheep hardly compete with cows or deer if at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 1127 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Are you admitting that the designer does some stupid things with this giraffe example? This is missing the point. If a designer exists then he has every right to do stupid things with his creation just as he has every right to do clever things. You are claiming there is no designer and that this is all the work of evolution. Actually you are not claiming anything at all because so far you have refused to give any indication as to what your views and opinions are. The evolutionary argument seems to simply consist of "where's the evidence".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member (Idle past 360 days) Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
This is missing the point. If a designer exists then he has every right to do stupid things with his creation just as he has every right to do clever things. I take it this new direction in your argument is essentially a tacit admission that none of your previous claims actually have any evidence to support them whatsoever? Or are you still just protecting your sources from the evil evolutionist conspiracy? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 1127 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
I take it this new direction in your argument is essentially a tacit admission that none of your previous claims actually have any evidence to support them whatsoever? No...the new direction is because its been a while since my last post and I forget what the old direction was.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2622 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
Of course he has. I'm not the one claiming the designer is such a great and good and smart (in fact, very intelligent, as you said in your very first post to this thread) thing. You are. And now you say he isn't. Do you agree with us now that the designer (if he exists) did some pretty stupid things, like the RLN?
This is missing the point. If a designer exists then he has every right to do stupid things with his creation just as he has every right to do clever things. You are claiming there is no designer and that this is all the work of evolution. Actually you are not claiming anything at all because so far you have refused to give any indication as to what your views and opinions are. The evolutionary argument seems to simply consist of "where's the evidence".
No, I asked you for evidence, because I thought your argument was bullcrap. So far, I seem to be right, as you have failed to provide any evidence. My position is indeed that the RLN is a result of evolution. Since evolution isn't bound to what is a perfect design, it's only concerned with what is good enough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
If a designer exists then he has every right to do stupid things with his creation just as he has every right to do clever things. Which means, under the present circumstances, that there can be no evidence of design. Have you ceded your argument? Edited by lyx2no, : Qualifyer. "Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 1127 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Which means that there can be no evidence of design If you believe that a mangled car is no evidence of design...then that is a matter for you and you alone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2622 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
We're not talking about mangled cars, now are we?
If you believe that a mangled car is no evidence of design...then that is a matter for you and you alone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Sorry, Big_A. I edited my statement to qualify it before I saw your response. I'll explain: God could give evidence of design if he so choose. He could add a label for example. He either choose not to or he didn't design. As God can design any way he wants, we have no way of knowing which.
If you believe that a mangled car is no evidence of design...then that is a matter for you and you alone. A mangled (why mangled?) car would be evidence for design. That is because cars have no method of developing without assistance. That is not true of mangled cats. It is your insistence that cats have no method of developing without assistance that you were attempting to supply evidence for. I thing you're losing the drift of your own argument. "Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025