Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

I would hate to be someone seeking justice in the courts with you amongst the jury. The evolutionists criteria for valid evidence would ensure that we never have any convictions and is it any wonder that successful prosecutions are so rare. We now have criminals getting off scott free and getting away with murder.I wonder how you can get out of bed in the mornings. I mean surely you don't have enough evidence that daytime is for waking and nightime is for sleeping?

Look mate. You're the one making all the claims here. Yet when asked for evidence of even the simplest of them (that the RLN goes around a ligament of the lung), you come up with a picture that doesn't even show the RLN. This would be the same as when in a murder trial, you would claim that the murderer was on the scene of the crime at the time of the murder, and when asked for evidence of this, you show a picture of a completely different room, where there's not even a body in it. If you'd build your entire case like you did in this thread, it's no wonder the murderer goes free. The problem is with the prosecution, not with the jury. Not that I'm in favour of juries anyway, but that's another discussion.Nice ad hominem by the way. Guess that's all that's left when you have no evidence for your claims. It isn't, that's just how I have scheduled my life. There are people that do it the other way round.

That's right there isn't sufficient evidence and yet you have accepted that in your current circumstances, for you personally, daytime is for waking and nightime is for sleeping. It's called "beyond reasonable doubt".

Does this mean that you will now try to make the case for the routing of the RLN being a good design by providing enough information or evidence to show that your conclusion is "beyond reasonable doubt"? I think that is all that we can ask for since scientific conclusions are subject to change if the evidence demands it. Please show us that evidence.By the way, Huntard's determination that he should be awake during the day and asleep at night does not make "daytime for waking and nightime [sic] for sleeping" some kind of natural law.

No it isn't. This has nothing to do with evidence. There is no evidence that night is for sleeping and day is for waking. There is just the situation you find yourself in. In my situation, I work during the day and sleep during the night. My brother works during the night and sleeps during the day.Neither of us have evidence that what we are doing is the way it's "supposed to be". You know why not? Because there is no way it's "supposed to be".Of course, none of this matters and is off topic. Would you care being wrong about the RLN again?

Hi Al,Getting back on topic and working from the available evidence, what do the principles of ID tell you that ID scientists should be looking for regarding the RLN?What reconstructions of the design and implementation process do the principles and evidence allow you to make?What does the evidence tell you about the designer himself, and how does it help you find evidence of the designer?--Percy

Is it how you debate? As soon as you are proven wrong you ignore it and change the subject hoping we forgot you were wrong? Care to point us out where is the RLN in the picture you have shown us?

No because I don't believe you have successfully convinced me that the routing of the RLN is poor design to a level that I would regard as "beyond reasonable doubt".

It's poor design in the same way that running an electrical cable up and down your house when the point it needs to go to is only 5 feet away from where it starts.

Haven't we heard this one before!

Quite.And nothing you have said or done in this thread shows why it should be considered "good" or even "intelligent" design instead.

Haven't you dodged this before?Is it good design to run 100 feet of power cord around your living room, around the legs on the sofa, around the floor lamp, and then finally into the outlet that is just 3 feet from where you started? yes/no?

It is not good practice to run a power cable through the middle of a room (where people could trip over it) just because its the shortest route. It is better practice to fix it, and run it against the skirting board even though this might require more cable.

Well done! You broke Taq's analogy by ignoring the premise, or are most of the rooms in your house only 3 feet across? Sadly this still doesn't provide any support for your position.TTFN,WK

A doorway need only be 3ft wide. Would you run a power cable directly across it making it inconvenient for people to come in and out? At the very least you would run the cable underneath the carpet or better still under the floorboards. Another option would be to run it above the doorway. Any one of these options would increase the length of cable required but would still be preferable.Placing it directly underneath the carpet would be the least expensive in terms of cable length but is still the worst option as people would be trampling over it all the time.