(January 17, 2012 at 11:05 am)whateverist Wrote:

(January 17, 2012 at 9:09 am)Faith No More Wrote: Every time a Christians denies evolution, my Christian father sheds a tear.

Was your xtian father down with science?

He has a Ph.D. in organic chemistry and taught me that if the bible and science are in contradiction, science always trumps the bible. So yes, he is very down with science.

(January 17, 2012 at 7:02 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(January 16, 2012 at 5:43 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Is atheism is a religion? Well, one has to analyze evolution to find out. Definition of science: what you can observe, test or demonstrate. Can you observe, test or demonstrate all six types of evolution?

Cosmic: the origin of time, space and matter. No
Chemical: all elements from H and He. No
Stellar: witnessed a star form. No
Organic: life from non-life. No
Macroevolution: one species becoming another. No. No transitional fossils or documentation of speciation involving increasing complexity.
Microevolution: Yes, but this is variation, not evolution. Genes don't gain any new info-- some just die off.

In short, evolution is a belief system, not science. You're welcome to believe any of these, or claim "we just haven't discovered it yet" but don't call it science. If it's not science, it's religion. This is cut and dry.

Explain to the rest of the class how the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe is a product of intelligent design and we'll go from there.

P.s you are just the latest in a loooong line of uninformed, self important ass clowns that have barged on to this forum spouting this bullshit like we haven't heard it all before.

So please don't be surprised when you are dismissed out of hand.

And you are of a loooong line of atheists who point to the same supposedly useless structures. There are logical reasons the nerve is that long, we just haven't discovered all of them (gee, where have I heard that argument before?) Scientists used to think the appendix was useless, and lo: it protects beneficial bacteria. Back in more primitive ages, humans probably needed that function more. What ID critics don't say is that there are multiple nerves that do take a shortened path. If the tendency is to evolve to fix these kind of problems, why was that one nerve left out? All species are described to be in their prefect niche with only the right genes kept through natural selection, and you point out the one error as being a problem for ID? What about a problem for evolution? That said, there are functions! For instance, in humans it serves as an early warning to get medical care. Diseases that would be hidden deep in the chest are revealed through speech and throat problems. In that case, how lucky we were NOT to receive a nerve-shortcut mutation. Or maybe.. just maybe God was looking out for us.

This site describes it more scientifically:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sho...hp/id/1507

It quotes, "The path of the RLN allows it to give off filaments to the heart, to the mucous membranes and to the muscles of the trachea along the way to the larynx," and goes on to describe the nerve's uses.

If you want an ID by God standpoint:
http://antiochapologetics.blogspot.com/2...affes.html

(January 17, 2012 at 8:53 pm)Undeceived Wrote:

Quote:Explain to the rest of the class how the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe is a product of intelligent design and we'll go from there.

P.s you are just the latest in a loooong line of uninformed, self important ass clowns that have barged on to this forum spouting this bullshit like we haven't heard it all before.

So please don't be surprised when you are dismissed out of hand.

And you are of a loooong line of atheists who point to the same supposedly useless structures. There are logical reasons the nerve is that long, we just haven't discovered all of them (gee, where have I heard that argument before?)

If fact we have discovered the reason and it is a direct result of evolution.

Quote: Scientists used to think the appendix was useless, and lo: it protects beneficial bacteria. Back in more primitive ages, humans probably needed that function more.

I wasn't asking about the appendix.

Quote: What ID critics don't say is that there are multiple nerves that do take a shortened path. If the tendency is to evolve to fix these kind of problems, why was that one nerve left out? All species are described to be in their prefect niche with only the right genes kept through natural selection, and you point out the one error as being a problem for ID? What about a problem for evolution?

The giraffes laryngeal nerve only makes sense if you look at it from an evolutionary perspective.

Quote: That said, there are functions! For instance, in humans it serves as an early warning to get medical care. Diseases that would be hidden deep in the chest are revealed through speech and throat problems. In that case, how lucky we were NOT to receive a nerve-shortcut mutation. Or maybe.. just maybe God was looking out for us.

Funny, I don't recall saying that it was a useless organ.
The question being why would a supposedly "intelligent" designer route the nerve all the way down the giraffes neck and then back up again to terminate inches from where it started?

Quote:This site describes it more scientifically:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sho...hp/id/1507

It quotes, "The path of the RLN allows it to give off filaments to the heart, to the mucous membranes and to the muscles of the trachea along the way to the larynx," and goes on to describe the nerve's uses.

Actually it doesn't, though it does talk about the human laryngeal nerve(a nice segue there) ]

Quote:If you want an ID by God standpoint:
http://antiochapologetics.blogspot.com/2...affes.html

Yes, indeed. Yet another clown who has no idea how evolution actually works, and I quote....

"Every life form that has ever lived appeared in the fossil record fully formed, fully functional, and fully adapted to its time on earth and its role in the ecology into which it was created."

Well of course it bloody would!!! that doesn't mean it hasn't evolved.
Successful mutational change is incremental (even the cretinists admit to "micro-evolution")
All that is required is sufficient time, billions of years. And that that was available is beyond debating.

BTW here is a diagram of the giraffes laryngeal nerve

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&...TjYhd3wZow

Quote:If fact we have discovered the reason and it is a direct result of evolution.

Go back... your point was that God would never create a useless structure. Well, I showed you that it wasn't useless, or that the nerve likely has uses we haven't discovered yet. If you ever proved it was useless, and *always* was useless, that would only fall to evolution by default. You have no positive, conclusive evidence whatsoever that evolution made this nerve. Evolution is only observing what we have now and making suppositions about what could have been in the past. It has never been observed in action, or replicated in a lab. There are no transitional fossils, no giraffes in the fossil record with shorter necks or less-developed laryngeal nerves. Genes can't tell you what they used to be.

The evolution of giraffes is actually a problem for evolutionists to explain. The giraffe neck had to receive a mutation to elongate at the exact same moment the mutation to absorb the blood pressure (the “wonder net”), a stronger heart, and thicker blood vessels formed. And this had to happen dozens if not hundreds of times as the neck gradually became longer. You cannot have one without the others or the creature dies. Mutations are 99.99% harmful, if not lethal. The tendency of a species is to go extinct (we've seen 50 species go extinct in the last 100 years and not a single new species form). Although it is true that mere chance processes can produce things, it is equally true that whatever chance creates, it almost instantaneously annihilates (The Collapse of Evolution; Huse). By that same objective probability, we would have vanished years ago. Time does not help evolution--it is its destruction. Scientists try to gloss the giraffe neck over by saying one gene could have remained dormant until the cooperating gene came along. One could come slightly earlier, but why would natural selection keep around a useless organ for millions of years until its accessories evolve to make it useful? Unthinking evolutionary processes would never produce a half-formed eye as a transition to a fully functioning one. Moreover, if there were thousands of dormant mutations waiting to take form we would see them in the genetic code. Instead, there are only a couple genes scientists consider to be defunct. One would think, given our current evidence, that evolution stopped when humans arrived. All I can say is... how convenient for evolutionists. I smell fish.

I still await a refutation to the pages I posted. The six points at the bottom of http://antiochapologetics.blogspot.com/2...affes.html show the fallacy of using the laryngeal nerve as proof to begin with. It is a "seems to me" argument, rather than an objective, scientific one. Evolution is not scientific. It is a belief system, period.

(January 24, 2012 at 6:37 pm)Undeceived Wrote:

Quote:If fact we have discovered the reason and it is a direct result of evolution.

Go back... your point was that God would never create a useless structure. Well, I showed you that it wasn't useless, or that the nerve likely has uses we haven't discovered yet. If you ever proved it was useless, and *always* was useless, that would only fall to evolution by default. You have no positive, conclusive evidence whatsoever that evolution made this nerve. Evolution is only observing what we have now and making suppositions about what could have been in the past. It has never been observed in action, or replicated in a lab. There are no transitional fossils, no giraffes in the fossil record with shorter necks or less-developed laryngeal nerves. Genes can't tell you what they used to be.

The evolution of giraffes is actually a problem for evolutionists to explain. The giraffe neck had to receive a mutation to elongate at the exact same moment the mutation to absorb the blood pressure (the “wonder net”), a stronger heart, and thicker blood vessels formed. And this had to happen dozens if not hundreds of times as the neck gradually became longer. You cannot have one without the others or the creature dies. Mutations are 99.99% harmful, if not lethal. The tendency of a species is to go extinct (we've seen 50 species go extinct in the last 100 years and not a single new species form). Although it is true that mere chance processes can produce things, it is equally true that whatever chance creates, it almost instantaneously annihilates (The Collapse of Evolution; Huse). By that same objective probability, we would have vanished years ago. Time does not help evolution--it is its destruction. Scientists try to gloss the giraffe neck over by saying one gene could have remained dormant until the cooperating gene came along. One could come slightly earlier, but why would natural selection keep around a useless organ for millions of years until its accessories evolve to make it useful? Unthinking evolutionary processes would never produce a half-formed eye as a transition to a fully functioning one. Moreover, if there were thousands of dormant mutations waiting to take form we would see them in the genetic code. Instead, there are only a couple genes scientists consider to be defunct. One would think, given our current evidence, that evolution stopped when humans arrived. All I can say is... how convenient for evolutionists. I smell fish.

I still await a refutation to the pages I posted. The six points at the bottom of http://antiochapologetics.blogspot.com/2...affes.html show the fallacy of using the laryngeal nerve as proof to begin with. It is a "seems to me" argument, rather than an objective, scientific one. Evolution is not scientific. It is a belief system, period.

Hitchslap, if you think you understand science better perhaps you could enlighten me?

You are quite beyond enlightenment if in the 21st century you can not avail yourself of basic understanding of evolution needed to lower your bible into the trash heap.

(January 24, 2012 at 7:03 pm)Chuck Wrote: You are quite beyond enlightenment if in the 21st century you can not avail yourself of basic understanding of evolution needed to lower your bible into the trash heap.

Just what part of what I said was contrary to science's understanding of evolution? Don't appeal to authority or tell me "the evidence is out there." What evidence do you refer to? Explain evolution in your own words. Why do you believe it, apart from scientists telling you to?

(January 24, 2012 at 8:03 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Just what part of what I said was contrary to science's understanding of evolution? Don't appeal to authority or tell me "the evidence is out there." What evidence do you refer to? Explain evolution in your own words. Why do you believe it, apart from scientists telling you to?

Your question is wrong. It's not that you don't understand parts of evolution, it's that you don't understand evolution. Based on what you've said, you don't appear to have a fundemental understanding of the science behind the well-evidenced process.

Chuck did not perform the 'appeal to authority' fallacy because his dig against you was against your lack of understanding as opposed to telling you that you should believe in something because a third party said so.

Unlike your assinine religious beliefs, we don't need scientists to tell us at all. We can find the evidence ourselves given enough time, energy, money, and field research.
However, we atheists listen to their peer-reviewed research (the act of peer reviewing effectively eliminates the 'appeal to authority' fallacy by using a particular scientific research or hypothosis paper to evidence a particular conclusion) because what it reveals about the reality in which we live is based in reality backed by things we find and not what a few scam artists refer to as 'revealed truth' i.e. appeal to authority or "the bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" sort of ridiculousness.

In other words, your arguements against atheists - every one I've seen - is based on one or more fallacies at its very core.
Science has none of those things.