Science Babble vs Truth

[KWED]

No. I did not. Now all you need to do is point out where I did. You're Atheist right? I don't find them to be very honest.

You dismissed the scientific consensus on the laryngeal nerve suggesting evolution, and then presented a scientific description of the laryngeal nerve as support for your argument.
In other words "you can't trust science, look at this science"

No. Can you?

Of course no. Because it doesn't.
However, you presented it as an argument against it being a result of evolution, so you need to explain it. If you have no explanation, what was the point in presenting it?
It's like you are on trial for murder and to counter the prosecution's evidence of the bloody knife with your fingerprints on, you claim the same knife shows you can't be the murderer. It makes literally no sense.

Sounds like a theological argument to me.
I thought you guys were supposed t stick to science. You know, the scientific method and all. Or are you here admitting how scientists do get religious and philosophical?

Are you ok?

What's the biological explanation for why men have nipples?
This? During the first several weeks, male and female embryos follow the same blueprint, which includes the development of nipples.
How does that explain why, different to what believers say?
You guys do get me laughing. Honestly.
Wrong? Who says that's wrong?

That explanation makes no sense in the context of intelligent design, but it makes sense in an evolutionary context.

The blueprint says it should, because the designer planned it that way.
You believe in a blueprint that had no designer. Ouch. That must hurt.

Using your analogy, your house is designed with a door that opens onto a brick wall. Why would an architect do that?

Here is what you guys would have people believe. Just throw black paint, or different colors of paint from an airplane, and the more often you do it, after a few billion years, you will get this.

You clearly have no idea how evolution works, so why make yourself look foolish by advertising that fact?

 

[KWED]

No. Even scientists say that the ideas supporting the evolution theory do not meet the requirements of the scientific method.

No they don't. Someone has been telling you porkies.

There is science, and then there is "science".

No. There is just science. What you call "science" is simply science that contradicts your version of ancient superstition. It is still science though, whether you like it or not.

 

[ratiocinator]

You are looking at the rusted car right now, and thinking it was designed that way. Not according to Genesis. Isaiah 11:6-9, and Isaiah 65:25 makes that clear.

You seem very keen on evidence and 'proof' when it comes to evolution. Where is even the first suggestion of the tiniest hint of the slightest morsel of evidence, let alone proof, that these verses are remotely related to the truth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do realise that the route of the laryngeal nerve in the giraffe suggests evolution rather than design. If it was designed, the designer was incompetent.

I i don't think he understands why. And I seriously doubt if he will let himself understand why.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What does science — mainstream, anyways — reject?

Unfortunately, now (it wasn’t always this way), scientists are required to begin, continue, and end their research on the premise that a First cause, an Intelligent Mind, doesn’t exist.
That’s the flaw.

It's also a lie.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

“False.” Wow, I’ve just been debunked!

What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What assertion?

Maybe I’ve missed something….

Does science accept or even consider a Mind as a Cause for biological complexity? Or for physics?

Now you're changing it into a false dichotomy.
As in: science must either accept a "mind as a cause" or it must accept the exact opposite.

The truth is: it does neither.

Instead, science follows the evidence, wherever it may lead to.
If it leads to a "mind as a cause", then that's where it will go.
If it doesn't, then it doesn't.


It's theistic organizations, like answers in genesis and the discovery institute, that require their "researchers" to agree to a "statement of faith" in which they pretend to have the answers even before they ask the questions.

Science doesn't do that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Lol!
Please, don’t just say it…. post some evidence.

Any person with some basic education on the topic, would know of it already.


In any case, a few DNA samples of extant species is already enough to determine common ancestry.
Apparently you aren't aware of how we are very able to build family trees and conclude common ancestry simply by sequencing and comparing DNA.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which one of them possesses 'the truth' ─ and what test did you use to derive your answer?

I'm guessing this "test" would be something along the lines of:

"I believe it, that settles it".

 

[tas8831]

Have to love the acquisition of knowledge via Google. The trouble is, you end up missing the forest for the trees, because a non-anatomist like this guy leaves out a lot of 'facts' - because he is unaware of them.

Let me share the facts with you.
Arch of the Aorta
....
You are probably saying, 'What does the arch of the aorta have to do with the laryngeal nerve?

This is the organ which the right Laryngeal Nerve loops under, but also -more importantly - the Laryngeal Nerve branches from the vegas nerve at this level.
View attachment 56324

The Laryngeal Nerve does not start at the top of the neck. Rather...
The recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) is a branch of the vagus nerve (cranial nerve X) that supplies all the intrinsic muscles of the larynx, with the exception of the cricothyroid muscles. ...

Actually, you are correct. It starts in the brain. This creationist does not at all seem to understand the structure of a nerve. A peripheral nerve, like the vagus nerve, consists mostly of axons of neurons. That is, the cell bodies of the neurons of the vagus nerve are IN THE BRAIN, and their axons descend into the thorax and abdomen. The naïve creationists seems to think that THE RECURRENT LARYNGEAL NERVES start AT the branch point. Ignorance breed confidence.
How spectacularly uninformed.

I suggest you read more, on the structure.

So smug... so self-assured... So clueless...

Ah, so because the RLNs are BRANCHES of the vagus, this somehow renders its nonsensical path A-OK and totally a God design.

Funny - the genius did not mention the superior laryngeal nerve - also A BRANCH! of the vagus. But it goes straight to the larynx. No weird looping. No going well out of its way to get to its target.

What @nPeace the non-anatomist, non-scientist left out (aka does not know about because it did not pop up on his google search) is WHY the the RLNs have to 'recur' at all!

You see, during embryonic development, the adult form of the aortic arch DOES NOT EXIST. The early circulatory system looks like this:

The primordial heart would lie below the truncus arteriosus. Of course, what is not shown in this diagram is what is happening with the other body systems - such as the nervous system and the digestive/respiratory systems (that's right - the mammalian respiratory system is a branch off of the digestive system - almost like an afterthought...) and their very close proximity to one another, especially this early in development.
Just behind the vessels shown we would see the developing brain:

The green thing labeled 10 is the vagus. In the adult, it (more correctly, they as there is a left and right one) travel well down into the abdomen. But note where it goes in the early embryo - sort of straight down into what looks like the 'neck' of the embryo. Of course, that is NOT the neck - those bulges into which the nerves numbered 5-10 are growing into are the pharyngeal arches - which also contain aortic arches as seen in the diagram above. Those pharyngeal arches in mammals develop into regions of the face and neck - where we, coincidentally, find the larynx later on. In fish, they develop into the gills.
And this is what happens to those aortic arches as development continues (same source as above):

The dotted lines show the locations of the earlier stages which regress or are co-opted to form adult vessels. So, while those changes are occurring, the laryngeal branches of the vagus had already reached their target, the larynx. They become 'trapped' between these adult vessels - which then start their migration (due to differential growth patterns), in the case of the adult arch of the aorta, into the upper thorax, well below the larynx. This, in effect, 'pulls' the recurrent branches away from the larynx, thus the 'recurrence' ("going back") of the branch.

Why are the cranial nerves and aortic arches arranged like that in the first place?

Gee, I don't know - maybe because that basic 'plan' was inherited from organisms in which that layout made more sense?

In fish (teleost, (b) above) the aortic arch patterns stay as-is. The vagus (fish have multiple branches of the vagus, so vagi?) just goes 'straight' to its targets, no need for it to go out of its way and loop around this or that.

So thanks @nPeace, for pointing out a nice bit of evidence for retained ancestral traits!

Pity - after I demolished nPeace on phylogenetics a few years ago, he put me on ignore, the poor thing, so he will never see that his dopey Google-based misinformation was corrected...

 

[blü 2]

I'm guessing this "test" would be something along the lines of:

"I believe it, that settles it".

Uh huh.

 

[nPeace]

You do realise that the route of the laryngeal nerve in the giraffe suggests evolution rather than design. If it was designed, the designer was incompetent.

Suggests? Why do you make that philosophical argument?

No. The route has a purpose. That's how design works.
For example, it may look stupid to a person, why something is made or done a certain way, but when one realizes the reason for the function, that understanding should help them to be reasonable. Not unrealistically make ridiculous arguments.

To illustrate, the water cycle has a purpose.

Yes, the water runs down mountains amd takes long routes to oceans and form lakes, but they serve very important, and useful purposes.
In fact, if there was no water cycle, life would quickly be reduced.
Similarly, the laryngeal nerve which are really two, are designed to source organs along its route. They have a purpose, and a goal.

You dismissed the scientific consensus on the laryngeal nerve suggesting evolution, and then presented a scientific description of the laryngeal nerve as support for your argument.
In other words "you can't trust science, look at this science"

I'm sorry, but please don't make such incorrect statements (putting it mildly) for the sake of argument.
There is no scientific consensus for philosophical arguments put forth by Dawkins and other Atheists.
The laryngeal nerve performs useful function to the body, which explains its route. That's the only consensus, and it is a direct observable fact. No sane person denies that. I don't.

However, your ridiculous argument is not a scientific consensus. Science does not do Creation Evolution arguments. Atheists do.
I hope you are not another scientist, because such ridiculous arguments do not do the scientific community any justice.

Of course no. Because it doesn't.
However, you presented it as an argument against it being a result of evolution, so you need to explain it. If you have no explanation, what was the point in presenting it?
It's like you are on trial for murder and to counter the prosecution's evidence of the bloody knife with your fingerprints on, you claim the same knife shows you can't be the murderer. It makes literally no sense.

Wait. Did you ask... BTW, can you explain why the info you posted refutes the claim that the route of the laryngeal nerve is evidence for evolution and against ID?
Perhaps you need to rewrite that, because, right now, it asked why what I posted is against ID, and I did not post anything against ID, so I cannot answer that, and If you can't, I don't know what more to say.

Are you ok?

Yup. Are you?

That explanation makes no sense in the context of intelligent design, but it makes sense in an evolutionary context.

Then perhaps you don't understand what we are discussing. We are discussing the laryngeal nerve.
There are some educational courses on the laryngeal nerve, that can help with learning its purpose.

I'll suggest the same I did to @viole. Also, these ridiculous Atheistic arguments will get us nowhere other than an endless argument.
So since we know the laryngeal nerve has a purpose, which requires its route, there is no need for me to continue listening to your philosophy.
Here you go.

Done.

Using your analogy, your house is designed with a door that opens onto a brick wall. Why would an architect do that?

What? No that's not the case, but even if it were. There would be a reasonable explanation - like the wall was built on the other side of the door, before the door was removed, which it will be, as it serves no purpose.

Since no sane doctor has seen the need to perform surgery to shorten the laryngeal nerve or remove it, we know it is serving its purpose.

Surgeons operate to correct things that are useless, and problematic.
We don't find that to be the case with the laryngeal nerve. Do we?

You clearly have no idea how evolution works, so why make yourself look foolish by advertising that fact?

The usual Atheists ad hominem.
They never fail to throw it in Lol.
When they talk to a scientist, they say the same thing, to their embarrassment. Lol.
James Tour and the other thousands of scientists laughs at them.

No one cares about your ad hominem, in case you don't know, and think they have some effect. All they do is show up more clearly the Atheists' inability to engage in a reasonable discussion.
So if you want to see what looks foolish....

No they don't. Someone has been telling you porkies.

If one buries their head in the sand, it would be impossible to see what they hide their senses from.

It'll take me some time, but I can get those references for you.
In the meantime, here are some references you can consider, showing that not all scientist are in agreement on these matters.
The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be ‘Falsified’ Is a Myth
...some scientists have disparaged the entire field of science studies, claiming that it was undermining public confidence in science by denying that scientific theories were objectively true.
“The Scientific Method” as Myth and Ideal

No. There is just science. What you call "science" is simply science that contradicts your version of ancient superstition. It is still science though, whether you like it or not.

Not according to many scientists.
https://iai.tv/video/missing-evidence
Yes. I know, that some like to hide their head in the sand, when it comes to protecting their Atheistic views, but I think when we acknowledge things that are true, it allows us to move forward in reasonable discussions, rather than, stating closed minded views.

Are you denying that there is bad science, and or ideas and conjecture presented as science?
Preceeding your comments with a yes or no, would be helpful.

Getting back to design though.
We know that random processes do not need to be specific, nor goal driven.
For example, during the water cycle, the rain and snow falls, but the path the water takes is random, as it carves out "valleys" which can take many different paths. Randomly.

However, if you were to alter the design of many things, life would not exist, and this is a fact, from the beginning of the universe - the so-called Big Bang, to our amazing bodies.
So we have strong evidence, and facts that there is a designer.

You are free to deny that, until death. , but I think that's the final nail in the coffin.

Pun intended.

 

[nPeace]

You seem very keen on evidence and 'proof' when it comes to evolution. Where is even the first suggestion of the tiniest hint of the slightest morsel of evidence, let alone proof, that these verses are remotely related to the truth?

1. Fulfilled prophecy.
2. Reliable historical evidence.
3. Scientific evidence.
4. Overall internal harmony.
5. Timeless practical value.
6. Divine authorship.
7. etc.

 

[nPeace]

Its not about telling others anything, I simply asked you what you meant by it.

No. you did not simply ask what I meant. As usual, you ask then dismiss with something totally out of sinc with my response, and then claim that they are related.

And so forth you have simply given a standard explanation of faith. Which is fine, absolutely no problem.

I did not.
So what is the standard explanation of faith? Let's see if you are speaking the truth.

I just don't see why you have to make it try to mean something else then when it isn't, it simply create confusion. Again, its not about deciding anything, its about what a word means, so people understand each other.

And I don't believe, I at any point have told you anything other than what I meant by the word or simply asked you to explain the difference between the two types of faith that you are talking about.

I'll await your answer to the question I just asked.

 

[Nimos]

No. you did not simply ask what I meant. As usual, you ask then dismiss with something totally out of sinc with my response, and then claim that they are related.

This is my very first reply to you:

What would religious evidence look like compared to scientific evidence? Can you give an example of some religious evidence?

Which was a question regarding what you wrote here:

Is there any truth to the claim that science has gives us answers based on evidence, whereas religion does not?

And my question was simply if there was any difference between scientific evidence and that of religious evidence? And as I explained in the later replies, is that I do not think there is any difference, because evidence are evidence, so simply wondering why you would make that distinction.

So what is the standard explanation of faith? Let's see if you are speaking the truth.

I already explained that a lot of times.

It simply refer to the opposite of knowledge, trust or certainty or whatever word you would use, depending on the situation or topic one is talking about.

I could for instance say that "I no longer have faith in you", which could refer to me not trusting you or me being uncertain about whether you could handle a given task, telling the truth or whatever.

Or I could say that: "I have complete faith in you" which would mean, that despite me not knowing whether or not you could be trusted or do something for which I have no idea if you can, I choose to believe that you can do it, because I have faith in you.

If I knew you could do something, I wouldn't need to have faith you, because I already have the knowledge that you can do it. Which might be because I for whatever reason, have already seen you do something like it before or you have demonstrated to know a lot about a given topic or whatever it might be.

When we talk about faith in regards to oneself or something that involve oneself, such as the person walking on a line, 30 meters above the ground, they might need a bit of faith in themselves or their tools, given that if the fall, they die. And there is always the chance that something goes wrong, even though they checked and double checked everything.

I do believe that most people would understand faith in a similar way, you even quoted the bible in regards to faith and I have no objection about it. Its just another way to say the same thing as I have just described above. And again, I think you described the exact same thing, but keep saying that you are referring to some other understanding of faith, that people normally don't understand, if I understood you correct, which obviously made me interested in what type of faith you are then referring to?

 

[ratiocinator]

1. Fulfilled prophecy.
2. Reliable historical evidence.
3. Scientific evidence.
4. Overall internal harmony.
5. Timeless practical value.
6. Divine authorship.
7. etc.

1. Laughable.
2. For what? We are talking about carnivores being designed as vegetarians.
3. What scientific evidence?
4. This has to be a joke! The bible is riddled with self-contradiction. Have you even read it?
5. Irrelevant even to the limited extent it might be true.
6. Baseless assertion.
7. Such as...?

 

[KWED]

No. The route has a purpose. That's how design works.

And what is the purpose of diverting the nerve several feet from its optimum route?

understanding should help them to be reasonable. Not unrealistically make ridiculous arguments.

Not a fan of irony then?

To illustrate, the water cycle has a purpose.
Yes, the water runs down mountains amd takes long routes to oceans and form lakes, but they serve very important, and useful purposes.

There is nothing about the water cycle. It is a natural process that makes perfect sense. It would be analogous to the laryngeal nerve if water did not follow the most direct route available.

Similarly, the laryngeal nerve which are really two, are designed to source organs along its route. They have a purpose, and a goal.

What does that even mean?

The laryngeal nerve performs useful function to the body, which explains its route. That's the only consensus, and it is a direct observable fact. No sane person denies that. I don't.

It's function does not explain its route. That's the whole point!

TBH, it is more that I can bear, working through the insane babble of your posts. There really is no helping some people.

 

[nPeace]

1. Laughable.

How useful is this? The only use this has is to draw attention to oneself and inflate one's ego, but serve no useful purpose at all.
It also demonstrates a lack of interest in any meaningful discussion.
So like the fellow below, it shows that you merely ask questions, but have no interest in the answers or discussing them, especially when they are answers you seem afraid of, and you can't argue back and forth with pointless arguments.

If you had at least followed with, 'Here is why.' one could see that you can discuss your arguments, but...

1. For what? We are talking about carnivores being designed as vegetarians.
2. What scientific evidence?
3. This has to be a joke! The bible is riddled with self-contradiction. Have you even read it?
4. Irrelevant even to the limited extent it might be true.
5. Baseless assertion.
6. Such as...?

...and then you ask more questions.
For what reason? To give meaningless one-liners?

 

[nPeace]

This is my very first reply to you:

What would religious evidence look like compared to scientific evidence? Can you give an example of some religious evidence?

Which was a question regarding what you wrote here:

Is there any truth to the claim that science has gives us answers based on evidence, whereas religion does not?

To which I responded, and gave an answer.

And my question was simply if there was any difference between scientific evidence and that of religious evidence? And as I explained in the later replies, is that I do not think there is any difference, because evidence are evidence, so simply wondering why you would make that distinction.

That was your question?
Interesting. I thought that's what I was saying, and trying to find out from the opposing side, where the difference lies.

I already explained that a lot of times.

It simply refer to the opposite of knowledge, trust or certainty or whatever word you would use, depending on the situation or topic one is talking about.

I could for instance say that "I no longer have faith in you", which could refer to me not trusting you or me being uncertain about whether you could handle a given task, telling the truth or whatever.

Or I could say that: "I have complete faith in you" which would mean, that despite me not knowing whether or not you could be trusted or do something for which I have no idea if you can, I choose to believe that you can do it, because I have faith in you.

If I knew you could do something, I wouldn't need to have faith you, because I already have the knowledge that you can do it. Which might be because I for whatever reason, have already seen you do something like it before or you have demonstrated to know a lot about a given topic or whatever it might be.

When we talk about faith in regards to oneself or something that involve oneself, such as the person walking on a line, 30 meters above the ground, they might need a bit of faith in themselves or their tools, given that if the fall, they die. And there is always the chance that something goes wrong, even though they checked and double checked everything.

I do believe that most people would understand faith in a similar way, you even quoted the bible in regards to faith and I have no objection about it. Its just another way to say the same thing as I have just described above. And again, I think you described the exact same thing, but keep saying that you are referring to some other understanding of faith, that people normally don't understand, if I understood you correct, which obviously made me interested in what type of faith you are then referring to?

Not that I don't appreciate you explaining, but could you give me the standard deviation of faith please.
That's what I was asking for. Then I can come back to this.

 

[Nimos]

Not that I don't appreciate you explaining, but could you give me the standard deviation of faith please.
That's what I was asking for. Then I can come back to this.

Don't know what you mean with standard deviation of faith, you need to explain that then?