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.
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.
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".
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
™ Version 4.2
