Evidence for God from Science

August wrote:
Semantics? I've been asking you for a formal proof for a few posts now, and you cannot come up with it. You made that statement, now prove it.

I have shown you it is a logical fallacy. If you can't understand what a fallacy is, that's not my problem.

August wrote:So then it is necessary for those branches to branch off there, because it seems to hold some function?

No, they can branch straight off the Vagus. That is the point. You actually don't know anything about nerves, do you?

August wrote:You are kidding, right?

Ok, answer me this, do you believe that that constitutes proof for the statement "You can't prove a negative"?

You are arguing semantics. If you think that it's possible to prove a negative, then go ahead: prove there's no Father Christmas.

Sure. But there are branches off the RLN into the heart etc, like I quoted from Grays, that apparently has some functionality in that branch...or else why would it branch off from there? You have to show that that all functionality will be retained with your scenario. Even the loss of a single func...

August wrote:Sorry, that has nothing to do with proving negatives. Or you are going to have to explain it better.

You have still not proven your statement: You can't prove a negative" to be true. Please give a formal proof if you can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_f ... ce#Science

I'm sorry, I'm just an ignorant creationist, so I know nothing about nerve function. :roll: Still nothing factual, just speculation. No proof that you will retain full functionality if it looks like you want it to. It is an obvious fact that all the fibres in the RLN are contained within the Vagus....

You can't "prove" a negative. Wow, you are just a walking stereotype of bad skeptical arguments. It's a fundamental truth. No-one can ever prove a negative. You can't possibly dispute that. Of course I dispute that. But why don't you prove the statement "You can't prove a negative&qu...

Of course it is a factual assertion. The RLN is way longer than it strictly needs to be. The other minor branches could just as well branch straight off the Vagus at their appropriate level in the neck and thorax. Far tidier, less vulnerable to injury, no loss of function. If you want to see some r...

August wrote:

Sceptic wrote:
You can't "prove" a negative.

Wow, you are just a walking stereotype of bad skeptical arguments.

It's a fundamental truth. No-one can ever prove a negative. You can't possibly dispute that.

Oh dear, I seem to have touched a nerve, so to speak. They are factual assertions. Why design a nerve to be any longer than is strictly necessary? The longer the nerve, the longer it takes impulses to travel along it, and longer nerves are more vulnerable to injury than are shorter ones. The append...

I want to come up with a quick no-brainer to tell people on why evolution is religious and not science. I need something quick and obvious. Too much technical information will not get the point across and risk confusing them. Let me know what you think and if something needs to be improved with wha...

Then please do. All you have to do is start with nothing. When you are finished making your nerve from nothing, just let us know. I already have, I ran the nerve direct, rather than looping it around large arteries in the thorax. This is a "design" exercise, right? Could there be an undis...

These are such ridiculous, agenda filled assertions. These are the same kind of claims about the appendix. Do we have any humans who don't have this perverse and wasteful 'design.' No. This just exposes the anti-god sentiment of so many. Design a better nerve. Be my guest Oh dear, I seem to have to...

You seem to have made a number of baseless assertions, followed by a non-sequitur conclusion. The recurrent laryngeal nerve is a branch of the vagus nerve which innervates the larynx. But, instead of branching off in the neck and travelling directly to the larynx, it follows a long, looping course d...

"the greater the assymetrical complexity, the lesser the chance that this assymmetrical complexity can form symmetry." Um, sorry you've completely lost me. Can you first define what you mean by "complexity", then "asymmetrical complexity", and finally "symmetrical ...