Asha'man

Anyone else notice the irony of accusing an Atheist of playing God?

"I'm sorry, I can't answer that accusation, I don't exist."

NialScorva

For a real question, if it can be answered in the midsts of Vander's floundering:

Going back to the original comparison of routing in the fetus to that of a fish's two-chamber mixed oxygenated/de-oxygenated blood, what are the evolutionary routes torwards mammalian hearts?

IOW, how does the development of amphibian and reptile ubilici (sp?) into a mature circulatory system progress?

Dr Rick

You are capable of posting nonsense and getting pissy when you make a fool of yourself. You get full credit for your arrogance and ignorance.

<strong> Why do you persist in posting upon a subject you do not understand? It's just going to make you more pissy when your errors are pointed-out, again.

I have inserted over one-hundred catheters and other devices into the thorax and its vaculature; it is not major surgery, and I have found it to be relatively easy. The only incisions I had to make were very small ones. An intelligent designer shouldn't have too much difficulty with it, either.

<strong> I have never used a bonesaw, and an intelligently designed fetal circulation wouldn't require a fetus to use one, either.

<strong> Absolutely incorrect: the pressure in the fetal circulation is derived from the fetal heart, not from the placenta or the placement of the umbilical vessels. The placenta does not pump blood, so umbilical access in the thorax would not put any additional pressure on the heart or it's valves.

<strong> If there were no flaws, there would be no defects. You don't know much about the fetal circulation, or else you would know that it was not intelligently designed.

Rick

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Vanderzyden

You apparently don't realize that you are affirming my position.


Vanderzyden

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Nickle

So you were trying to say that you don't know anything about fetal circulatory system? Well, it's nice to know we're all rowing the same direction.

Skydancer

The rest of us don't 'realize' that, either.

MrDarwin

Vanderzyden, it's nice to see you back. Perhaps you're ready to answer my questions?

Vanderzyden, you have made a couple of claims of your own. Since you have apparently studied both fetal and adult circulatory systems in great detail--to the extent that you apparently know more about them than a medical doctor--and were able to spot flaws in my design so quickly, you shouldn't have any trouble telling me why they are flaws. Because I'm just not seeing them. I'm still waiting for you to address my questions:

Can you tell me why blood coming from the placenta is under "higher pressure"? Higher than what? Precisely where and how is this pressure being generated?

Could you please point out in precisely which "many places" this mixing would occur?

And you still haven't answered my question about childbirth and doctors. Will you and your wife depend on this system running smoothly and optimally--dare I say flawlessly--when the time comes, or will you have a doctor on hand, just in case?

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Vanderzyden

I'm not upset, not at all. Would you brow-beat me into submission, or would you educate me? Show me how my basic understanding is flawed, doctor!

Yes, I expect that it is easy. So why do you continue your attempts to impress us? More to the main point, I would say that you patently ignore what I said about major surgery. Endoscopy has it limitations. Can you perform a simple heart bypass with endoscopy. How about a double, or a triple? If you bring the umbilicus up to the thorax, you have a complete redesign job on your hands. So far, you have failed to address my concerns regarding pressure management.

Permit me to answer in your terse manner: False. The mother's blood pressure is indeed a factor in umbilical inflow pressure. The mother's and infant's blood pressure are somewhat correlated, as evidence by conditions such as preeclampsia. Anyway, it really doesn't matter. Most of my concerns are still valid, with or without additional umbilical pressure.

This is how you conclude? I suspected as much. Here's what I see:

In order to maintain your position, you are apparently unwilling to distinguish between design flaw and externally imposed defects. If I introduce a corrosive agent into a system that wasn't designed to handle it, then resulting problems are operational defects, induced by out-of-specification usage.

Such denial permits you to cling to your assertion that life systems weren't intelligently designed. In this way, you reassure yourself that you will be held accountable to no one, especially a so-called "Creator". It would seem however, that you stand on shifting sand.


Vanderzyden

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Albion

The second sentence doesn't follow from the first.

MrKrinkles

Vander,

Okay. If you are going to assert that this is the real reason why a certain poster DOES NOT accept intelligent design, then I am going to provide an explanation of why you DO accept intelligent design: You are a brainwashed member of a religious cult called Christianity. You have been convinced that the most important thing you could ever do with your life is to maintain your religious beliefs no matter what anyone tells you or what the "facts" of the world are. To this end you will deny, disassemble, manipulate, twist, mangle, destroy or simply ignore any information that threatens your cherished beliefs. All this information is obviously part of some sort of satanic conspiracy after all, so who cares? You feel that if you successfully maintain your religious beliefs, that you will ultimately inherit eternal bliss for your efforts. Wow! What a great prize! This is what really motivates you. Your frenzied gyrations, spastic contortions and desperate denials on these boards are simply manifestations of your religious delusions.

Isn't it fun to suggest ulterior motivations for people's claims, rather than deal with actual claims themselves?

Brooks