Vanderzyden

This tells me that you have not read the thread to the end, and grossly mischaracterize it, as scigirl did before I corrected her.

I did not question Rick's credentials. I was merely responding to his attempts to impress me with "we doctors". Eventually, we discovered that Rick's boastful comments about the "improved" design were utterly and completely unfounded. It is clear that, despite his medical credentials, he has a gross misunderstanding pressure management in the CV system. Despite his credentials and his overconfidence, his position in that thread has been completely eroded. And, as expected, he has made no concession.

John

Vanderzyden

I think that you are partially correct, Z.

Here is my prediction. I will return with many questions about mutations in general. I will ask for strong evidence of observation outside of the laboratory. I will point out the contradictions that I have seen so far in this thread. etc, etc.


John

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Nat

"Eventually, we discovered that Rick's boastful comments about the "improved" design were utterly and completely unfounded. It is clear that, despite his medical credentials, he has a gross misunderstanding pressure management in the CV system."

Actually, it was your points that were demolished. You keep bringing up pressure management yet you completely neglect the fact that the fetal circulatory system exists in a pressurized fluid environment. Are you so deluded that you actually think that your arguments are really that compelling?

monkenstick

well heck, even if vanderzyden does end up just evading the question, asking us for incontrovertible proof for "point mutations", at least he'll have learnt something. Maybe.

Nat

Not going to bother going back to the other thread, here are some examples of insults you made in this thread:

"Here is something for you to think about. It is clear that many of the Darwinists here think that they have found the truth. However, the tone and content of their posts betray them. False confidence, high emotion, insults, impoliteness, failure to acknowledge the merits of opposing arguments, failure to make concession, an unhealthy emphasis on "education" and credentials, etc, etc. These are not the signs of those who are lovers of wisdom. These are not the indications that correlate to those who possess real knowledge. These are not the traits that we find in those who have critically examined their worldview."

This whole paragrahp is a blanket insult of some poorly defined group - "Darwinists." Are you so deluded that you don't see that this is insulting to others here?

"It is clear that, despite his medical credentials, he has a gross misunderstanding pressure management in the CV system. Despite his credentials and his overconfidence, his position in that thread has been completely eroded."

Here you are insulting Rick.

"You know, I got the same puffy attitude concerning cardiovascular anatomy in this thread, and yet I have shown the "design critics" the silliness of their outrageous claims."

Here you are calling all the thoughts and arguments of the unspecified "design critics" as "silliness" and "outrageous claims."

If you want I can go through some other posts you have made to list your numerus use of blanket insults and specific ad homs. I do admit, however, that you have been directly insulted many times in many of these threads. That is unfortunate. It is hypocritical, however, for you to constantly claim the high road.

Vanderzyden

Deluded? (Yet another insult..do you understand the meaning of this term?)

Apparently you have a major misunderstanding. I am increasingly confident that what I presented was a knock-down argument. May I suggest you go back and read the last two pages?

When you are done, then you can elaborate on the significance of your observation that "the fetal circulatory system exists in a pressurized fluid environment" (Hint: despite the errors of the very last post, this has no bearing on the pressure within the CV system).

John

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Delusional. Most definately.

Nat

Damn this is off-topic, but if it will shut you up on your claims of such superior arguments, then well fine:

"However, my argument concerning pressure management remains largely intact. You will recall that I mentioned this at least once before. Simple laws of physics govern the pressure and velocity of fluids. So, if you take a positive, neutral or negative source and relocate it centrally in a circulatory system, the pressure map will change dramatically. Observe that we are not discussing capillaries here. We are talking about a trunk line, the umbilical vein. Rick and MrD suggest placing the umbilical juncture at the present location of the terminus of the ductus arteriosus. But, again, this is inherently problematic.

The management of fluid pressure becomes altogether different if you move the umbilical source from

(a) an UPSTREAM location, a LONG DISTANCE from and BELOW the heart

to a location

(b) that is DOWNSTREAM, immediately ADJACENT, and ABOVE the heart. "

Of course you don't seem to realize that if this was such a problem, the orientation of the fetus with in the womb would be dramatic to the fetus. An inverted fetus would not just have problems leaving the womb, but would also have serious pressure issues. Of course, this does not happen, and fetuses can often have inverted positions in the womb without causing substantial changes in fetal blood pressure.

Your argument is weak.

wade-w

{emphasis (in italics) mine}

Sounds like someone has already made up his mind,

Vanderzyden

I am claiming no high road, Nat.

These are not insults. Please explain why they are insulting. It would seem that they are characterizations.

How is the demonstrated assessment of a "gross misunderstanding", "overconfidence" and "eroded position" an insult. Are you saying it's insulting because of his credentials?

The outrageous nature of the claims in the other thread is twofold: (1) the system is not intelligently designed and (2) that they, mere men, could possibly hope to improve upon the design.


John