Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Dicky Underpants]

Citation required...

I think you'll find that Creationists have no problem with evolutionary theory that explains variation. It is demonstrable and you don't need to be a scientist to verify it!

Ah, that would be the fabled "Micro-Evolution"...

[Dicky Underpants]

SteveH,

Odd reply - it was my use, there was no suggestion that it was also yours. "It" sounds a bit odd to my ears, but how people want to gender their imaginary friends isn't something I trouble with over much.

Pity you two can't bury the hatchet (and not in each others' heads). Steve is a little over-touchy - and you are very quick to pounce on him when he writes something you consider not-too-well-argued (I'd tend to criticise him for appearing to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds).
However - doncha think he's written some valid (and indeed wise) words on evolution?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hiya Dicky,

Pity you two can't bury the hatchet (and not in each others' heads). Steve is a little over-touchy - and you are very quick to pounce on him when he writes something you consider not-too-well-argued (I'd tend to criticise him for appearing to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds).
However - doncha think he's written some valid (and indeed wise) words on evolution?

Yes I do. I’m not really sure where’s he’s coming from to be frank – he seems to be an irrealist of some kind, though what he means by it – “OK, I don’t think there is a god but I choose to live as if there is” maybe? – I can only guess at.

Steve H was suspended from here a while back for his intemperate comments, I think perhaps directed at me. I’m not really sure why though because his issue seemed to be with the logic itself rather than with the person referencing it. He also posted some pretty strong stuff about me on a different website I’m told, though I didn’t read it.

Since then he’s been a pussycat here (his recent post about the gendered pronoun was out of character), and for my part I have no hatchet to bury but would readily do so if it was appropriate.

PS Sparing your blushes, but I’m a great admirer of your erudition here too by the way.

[SteveH]

Which is the wrong question, so I hope no creationists on here (as you so eloquently put it) waste their time on it.

If all life was created by an intelligent designer, I'd be asking the intelligent designer these questions.

If all life was not created by an intelligent designer, your questions are irrelevant.

Try again...

What the blazes are you on about now? Your answers get more bizarrely irrelevant with every post you make. Stop reading philosophy: it's obviously too much for you! The question is whether life was designed by an intelligent agent, and the question is relevant to that.

[Rhiannon]

I’m thinking that Steve believes as I used to - you can see the logical holes, fundie Christians drive you nuts and yet you experience God as real so therefore you have no choice but to live that way. I could be wrong.

[Spud]

It'd make more sense for the trachea, oesophagus, etc to be innervated separately, directly from the brain, than for the nerves serving the larynx to take such a roundabout course, which exposes them to greater risk of injury, and consequent loss of speech (which does happen - it's not just a hypothetical disadvanrtage).
Why also do we have a spleen and an appendix, both of which we can live perfectly healthily without, but whose presence endangers our lives - the appendix by getting infected and rupturing if unoperated-on, and the spleen by being ruptured in accidents and causing massive internal haemorrhageing. I am sure you'll be able to find some residual function on some fundy website - indeed, I believe the spleen has a part to play in destroying old red blood corpuscles - but they are completely inessential, and don't even offer a noticeable advantage. No intelligent designer would burden us with them.

If you want to discuss this I'm happy to if you start a new thread. Just let me know where it is.

[SteveH]

I’m thinking that Steve believes as I used to - you can see the logical holes, fundie Christians drive you nuts and yet you experience God as real so therefore you have no choice but to live that way. I could be wrong.

Sort-of. If I was 26, I'd probably stop calling myself a Christian and become a humanist, but I'm 66, so it seems a bit late to abandon it now. Also,when I last abandoned Christianity and joined what was then called the British Humanist Association in the early 90s, I found myself becoming increasingly bitter and negative, and many of the non-believers on here seem to be, as well, so I went back to a much more liberal, minimalist, Tillichian version of the faith, and that's where I am now. I should have stuck with the Quakers - I was an attender for a few years in my early 20s.

[BeRational]

Sort-of. If I was 26, I'd probably stop calling myself a Christian and become a humanist, but I'm 66, so it seems a bit late to abandon it now. Also,when I last abandoned Christianity and joined what was then called the British Humanist Association in the early 90s, I found myself becoming increasingly bitter and negative, and many of the non-believers on here seem to be, as well, so I went back to a much more liberal, minimalist, Tillichian version of the faith, and that's where I am now. I should have stuck with the Quakers - I was an attender for a few years in my early 20s.

I am a non believer ( in lots of things, gods included). I do not think I am bitter and negative. Quite the opposite I hope.

Not sure why you think the two are related.

[SteveH]

I am a non believer ( in lots of things, gods included). I do not think I am bitter and negative. Quite the opposite I hope.

Not sure why you think the two are related.

I found myself becoming, and some non-believers on here strike me as, but I don't think all non-believers are like that.

[SteveH]

If you want to discuss this I'm happy to if you start a new thread. Just let me know where it is.

Maybe, but if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done properly, so it'll have to wait.

[SusanDoris]

I am a non believer ( in lots of things, gods included). I do not think I am bitter and negative. Quite the opposite I hope.

Definitely agree.

[Rhiannon]

I found myself becoming, and some non-believers on here strike me as, but I don't think all non-believers are like that.

I think sometimes it’s easy to mistake frustration for bitterness. And I will put my hands up and say that I was angered by what I found within organised religion, while not being bitter about the ideas behind Christianity itself. I still feel very conflicted over the CofE given the pain it causes, yet it also does a lot of good.

[jeremyp]

It innervates the trachea and esophagus, and gives off a few branches to the heart. Possibly to enable the control of breathing, swallowing and heart rate while talking, but don't quote me on that.

You do understand that before innervating the trachea and oesophagus it first travels down into the chest and then loops under the aorta before going back up to the larynx (which it passed on the way down). This is in all mammals (in fact it might be in all tetrapods) including, spectacularly, the giraffe.

[Spud]

You do understand that before innervating the trachea and oesophagus it first travels down into the chest and then loops under the aorta before going back up to the larynx (which it passed on the way down). This is in all mammals (in fact it might be in all tetrapods) including, spectacularly, the giraffe.

Yes I seem to have dreamt about this. Something about it wrapping around the ligamentum arteriosum which is originally the ductus arteriosus. The latter needs to close off at birth and the RLN may play a part in enabling this.

[Gordon]

Yes I seem to have dreamt about this. Something about it wrapping around the ligamentum arteriosum which is originally the ductus arteriosus. The latter needs to close off at birth and the RLN may play a part in enabling this.

What strange dreams you've had, Spud, especially if your dreams involve Latin terminology - I'd give the anatomy textbooks a miss in terms of bedtime reading if I were you.   

[SteveH]

Yes I seem to have dreamt about this. Something about it wrapping around the ligamentum arteriosum which is originally the ductus arteriosus. The latter needs to close off at birth and the RLN may play a part in enabling this.

Oh, come on - you're grasping at straws now.

[jeremyp]

Yes I seem to have dreamt about this. Something about it wrapping around the ligamentum arteriosum which is originally the ductus arteriosus. The latter needs to close off at birth and the RLN may play a part in enabling this.

Would you like to have a shot at explaining what that means in plain English?

[SteveH]

Would you like to have a shot at explaining what that means in plain English?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ductus_arteriosus

[Spud]

The ductus arteriosus (DA) is the artery that shunts blood from the pulmonary artery to the aorta enabling blood to bypass the lungs in the fetus. One of my college *lecturers, a guy called Barry Jacobs, made reference to the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) when describing how at birth, the DA closes so that blood can pass through the lungs. I think he said that tension from the left RLN, which passes underneath the DA before ascending to the larynx, aids the process of closing the DA. But the only literature I could find which supports this, I found while discussing this on the BBC R&E forum:
"Role of the vagus nerve and its recurrent laryngeal branch in the development of the human ductus arteriosus."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/aja.1001670304
This paper suggests that the supporting effect of the RLN beneath the sixth aortic arch during development, reducess the elastin content of the DA's smooth muscle wall. This means that it is less likely to remain patent after birth, when it closes in response to increased levels of chemicals in the circulation.
I think Barry said that the RLN exerts some kind of tension force on the DA at birth. But he may have misconstrued that with the above effect on it during development.

* I studied cardiology as part of a degree in Osteopathy, which I am not currently practicing.

[Spud]

You do understand that before innervating the trachea and oesophagus it first travels down into the chest and then loops under the aorta before going back up to the larynx (which it passed on the way down). This is in all mammals (in fact it might be in all tetrapods) including, spectacularly, the giraffe.

It's actually the vagus nerve which travels down into the chest, carrying neurones that innervate the larynx, trachea and esophagus via the RLN.

[SteveH]

It's actually the vagus nerve which travels down into the chest; the RLN branches off it at the level of the aorta. But yes, the neurones of the RLN pass down via the vagus and then up via the RLN.

Exactly - why doesn't it branch off much higher up? I'm sure another way could have been found of closing the ductus arteriosus.

[Spud]

Exactly - why doesn't it branch off much higher up? I'm sure another way could have been found of closing the ductus arteriosus.

I'm not assuming it is involved in closing it, just repeating what I was taught.

In some cases the inferior laryngeal nerve is non-recurrent- it doesn't pass beneath the aorta. This is an issue for surgeons, but that doesn't affect this discussion. The non-recurrence is due to a disorder of one of the aortic arches.

I'm aware of the theory that the nerve is (usually) recurrent because of our supposed fish ancestry.

[Spud]

Steve,
I may be speculating too much, but if you check out the embryological development of the respiratory system, notice that the first thing you see happening is the outgrowth of two lung buds. The trachea appears to grow from the broncheal tree upwards. It is entirely innervated by the recurrent laryngeal nerve, thus the final result will be that the nerve begins at the bottom of the trachea. That at least would explain why the trachea is not innervated from the top downwards.

[SteveH]

Steve,
I may be speculating too much, but if you check out the embryological development of the respiratory system, notice that the first thing you see happening is the outgrowth of two lung buds. The trachea appears to grow from the broncheal tree upwards. It is entirely innervated by the recurrent laryngeal nerve, thus the final result will be that the nerve begins at the bottom of the trachea. That at least would explain why the trachea is not innervated from the top downwards.

Possibly - so why would an intelligent designer do it that way? It leaves the problem for advocates of intelligent design exactly where it was.

[Spud]

Possibly - so why would an intelligent designer do it that way? It leaves the problem for advocates of intelligent design exactly where it was.

Why wouldn't he do it that way? It works, so what is the problem?