recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-3201-250x300Article by Richard Goode.

Syndicated from Eternal Vigilance.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Goode is a Transegoist sympathizer; not a Transegoist — our syndication of his article does not indicate that he endorses the Transegoist philosophy.

In a comment on Tim’s article, The Ludicrous Claims of Evolution! Why not ESP? Kiwi Dave says:

«Our recurrent laryngeal nerve inefficiently loops round our hearts instead of directly connecting to the brain stem; this, like cleft palates are a consequence of our fish ancestry.»

This is evidence worth talking about.

giraffe-recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-600x406The recurrent laryngeal nerve is a branch of the vagus nerve (tenth cranial nerve) that supplies motor function and sensation to the larynx (voice box). It branches from the vagus nerve in the chest cavity before it loops around the aorta and then back up to the larynx. Why doesn’t it take a more direct route? That it takes this circuitous detour is cited as evidence of evolution.

Wikipedia describes the nerve as follows:

«The extreme detour of this nerve (about 15 feet in the case of giraffes) is cited as evidence of evolution as opposed to intelligent design. The nerve’s route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.»

If we (and the giraffes) did indeed evolve from fish, then the course of the recurrent laryngeal nerve has a simple explanation. Its course is less simple to explain if we (and the giraffes) are products of special creation. Thus, the course of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is not merely evidence of evolutionism, but evidence for evolutionism.

I have a question. How difficult would it be to genetically re-engineer a giraffe (or a human) so that the recurrent laryngeal nerve passes directly from the brain to the larynx?

[socialpoll id=»6924″]


matthew.13.47Article by Richard Goode.

Syndicated from Eternal Vigilance.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Goode is a Transegoist sympathizer; not a Transegoist — our syndication of his article does not indicate that he endorses the Transegoist philosophy.

I find this passage curious:

«Again, the reign of the heavens is like to a net that was cast into the sea, and did gather together of every kind, which, when it was filled, having drawn up again upon the beach, and having sat down, they gathered the good into vessels, and the bad they did cast out, so shall it be in the full end of the age, the messengers shall come forth and separate the evil out of the midst of the righteous, and shall cast them to the furnace of the fire, there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of the teeth.»
—The Gospel of Matthew 13:47-50 (Young’s Literal Translation)

This passage describes a process of selection. It is about a net. A net selects fish on the basis of size. Fish smaller in size than the apertures in the net pass through it. Fish larger in size than the apertures in the net do not.  This is selection

The fishermen collect the good fish in baskets, but throw the bad away.  This is selection.

The angels separate the wicked from the righteous and destroy the wicked by throwing them into the blazing furnace.  This is selection.

I can’t help but think that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by natural selection has precedents in Scripture.

«Jesus saith to them, `Did ye understand all these?’ They say to him, `Yes, sir.'»
—The Gospel of Matthew 13:51 (Young’s Literal Translation)

EDITORS NOTE: I am the Editor in Chief of the Transegoist Daily Journal, and I approve this message.


to-600x480Article by Tim Wikiriwhi.

Syndicated from Eternal Vigilance.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Wikiriwhi is a Transegoist sympathizer; not a Transegoist — our syndication of his article does not indicate that he endorses the Transegoist philosophy.


It has always amazed me that the atheist world is so enthralled with Bertrand Russell’s «Celestial Teapot» as a supposed logical argument against the credibility of belief in God. This argument is routinely deployed by atheists in debates with theists, and so it was on a discussion I am having on face book about Science and belief in the after life. The important place Russell’s Teapot (and it’s mate, the «Flying Spaghetti Monster») play in the great controversy between faith and skepticism warrants that I write this article about it. I don’t know why Russell’s argument is so revered by atheists, as it only takes a small amount of contemplation to realize that His argument is actually a refutation of blind faith in atheistic evolution, not belief in God.

Let me explain.

Here is the argument in question:

«If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.   But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.  If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.» —Bertrand Russell

The reason we ought to doubt the existence of a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars is simply because we know that teapots are the product of mind over matter; i.e., unless mankind, or some other intelligence formed a teapot out of China and placed it in that orbit that there is no way nature could produce such an object via it’s blind and/or unguided forces!

The Theory of Evolution. The Illusion of Design.

This is an argument from design, and it makes a mockery of evolutionary theory because atheist evolutionists believe that something far, far more complex than a china teapot in orbit can and has been made by the pure blind and unguided forces of nature; I refer to the spectacle of life on Earth! For Atheists to believe life could possibly be the result of blind chance, and yet balk at the idea of a «celestial teapot» being formed by pure chance exposes their absurd credulity.  According to their theory, there ought to be all sorts of objects in space which have a quirky resemblance to designed artifacts…teapots?  Not a problem!

(I am reminded of The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, when it mentions the existence of “Casinos, all of which have been formed by the natural erosion of wind and rain…”  Hilarious!)

Well, we all know there very much is a problem: nature does not work like that! Russell’s argument is actually a very poor argument given the nature of what he was attempting to disprove; i.e., religious belief.

MakingLife-600x526It is also a great testament to the duplicity of atheists who balk at the idea of a celestial teapot, yet will look at you square in the face and tell you they believe life started by accident! That is to strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel!  He has, in fact, furnished theists with a great argument against atheism; for it would be much easier to believe in a «celestial teapot» than in the spontaneous generation and evolution of life.  Not to appreciate this is to be pig-headed indeed.

For more evidence of intelligent design:

Read about Biomimicry… Plagiarizing God’s designs.

Read about Paley’s other Watch.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Wikiriwhi is currently running for mayor of the city of Hamilton, NZ, as the Libertarianz Party candidate.