From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/26/2025 1:31 AM, Anthk NM wrote:   
   > On 2025-07-22, RonO  wrote:   
   >> https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/green-creatures-the-intelli   
   ent-design-of-plants/   
   >>   
   >> MarkE represents the ID perps ability to con the rubes with stupid   
   >> denial arguments.  Plants are engineered and must have been designed.   
   >> MarkE exemplifies the stupidity of this type of ID scam con the rubes   
   >> argument.   
   >>   
   >> Most of the creationist rubes that support the ID scam will never accept   
   >> how the designer designed plants on this planet.  They are the result of   
   >> a very long evolutionary process.  The rubes do not want the plants to   
   >> have been designed the way that they were designed.   
   >>   
   >> Plants were not the first lifeforms created on this planet.  The crop   
   >> plants described in the Bible did not evolve until long after   
   >> terrestrial vertebrates were wandering around on dry land.  Land plants   
   >> would have been designed using algae adapted to fresh water lakes and   
   >> rivers, and would evolved hundreds of millions of years after sea   
   >> creatures already had existed.  Angiosperm plants evolved less than 200   
   >> million years ago when dinos were becoming the rulers of the landscape,   
   >> and grasses around a hundred million years later.   
   >>   
   >> The intelligent design science should be rejected by the majority of YEC   
   >> support for the ID scam.  Nature isn't Biblical and any real science is   
   >> not going to support Biblical creationism.   
   >>   
   >> Ron Okimoto   
   >>   
   >   
   > Given how humans build a waste zone near a recrational area, I find   
   > that 'god designer' must have been a novice intern.   
   >   
      
   The designer is more of a tinkerer than a design engineer.  What humans   
   are stuck with is actually an improvement over the original designs.   
   Egg laying mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians only have one cloacal   
   opening for pooping, urinating, and reproduction.  The first bilateral   
   animal likely used the same single opening for ingestion, reproduction   
   and waste removal, but later protostomes and deuterostomes evolved to   
   make two openings.  The initial embryo formed a blastopore.  Protostomes   
   likely took the best path and the blastopore that initially was a multi   
   purpose opening evolved into the mouth, and the insides of the   
   protostomes developed towards the anus.  So the rear end region evolved   
   last.  For us deuterostomes we evolved literally ass backwards, so later   
   reproductive organs had to evolve within the existing ass of the animal.   
     Placental mammals have somehow been able to separate the cloacal   
   opening in two, but urination is still coupled with the reproductive   
   opening.  This just means that the designer has a little more work to   
   do, and isn't quite finished.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)