The Old Guard Passes on to Judgment and the Mormons' Future

[_honorentheos]

Markk,

As I recall from the last discussion on evolution you have a professional inclination for design metaphors that influence how you see the problems with evolution. That being, high levels of function indicate a designer must be involved.

But I also seem to recall last time we had a discussion on evolution we ended somewhere around the question of what to do with obvious examples in nature where low function or vestigial elements are found broadly in almost all biological organisms?

Along side of the eyes, wings, and sex organs are cross-wired nervous systems, flightless wings, and male nipples.

What's your current take on obvious inefficiencies in the organization of inner organs and systems that make perfect sense when seen as being the results of the current form of an organism being a product of having evolved over time? Like an old building that's inner workings and layout look nothing like something a person would layout or design today but are understandable when one looks back at the history of utility additions, replacements, upgrades, and structure modifications?

I'm curious if you've made any progress on that aspect of the question?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Evolution, as a scientific theory, is as settled as the theory of gravity or relativity.

https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfi ... nderstand/?

- Doc

The theory of evolution is the scientific theory that explains why there is so much variety and complexity in the natural world. Be warned that it doesn't explain what initially started life in the first place - all it explains is the variety of life we have.

Are we back to Goddunnit? Because the author explicitly rejects ID IRT evoution.

- Doc

[_Markk]

Markk,

As I recall from the last discussion on evolution you have a professional inclination for design metaphors that influence how you see the problems with evolution. That being, high levels of function indicate a designer must be involved.

But I also seem to recall last time we had a discussion on evolution we ended somewhere around the question of what to do with obvious examples in nature where low function or vestigial elements are found broadly in almost all biological organisms?

Along side of the eyes, wings, and sex organs are cross-wired nervous systems, flightless wings, and male nipples.

What's your current take on obvious inefficiencies in the organization of inner organs and systems that make perfect sense when seen as being the results of the current form of an organism being a product of having evolved over time? Like an old building that's inner workings and layout look nothing like something a person would layout or design today but are understandable when one looks back at the history of utility additions, replacements, upgrades, and structure modifications?

I'm curious if you've made any progress on that aspect of the question?

Not much...

But please do fill me in?

I remember something about buildings...how long ago was that?

[_Markk]

The theory of evolution is the scientific theory that explains why there is so much variety and complexity in the natural world. Be warned that it doesn't explain what initially started life in the first place - all it explains is the variety of life we have.

Are we back to Goddunnit? Because the author explicitly rejects ID IRT evoution.

- Doc

LOL...that was the first sentence of your reddit link

nice one Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Are we back to Goddunnit? Because the author explicitly rejects ID IRT evoution.

- Doc

LOL...that was the first sentence of your reddit link

nice one Doc[/quote]

Man, you couldn't make it pass the first sentence? He even ELI5'd.

- Doc

[_sock puppet]

Okay, a very long time ago Servant made a post about the existence of an omnipotent God making sense to him, and I replied by asking whether God's omnipotence included God's ability to cause a soul to cease to exist. Servant made no response to that post at all, and eventually stopped posting to this thread; Markk never replied to that post either, but at least he's still posting. Servant and/or Markk, can you tell me whether God's ominpotence includes God's ability to cause a soul to cease to exist?

Servant is a her, and shes pretty sharp, even if she wears her emotions on her shirt sleeve...I am sure she did not duck such a question...and I did respond...please go back and look?

God can do anything with his creation. He created us, He can un-create us. I am not sure I understand where you are going with that.

I assume you are looking at this in that LDS theology teaches all mankind are eternal intelligences, or gnolaum. That is not what the Bible teaches.

Can god annihilate someone nunc pro tunc? erase one's entire existence? entirely undo the mistake he's made? set the clock back?

[_honorentheos]

Markk,

As I recall from the last discussion on evolution you have a professional inclination for design metaphors that influence how you see the problems with evolution. That being, high levels of function indicate a designer must be involved.

But I also seem to recall last time we had a discussion on evolution we ended somewhere around the question of what to do with obvious examples in nature where low function or vestigial elements are found broadly in almost all biological organisms?

Along side of the eyes, wings, and sex organs are cross-wired nervous systems, flightless wings, and male nipples.

What's your current take on obvious inefficiencies in the organization of inner organs and systems that make perfect sense when seen as being the results of the current form of an organism being a product of having evolved over time? Like an old building that's inner workings and layout look nothing like something a person would layout or design today but are understandable when one looks back at the history of utility additions, replacements, upgrades, and structure modifications?

I'm curious if you've made any progress on that aspect of the question?

Not much...

But please do fill me in?

I remember something about buildings...how long ago was that?

A year ago. Almost exactly. This thread starts to look very much like that thread, too. A few different participants here or there but largely the same arguments.

Anyway, here was my post along with your reply to save the digging - unless someone is interested in looking into the reciprocating mirrors that are evolution threads on MDB, in which case dig away:

If you do happen to look in here, I hope you take some time to answer the question regarding how evolution would conflict with hope? You had mentioned earlier that you felt your choice involved choosing hope which I don't understand in relation to the broad question of whether or not evolutionary theory is valid.

Hope to me is faith in a intelligent creator, not a series of accidents that demand after death is nothing. I chose to have hope/faith that their is a creator of all things, I chose not to believe the amazing things in life are not a accident...I chose not to believe any of the different and changing theories of evolution.

I admitted their are arguments for evolution, and I certainly can not explain everything away, but there are equally and I believe more arguments for a intelligent designer and this was not accident.

For man to come from monkeys, in my pea brain, would demand such a great line of examples of the biological changes needed...that there would simply be more evidence in the fossil record than there is, much more.

Again, I chose hope and faith, and I am okay with that...I love life, I am good with it and love having fun with you guys and consider you all friends, even if you are wrong:)

Thanks for answering, Markk. Like Runtu suggests, I'm not entirely sure that hope in a redeemer (if not a creator-God) is excluded when one accepts that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life as we see it today. And I thought huckelberry's comment was insightful about redemption for such a "natural" world being more logically appealing than one fully formed. But either way, I can respect that as your decision.

I'm curious, as someone in construction, what you think about the evidence we find in modern species rather than just looking at the fossil record? I reference construction as a lead in to this article: This Old Body

An appetizer: While I was struggling to understand the body’s internal structures, I was given space in a 100-year-old building that needed to be renovated into a modern laboratory. When we opened the walls to look at the plumbing, wiring and other mechanicals, we saw a tangle that made no apparent sense; cables, wires and pipes took bizarre loops and turns throughout the building. Nobody in their right mind would have designed my building to conform to the snarled mess we saw when the wall was removed. Constructed in 1896, the utilities reflect an old design that has been jury-rigged for each renovation done over previous decades. If you want to understand the twisting pathways for a cable or a pipe, you have to understand their history and how they have been modified over the years. The same is true for structures in the human body.

hey,

I am not sure I understand your question. I certainly understand old buildings, I am in historic restoration...but I am not sure what your point is. please expound a little more it sounds like a interesting comparison, I am just not sure I know how to answer?

If you want me to compare the human design, to even the most modern of buildings...to me there is non...apples and oranges.

MG

Sure.

The author of the article at the link uses the analogy of opening up an old building that has been renovated multiple times over 100 years to what someone sees in the anatomy of a human being. As with the renovated building where the layout of plumbing, electrical, and other utilities and infrastructure modifications only make sense if one understands the history of the building, the human body has similar seemingly illogical inner workings. Like indoor plumbing being added years after original construction from a certain source at one time, a new addition with new electrical another, the replacement and abandonment of corroded iron pipes for new steel or copper, rerouting the plumbing to a new City water main...it isn't anything like how a new building would be laid out.

The article goes through a few examples where examining our early fish ancestors and their modern descendants serves as a blue print for the original design. By comparing the odd loops and locations of nerves, organs, and other systems in the human body that are like the inner workings of the 100 year old building, the "renovated" human body begins to make much more sense.

The evidence for evolution is strong across the entire field of biology. Some of the most compelling comes from examining living species. The fossil record is only one part. And if one dismisses evolution as the most likely explanation for how the diversity of life we see today came to be, one then has to contend with this other evidence. There's much more to it than suggesting the gaps in the fossil record or lack of conclusive explanations for certain biological functions such as sexual reproduction are missing so the theory can be ignore due to lack of evidence. One has to then explain the positive evidence for evolution. Like the inner workings of the 100 year old building.

I don't really see it that way, maybe it is because I spend everyday of the week in old piece of crap buildings.

I see it this way, and I'll use the current project I am managing as an example.

The building/s I am restoring or not that old 1920's...they are government owned. I deal everyday with architects, engineers, inspectors, CM's, and government people. These building have every problem you can imagine.

It is a fight from the first meeting, to the last approval to move in...and most of the team are very educated folks...very "smart" (I say this with reservation) people...and lets say "very intelligent designers? There is so much intelligent design put into new construction and old from inch to inch of the building...yet it is a mess, different folks with different ideas. And with all that it is a mess and struggle at almost every point.

Yet look at life...? I can not believe it is by accident. Creation is pretty cool, and to me this demands a designer, architect, engineer... etc...I choose God?

No way is this by accident.

Your example demands intelligent design, as does life.

At that point, it was clear you hadn't read the article or you would have realized that your response didn't address the use of the old building as metaphor. It also left open the question - is God a bad designer or relied on design by committee? It just restated that you were making a choice. At which point I guess it was up to you to eventually read the example provided...or not.

Anyway, what do you make of the evidence of non-design but rather addition-subtraction at work in what is the modern form of almost every biological form on earth including humans?

[_Markk]

Can god annihilate someone nunc pro tunc? erase one's entire existence? entirely undo the mistake he's made? set the clock back?

LOL... nunc pro tunc... I'll have to look that word or phrase up...remember I am just the maintenance man here.


Well, God does not make mistakes, so counselor, please rephrase your question...in the mean time I will look up nunc pro tunc...it sounds like Vietnamese food or a wrestling move?

[_KevinSim]

Servant is a her, and she's pretty sharp, even if she wears her emotions on her shirt sleeve...I am sure she did not duck such a question...and I did respond...please go back and look?

God can do anything with his creation. He created us, He can un-create us. I am not sure I understand where you are going with that.

I assume you are looking at this in that LDS theology teaches all mankind are eternal intelligences, or gnolaum. That is not what the Bible teaches.

Agreed. The Bible very definitely does not teach that humans have always existed. The Bible does, however, teach that some people, after they have died, will spend the rest of eternity in unbearable agony. Would you agree with that?

Where I'm going with this is reacting to the criticisms Servant made of the LDS Church. She seemed to think that traditional Christianity makes a lot more sense than Mormonism does. I've spent a lot of my life becoming familiar with criticisms leveled at the LDS Church, so much so that I'm really not surprised when large numbers of people think Mormonism is foolishness. But if we were to assume that all the criticisms of the LDS Church are spot on, then would it really be easier to believe that God would inspire a church that was guilty of those criticisms, than it would be to believe in a deity that has the ability to cause souls to cease to exist, and yet by that deity's inaction allows some number of souls to suffer unbearable agony for the rest of eternity?

It does not make sense to me at all that a good God would let those souls suffer unbearable agony for the rest of eternity when at any time God could cause them to cease to exist instead. Servant, you said that the God of traditional Christianity made more sense to you than the God of the LDS Church; can you explain to me why God lets these people suffer forever, and doesn't instead cause them to cease to exist? And, Markk, if Servant doesn't respond, can you tell me why I should believe in the God of traditional Christianity, considering that said God lets those people suffer forever?

[_Doctor Steuss]

Not to mention the biology behind estrogen and testosterone that would need to occur to produce attraction.

for what it's worth, all of the various types of estrogen (there isn’t just one) are synthesized from androgens.

You might be surprised at just how much the endocrine systems of men and women are alike. It’s really cool stuff (at least I think it is) – for example, luteinizing hormone (LH) is an analog of hCG, which is the hormone that OTC pregnancy tests look for. Because of this, hCG injections can help men with hypogonadism. Or, drugs that inhibit the aromotase enzyme (which is responsible for the metabolism of testosterone into estrogen) which are used in women to prevent breast cancer can also be used by men to influence the negative feedback loop of the HPTA.

Basically you can take any drug that influences the endocrine system, and accurately predict how it will influence the HPG axis or reproductive system of one sex based on how it works on the other. As an example, one can reasonably infer that long-term use of Nolvadex (a selective estrogen receptor modulator used to treat breast cancer) can potentially cause endometrial carcinoma in the prostatic utricle of men based on its risk of causing endometrial cancer in women. Even though men don’t have a uterus, our reproductive and endocrine systems are fascinatingly similar to that of women (at least I find it fascinating).

Sorry for the jumbled giddy screed – the endocrine system and pharmacology was my obsessive hobby of choice during one of my dark winters, and it doesn't exactly pop up in everyday conversation. 