DiscussMormonism.com

Paul Osborne wrote: I'll trust scientists on some things to a point.

In other words, you'll trust them where it's convenient to trust them but not where it conflicts with your cherished beliefs?

That's how it seems to go.

Paul Osborne wrote: But there are limits and they do make mistakes in their calculations because they aren't perfect. Understanding science is a process and has evolved over the centuries. Our current scientists are not perfect yet and don't have all the answers.

Surely we can agree on that.

Of course science and scientists aren't perfect, but what you're suggesting (that they're wrong about evolution) goes way beyond the simple idea that they don't have everything exactly right. Essentially, you're throwing out an entire body of scientific thought which has be agreed upon by several different bodies of science all converging on the same conclusion (evolutionary biology, genetics, geology, etc, etc). It's like saying, "I don't believe in our current understanding of reproductive sex. Scientists can kiss my ass. The stork brings us babies. End of story."

I'm only partly wrong:

An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates.[1] In less scientific language, it has various meanings, although it often (but not always) excludes humans.[2] Due to its ambiguous nature, the term 'ape' is less suitable as a means of describing taxonomic relationships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

Buncha apes!

karl61 wrote:Today - when we are in fear or in pain regarding medical issues we likely run to science. Sometimes with lights and sirens.

There are no anti-scientists in car accidents?

EAllusion:

… survival of the fittest really means those who have traits more conducive to reproductive success in a given environmental context are statistically more likely to propagate through time in that environmental context.

This is entirely meaningless, of course, unless these traits actually result in reproductive success, regardless of what they conduce to, and regardless of the environmental context in which they attempt to reproduce.

In any case, your statement beggars logic, since the only test of whether any individual has traits more conducive to reproduction is whether or not it successfully reproduces.

The fittest aren't those that survive, but rather those that have traits that are more functionally efficient at reproductive success compared against others in a population.

This has got to be one of the most astoundingly ridiculous statements I have ever read on this message board. And believe me, that is saying something.

Can you really be serious?

Oh, my.

Again, the only test of whether any individual has traits more conducive to reproduction is whether or not it successfully reproduces.

Therefore, the judgment of tautology remains. The fittest ARE those who survive.
.
.
.
The Dude:

Schryver can't digest a genuine discussion of fitness in evolutionary terms …

That is a powerful counter-argument you’ve come up with, little dude. Perhaps you’d also like to argue that “the fittest aren't those that survive.” Have at it. I’m up for a little amusement this afternoon.
.
.
.
.
.
.
======================>

William Schryver wrote:Again, the only test of whether any individual has traits more conducive to reproduction is whether or not it successfully reproduces.

No, this is demonstrably false. If it were true, then we would have to be agnostic as to whether a normal eagle chick would be more likely to survive than an eagle chick that was born blind. It's ridiculous to suspend judgment on that matter, therefore your assertion is not true.

As I read Williams writing I remembered Abe Lincolns thought:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"

JohnStuartMill wrote:

William Schryver wrote:Again, the only test of whether any individual has traits more conducive to reproduction is whether or not it successfully reproduces.

No, this is demonstrably false. If it were true, then we would have to be agnostic as to whether a normal eagle chick would be more likely to survive than an eagle chick that was born blind. It's ridiculous to suspend judgment on that matter, therefore your assertion is not true.

That's very good, John. I was going to write something about penis sizes or ejaculate volumes as useful statistical predictors of reproductive fitness, because I thought these metrics would appeal to William's interests. But your example is also good.

But the question of whether or not the LDS Prophets and scriptures are credible can be settled right now.

Was that the topic here? Did I bring that up? Guess what. There are areas I think they are credible in and other areas where I think they are doing the best they can with the knowledge they have. I don't view them as infallible and even question much of what they say and have said. Remember I am one of the wishy washy NOMs that some of the TBMs here despise.

I have a question for you. Would it fly if the bishop asked you whether you paid your tithing, and you answered that the decision whether to pay or not was being deferred until such time as you can be sure of the credibility of the Prophets who commanded it?

No. But that is not why I pay tithing.

If the bishop asked if you kept the word of wisdom, and you answered that that decision had to be deferred until God came down and clarified what was meant by mild drinks made from barley?

No. But that is not why I choose to keep the WoW.

They demand obedience today, and you think it's OK to defer deciding whether they are credible or not indefinitely.

I don't continue to practice as and LDS person because I think the LDS prophets are 100% credible, 75%, 50% or whatever you want to pick.

I'm guessing you're making a Pascalesque wager that they somehow manage to be true Prophets despite their track record of failure

I can tell you that you guesses wrong.

Look, there are some critical issues for me as far as even Christianity goes (of which Mormonism is a subset. I have other questions there). Adam and Eve and the Fall is one. Integrity of the transmission of scripture is the other. I have asked and asked other non LDS Christians what it means for Christianity if the Adam and Eve were not real and the fall not literal. I have not gotten much of a good response yet.

So yea, it is an issue.

The Dude wrote:

JohnStuartMill wrote:No, this is demonstrably false. If it were true, then we would have to be agnostic as to whether a normal eagle chick would be more likely to survive than an eagle chick that was born blind. It's ridiculous to suspend judgment on that matter, therefore your assertion is not true.

That's very good, John.

Thanks, Dude. This means a lot coming from you.

I was going to write something about penis sizes or ejaculate volumes as useful statistical predictors of reproductive fitness, because I thought these metrics would appeal to William's interests.

Anyway, I guess that's the last we'll hear from Will for a while. We all know he's too much of a chicken to admit when he's flat wrong.

1. I like how you concede uncertainty. However, does this mean your response to the issue is to ignore the problem or wait for more information? How do you react to the apparent problems in the present. There seems to be a lot of contradictions involved.

This is a huge problem and issue to me.

2. You seem to be answering the problem by resorting to a less literal reading of the story. You can add whatever interpretations you wish, but they are not supported by a literal reading of the texts. A/E are not the first flesh approved of or chosen by God. That's what Abraham was. There are no qualifiers regarding "first flesh" or whether man was found on the Earth. If someone looked around to see if there was man, he would see several species of bipedal, tool producing, language using, cultural animals. Does this present a problem to you?

Yes. All I can say is the texts were written by those who did the best they could with the world they lived. I think there is a lot in the Bible that cannot be taken literally. Even BY said that the A&E story in the Bible was a fairy take though his solutions may not be all that much better.

3. If there were human animals, with or without souls, and God made covenants with A/E making them our "first parents", what about their parents and all the other humans? How do they fit into history and the plan of salvation? How or why would their lines die out, they would have outnumbered A/E's families quite a bit.

I think I said that if this really was the case these human animals without souls would be treated just like any animal=cat, dog, mouse, etc. They will be with us in heaven so IO guess these humans could be as well.

4. If the simplest explanation is usually the best one, why go to such trouble to justify a literal interpretation of the stories? Hard as it may be, I think this one shows the Church is not what it claims to be, from a rational POV.

Yes I understand this as well.