DiscussMormonism.com

Markk wrote:
Not a Troll, the trailer park needs a maintenance man.

Dumb will do, but you are proving my point rather as planned, that you have no more of a proof or evidence than I do...so yes...being dumb is okay...being one that calls people dumb for more or less having the same evidences for their ideology in regards to "all this" is equally dumb...so

...the real question between us is really...who is Harry and who is Lloyd?

I am still curious why the purported inability of science (or even those defending science here) to provide precise answers to a specific question can be considered as evidence of a particular religious belief.

In other words, in my opinion the failure of Chap or Dr. W to provide an answer you will accept has nothing to do with a Christian God being the answer.

This would be like me demanding that you write a book equivalent to the Book of Mormon in the same time frame TBMs claim Joseph Smith did it and when (not if) you could not, well then obviously Mormonism is true.

Neither you nor I accept that flawed reasoning.

Why does this not also apply to your argument here?

Markk wrote:
This is what I mean...you paste crap that does not address the specific question, and when asked to narrow it down yo can't. If you really understood the argument it should be easy to explain in simple term...I ask the question again in a different way...in which one celled future mammal did the penis and vagina evolve from?

No one is writing papers on the question you asked because your question is loaded with poor assumptions. I posted a paper that discusses ecoevolutionary mechanisms of genitalia evolution with specific examples. The intent was to give a sense of how extensive the field is. Did you catch the part where it analyzed hundreds of studies in the area? You asked me to pull out a few lines that answer your question when the entire paper is addresses the issue as it is a study of those studies. What did you want me to do? Randomly cut and paste a paragraph?

Your current question doesn't even make sense. Mammals are monophyletic to single-celled eukaryotes. You can't point to specific ancestor cell, nor should you expect to, but you wouldn't need to in order to know that is the case. And knowing that fact tells you very little about the origins of mammalian genitalia.

sure you did

You are aware I have a degree in biology and routinely read papers, right? PLOS is a cool public resource. PLOS biology has a solid impact factor. It's worth following. It comes up on this board from time to time.

EAllusion wrote:

Markk wrote:
This is what I mean...you paste crap that does not address the specific question, and when asked to narrow it down yo can't. If you really understood the argument it should be easy to explain in simple term...I ask the question again in a different way...in which one celled future mammal did the penis and vagina evolve from?

No one is writing papers on the question you asked because your question is loaded with poor assumptions. I posted a paper that discusses ecoevolutionary mechanisms of genitalia evolution with specific examples. The intent was to give a sense of how extensive the field is. Did you catch the part where it analyzed hundreds of studies in the area? You asked me to pull out a few lines that answer your question when the entire paper is addresses the issue as it is a study of those studies. What did you want me to do? Randomly cut and paste a paragraph?

Your current question doesn't even make sense. Mammals are monophyletic to single-celled eukaryotes. You can't point to specific ancestor cell, nor should you expect to, but you wouldn't need to in order to know that is the case. And knowing that fact tells you very little about the origins of mammalian genitalia.

sure you did

You are aware I have a degree in biology and routinely read papers, right? PLOS is a cool public resource. PLOS biology has a solid impact factor. It's worth following. It comes up on this board from time to time.

great, what is your specialty in?

Fence Sitter wrote:
I am still curious why the purported inability of science (or even those defending science here) to provide precise answers to a specific question can be considered as evidence of a particular religious belief.

In other words, in my opinion the failure of Chap or Dr. W to provide an answer you will accept has nothing to do with a Christian God being the answer.

This would be like me demanding that you write a book equivalent to the Book of Mormon in the same time frame TBMs claim Joseph Smith did it and when (not if) you could not, well then obviously Mormonism is true.

Neither you nor I accept that flawed reasoning.

Why does this not also apply to your argument here?

I do not believe I said that a lack of science provides evidence for my faith...if i did i was incorrect in saying that. I believe my point is that we both have ideologies on "this" based on a faith or hope. Theirs is on a basis of science, hits and misses, etc...and mine in a belief of a creator and that He has reached out to His creation.

It does not make their theories true...theirs is just that, theory...and there are major gaps in those multiple theories. They are the ones being but hurt... DRw pouts every time someone dares question him, and blames the problems on the world of religionists. I don't respect that and most the part I keep my mouth shut, but once in a while I give my two cents.



I know what I believe and why I believe it, and I enjoy life...right or wrong that is where my hope and faith lies. And if they believe that this is all by chance, without intelligent design...more power to them. But we can also discuss it and be friendly...there are many here that I disagree with, probably most everyone (lol) that I would love to buy a beer for, and I believe many would do the same for me.

All leave you with a quote from Clemenza:

"Pretty &^%*#@ bad. Probably all the other Families will line up against us. That's all right. These things gotta happen every five years or so, ten years. Helps to get rid of the bad blood. Been ten years since the last one. You know, you gotta stop them at the beginning. Like they should have stopped Hitler at Munich, they should never let him get away with that, they was just asking for trouble."

take care

MG

Who noted when a believer wants to insult the sciences he calls them a religion?

- Doc

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Who noted when a believer wants to insult the sciences he calls them a religion?

- Doc

? webster...?

a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"

Markk wrote:

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Who noted when a believer wants to insult the sciences he calls them a religion?

- Doc

? webster...?

a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"

Once again Markk you're not doing yourself any favors in this thread. Consumerism is the new religion.. Good stuff.

- Doc

Markk,

Before consigning this thread to MDB history, and in an attempt to move your understanding of evolution off of top dead center, I would like to make you an offer.

Richard Dawkins has written a book entitled "The Magic of Reality: How we know what is really true". This is a richly illustrated book on - well - Reality, that was conceived and produced mainly with teenagers and their iPads in mind.

I was fortunate enough to attend a lecture by Dr. Dawkins during his US tour promoting this book. (And Dawkins' lecture was at least as interesting as the book itself.)

Among its unexpected features is a series of images with which Dawkins illustrates our the human family tree going back to well before life on Earth enjoyed the benefits of the penis and the vagina. The high impact take home message of this image set is that one can look at any consecutive pair of images in the set and readily see how similar they are, one to the other.

I thought about this image series when you asked about genital evolution and figured that you could have a look at the family tree and satisfy yourself as to when these particular genital forms first appeared.

Another chapter in this excellent book discusses various creation myths that Dawkins has collected from all over the world. Some of them are much more inventive than that of Christianity.

What I would like to do is to give you a copy of this book. I can guarantee that your kids and grandkids (if you have any) will love it, and you might even enjoy it as well. If you wish to take me up on this offer, please go to Amazon.com and select the version you would like to receive (Audiobook, iPad App, or hardbound), PM me with a valid email address, and I will take care of the rest.

Nothing more will be mentioned (by me, at least) about this one time offer, regardless of whether you take me up on it or not.

However, I hope you will. Because doing so would demonstrate that you really are curious about these these issues and willing to consider the scientific point of view.

DrW wrote:Markk,

Before consigning this thread to MDB history, and in an attempt to move your understanding of evolution off of top dead center, I would like to make you an offer.

Richard Dawkins has written a book entitled "The Magic of Reality: How we know what is really true". This is a richly illustrated book on - well - Reality, that was conceived and produced mainly with teenagers and their iPads in mind.

I was fortunate enough to attend a lecture by Dr. Dawkins during his US tour promoting this book. (And Dawkins' lecture was at least as interesting as the book itself.)

Among its unexpected features is a series of images with which Dawkins illustrates our the human family tree going back to well before life on Earth enjoyed the benefits of the penis and the vagina. The high impact take home message of this image set is that one can look at any consecutive pair of images in the set and readily see how similar they are, one to the other.

I thought about this image series when you asked about genital evolution and figured that you could have a look at the family tree and satisfy yourself as to when these particular genital forms first appeared.

Another chapter in this excellent book discusses various creation myths that Dawkins has collected from all over the world. Some of them are much more inventive than that of Christianity.

What I would like to do is to give you a copy of this book. I can guarantee that your kids and grandkids (if you have any) will love it, and you might even enjoy it as well. If you wish to take me up on this offer, please go to Amazon.com and select the version you would like to receive (Audiobook, iPad App, or hardbound), PM me with a valid email address, and I will take care of the rest.

Nothing more will be mentioned (by me, at least) about this one time offer, regardless of whether you take me up on it or not.

However, I hope you will. Because doing so would demonstrate that you really are curious about these these issues and willing to consider the scientific point of view.

One time offer? ...lOl what a tool

Gee thanks your highness

Markk wrote:
One time offer? ...lOl what a tool

Gee thanks your highness

Man, sometimes crap gets meta fast on this forum. Markk just pulled a Hamblin, and he's too bumbling to see it.

- Doc