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

[_mikwut]

Themis,

If you didn't make any assertion otherwise we have no dispute.

I don't see the scientific community saying anything like the god of the gaps argument.

Of course it it a methodology, but when Ideologies which are what I think much more representative of this board are presented as science that is another matter.

mikwut

[_ludwigm]

Talk about chaos Mormonism (The Church of ... etc).

Edited for You...

[_Markk]

The paper discusses the field of genitalia evolution extensively. Maybe you should have read past the abstract. The paper itself is arguing that a bias towards penis study has harmed the field, but it does so in the context of rather extensive discussion of what the field knows in particular cases. Evolutionary biologists aren't studying "why are there penises and vaginas?" They are studying, "why are particular genitalia systems shaped the way they are?" The reason they don't study it broadly is because a number of coevolutionary scenarios can explain their development and they have evolved independently in different populations at different times.

The next link you quote is talking about the evolution of sexual reproduction, which is an even more complex question than the origin of penises and vaginas. Is it that you take the existence of penises and vaginas as synonymous with sexual reproduction itself? Jesus.

It is a rather short article..can you paste a paragraph or two that answers my question?

Thanks
MG

[_EAllusion]

It is a rather short article..can you paste a paragraph or two that answers my question?

Thanks
MG

Markk, the paper discusses several different mechanisms of genital coevolution over the course of the paper. There isn't a paragraph or two that is dedicated to answering your question, because the paper isn't an entry level faq for creationists. I recall reading the paper at some point, so I simply did a quick search and linked it. I think linking the paper is sufficient. Again, this is its own vibrant field with volumes of papers and entire textbooks dedicated to it. You can simply look it up if you are genuinely curious and possess enough background knowledge to understand what you are reading:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... 0genitalia

Your question is phrased in a way that suggests you simply don't understand coevolution. If that's the case, then you should try to understand that concept. I did my best to explain it, but you can also google it. Penises and vaginas don't have to, nor are they likely to have independently evolved. if you are instead interested in coevolutionary scenarios for genitalia, with one sex passing haploid cells and the other receiving them evolving into a biological feature for depositing them and another for receiving them, then I gave you a proper search sequence. If you think evolutionary theory is in principle unable to explain such biological features, you haven't explained why. If you think this demonstrates that a god willed those features into existence, you haven't explained why. Your ignorance isn't a basis for inference in design or, in this case, the failure of evolutionary biology.

[_Chap]

By all means take a break. During that break, why not take a course, since you find this topic so interesting?


Maybe when you have done the course, you might post again on this topic?

In other words you can't answer my simple questions?...

Nope, your confused question has been answered multiple times already. But you are still giving the same old response:

"Hey! I'm ignorant about a rather complicated topic, and I'm going to ask you a question whose form and content are based on a misunderstanding of what I am asking about.

If I don't find your answer immediately satisfying and comprehensible despite my utter ignorance and lack of willingness to make any intellectual effort beyond a little Googling - guess what! That proves you are really the dumb one."

The result of hearing this over and over again is not butt-hurt, but boredom.

[_Markk]

It is a rather short article..can you paste a paragraph or two that answers my question?

Thanks
MG

Markk, the paper discusses several different mechanisms of genital coevolution over the course of the paper. There isn't a paragraph or two that is dedicated to answering your question, because the paper isn't an entry level faq for creationists. I recall reading the paper at some point, so I simply did a quick search and linked it. I think linking the paper is sufficient. Again, this is its own vibrant field with volumes of papers and entire textbooks dedicated to it. You can simply look it up if you are genuinely curious and possess enough background knowledge to understand what you are reading:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... 0genitalia

Your question is phrased in a way that suggests you simply don't understand coevolution. If that's the case, then you should try to understand that concept. I did my best to explain it, but you can also google it. Penises and vaginas don't have to, nor are they likely to have independently evolved. if you are instead interested in coevolutionary scenarios for genitalia, with one sex passing haploid cells and the other receiving them evolving into a biological feature for depositing them and another for receiving them, then I gave you a proper search sequence. If you think evolutionary theory is in principle unable to explain such biological features, you haven't explained why. If you think this demonstrates that a god willed those features into existence, you haven't explained why. Your ignorance isn't a basis for inference in design or, in this case, the failure of evolutionary biology.

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?

Code: Select all

I recall reading the paper at some point, so I simply did a quick search and linked it.

sure you did

[_Markk]

Your question is phrased in a way that suggests you simply don't understand coevolution. If that's the case, then you should try to understand that concept. .

There are sure a lot of if's and but's in here..it also said it was not in the fossil record...it appears a lot of faith is needed to believe any one of the theories suggested?

[_BartBurk]

Now that Packer, and other "old guarders" have passed away, or will shortly, how do Mormons view the future of their church? Especially, will we see a change in:

1. The origin of the Book of Mormon

2. Less adoration of Joseph Smith who had many moral failings.

3. God becomes an eternal god, not a human who attained godhood?

4. Possible changes in underwear obligations?

5. More honesty about the history of the Mormons?

6. At last an apology for Mountain Meadows instead of obfuscation?

And so on.

On no. 3 I think many Mormons could come to interpret the couplet, "As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may become" to man's relationship with Christ. Christ became a man so that men could become gods and become like Christ, sharing in his divinity.

I'd suggest reading the following link which I think may be the way Mormonism goes in the future on the Godhead. Many will probably reject the idea that God the Father has descended from other Gods. In fact I would guess a lot of Mormons never really believed that.

http://www.smpt.org/docs/ostler_element1-1.html

The rest of your list has either already happened (2, 5 and 6) or are non-negotiables (1 and 4).

There is always the possibility I could return to Mormonism. I don't think a lot of changes would entice me to come back as much as keeping most of it the way it is.

[_Chap]

... in which one celled future mammal did the penis and vagina evolve from?

WTF?

This guy is asked us to locate a particular unicellular species, presumably back in the period when there were only unicellular species, i.e. about 3 billion years ago, and identify which one was the ancestor of mammals.

The first mammals are thought to have appeared only about 200 million years ago - almost the day before yesterday in comparison with the preceding time gap (though it depends what you call a mammal ...).

I think I can absolutely guarantee that absolutely no observer, 3 billion years ago, would have had any way to tell which one-celled creature was to have descendants for whom the random breaks broke in a way that ended with with (some of) those descendants ending up as mammals.

Markk, even Marrk, has to know that.

I am currently hesitating between

(a) terminally dumb, or

(b) troll.

[_Markk]

WTF?

This guy is asked us to locate a particular unicellular species, presumably back in the period when there were only unicellular species, i.e. about 3 billion years ago, and identify which one was the ancestor of mammals.

The first mammals are thought to have appeared only about 200 million years ago - almost the day before yesterday in comparison with the preceding time gap (though it depends what you call a mammal ...).

I think I can absolutely guarantee that absolutely no observer, 3 billion years ago, would have had any way to tell which one-celled creature was to have descendants for whom the random breaks broke in a way that ended with with (some of) those descendants ending up as mammals.

Markk, even Marrk, has to know that.

I am currently hesitating between

(a) terminally dumb, or

(b) troll.

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?