Theory of Evolution and Mormons

[littlechild]

Who are you learning your evolution from? Homochirality is a product of evolution, and there are a great many ideas on how it could come to pass.

Natural selection is NOT a theory of chance. It is the very opposite actually. I am not sure how to continue this discussion if you are unwilling to go to any length to learn more.

Anyways, you mentioned it was one of many, so why don't you name the "many"? Or was that just empty rhetoric?

If there are a great many ideas, name a workable one. Not an imaginary one.

[macmini]

Who are you learning your evolution from? Homochirality is a product of evolution, and there are a great many ideas on how it could come to pass.

Natural selection is NOT a theory of chance. It is the very opposite actually. I am not sure how to continue this discussion if you are unwilling to go to any length to learn more.

Anyways, you mentioned it was one of many, so why don't you name the "many"? Or was that just empty rhetoric?

Homochirality!! I completely agree with Eldwynn. Evolution is not dependent on chance and to say so lacks some basic knowledge of how it works. To invoke homochirality or even chirality as a fatal blow to evolution seems like an attempt at using a complex subject to stump the listener. Many, dare I say most people have no idea what chirality is or even what it means in chemistry and biology. I would argue that for you to use this as an argument I would expect you to explain yourself as to what chirality is, why it matters, what connection it has with evolution, why it is an argument against evolution. Present all these arguments citing you resources and sticking with the science and no personal attacks. I do understand chirality, what it means, and the possible connections to evolution but most people will just read the line "homochirality make evolution so improbable as to be impossible" and stop there. Maybe chirality is a fatal blow to evolution but you and every other person that has used that argument against evolution fails to address simple and reasonable questions to their ideas. I compare this to FOX news knowingly making false accusations against people to impugn them and nothing else matters after that point. The IDers just throw out chirality as a bone to believers. Nothing else matters even if the idea or accusation is completely wrong or made up.

[conspiracygirl]

I believe in evolution and in pre-Adamic man. I think that at some point in the evolution of homo-sapiens God pronounced it good and "dedicated" Adam, Eve, and their progenitors as man. Kinda like a temple is just another building until it is dedicated to the Lord....

[BCSpace]

I believe in evolution and in pre-Adamic man. I think that at some point in the evolution of homo-sapiens God pronounced it good and "dedicated" Adam, Eve, and their progenitors as man. Kinda like a temple is just another building until it is dedicated to the Lord....

Sure. In my own hypothesis, this point is defined when homo sapiens begin to be born with children of God as spirits within. In others, it might be when the gospel/ordinances are given.

[Eldwynn]

Sure. In my own hypothesis, this point is defined when homo sapiens begin to be born with children of God as spirits within. In others, it might be when the gospel/ordinances are given.

It's not a disprovable statement. Don't call it a hypothesis.

[thesometimesaint]

Eldwynn:

Actually, it is only our lack of knowledge on the subject right now that is falsifiable. Further knowledge may or may not make it falsifiable.

[DrW]

No lie. It's the only logical explaination for some of the antireligious posts I see on occaision.

Religion itself is science, especially the LDS religion. John 7:17 itself is a testable scientific principle.

I can think of no monotheistic religion, including Islam, that stands in more stark contrast to science than does Mormonism. The problems of fact, logic and internal inconsistencies that characterize Mormon doctrine and teachings are staggering.

If you think religion is science then you need to read more about science, or religion, or both.

[thesometimesaint]

DrW:

I'm a scientist, and I say poppycock.

[DrW]

It's not a disprovable statement. Don't call it a hypothesis.

Eldwynn,

The terms "hypothesis" and "falsifiable" apparently do not mean the same in Mormonism as in the rest of the world. In considering the logic processes used by believing Mormons to select among possible theories, explanations, or assertions, as compared the conventional logic used by science, I have some up with the two models below. Perhaps these will help shed light on this peculiar situation.

[DrW]

DrW:

I'm a scientist, and I say poppycock.

Then you should not mind naming a monotheistic religion that is a greater affront to science than Mormonism.

[DrW]

As a recent example of the kind of logic attributed to Mormons in my earlier post on this thread, I offer the the following statement as posted by CV75 on another thread. (I kid you not.)

"Someday the world will come up with irrefutable evidence that the Church is not true (and in some circles, already has). And the Church is and will still be true. "

How can anyone say that such a statement is not an affront to reason and logic?

Unfortunately, this kind of logic and magical thinking is endemic to Mormonism. The example statement above was found in an approximate 3 min search for such examples on this site.

I was criticized on another thread for suggesting that Mormons often engage in Orwellian "doublethink". Could there be a better example of doublethink than the statement quoted above?

[macmini]

DrW:I'm a scientist, and I say poppycock.

Poppycock!!!! That is all I am saying....

"Someday the world will come up with irrefutable evidence that the Church is not true (and in some circles, already has). And the Church is and will still be true. "I am not feeling well.....

[macmini]

Then you should not mind naming a monotheistic religion that is a greater affront to science than Mormonism.

I actually agree but Scientologist's aversion to getting help for mental illness and the complete denial of its existence is enough to give the LDS religion a good running.

[BCSpace]

Sure. In my own hypothesis, this point is defined when homo sapiens begin to be born with children of God as spirits within. In others, it might be when the gospel/ordinances are given.

It's not a disprovable statement. Don't call it a hypothesis.

My usage fits one or more of the dictionary definitions. I will therefore continue to call it an hypothesis.

[DrW]

I actually agree but Scientologist's aversion to getting help for mental illness and the complete denial of its existence is enough to give the LDS religion a good running.

Scientology qualifies as weird. Not sure it qualifies as monotheistic.

[littlechild]

Homochirality!! I completely agree with Eldwynn. Evolution is not dependent on chance and to say so lacks some basic knowledge of how it works. To invoke homochirality or even chirality as a fatal blow to evolution seems like an attempt at using a complex subject to stump the listener. Many, dare I say most people have no idea what chirality is or even what it means in chemistry and biology. I would argue that for you to use this as an argument I would expect you to explain yourself as to what chirality is, why it matters, what connection it has with evolution, why it is an argument against evolution. Present all these arguments citing you resources and sticking with the science and no personal attacks. I do understand chirality, what it means, and the possible connections to evolution but most people will just read the line "homochirality make evolution so improbable as to be impossible" and stop there. Maybe chirality is a fatal blow to evolution but you and every other person that has used that argument against evolution fails to address simple and reasonable questions to their ideas. I compare this to FOX news knowingly making false accusations against people to impugn them and nothing else matters after that point. The IDers just throw out chirality as a bone to believers. Nothing else matters even if the idea or accusation is completely wrong or made up.

LOL - looks like I touched a nerve here. Not that I mind touching nerves, I'm happy to do so. I merely stated that homochirality is an issue because as far as I know, there is no explanation for the 'evolution' of it in living thing. Chirality is demonstrated in non-living materials, homochirality is demonstrated in living things. So this is merely another way of asking how did non-living material demonstrating chirality evolve, step by step, into living beings whose bodies demonstrate homochirality?

I can't help whether people understand the word or not, that's up to them and their study habits.

[littlechild]

As a recent example of the kind of logic attributed to Mormons in my earlier post on this thread, I offer the the following statement as posted by CV75 on another thread. (I kid you not.)

"Someday the world will come up with irrefutable evidence that the Church is not true (and in some circles, already has). And the Church is and will still be true. "

How can anyone say that such a statement is not an affront to reason and logic?

Unfortunately, this kind of logic and magical thinking is endemic to Mormonism. The example statement above was found in an approximate 3 min search for such examples on this site.

As you know, words are SYMBOLS for meaning. They are NOT the meaning themselves, but they represent the meaning in the mind of the speaker.

Cool so far?

Meaning is to words as spirit is to body. So depending on what meaning you assign to the words, you can interpret the above phrase differently than the speaker intended them.

I can easily determine what the speaker meant here, something that you seem unwilling or unable to do. It devolves around the context of the words, specifically the words "irrefutable" and "true". You can utter these words and convey different intent, or meaning, each time, depending on what you meant to say when you uttered them. In other words, if there were any sarcasm or irony in the above quote, it would change the meaning entirely.

[littlechild]

I actually agree but Scientologist's aversion to getting help for mental illness and the complete denial of its existence is enough to give the LDS religion a good running.

That depends on what you mean by the word "help". I suppose if you have great faith in psychotic drugs and in psychologists and psychiatry, and if you have stock in the pharmaceutical industry, you probably believe that behavioral drugs are a better alternative to spiritual counseling.

[DrW]

As you know, words are SYMBOLS for meaning. They are NOT the meaning themselves, but they represent the meaning in the mind of the speaker.

Cool so far?

Meaning is to words as spirit is to body. So depending on what meaning you assign to the words, you can interpret the above phrase differently than the speaker intended them.

I can easily determine what the speaker meant here, something that you seem unwilling or unable to do. It devolves around the context of the words, specifically the words "irrefutable" and "true". You can utter these words and convey different intent, or meaning, each time, depending on what you meant to say when you uttered them. In other words, if there were any sarcasm or irony in the above quote, it would change the meaning entirely.

More doublespeak and magical thinking. Reminds me of Clinton's confusion about what the meaning of "is" is.

The statement in question was self contradictory and silly. It reflected an amazing degree of wishful thinking and willingness to ignore the reality that words have meaning. The meaning of a word is not what the speaker feels it should be. The meaning of a word is that found in a dictionary and nowhere in a dictionary will you find that the definition of "irrefutable" includes "refutable."

It appears that you might benefit from a review of post #409 on this thread.

[thesometimesaint]

What a maroon.

[DrW]

What a maroon.

Did you mean "moron"?

It appears that you are engaging in an ad-hominem attack ( a logcal fallacy) and that you might also benefit from the use of a dictionary. Maroon is a color.

BTW: Are you certain that you are a scientist? You must admit that your posts on this thread could lead one to have doubts.

[thesometimesaint]

DrW:

You never watched Bugs Bunny as a kid?

I was reading the dictionary before you were a gleam in your grandfather's eye.

BTW. Have you stopped beating your spouse? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes I am a real life, honest to goodness scientist. I have a Bachelor of Science, and a Master of Science.

[jmhughes]

Homochirality!! I completely agree with Eldwynn. Evolution is not dependent on chance and to say so lacks some basic knowledge of how it works. To invoke homochirality or even chirality as a fatal blow to evolution seems like an attempt at using a complex subject to stump the listener. Many, dare I say most people have no idea what chirality is or even what it means in chemistry and biology. I would argue that for you to use this as an argument I would expect you to explain yourself as to what chirality is, why it matters, what connection it has with evolution, why it is an argument against evolution. Present all these arguments citing you resources and sticking with the science and no personal attacks. I do understand chirality, what it means, and the possible connections to evolution but most people will just read the line "homochirality make evolution so improbable as to be impossible" and stop there. Maybe chirality is a fatal blow to evolution but you and every other person that has used that argument against evolution fails to address simple and reasonable questions to their ideas. I compare this to FOX news knowingly making false accusations against people to impugn them and nothing else matters after that point. The IDers just throw out chirality as a bone to believers. Nothing else matters even if the idea or accusation is completely wrong or made up.

It's obvious that this type of one sided logic permeates all of his/her other post and should demonstrate a complete inability to reason and therefore should be ignored completely.

[DrW]

DrW:

You never watched Bugs Bunny as a kid?

I was reading the dictionary before you were a gleam in your grandfather's eye.

BTW. Have you stopped beating your spouse? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes I am a real life, honest to goodness scientist. I have a Bachelor of Science, and a Master of Science.

I was reading the dictionary before you were a gleam in your grandfather's eye.

This is yet another unwarranted assumption on your part. Good scientists don't reach conclusions based on presumptions. They first obtain the relevant facts. And the fact is, you have no idea how old I am.

In fact, from your performance here, including the ad hominem attacks, irrelevant questions, and unfounded conclusions, I would guess that you are younger, and certainly least less experienced, than I am.

[cinepro]

Interesting discussion. May I recommend a 10-minute break to check out the best video on evolution ever created (or evolved...)?

Evolution

It addressed many issues raised in this thread, and may serve to clear up some popular misconceptions.