quote:I have no wish to discuss this any further with you in this thread or any other, because we have been over this ground before, and frankly I do not think you are capable of honest, fair-minded debate about this.
*snort* I'm struggling to remember the last time I discussed my precise beliefs regarding evolution, science, and the beginnings of the universe here on Hatrack or with you in particular. I can't recall the last time I did the latter, and I can with a safe degree of certainty say 'never' to the latter.
So I find it difficult to take your other high-handed claims at face value, and I'm not talking about whether you're right or not, but your consistent statements that you know more than everyone else.
But go ahead and pout.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I predict that within a generation, no more than a stubborn few will still believe in evolution.
A generation, huh?
His post actually originally said "within ten years." I presume he decided that was too optimistic after the fact.
Or perhaps he realized that many of us may still be around in 10 years to call him on his bet. It's easy to make wild, ridiculous predictions about whatever you want as long as you won't be here to see them proven false.
By the way, I predict that within the next generation Richard Dawkins will make love with a monkey, and their offspring will discover the secrets to cold fusion, the trans-warp drive, the flux capacitor, and the success of Adam Sandler movies before he finishes kindergarten. Then we'll see who's laughing at evolution.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Speed: I predict that within the next generation Richard Dawkins will make love with a monkey, and their offspring will discover cold fusion, the trans-warp drive and the flux capacitor before he finishes kindergarten.
quote:Ever since the court case in Kansas where a judge let himself be swayed by the mainstream majority and ruled that Intelligent Design was not science,
Ron, I'm content to ignore the rest of your post even though you make several statements which you probably cannot back up sufficiently. Maybe later, eh?
But the man who you are talking about is Judge Jones. You say this about this man, you better back it up because you are slandering a good man and a good judge.
I am going to defend him from your attack on his character and motivations.
You will show me what you think gives you the right to say this about him, or you will drop that line cold.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have no wish to discuss this any further with you in this thread or any other, because we have been over this ground before, and frankly I do not think you are capable of honest, fair-minded debate about this.
This is why I've never bothered discussing it with YOU.
quote:As for the Lords of Kolob thing, that came from Mormons on this site in the past. I did not invent it. Some Mormons here in this thread have acknowledged that there is something about it in Mormon teaching; they merely quibbled about how prominent it is (whether it is "cannon" or not). Did you notice this? Do you wish to take them to task as well?
Almost all of them acknowledged that there's something about "Kolob" in one of the books they acknowledge as scripture. That's very different from acknowledging that "Jesus was one of the Lords of Kolob." You're coming off as dishonest here.
In the thread I linked, you accused a poster of "dissembling" for not accepting your distortions. You still haven't linked your proof that Mormons believe that Jesus was one of the Lords of Kolob.
Rather, you simply made a disparaging comment about how well Mormons know their own beliefs = very similar to how you attack evolution scientists.
quote:But really, the whole point is that Mormons do not mean exactly the same thing that most Evangelical Christians do when they say "Jesus is the Son of God."
And I've never seen a Mormon discuss this topic on this board who did not acknowledge that. And I've been involved in extensive discussions on this topic over the years.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ever since the court case in Kansas where a judge let himself be swayed by the mainstream majority and ruled that Intelligent Design was not science,
Ron, I'm content to ignore the rest of your post even though you make several statements which you probably cannot back up sufficiently. Maybe later, eh?
But the man who you are talking about is Judge Jones. You say this about this man, you better back it up because you are slandering a good man and a good judge.
I am going to defend him from your attack on his character and motivations.
You will show me what you think gives you the right to say this about him, or you will drop that line cold.
Judge Jones was actually the one from the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, not Kansas.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I predict that within a generation, no more than a stubborn few will still believe in evolution.
A generation, huh? I would take that bet. In fact, I would raise you one more. I bet that by 2050, there will be more people that will learn about and believe in evolution in just the two countries of India and China than there are currently people in the continental United States of America, period.
I'll jump in with Mucus. Any other takers? We can pool our money and hey, Ron, if you're right, you could take in a lot of cash.
And if you're against betting for profit, just give it to charity. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry BB, I quoted you with others in mind. I had hoped my use of "even" would indicate this was not a personal chide.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you are still wrong and eventually evolution is going down to defeat and will be relegated to the scrapheap of history where all false theories belong. I predict that within a generation, no more than a stubborn few will still believe in evolution.
You willing to put your money where your mouth is, Ron? I'll put a thousand bucks up against this. A generation's twenty years, right? I'll even give you 5:1 odds.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The troublesome thing for me is that, in 1960, Kennedy's strategy for addressing the religion questions was to assert that there should be no religious test for public office. Romney's strategy in 2007 is to convince people that he passes that test. That really concerns me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The troublesome thing for me is that, in 1960, Kennedy's strategy for addressing the religion questions was to assert that there should be no religious test for public office. Romney's strategy in 2007 is to convince people that he passes that test. That really concerns me.
I agree completely. Great post.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mormons are way more distrusted in 2007 (and for less reason, IMHO) than Catholics in 1960. IMHO. Also, I think there's a difference in personality between Romney and Kennedy that accounts for some of that. And, to finish, I see the current evangelical trend as part of a cycle that will eventually pass. America has gone through periods like this before.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't around in 1960. You weren't either, right? How can we then determine if that's true?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am mostly guessing, based on the fact that Catholics were a much larger percentage of the population then than Mormons are now, and that they were, even then, much more integrated into the general society. Just guessing.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steven what do you mean by the comment that Mormons are distrusted "for less reason" than Catholics?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that, overall, the Mormon church is less prone to violence as a method of achieving goals. Maybe I'm being too hard on the RC church because of the Inquisition, the profiting from the conquest of the Americas, etc.. I don't entirely think so, though.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The troublesome thing for me is that, in 1960, Kennedy's strategy for addressing the religion questions was to assert that there should be no religious test for public office. Romney's strategy in 2007 is to convince people that he passes that test. That really concerns me.
Again I disagree, he clearly made several succeeding remarks specifically mentioning that he was not running as a Mormon president, but as a president who happened to be a Mormon. He then pointed out that objections based on his being Mormon are precisely the sort of religious test the founders wanted to avoid.
As far as I recall he never once used his religious convictions as some sort of, "that's why you should vote for me" point but rather as a, "This is what I believe, now you don't have to wonder anymore."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: I think that, overall, the Mormon church is less prone to violence as a method of achieving goals. Maybe I'm being too hard on the RC church because of the Inquisition, the profiting from the conquest of the Americas, etc.. I don't entirely think so, though.
I don't think the Catholic church of centuries ago is very relevant in this context.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do believe it is a little difficult to fairly compare the two. However, I think the structure of the Mormon church is much less dangerous, in general. Paid clergy with lots of power and money are more scary, to me, anyway, than earnest fresh-faced well-scrubbed young adults on bicycles. Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope no one has failed to notice how rabid the pro-evolutionists are revealing themselves to be.
Just out of curiosity, would any of the Mormons posting here care to enlighten me on what the official position of the LDS church is concerning evolution? This could conceivably impact Governor Romney's campaign, if there is an issue here that someone might wish to exploit.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The context of the Catholic Church in the U.S. might be more relevant than the Medieval Church. Immigrants, unions, and an official Vatican position that (in theory at least, if not in practice) the state should recognize the Church.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, kate. It's theoretical, at this point. I don't really think the RC church is potentially dangerous to America. As to what kind of influence the Mormon church might ever have on national politics, I don't worry too much. The most a Mormon can do is annoy the shizzle out of you. There's a great big difference, IMHO, between dangerous and annoying.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just out of curiosity, would any of the Mormons posting here care to enlighten me on what the official position of the LDS church is concerning evolution? This could conceivably impact Governor Romney's campaign, if there is an issue here that someone might wish to exploit.
You still can't be bothered to source your "Jesus is one of the Lords of Kobol" statement, can you.
You've used this statement to accuse one member of dishonesty and to disparage the knowledge of Mormons as a whole. Surely you could take the time to link your reasons for making this statement (repeatedly now, and in the face of corrections).
And remember, the statement is that Mormons think Jesus is one of the Lords of Kobol. Not that there is a mention of Kobol in Mormon scripture.
quote:I hope no one has failed to notice how rabid the pro-evolutionists are revealing themselves to be.
I have great faith that everyone except Resh has noticed exactly what has happened in this thread.
quote:Just out of curiosity, would any of the Mormons posting here care to enlighten me on what the official position of the LDS church is concerning evolution?
How do you reconcile asking this question with your earlier statements about knowing the most about etc.?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Just out of curiosity, would any of the Mormons posting here care to enlighten me on what the official position of the LDS church is concerning evolution?"
Considering your ranting, raving, and lack of listening or believing in what Mormons believe then NO I don't care to enlighten you. Not only that, but I assume that you have paid particular attention to the evolution threads enough to already know the answer to that question. I bet you Dagonee knows the answer to that question and he cares less about the evolution debates than you.
Look, I am sympathetic to the Intelligent Design contingent, even if I haven't made up my mind how plausible they are from both a religious and scientific viewpoint. Yet, if people like you hold to that position there is going to be a lot less ID supporters who see this as a freedom of speech (rather than scientific) issue. I believe that science, humanities, and scholarship in general should become more and not less politically inclusive.
However, I do care to enlighten anyone who is reading who hasn't paid much attention. The official position of the LDS Church on evolution is that there is no position. Now, here is where people who understand subtle differences should pay attention carefully. The prevailing opinion of leaders of the LDS Church is that Evolution is an evil philosophy (that doesn't have anything to do with good or bad science). As such Utah, despite what most outsiders thought, did not pass allowing ID to be taught in schools.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Again I disagree, he clearly made several succeeding remarks specifically mentioning that he was not running as a Mormon president, but as a president who happened to be a Mormon. He then pointed out that objections based on his being Mormon are precisely the sort of religious test the founders wanted to avoid.
As far as I recall he never once used his religious convictions as some sort of, "that's why you should vote for me" point but rather as a, "This is what I believe, now you don't have to wonder anymore."
The JFK speech is notable from my POV precisely because of what it avoids saying. Aside from the ending "so help me God" there is really nothing detailing Kennedy's beliefs and furthermore, he explicitly goes and says some pretty concrete and verifiable statements. (No public funds for churches and church schools, resignation before allowing his religious convictions to come before the country, etc.)
On the other hand, Romney goes out of his way specifically to say that his religious views are compatible with evangelical religious views. This is a pretty striking difference. By contrast, JFK says that his religion is not critical to the important issues of the day and strongly defends separation of church and state.
Romney goes into detail about how religious issues *are* important as critical issues of the day (versus JFK seeing them as not), he does detail specific things that he believes about Jesus Christ (JFK does not mention any religious figures aside from "so help me God"), he flatters every religion (although notably, only religions of the book), and he indulges in pointing out that he believes that every human is a child of God.
There is simply no need to go into such detail and flattery (and indeed JFK did not) about his beliefs and "other" Christian beliefs if he was not intending on proving that his beliefs would meet the approval of others. Also, as TomD put it, Romney does not put his money where his mouth is.
I'd have to side with kmbboots on this one.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The prevailing opinion of leaders of the LDS Church is that Evolution is an evil philosophy (that doesn't have anything to do with good or bad science).
What distinction are they making between philosophy and science, and under which conditions does evolution qualify as the former?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
FWIW, BYU teaches evolution in its biology classes and their science curriculum is a lot closer to, say, UC Berkley than Bob Jones.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The JFK speech is notable from my POV precisely because of what it avoids saying. Aside from the ending "so help me God" there is really nothing detailing Kennedy's beliefs and furthermore, he explicitly goes and says some pretty concrete and verifiable statements. (No public funds for churches and church schools, resignation before allowing his religious convictions to come before the country, etc.)
To me it sounds more like a difference of degrees than kind. I think the context in this instance justifies the differences in Romney and Kennedy.
Kennedy was running as a Catholic, and the problem was not that people do not know what Catholicism is, it's that they had mistaken beliefs about what a Catholic in the office meant. Of course there are always people who are ignorant about the religions of others, but Catholicism is not one I would list as near the top. Catholicism also had a significant extensive penetration in American institutions. (Anyone should correct me if I am mistaken.) Evangelicals did not have to question whether Catholics believe in Christ, or in a concept of the trinity, but they did have to worry about a Catholic being beholden to Rome.
In Romney's case more and more people are starting to understand what Mormons are/believe. But there is still prevailing sense of ignorance. Romney has got to alleviate the same concern, that a Mormon would not be beholden to our prophet, while simultaneously clarifying erroneous understanding of Mormonism, (an enormous task) and still discouraging belief that all these difference with mainstream Christianity are of no consequence to his presidency.
Kennedy is to Romney, as Romney would be to a Muslim candidate a few decades from now.
That Muslim will have to give a similar speech, and it will probably have to discuss theological difference and secularism in government as well.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A few decades from now, atheists could be becoming more prominent in the government as well. It will be interesting when an atheist candidate will have to give a speech about atheism.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Evangelicals did not have to question whether Catholics believe in Christ, or in a concept of the trinity, but they did have to worry about a Catholic being beholden to Rome.
See, this is the juncture in your post where the problem starts. The very fact that Romney even needs to assure evangelicals that he believes in Christ, or that humans are children of God means that he's trying to convince them that his beliefs are compatible with theirs.
This is what was meant (I presume) when it was said that Romney was trying to convince people that he passed the "religious test."
If he wanted to convince people that there should be no test, he wouldn't have had to say one thing about God or Christ, period.
The very moment that he goes into detail about God or Christ and inadvertently acknowledges that someone not holding those beliefs is somehow less qualified for the post for which he is running for is indeed "troubling".
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, this is the juncture in your post where the problem starts. The very fact that Romney even needs to assure evangelicals that he believes in Christ, or that humans are children of God means that he's trying to convince them that his beliefs are compatible with theirs.
I don't think saying, "I don't have to answer your questions, you should just vote for me because of my accomplishments and plans" is the correct answer. Or else it's a sure fire way to lose the election, but at least Romney would have YOUR approval.
If Romney wants the votes of evangelicals, he has to address their concerns that he belongs to a wacky if not unorthodox religion, and that he is not going to do crazy things to the office.
The largest chunk of people who might vote for Romney but currently will not are Evangelical Christians. Without their votes he does not have a prayer of winning the presidency.
Also a mere statement of belief in Christ, and the brotherhood of man is hardly an extensive declaration of faith. Most of the Democratic candidates have said that much.
Refusing to acknowledge ANY influence God may have on his presidency would go against Romney's Mormonism and his integrity as a candidate. I would not vote for him knowing he is a Mormon if he did not even address the question of his faith in an affirmative manner. Any Mormon that does not pray to God for any reason has a hollow faith. Romney is trying to walk the tight rope of acknowledging that he believes in God, that he does speak to men, but that he won't use the beliefs of his religion to be partial in his decision making as president.
It's not an exact science, and I expect him to annoy both ends of the spectrum as he tries to honestly lay out his positions.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: A few decades from now, atheists could be becoming more prominent in the government as well. It will be interesting when an atheist candidate will have to give a speech about atheism.
I agree, and he will have to cover many of the same bases.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The context is what concerns me, BlackBlade. Instead of have to reassure an electorate that he will uphold separation of church and state, Romney is having to reassure evangelicals that he is religious enough in the "right ways". That he passes the religion test.
There shouldn't be a religion test.
My concern is not specifcally with Romney; my concern is with the electorate he has to appease.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, kmbboots, I would say that you are worried about the whole of the American electorate. If you think that Evangelical Christians are the only religious people (or only kinds of Christians for that matter) who want a man of faith as President then you haven't been paying attention. Like it or not atheists or those who support them, the United States is a faith based country. As has been pointed out here and in newspapers, Democrats have had to give similar statements of their beliefs. Its not just the Republicans this was aimed at.
Who remembers when there was Hillary, Obama, and Edwards together at a conference that was about nothing other than Religion? Where was the outcry then? They said simiar things. Perhaps its because they get a pass as Democrats and everyone knows they really don't mean it when they say they have faith in God or Jesus Christ for that matter.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Or else it's a sure fire way to lose the election, but at least Romney would have YOUR approval.
*shrug* I never said it wasn't politically expedient for him to make the speech he did. In fact, I think you're right, in order to appeal to evangelicals he very much has to make a speech along the lines he did.
I'm just taking issue with your statement that he wasn't using his religious beliefs as a reason to vote for him or that he wasn't trying to pass some sort of "religious test."
I'm just saying, let's call it like it is. He *was* trying to persuade his audience that his religious beliefs were close enough to theirs, so that they can feel comfortable enough with him.
Whether that was politically the right move is another issue entirely.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just out of curiosity, would any of the Mormons posting here care to enlighten me on what the official position of the LDS church is concerning evolution? This could conceivably impact Governor Romney's campaign, if there is an issue here that someone might wish to exploit.
I don't think they have an official position. While I was at BYU I was majoring in Molecular Biology. One of the classes I remember that addressed evolution emphasized that we are the children of God and made in his image.
As far as the creation, they emphasized that the bible follows an evolutionary sequence with the highest form of life created on the last day. They also said we don't know how long a day is and we don't know what process God used.
They specifically gave the opinion (it was team taught by 3 professors) that they did not believe in poofalution or the theory that earth is made from chunks of older worlds (accounting for dinasours)They left the rest up to our interpretation.
Now why don't you address the post about you slandering a good judge?
posted
Thanks, Lem. But I did not slander a good judge. It is those of you who keep repeating that inaccurate statement who are engaging in slander. I stated the truth, that he allowed himself to be swayed by the mainstream majority, who are past masters at browbeating laymen. If this were not true, he would have recognized that the scientific basis for Intelligent Design is far better than for evolution, because that is the factual reality that anyone who honestly evaluates the evidence for himself will agree.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
