Archives for posts with tag: debate

I’m watching the debate on News9 between James Lankford and TW Shannon.

The question asked was what each considered the greatest threat to the USA.

Both said the US debt. Shannon qualified that slightly.

I disagree. The greatest threat to the USA as we know it today is federal regulation. Specifically, the EPA is the greatest threat to the United States of America and what we are.

I applaud TW Shannon for actually stating (later) that we need to abolish the EPA. Yes. We must.

Orthodox bishop Metropolitan Nicholas:

“Research that is done to challenge God, has the disease of prejudice. Research is done to discover scientific truth. What problem is there with someone wanting to broaden the horizons of their thoughts and knowledge? God is approached better this way. God is not an ideology that we should by all means defend, but we believe in Him because He is Truth. In this sense, even scientific truth reveals Him. If He is still questioned, it is time to find out about Him. A believer who fears scientific research, fears the truth. Perhaps he is a believer who does not believe.” is an excellent resource.

On Valentine’s Day, they posted this love note regarding the #hamonney debate:

I’ll second this one:  Read the rest of this entry »

C-SPAN reran the #HamOnNey debate on 22 February 2014.

I watched. Caught it all this time. The family watched most of it with me.

Ken Ham and young-earth-creationists (YEC) love to assert that the ark was big enough to hold all the kinds of animals if “kind” is defined as family, two classifications up from species.

Ken Ham et al. claim to be defining kind and other words according to the bible, but can anyone tell me where he gets this definition of “kind”? Please? I understood him to indicate his current definition is based on science rather than the bible—on research his scientists are doing. What’s up with that?

Check it for yourself, the bible uses “kind” and synonyms with some variability, from what we call breeds to a basic generic category such as “bird”. However, specifically, Leviticus 11:22 gives us a very good definition of “kind” as used by the bible itself. New American Standard Bible: “These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds.” This appears to be at least as restrictive as species.  Read the rest of this entry »

Anthony Watts rightly makes fun of the Mann-child and the Lewandowskyites here,

Anthony correctly states that the alarmists are losing the argument so they are now trying to suppress dissent. (Not new, actually. It has been part of their tactics from the beginning.)

Anthony correctly points out that this is the tactic the soviets used where they asserted that only crazy people would disagree with them, so those who disagree must be locked away and medicated into oblivion and silence.

I agree with Anthony that the likes of Mann and Lew need professional counseling and help. If they are not yet dangerous to themselves or others, they are likely to be soon. They really seem to need help. The paper sited is truly sad. Emotionalism, not science.  Read the rest of this entry »

Jonathan Murray, writing for American Thinker, discusses abortion consistent with my own thinking.

He makes some points about the facts, and he points out the need to deal with the issues as a society. It should at least make you think.

For myself, I think we need to start with the facts. The only objective definition of a human we have is biological. DNA defines us from the moment of conception. By any definition from science, we are alive from conception. Once the two sets of parental DNA halves are combined, the fertilized egg will grow, develop, live, and die as a human being.

I really don’t like the notion of viability. It is not part of the argument. An argument based on some definition or other of viability can make meat of us all.

The key is due process and thoroughly thought through and reasonable definitions in the law.

Read the rest of this entry »

Justin Pulliam wrote a description of a recent Lord Monckton presentation for Anthony at WUWT. Long, but well worth the time. Here is his closing statement:

Lord Monckton’s reply was moving. Gently, and sadly, he said, “We shall lose the West unless we can restore the use of reason to pre-eminence in our institutions of what was once learning. It was the age of reason that built the West and made it prosperous and free. The age of reason gave you your great Constitution of liberty. It is the power of reason, the second of the three great powers of the soul in Christian theology, that marks our species out from the rest of the visible creation, and makes us closest to the image and likeness of our Creator. I cannot stand by and let the forces of darkness drive us unprotesting into a new Dark Age.”

via Monckton’s Schenectady showdown | Watts Up With That?.

Farther down the page in Comments, Lord Monckton provides this response to a critical comment:

Another commenter has asked why I insist on the use of reason in science and then admit that I believe in a Creator. Many leading scientists, including Professor Antonino Zichichi (president of the World Federation of Scientists) and Lord Kelvin (for whom the scale of absolute temperature is named) have been believers in Christianity. Thanks to Max Planck, it is now demonstrated that the laws of physics did not come into being until a fraction of a nanosecond after the Big Bang, from which it follows that no amount of ingenuity on our part can reveal to us what (or Who) said “Let there be light” and blazed the Universe into glorious existence.

In short, it is scientifically and rigorously proven that the assertion of Christianity that there is a Creator cannot be disproved (and, by the same token, that it cannot be proved either). Therefore, it is permissible for me to say I believe in the truths of the Christian faith, though it would be impermissible for me to say I could prove them to be true. On the other hand, many of the beliefs of the climate extremists can be demonstrated to be false. Their belief system, therefore, is appropriately classified not as a religion (which can neither be proved nor disproved) but as a superstition (which can be and has been disproved).


Many of the comments are worthwhile as well.

%d bloggers like this: