What is not a mistake is to have American religious figures meet with him--and ask him hard questions. As some of the comments on your post suggest--and as I know from experience with Quaker and Mennonite groups--the President will not have a free ride anymore than the Columbia audience gave him one. I hope that when the session is over, the religious representatives will come out and tell us what was said: the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Curiously, in between my speeches in the South this week, I had a chance to see our President's final (thank goodness) speech to the United Nations General Assembly today. After all the distortions, fabrications and hypocritical nonsense he and Condoleeza Rice (and, yes, Colin Powell as well) have uttered about the United States' war in Iraq, I wondered: would President Bush meet with all these peace-saturated churches? I'm not suggesting Presidential moral equivalency here--just pointing out that for a man who believes (as Sarah Palin does) that this is a war God wanted us to fight--he should have been willing a long time ago, to get a second spiritual opinion. Too much to ask, Jay?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
You said: Not realy. You said: "so we can safely assume there isn't one." In reality, that's a NO.
Based on this "NO" answer, you are clearly of the Atheistic (nontheistic) belief system...denying the existence of a god.
Boris says: You are distorting what I said because you can’t admit that you have been proved wrong. I never denied the possibility that some kind of God may exist. There are no logical or even sane arguments against atheism so you have to try to redefine it in order to attempt to argue against it. But your arguments are empty strawmen.
You said: So we both are making assumptions? Correct. It's called faith. We BOTH have it.
Boris says: There is a very profound difference between faith and religious faith. I know what it would take for me to change my mind about things I happen to think may possibly be true. You claim nothing can change your mind about your beliefs. Therefore you have religious faith and I do not. Again you are wrong no matter how you may try to twist the language around to claim you aren’t.
You said: Based on your previous answers, you clearly have belief system too.
Boris says: I just proved I have no belief system. Don’t tell me what I have or what I believe. You have no idea what you are talking about or who you are talking to.
"There is a very profound difference between faith and religious faith."
- Ahh, now rules change again. Very convenient for debate. In many previous posts, you have stated that you don't have faith, but not you state you do, but it's a 'different' kind of faith...scientific faith I presume?
Faith is faith. If I were presented with solid evidence that no god existed, I would certainly pursue that. In fact, I didn't believe in a god for a long period in my life. So I have gone from not believing to believing. I still had faith in both situations, however; just as you do now.
"You claim nothing can change your mind about your beliefs."
- I've never claimed that in any post on this site. You made that one up and I clearly addressed this statement above.
Boris,
What is your take on this?
"Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.(4Barnes, Thomas, ICR Technical Monograph #4, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (2nd edition, 1983))Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the molecules necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years."
This was taken from Dr. Carl Baugh.
Jeff,
1. The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity (Gee et al. 2000) and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth's history. This is entirely consistent with conventional models (Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995) and geophysical evidence (Song and Richards 1996) of the earth's interior. Measurements of magnetic field field direction and intensity show little or no change between 1590 and 1840; the variation in the magnetic field is relatively recent, probably indicating that the field's polarity is reversing again (Gubbins et al. 2006).
2. Empirical measurement of the earth's magnetic field does not show exponential decay. Yes, an exponential curve can be fit to historical measurements, but an exponential curve can be fit to any set of points. A straight line fits better.
3. T. G. Barnes (1973) relied on an obsolete model of the earth's interior. He viewed it as a spherical conductor (the earth's core) undergoing simple decay of an electrical current. However, the evidence supports Elsasser's dynamo model, in which the magnetic field is caused by a dynamo, with most of the "current" caused by convection. Barnes cited Cowling to try to discredit Elsasser, but Cowling's theorem is consistent with the dynamo earth.
4. Barnes measures only the dipole component of the total magnetic field, but the dipole field is not a measure of total field strength. The dipole field can vary as the total magnetic field strength remains unchanged.
Texas "man track" enthusiast Carl E. Baugh claims to have "degrees in theology" as well as advanced degrees in science. Baugh's "man track" claims have been evaluated and refuted on the basis of the physical evidence alone [1,2], but an examination of his claimed credentials is warranted as well, since by claiming them, Baugh has linked their validity to his scientific credibility and integrity. The issue not is whether Baugh should have a particular degree, but whether the claimed degrees are legitimate and have been represented accurately. There is no evidence that Baugh has even a undergraduate degree in any field of science.
Not having science degrees is no crime; however, misrepresenting one's credentials is another matter. Baugh's alleged science degrees appear to be as dubious as his "man track" claims, and ought to be of serious concern to his fellow creationists.
Google ‘Dr. Baugh’s fake credentials.’ Then tell me why you listen to frauds like him instead of real scientists.
Even if you ask Mr. Ahmadinejad (notice I don't address him by President because in reality, with voter fraud in this year's election, he probably isn't the president) tough questions, most likely, people are not going to change his mind on the issues, especially since he is the "puppet" for extreme Islamic clerics. Since we all know what he would say, why invite him? I am shocked that the Mennonites support him as a speaker knowing their anti-war, peace-promoting stance. I am not criticizing their position, as one of my best professors in seminary was Mennonite and I learned a lot from her in the sense that peace should always be the first, second, third, etc. alternative. I modified this view to exercise war as the last resort since I am not a pacifist. What I mean is that Mr. Ahmadinejad certainly will never be a candidate for the Nobel Laureate Peace prize anytime soon or even in his lifetime, although he might win a trophy from Satan for killing the most Christians. Despite your comments Rev. Lynn, I still give him a thumbs down for speaking at any event that promotes peace via religion since this is an oxymoron for this controversial, religious extremist figure.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.