A Sea Of Red

I was surprised that no one had a topic up about this so I figured I would start one. I thought he was probably one of the best convo speakers we've had at least this year. Especially for that one part that I don't think anyone will ever forget...

I've heard him speak before and he is pretty good. Please share about that "one part"...

He was talking about the polar bears that have died and was describing the large waves and rough weather conditions that lead to their deaths. Very intelligent sounding especially with his British accent. Then he goes ...so scientifically speaking: "stuff" happens. Except he used the more common phrase.

I thought he was alright. Nothing to incredible, but a good speaker nonetheless. While talking about the "lies" of climate change he was spot on, but on other parts, such as his CO2 graphs, those things seem more like a stretch. Also, I got to say I was kind of disappointed to see quite a few people actually standing up, clapping and cheering the fact he swore on stage. I mean really guys? Just my 2 cents..

I actually listened to it today just by chance and he was pretty good. I always kinda grin when we invite someone like that, you know, someone who's not really in the Christian cirlce of people that they normally invite to speak and they say something that's blatantly unLiberty and they don't even realize it. And I'm not talking about the S word either. We invite him for some science to back the anti-climate change stance and while he was answering a question at the end about being in an ice age, he makes statements of fact about 32 million years. And nobody seems to think twice about it. Unless our biology department was there. Nothing wrong with having him speak, I just think that kind of thing is funny.

LUconn wrote:I actually listened to it today just by chance and he was pretty good. I always kinda grin when we invite someone like that, you know, someone who's not really in the Christian cirlce of people that they normally invite to speak and they say something that's blatantly unLiberty and they don't even realize it. And I'm not talking about the S word either. We invite him for some science to back the anti-climate change stance and while he was answering a question at the end about being in an ice age, he makes statements of fact about 32 million years. And nobody seems to think twice about it. Unless our biology department was there. Nothing wrong with having him speak, I just think that kind of thing is funny.

I noticed the millions of years part, too.

I'm still kind of undecided about climate change to be honest with you, and the reason was pretty well demonstrated by this guy. It's hard for me to understand a lot of the science behind it (hard science just really not my field, I excel in the softer end of the spectrum), so instead of breaking it down into concepts that I can wrap my head around, they just put up a bunch of graphs and charts and claim that their charts are better than the other guy's.

But yeah, I think it's a little two-faced to applaud this guy for being "politically incorrect" but then turn against him because he's not "Liberty correct."

Green Monkey wrote:I'm still kind of undecided about climate change to be honest with you

Follow the money.

Tuesday night at dinner someone asked Lord Monckton how we can combat this global warming hoax when all of the academic establishment, the government and the media are helping to perpetuate the hoax. His answer was "one carpenter's son 2000 years ago was bold enough to speak the truth, contradicting everything that the elitists of the day taught and He altered human history forever". Lord Monckton is sincere and honest and his only agenda seems to be the truth. He inherited wealth and privilege and has nothing to gain by fighting the establishment on this global warming garbage. I wish there were more like him out there.

I'm just finishing up State of Fear, Michael Crichten was way ahead of his time when he wrote it.

But the whole global warming, human-cause climate change nonsense has been unraveling pretty rapidly over the last year. The vast majority of people never really fell for it in the first place, and now people in scientific fields are starting to balls-up and speak out against the junk science.

Jerry Jr. just posted in my topic. Now I can die happy.

Thanks for the insight Chancelor.

LuConn, I had to double take at the 32 million years comments as well. Again I think we should have people with differing viewpoints speak, but it's weird to hear confessing Christian then say he believes in the big bang and an old earth. I lover 95% of what he said though.

The "Big Bang" he claims to believe was God's instant creation of light.

And just because Baptists believe in young Earth, and that makes it "Gospel", doesn't mean a "Christian" can't believe something different. And we wonder why we have to have a topic "Should Denominations Work Together?"

At the end of the day, it doesn't impact your Christian walk at all if you believe in Old Earth or Young Earth. If he said we don't need to love one another, that's one thing. Let's not act like it's weird or out of place to believe in Old Earth... Dr. DeWitt is VERY smart, but he isn't omniscient. I only know of one being who is, and He isn't faculty at LU.

ToTheLeft wrote: At the end of the day, it doesn't impact your Christian walk at all if you believe in Old Earth or Young Earth.

Tell that to Ken Ham. Like I said I don't have a problem with it. I don't think anybody did. This is college where people have different viewpoints on things. I just wanted to mention it because it stuck out, and apparently to everybody else too.

I'm not trying to start a fight. Just seems like Rooster in particular was making a bigger deal out of it than it deserves.

I disagree with most convo speakers at some level, so I understand. Just don't know why someone would find it weird for a "Christian" to not believe what Baptists believe. I always cringe when I hear those sorts of statements.

More Christians likely believe in something other than Young Earth so it's definitely not a big deal.

Once again, one of the best articles I've read on Christians and creation is here.

Why is it that the young earth idea is a Baptist one? Not sure I get that one.

ALUmnus wrote:Why is it that the young earth idea is a Baptist one? Not sure I get that one.

i was wondering the same thing...i guess because its liberty's stance so it must be baptist...but i think its for sure a more conservative stance that crosses many denominational lines...

this is one of those christian debates though that could go on forever without anybody really being able to win

Young Earth is a stance of Biblical Literalists no what their denominational ties. LU just happens to be made up primarily of the largest denomination in America aside from Catholicism so Baptists are the first you think of in regard to the position.

I was generalizing, but the main place I ever heard Young Earth theology has been here and at the Baptist Church I went to in Florida. Apart from that, I didn't hear it often, if at all.

I never heard of it growing up until I got to Liberty.

and you lived in the south too....thats just crazy to me that you didn't hear it til you got to liberty...in florida i saw signs for it...heard about battles about it in schools in georgia on the news all before I got to liberty....

now in churches I went to as a kid growing up I never heard it talked about much, if at all...they talk about creation, but that was about as deep as they went into it...

not sure how you could grow up in the south and never once hear about it...not doubting you SJ, just kind of crazy

We always talked about creation, and when evolution was talked about it was clearly pointed out that it was only a theory, but I never heard the young earth stuff til I got up here.

ToTheLeft wrote:At the end of the day, it doesn't impact your Christian walk at all if you believe in Old Earth or Young Earth.

I for one take God at his literal word, but yes I agree.

Then I assume that you don't eat shellfish and don't wear clothes made from more than one kind of fabric?

Yeah, you have to be careful with saying that you are a "biblical literalist." I know several people who would consider themselves biblical literalists (including my dad) who believe in day-age creationism. If you are going to read every word of the Bible literally, then you are reading like many atheists do who make false accusations against Christianity because they do not read the Bible with the same critical eye that they would for any other work of literature. Of course the Bible is much more than a work of literature, but God is still using imperfect language to express his perfect truth. I believe that every word in scripture is true, but it is just poor reading to read everything in the Bible literally. The parables that Jesus tells are mostly not actual events that had happened even though he tells them as if they are. We don't read these for their historical value but rather for the greater truth that they convey. I know that this kind of reading doesn't necessarily apply to the word 'day' that Moses uses throughout Genesis 1, but we need to be careful with what we mean when we use the word 'literalist.'