"Straight from the pits of hell" [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : "Straight from the pits of hell"


The Maggy
10-06-2012, 15:36
I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior

How do people like this get elected and re-elected? More importantly, how does someone that believes the Earth is only 9,000 years old get placed on the house committee for Science, Space, and Technology? It seems like that committee assignment directly contradicts who this man is.

countrygun
10-06-2012, 15:52
How do people like this get elected and re-elected? More importantly, how does someone that believes the Earth is only 9,000 years old get placed on the house committee for Science, Space, and Technology? It seems like that committee assignment directly contradicts who this man is.

Welcome to a Democratic Republic. Those people have a right to an opinion too. They also have the right to representation. Just the same as you.

But it kinda makes you sad to think that it can lead to someone like Obama in the White House though, doesn't it?

LASTRESORT20
10-06-2012, 16:00
Welcome to a dmocratic Republic. Thse people have a right to an opinion too. they also have the right to representation. Just the same as you.

But it kinda makes you sad to think that it can lead to someone like Obama in the White House though, doesn't it?


Yes sir!

Jonesee
10-06-2012, 16:06
But it kinda makes you sad to think that it can lead to someone like Obama in the White House though, doesn't it?

This guy he is a Republican from Athens Georgia. I don't think any Obama voters elected him.

Or maybe you are just stating there are idiots in both parties and idiots from both parties get elected. Is that what you are saying?

countrygun
10-06-2012, 16:24
This guy he is a Republican from Athens Georgia. I don't think any Obama voters elected him.

Or maybe you are just stating there are idiots in both parties and idiots from both parties get elected. Is that what you are saying?

My point exactly, the only connection between the two is that they have constituencies that got them elected.

GAFinch
10-06-2012, 16:38
Well, he is a doctor.

countrygun
10-06-2012, 16:42
This thread is yet another example of the liberal mindset.

"How can anybody who desn't share my beliefs be elected to office? We all must have the same beliefs in order to be a free Country"

the liberal version of Col. Flagg.

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 16:43
Well, he is a doctor.

Scariest of all

JBnTX
10-06-2012, 16:54
How do people like this get elected and re-elected? More importantly, how does someone that believes the Earth is only 9,000 years old


1. How do atheists get elected and re-elected?

2. Nobody believes the Earth is only 9,000 years old.
Christians believe that "adamic" man has only been here about 9,000 years.
There's a big difference between the two.

Bren
10-06-2012, 16:57
If Marion Berry can get reelected, why not some superstitious nutjob? It's the voters who are the real idiots. How do I know? From reading this forum.

countrygun
10-06-2012, 17:00
Sheila Jackson Lee gets reelected and you are worried about how a doctor got elected? Really, because of his religion, really?

GAFinch
10-06-2012, 17:01
He's a fiscally-responsible Tea Party type with a common sense libertarian streak, so don't dismiss him as just a religious freak.

rgregoryb
10-06-2012, 17:22
This guy he is a Republican from Athens Georgia. I don't think any Obama voters elected him.

Or maybe you are just stating there are idiots in both parties and idiots from both parties get elected. Is that what you are saying?

so you are not familiar with Athens, GA it is in Clarke County which is full of UGA professors and their ilk. It is a liberal island in a conservative state

the idiot part is spot on

Stubudd
10-06-2012, 17:31
Scariest of all

really......

Hef
10-06-2012, 17:36
How did a man who publicly expressed concern that having too many US servicemen on Guam could cause it to tip over get elected? How does a moron like Sheila Jackson-Lee get re-elected? Why did Ted Kennedy, an alcoholic and womanizer who killed a young woman, hold office for so long?

It's because we have become a nation full of idiots. Who we elect is a reflection of who we are. Collectively, we get the government we deserve. These morons representing us really do represent us.

DonGlock26
10-06-2012, 17:40
How do people like this get elected and re-elected? More importantly, how does someone that believes the Earth is only 9,000 years old get placed on the house committee for Science, Space, and Technology? It seems like that committee assignment directly contradicts who this man is.

Who still uses "hell"?

IvanVic
10-06-2012, 19:15
1. How do atheists get elected and re-elected?

2. Nobody believes the Earth is only 9,000 years old.
Christians believe that "adamic" man has only been here about 9,000 years.
There's a big difference between the two.

There's an entire theory these ppl have for it, and a lot of people believe it. Did you know there's a creationist "museum" with people riding dinosaurs?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Wake_jumper
10-06-2012, 19:26
How did a man who publicly expressed concern that having too many US servicemen on Guam could cause it to tip over get elected? How does a moron like Sheila Jackson-Lee get re-elected? Why did Ted Kennedy, an alcoholic and womanizer who killed a young woman, hold office for so long?

It's because we have become a nation full of idiots. Who we elect is a reflection of who we are. Collectively, we get the government we deserve. These morons representing us really do represent us.

Idiots for certain, how else could Al Franken get elected to the Senate!!?? Talk about a bad joke! :shocked:

countrygun
10-06-2012, 19:46
There's an entire theory these ppl have for it, and a lot of people believe it. Did you know there's a creationist "museum" with people riding dinosaurs?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


That's nothing, there are people that believe Obama was going to be a great President.

That makes people riding dinosaurs seem plausible by comparison.

Chronos
10-06-2012, 21:30
It's simply the nature of democracy for thousands of years. Democracies don't elect Socrates, democracies kill Socrates. There is simply no way you can average the following inputs and get a brilliant output -- some people are just in denial about it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/09-2/bbg%20headlines_0.jpg

Big Mad Dawg
10-07-2012, 01:12
What is easier to believe that people have been on earth only 9000 years or that slime turned into primates that then became people? Ok the missing link can be explained by a study of liberals so maybe I will believe a mixture of creation and evolution now.

ArtificialGrape
10-07-2012, 01:21
What is easier to believe that people have been on earth only 9000 years or that slime turned into primates that then became people?
Um, the one with all the scientific evidence?

Chronos
10-07-2012, 02:14
What is easier to believe that people have been on earth only 9000 years or that slime turned into primates that then became people? Ok the missing link can be explained by a study of liberals so maybe I will believe a mixture of creation and evolution now.

You might want to keep up with exactly how obvious biological evolution has become in recent years:

Ken Miller on Human Evolution - YouTube

Big Mad Dawg
10-07-2012, 02:27
You might want to keep up with exactly how obvious biological evolution has become in recent years:

I know my ancestors were not apes but if you want to believe yours are not a problem I support that you came from ape linage. :supergrin:

Chronos
10-07-2012, 02:34
I know my ancestors were not apes but if you want to believe yours are not a problem I support that you came from ape linage. :supergrin:

I'll be happy to quote you on this for context, any time you claim or imply that you know something on this forum.

happyguy
10-07-2012, 06:04
If you believe in a god, any god, the atheists here will consider you stupid and/or ignorant.

Any belief in a power greater than man is a fantasy to them.

It won't matter how educated you are or how successful you are, as a believer you are beneath them.

This persons personal beliefs don't matter a bit to me. How he intends to govern is what is important.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

GAFinch
10-07-2012, 06:32
I love how so many "conservatives" nowadays vehemently support anti-religious Marxist atheism.

nmstew
10-07-2012, 06:42
If you believe in a god, any god, the atheists here will consider you stupid and/or ignorant.

Any belief in a power greater than man is a fantasy to them.

It won't matter how educated you are or how successful you are, as a believer you are beneath them.

This persons personal beliefs don't matter a bit to me. How he intends to govern is what is important.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

No one said anything about his believing in god. God and evolution are different,non-exclusive things. Try to keep up.

IvanVic
10-07-2012, 07:49
If you believe in a god, any god, the atheists here will consider you stupid and/or ignorant.

Any belief in a power greater than man is a fantasy to them.

It won't matter how educated you are or how successful you are, as a believer you are beneath them.


Regards,
Happyguy :)

Sounds like an awfully broad generalization.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

happyguy
10-07-2012, 08:12
Sounds like an awfully broad generalization.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

It is.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

happyguy
10-07-2012, 08:14
No one said anything about his believing in god. God and evolution are different,non-exclusive things. Try to keep up.

What do you think his opinion of evolution is based on?

Regards,
Happyguy :)

ArtificialGrape
10-07-2012, 08:17
I know my ancestors were not apes but if you want to believe yours are not a problem I support that you came from ape linage. :supergrin:
"Apes" in the modern sense of apes, we agree, and evolution does not argue otherwise.

You do, however, share a common ancestor with apes whether or not you're comfortable with it.

-ArtificialGrape

Cavalry Doc
10-07-2012, 08:17
How do people like this get elected and re-elected? More importantly, how does someone that believes the Earth is only 9,000 years old get placed on the house committee for Science, Space, and Technology? It seems like that committee assignment directly contradicts who this man is.

It's called freedom. There has been a very long debate over in GTRI about how little we really know about the origins of the universe. In fact, the big bang may not have been a bang at all, there are some really interesting ideas that maybe it was a BIG CHILL instead.

To think that we have all the answers is rather arrogant, considering the short amount of time our planet has existed when compared to the universe, and how short mankind has existed on the planet. I think it's been for a lot longer than 6,000,000 years, but that's my opinion. We haven't traveled much either. We've just recently left the solar system (maybe), but only with a probe with 35 year old sensors and processors. That is a very short distance on a cosmic scale. Lots of people have some pretty good stories, none of them witnessed. It is discomforting to some to admit that they have to have faith to believe in what they believe, even the atheists. Most of what you know was told to you by others (books count). Most of what you have learned about things outside of your lifetime and outside the limits of your own personal travel, you were told. If you'll think about it, you did not do the experimentation to verify on your own, much of what you believe.

I am a very committed agnostic. I believe the earth is very old. I believe that there are some problems with evolutionary theories that cannot explain how intermediate structures that don't work, can result in increased procreative ability. The fact is that the universe doesn't add up just yet. But I don't have to claim to know that I know how all of what is came to be. It is what it is, and from what I've been able to learn, I've realized just how little we really know. Mankind has done a lot, but can't do a lot of things too. We haven't even mastered our own bodies, let alone answered all of the mysteries of the universe.

As far as religion goes, as long as it doesn't make you want to strap bombs to your kids and send them into crowded markets, I'm OK with it. The country was founded by people that wanted religious freedom, and I think that anyone that wants to deny them that is a stinker. :tongueout:

certifiedfunds
10-07-2012, 08:45
I know my ancestors were not apes but if you want to believe yours are not a problem I support that you came from ape linage. :supergrin:

As I understand it, sometimes men in cages sometimes revert to flinging poop.

Coincidence?

ArtificialGrape
10-07-2012, 08:59
If you believe in a god, any god, the atheists here will consider you stupid and/or ignorant.
Stupid? No.

Ignorant as in lacking specific knowledge of what the theories actually say or what evidence exists? Quite possibly.

Willful ignorance is also a possibility, and pretty much a certainty for somebody that holds a Young Earth outlook such as Rep. Broun. Young Earth Creationism is as scientifically untenable as the Flat Earth Society.

In order to hold a Young Earth outlook one must reject the evidence of:
physics/cosmology -- Big Bang and age of earth/universe
biology -- evolution
geology -- plate tectonics / rejection of a Great Flood / age of earth
chemistry -- radiometric dating / age of earth
paleontology -- fossil record / evolution
anthropology -- evolution
botany -- evolution

All while living surrounded by the comforts and conveniences that modern science provides.

-ArtificialGrape

ArtificialGrape
10-07-2012, 09:13
Forgot to add that many Christians are able to reconcile evolution and other modern science with their faith, so it is not a dealbreaker for them. The Clergy Letter Project (http://www.theclergyletterproject.org) has collected the signatures of 12,822 Christian clergy men and women as of 9/30/12. They "believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."

certifiedfunds
10-07-2012, 09:46
To accept a literal interpretation of the Bible is to choose an interpretation and deny the dynamic message of holy inspiration.

To believe the Bible's account of how the world was created is just plain ignorant.

JBnTX
10-07-2012, 10:03
To believe the Bible's account of how the world was created is just plain ignorant.

What if the person who wrote that account was ignorant (as in lack of knowledge), and explained it the best way he knew how?

In communications, the sender is responsible for the understanding of the message, not the receiver. The author of the creation story failed to communicate it clearly to you.

God did NOT create the Earth in seven days. What he created in seven days was the present surface of the Earth.

The very first sentence of the Bible contains Billions of years and accounts for the creation of heaven and Earth.

God has re-worked the surface of the Earth countless times since the Earth was created billions of years ago.

certifiedfunds
10-07-2012, 10:32
What if the person who wrote that account was ignorant (as in lack of knowledge), and explained it the best way he knew how?

In communications, the sender is responsible for the understanding of the message, not the receiver. The author of the creation story failed to communicate it clearly to you.

God did NOT create the Earth in seven days. What he created in seven days was the present surface of the Earth.

The very first sentence of the Bible contains Billions of years and accounts for the creation of heaven and Earth.

God has re-worked the surface of the Earth countless times since the Earth was created billions of years ago.

LOL whut?

IvanVic
10-07-2012, 10:36
It is.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

So you're complaining about people of faith being generalized, and at the same time you're guilty of generalizing atheists.

happyguy
10-07-2012, 10:50
So you're complaining about people of faith being generalized, and at the same time you're guilty of generalizing atheists.

I don't recall complaining about people of faith being generalized. Perhaps you could point to where I did.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

happyguy
10-07-2012, 10:58
Stupid? No.

Ignorant as in lacking specific knowledge of what the theories actually say or what evidence exists? Quite possibly.

Willful ignorance is also a possibility, and pretty much a certainty for somebody that holds a Young Earth outlook such as Rep. Broun. Young Earth Creationism is as scientifically untenable as the Flat Earth Society.

In order to hold a Young Earth outlook one must reject the evidence of:
physics/cosmology -- Big Bang and age of earth/universe
biology -- evolution
geology -- plate tectonics / rejection of a Great Flood / age of earth
chemistry -- radiometric dating / age of earth
paleontology -- fossil record / evolution
anthropology -- evolution
botany -- evolution

All while living surrounded by the comforts and conveniences that modern science provides.

-ArtificialGrape

Thanks

Regards,
Happyguy :)

countrygun
10-07-2012, 11:25
Just thought I'd mention that the OP posted this yesterday and hasn't returned. Kind of a hit and run trolling if you ask me.

And

It would seem that the issue has become a topic for another forum. I mean the political implications that the OP threw out on the water are of academic interest at least, the details of an individuals personal beliefs, not so much.

Stubudd
10-07-2012, 13:41
What if the person who wrote that account was ignorant (as in lack of knowledge), and explained it the best way he knew how?

In communications, the sender is responsible for the understanding of the message, not the receiver. The author of the creation story failed to communicate it clearly to you.

God did NOT create the Earth in seven days. What he created in seven days was the present surface of the Earth.

The very first sentence of the Bible contains Billions of years and accounts for the creation of heaven and Earth.

God has re-worked the surface of the Earth countless times since the Earth was created billions of years ago.

reworked the surface countless times



:supergrin:

John Rambo
10-07-2012, 13:49
How do people like this get elected and re-elected? More importantly, how does someone that believes the Earth is only 9,000 years old get placed on the house committee for Science, Space, and Technology? It seems like that committee assignment directly contradicts who this man is.

Have you ever ventured into the Religious Forum on Glocktalk? :rofl:

Chronos
10-07-2012, 13:50
There has been a very long debate over in GTRI about how little we really know about the origins of the universe. In fact, the big bang may not have been a bang at all, there are some really interesting ideas that maybe it was a BIG CHILL instead.

I'm not sure what to call it, but half the thread participants presenting the current state of scientific knowledge, and half proclaiming their personal state of ignorance and incredulity is not a "debate."

Regarding the big bang -- the cosmological solutions to general relativity which fit observational data simply look like a "big bang" over the scale of billions of years. That has not changed. The "big chill" business you refer to is one potential quantum theory of gravity that would describe unimaginably tiny quantum corrections to the big picture given by general relativity. It is not an idea in competition with the basic, large-scale features of big bang cosmology, which become better and better established every year, with each new experiment.

Cavalry Doc
10-08-2012, 05:34
I'm not sure what to call it, but half the thread participants presenting the current state of scientific knowledge, and half proclaiming their personal state of ignorance and incredulity is not a "debate."

Regarding the big bang -- the cosmological solutions to general relativity which fit observational data simply look like a "big bang" over the scale of billions of years. That has not changed. The "big chill" business you refer to is one potential quantum theory of gravity that would describe unimaginably tiny quantum corrections to the big picture given by general relativity. It is not an idea in competition with the basic, large-scale features of big bang cosmology, which become better and better established every year, with each new experiment.

A lot of those proclaiming knowledge, don't really know. Most have not done the research themselves and are blindly trusting what they have been told, and while science has concluded the universe is expanding, and it has postulated that it is expanding at different speeds, doesn't mean a bang caused the expansion. I'd describe the discussion as a few people willing to point out missing pieces of the puzzle and the limits of human knowledge, and those that don't know enough to know what they don't know.

Just because one explanaition fits, doesn't make it so. We, as a species, continue to learn. We've got a long way to go to come close to saying we've got it all figured out. I guess the old saying is true about the more you know, the more you realize what you still have to learn.

Fed Five Oh
10-08-2012, 06:15
Big Bang Theory.

Theory of Evolution.

Both still theories, right?

ArtificialGrape
10-08-2012, 06:55
Big Bang Theory.

Theory of Evolution.

Both still theories, right?

All that you've done here is to boast that you don't understand how the word theory is used among scientists.

Perhaps this will help.

Only a Theory?

ArtificialGrape
10-08-2012, 07:11
Here is a a pretty good summary of some of the evidence supporting the big bang (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/10/05/why-i-am-a-liar-straight-from-the-pit-of-hell/) theory (complete with pretty pictures) for anybody actually interested.

-ArtificialGrape

Fed Five Oh
10-08-2012, 07:44
All that you've done here is to boast that you don't understand how the word theory is used among scientists.]

Would this be the same scientists that espouse man made global warming?:rofl:

Sorry, but I know the difference between a theory and a law. Spin it any way you want. You believe in a theory.

In other words, you believe in an assumption. You believe in conjecture.

Tell me again how you are so much more intelligent than Christians of Jews?

TheJ
10-08-2012, 07:56
Niether the left nor right has a monopoly on congress people I find undesirable and that say things that I beleive display an astounding ignorance. However, when politicians like Broun and Akin say stuff that is so far afield from logic, it ends up being the brush that libs (and the MSM) paint all conservatives and gun owners with. That is not a good thing.

ArtificialGrape
10-08-2012, 09:21
Sorry, but I know the difference between a theory and a law. Spin it any way you want. You believe in a theory.

In other words, you believe in an assumption. You believe in conjecture.
Nope, it's still clear that you don't understand the words as used in the field of science. When used in science, the term "theory" has nothing to do with conjecture. Do you also have objections to germ theory, cell theory, quantum theory, or the theory of gravity?

Even when supported by a metric arse load of evidence, theories are always open to falsification. Even laws remain open to falsification.

Tell me again how you are so much more intelligent than Christians of Jews?
Tell you again? Show me anywhere that I've ever done that, or save your time and admit that you're just putting inflammatory words in my mouth.

cheers,
-ArtificialGrape

Goaltender66
10-08-2012, 09:37
Would this be the same scientists that espouse man made global warming?:rofl:

Sorry, but I know the difference between a theory and a law. Spin it any way you want. You believe in a theory.

In other words, you believe in an assumption. You believe in conjecture.

Tell me again how you are so much more intelligent than Christians of Jews?

Remember back when an atom was the smallest unit of matter until someone split one open and all this crap started flying out?

Yeah, so forgive me too if I don't take what scientists say as, er...."gospel."

ArtificialGrape
10-08-2012, 10:17
Remember back when an atom was the smallest unit of matter until someone split one open and all this crap started flying out?
Sure, and continents were "fixed" before plate tectonics, and Newtonian Gravity explained everything about gravity before General Relativity, and ...

Yeah, so forgive me too if I don't take what scientists say as, er...."gospel."

However, science being self-correcting is one of its great strengths, not a weakness.

Scientists are pretty quick to agree that we don't know everything. I don't think you'll find many matching the arrogance of Lord Kelvin when over 100 years ago he said, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

cheers,
-ArtificialGrape

Zombie Surgeon
10-08-2012, 10:37
How do people like this get elected and re-elected? More importantly, how does someone that believes the Earth is only 9,000 years old get placed on the house committee for Science, Space, and Technology? It seems like that committee assignment directly contradicts who this man is.


You certainly seem to be a lot more comfortable with Obama's Islamic faith.

Zombie Surgeon
10-08-2012, 10:45
Here is a a pretty good summary of some of the evidence supporting the big bang (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/10/05/why-i-am-a-liar-straight-from-the-pit-of-hell/) theory (complete with pretty pictures) for anybody actually interested.

-ArtificialGrape

And here is the person who first postulated the Big Bang theory:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Lemaitre.jpg/250px-Lemaitre.jpg
Georges Lemaître, (1894-1966), Belgian cosmologist, Catholic priest, and father of the Big Bang theory. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre)

Wait, what??? A Catholic priest who believed in Jesus fairy tales gave us what it became the most accepted theory of the Universe creation?
So science and religion are not mutually exclusive and people of faith are not simple-minded gullible idiots?

I can hear atheists head explode.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:
I can hear

series1811
10-08-2012, 10:54
How do people like this get elected and re-elected? More importantly, how does someone that believes the Earth is only 9,000 years old get placed on the house committee for Science, Space, and Technology? It seems like that committee assignment directly contradicts who this man is.

A better question. How did someone with absolutely zero qualifications get elected as President of the United States?

Arguably, the most important job in the world. And, nothing. Nada. Zip. No experience, nothing.

Just reads a good speech. But, enough people out there thought it sounded like a good idea.

So we know how you feel.

ArtificialGrape
10-08-2012, 11:24
And here is the person who first postulated the Big Bang theory:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Lemaitre.jpg/250px-Lemaitre.jpg
Georges Lemaître, (1894-1966), Belgian cosmologist, Catholic priest, and father of the Big Bang theory. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre)

Wait, what??? A Catholic priest who believed in Jesus fairy tales gave us what it became the most accepted theory of the Universe creation?
So science and religion are not mutually exclusive and people of faith are not simple-minded gullible idiots?

I can hear atheists head explode.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:
I can hear



I'm well aware of Lemaitre, so no exploding head here. I don't argue that science and religion are mutually exclusive (see my earlier post on the Clergy Letter Project), and I've never suggested that theists are idiots.

The critical distinction with Lemaitre is that his beliefs did not require him to close a blind eye, or otherwise abuse or reject science in order to maintain his faith. The problem comes when people allow religious dogma to cause them to reject and abuse science that they perceive as a threat to their faith.

-ArtificialGrape

The Maggy
10-08-2012, 13:09
Just thought I'd mention that the OP posted this yesterday and hasn't returned. Kind of a hit and run trolling if you ask me.

And

It would seem that the issue has become a topic for another forum. I mean the political implications that the OP threw out on the water are of academic interest at least, the details of an individuals personal beliefs, not so much.

Its the weekend, I shouldn't have to apologize for going out and living a little life. We can't all put up 30 or 40 posts a day.

and

It's a very political issue because this man sits on a committee that makes the policy for agencies like NASA, NSF, NOAA, and the USGS. Again, I don't care that he is a christian; but young earth creationism requires it's believers to completely ignore the scientific method. Do you not think that this could have some sort of negative impact over the scientific agencies that our government maintains?

The Maggy
10-08-2012, 13:22
You certainly seem to be a lot more comfortable with Obama's Islamic faith.

The topic is not exactly about the man's faith; the thread and my point is about someone on the very extremes of religion, being in a policy making position over our own scientific organizations.

Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jew... none of it really matters to me; it does matter to me when:

A.) You are in a position to make policy

B.) Your beliefs are so far fanatical that you fore-go the scientific method and ignore most of the basic principles of science, in the name of religion.

If you have never talked with a young earth creationist, you should attempt to have a talk with them about the physical world. They ignore the understood principles or everything from meteorology to geology to biology to physics.

To answer your question, yes; I am more comfortable with what ever Obama's beliefs are (Is he a Muslim or is a Christian... I thought we are supposed to be mad about Rev. Wright :upeyes:) because he is far less on the fringe than young earth creationists

countrygun
10-08-2012, 13:45
Its the weekend, I shouldn't have to apologize for going out and living a little life. We can't all put up 30 or 40 posts a day.




No, we should all be like you. Just throw something up there and walk away for two days. You started with a ridiculous comment and couldn't even defend it yourself.

Your late in life defense of your position includes the concept that we shouldn't allow a potentially dissenting opinion to be heard in a decision making body of out Government. Who knows, he might slow up funding for a Government Agency.


Not to mention you want to exclude those who don't agree with your view from representation. I find that to be a typical liberal attitude.

ArtificialGrape
10-08-2012, 14:00
...your position includes the concept that we shouldn't allow a potentially dissenting opinion to be heard in a decision making body of out Government.
Given that we're talking about the science committee, if that dissent is based on scientific evidence, no problem. If that dissent is based on religious dogma and requires someone to reject core tenets of physics/cosmology, biology, paleontology, anthropology, chemistry, geology and botany, then that person really doesn't belong in role overseeing the field of science.

-ArtificialGrape

Chronos
10-08-2012, 14:07
A lot of those proclaiming knowledge, don't really know. Most have not done the research themselves and are blindly trusting what they have been told, and while science has concluded the universe is expanding, and it has postulated that it is expanding at different speeds, doesn't mean a bang caused the expansion. I'd describe the discussion as a few people willing to point out missing pieces of the puzzle and the limits of human knowledge, and those that don't know enough to know what they don't know.

Just because one explanaition fits, doesn't make it so. We, as a species, continue to learn. We've got a long way to go to come close to saying we've got it all figured out. I guess the old saying is true about the more you know, the more you realize what you still have to learn.

What I find really amazing is that you seem to count yourself and the religious posters in the category of "having learned so much about cosmology that you now fully understand how much still has to be learned before basic claims should be regarded as credible."

countrygun
10-08-2012, 14:08
Given that we're talking about the science committee, if that dissent is based on scientific evidence, no problem. If that dissent is based on religious dogma and requires someone to reject core tenets of physics/cosmology, biology, paleontology, anthropology, chemistry, geology and botany, then that person really doesn't belong in role overseeing the field of science.

-ArtificialGrape


I am surprised that you don't feel a bit uncomfortable about throwing around the phrase "overseeing the field of science" when we are talking about the Government, It makes me nervous.

Even so, since we are talking about the distributiion of tax money, don't the voters that elected him have a right to be represented? Just suppose, for the sake of argument, that they elected him specifically because of his beliefs that they share (this is hypothetical you understand) don't they have a right to be represented? I think you will find he was appointed to those comittees so why not go after the system that put him there and demand that they have someone like yourself, un elected, who should decide who gets representation where.

Goaltender66
10-08-2012, 14:15
Scientists are pretty quick to agree that we don't know everything. I don't think you'll find many matching the arrogance of Lord Kelvin when over 100 years ago he said, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

Well, they are except when they aren't. If you were to poll other physicists in that same time period I think you'd find more arrogance than not. I think that holds true even today. Question some basic tenet of science and you're more apt to initially meet with ridicule and dismissal than thoughtful debate.

Chronos
10-08-2012, 14:23
And here is the person who first postulated the Big Bang theory:


Georges Lemaître, (1894-1966), Belgian cosmologist, Catholic priest, and father of the Big Bang theory. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre)

Wait, what??? A Catholic priest who believed in Jesus fairy tales gave us what it became the most accepted theory of the Universe creation?
So science and religion are not mutually exclusive and people of faith are not simple-minded gullible idiots?

I can hear atheists head explode.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:
I can hear



Lemaitre gets an immediate pass -- Lemaitre had a command of modern physics that was objectively superior to that of his own pet dog, and didn't use those fairy tales you speak of to vigorously defend a position of ignorance.

series1811
10-08-2012, 14:25
Given that we're talking about the science committee, if that dissent is based on scientific evidence, no problem. If that dissent is based on religious dogma and requires someone to reject core tenets of physics/cosmology, biology, paleontology, anthropology, chemistry, geology and botany, then that person really doesn't belong in role overseeing the field of science.

-ArtificialGrape

Well as long as we are clear that there are some types of dissent that liberals absolutely won't tolerate, then we have found one thing we agree on.

Cavalry Doc
10-08-2012, 14:25
What I find really amazing is that you seem to count yourself and the religious posters in the category of "having learned so much about cosmology that you now fully understand how much still has to be learned before basic claims should be regarded as credible."

I'm saying that there are holes in the theory. Not everything fits together yet.

I certainly don't count myself among the "religious posters", and as we have discussed at length, I include atheists as religious posters.

I'm just saying that with all that we have learned as a species, with our very limited travels, and our very limited time spent paying attention when considered the age of the universe, to have a few arrogant self centered egomaniacs pretend that they have solved all of the mysteries of the universe, even events that have not been witnessed, is laughable. The faith exhibited by the atheists in their arguments against the theists is notable.

Some people have a hard time admitting they don't have all the answers, and their insecurity should not prevent us from continuing to ask the right questions.

The only thing that is certain is that what is, is. How it came to be is still unanswered. Some find solace in religion, including the atheists, to console themselves that they are sentient.

There is no problem admitting that we have a lot to learn. Most honest people can do that.

series1811
10-08-2012, 14:28
. I don't think you'll find many matching the arrogance of Lord Kelvin when over 100 years ago he said, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

cheers,
-ArtificialGrape

That's a joke right?

I've never met anyone more arrogant than scientific researchers (and, it was my distinct displeasure to have to investigate a group for falsifying data, and committing fraud, and running up against as big a stone wall of silence as any criminal gang ever put up).

I finally asked one researcher, who was slightly cooperative, why I was getting the silent treatment from everyone and she told me I was exposing the dirty secret of scientific research everywhere- the fact that much of it was faked, and changed to fit pre-conceived notions of researchers.

ArtificialGrape
10-08-2012, 14:34
I am surprised that you don't feel a bit uncomfortable about throwing around the phrase "overseeing the field of science" when we are talking about the Government, It makes me nervous.
Funny that you call that out, because I will admit that I wasn't that happy with the wording, but nothing better came to me at the time.

Even so, since we are talking about the distributiion of tax money, don't the voters that elected him have a right to be represented? Just suppose, for the sake of argument, that they elected him specifically because of his beliefs that they share (this is hypothetical you understand) don't they have a right to be represented? I think you will find he was appointed to those comittees so why not go after the system that put him there and demand that they have someone like yourself, un elected, who should decide who gets representation where.
Just having a majority doesn't make a non-scientific proposition become scientific. To have a demonstrably anti-science member on the committee responsible for advancing science is wrong, regardless of popularity.

Now if Rep. Broun has some scientific evidence that he would like to present demonstrating that our current understandings of physics/cosmology, chemistry, biology, botany, geology, paleontology and anthropology are all wrong, and that the earth actually is roughly 9000 years old, then I'm sure many people would love to see it.

-ArtificialGrape

countrygun
10-08-2012, 14:43
Funny that you call that out, because I will admit that I wasn't that happy with the wording, but nothing better came to me at the time.


Just having a majority doesn't make a non-scientific proposition become scientific. To have a demonstrably anti-science member on the committee responsible for advancing science is wrong, regardless of popularity.

Now if Rep. Broun has some scientific evidence that he would like to present demonstrating that our current understandings of physics/cosmology, chemistry, biology, botany, geology, paleontology and anthropology are all wrong, and that the earth actually is roughly 9000 years old, then I'm sure many people would love to see it.

-ArtificialGrape

Representation on a Government comittee shouldn't depend on agreement with the principles, perhaps quite the opposite is needed. By your measure all members of the associated comittees should be believers in Global Warming. No Dissention from popular thought should be allowed. In the name of "freedom" we should all tow the line.

Now, there is some merit in your position of "If you don't belive in it, you shouldn't be part of it". We could start with requiring anyone participating in the political system say the Pledge of Allegiance, then we can move to do something about those on finance related comittees who aren't capitalists. Any religon related issues shold not have aatheists invlved and so on.

sound good?

ArtificialGrape
10-08-2012, 15:22
Representation on a Government comittee shouldn't depend on agreement with the principles, perhaps quite the opposite is needed. By your measure all members of the associated comittees should be believers in Global Warming. No Dissention from popular thought should be allowed. In the name of "freedom" we should all tow the line.

Now, there is some merit in your position of "If you don't belive in it, you shouldn't be part of it". We could start with requiring anyone participating in the political system say the Pledge of Allegiance, then we can move to do something about those on finance related comittees who aren't capitalists. Any religon related issues shold not have aatheists invlved and so on.

sound good?
I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. We're not discussing something like finance or foreign policy. We're discussing a hard science where evidence rules. While Broun is calling evolution and the Big Bang theory lies, do you think there is any chance of him presenting falsifying scientific evidence? Care to speculate upon what he has based his conclusions? Anything that you would care to present on his behalf?

Simple question: do you think that somebody adhering to a young earth outlook is doing so because of the scientific evidence supporting it, or despite all the evidence to the contrary?

-ArtificialGrape

countrygun
10-08-2012, 15:35
I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. We're not discussing something like finance or foreign policy. We're discussing a hard science where evidence rules. While Broun is calling evolution and the Big Bang theory lies, do you think there is any chance of him presenting falsifying scientific evidence? Care to speculate upon what he has based his conclusions? Anything that you would care to present on his behalf?

Simple question: do you think that somebody adhering to a young earth outlook is doing so because of the scientific evidence supporting it, or despite all the evidence to the contrary?

-ArtificialGrape


I'll answer you question first and pose some counter questions

I would say that they reject what you call evidence, for right or wrong, and have chosen their faith as an alternative to what is (to them) called science. They simply reject what they feel is incorrect science.


Now

Who is responsible for this person's appointment to the comittees?

Again, would you like to explain how and who gets to decide which comittees can't have non-believers on them?


Do all members of environmental comiittes have to believe in "Global Warming" since that is commonly accepted "science"?

Is there no room to question something if it is called "science"?

ArtificialGrape
10-08-2012, 16:14
I'll answer you question first and pose some counter questions

I would say that they reject what you call evidence, for right or wrong, and have chosen their faith as an alternative to what is (to them) called science. They simply reject what they feel is incorrect science.
I appreciate the answer, and I don't disagree, but the problem I have is that they're rejecting conclusions strongly supported by evidence because of what "they feel". The equivalent of covering their ears while singing "la la la". There is no evidence that could be called scientific upon which they are basing their rejection.
Who is responsible for this person's appointment to the comittees?

Again, would you like to explain how and who gets to decide which comittees can't have non-believers on them?
Despite how I may be coming across, I'm not trying to censor what anybody has to say, but I contend that somebody committed to the willful ignorance required to maintain a young earth worldview has no business making decisions that impact NASA and numerous other scientific endeavors. That's not to say they should be prohibited, but they're clearly not acting in the best interests of our future.

Do all members of environmental comiittes have to believe in "Global Warming" since that is commonly accepted "science"?

Is there no room to question something if it is called "science"?
No, there is plenty of room for questioning our current understanding of the world and universe that we live in. I would only hope that objections were based on science rather than feelings or interpretation of scripture.

Since the beginning of the 20th century there have been paradigm shifts from relativity, quantum physics, and plate tectonics. New understandings is how our knowledge grows. I would only pray :) that discussions of science be based on science.

<shutting down for a flight -- back later>

-ArtificialGrape

Chronos
10-08-2012, 19:38
Representation on a Government comittee shouldn't depend on agreement with the principles, perhaps quite the opposite is needed. By your measure all members of the associated comittees should be believers in Global Warming. No Dissention from popular thought should be allowed. In the name of "freedom" we should all tow the line.

Now, there is some merit in your position of "If you don't belive in it, you shouldn't be part of it". We could start with requiring anyone participating in the political system say the Pledge of Allegiance, then we can move to do something about those on finance related comittees who aren't capitalists. Any religon related issues shold not have aatheists invlved and so on.

sound good?

You seem to be on the verge of making a valid point that scientific research cannot be funded both democratically and scientifically. I agree with this point -- science should be a free-market endeavor (like the rest of the economy), so that it can be managed by the scientists themselves. Incidentally, free markets are also the only moral way to fund science.

There is plenty of evidence that government funding of science actually hurts scientific progress, and one of the underlying reasons is that you end up with nutcases like Broun exercising control over the flow of funds.

This is a point of view that most scientists abhor, not for any scientific reason, but simply because many of them are addicted to money from the government (as so many professions have become).

countrygun
10-08-2012, 19:50
You seem to be on the verge of making a valid point that scientific research cannot be funded both democratically and scientifically. I agree with this point -- science should be a free-market endeavor (like the rest of the economy), so that it can be managed by the scientists themselves. Incidentally, free markets are also the only moral way to fund science.

There is plenty of evidence that government funding of science actually hurts scientific progress, and one of the underlying reasons is that you end up with nutcases like Broun exercising control over the flow of funds.

This is a point of view that most scientists abhor, not for any scientific reason, but simply because many of them are addicted to money from the government (as so many professions have become).


That was indeed where I was headed, thank you.

Like it seems with several other issues, contentions about "who" in the Government should have the greatest voice, obfuscate the fact that the topic at hand isn't Government's job and the private sector is more efficient and effective when it comes to the topic.

Syclone538
10-08-2012, 22:41
...
Incidentally, free markets are also the only moral way to fund science.
...

And just about everything else.

Fed Five Oh
10-09-2012, 12:39
Scientists are pretty quick to agree that we don't know everything. Quck to make a broad statement like that, but even quicker to belittle people that say man made global warming is a lie.

Even quicker to belittle anyone that says there is a God and He created the Heavens and the earth.

Which reminds me, Mr. Scientist, how many planets are in our solar system?:rofl:

ArtificialGrape
10-09-2012, 13:14
Even quicker to belittle anyone that says there is a God and He created the Heavens and the earth.

I have not deliberately belittled anyone for their belief. My issue is when people abuse or reject science or try to have their creation story taught in public schools as science. I have said a number of times that even if we were to the point of Little Jimmy and Little Susie having science kits to spawn life and miniature universes in the backyard, it would still not disprove God's existence.

Which reminds me, Mr. Scientist, how many planets are in our solar system?:rofl:

Which reminds me, Mr. Scientist, how many planets are in our solar system?:rofl:

If you're interested in a humorous look at the demotion of Pluto I would recommend:
How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming:Amazon:Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NDGU6MclL.@@AMEPARAM@@51NDGU6MclL

-ArtificialGrape

IvanVic
10-09-2012, 13:57
I have not deliberately belittled anyone for their belief. My issue is when people abuse or reject science or try to have their creation story taught in public schools as science. I have said a number of times that even if we were to the point of Little Jimmy and Little Susie having science kits to spawn life and miniature universes in the backyard, it would still not disprove God's existence.





If you're interested in a humorous look at the demotion of Pluto I would recommend:
How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming:Amazon:Books (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0385531109)

-ArtificialGrape

Just a heads up, you are arguing with a conspiracy theorist, so I think you are wasting your time. I was debating him about the historic unemployment rate, and it proved to be rather futile.

You can't even talk to these people about proven scientific truths, because nothing in their world is real. When these people don't want to believe something, something that is proven, hardcore scientific truth, they just claim the entire thing is a conspiracy - this way they can believe whatever they want without the inconvenient intrusion of anything that doesn't make them smile.

The Maggy
10-09-2012, 18:20
Which reminds me, Mr. Scientist, how many planets are in our solar system?:rofl:

Good question, Pluto is formally considered the 10th largest body in the solar system, currently ranked behind Eris. Do we include Eris for the sake of keeping Pluto? So that would be 10... but then there are the Jupiter Greek and Jupiter Trojans, the Neptune Trojans, the Centaurs, the Plutoid types, the Kieper Disk, the Scattered Disk, and Lastly the Oort Cloud (which extends roughly a light year out from thee edge of our classical solar system)... the reclassification of what a planet is, is the perfect example of how science self-corrects.

Fed Five Oh
10-10-2012, 05:26
... the reclassification of what a planet is, is the perfect example of how science self-corrects.That's a pretty fancy way of saying "we make up stuff, we teach the stuff, you must believe the stuff, if you doubt us, we will belittle you, and when our stuff turns out to be wrong, we will say no problem, we are scientists, we would have eventually discovered this anyway, so it doesn't matter if the stuff we teach is wrong, because we are scientist and when we are wrong, it proves nothing, because we had a consensus".

Fed Five Oh
10-10-2012, 05:31
Just a heads up, you are arguing with a conspiracy theorist, so I think you are wasting your time. I was debating him about the historic unemployment rate, and it proved to be rather futile.

You can't even talk to these people about proven scientific truths, because nothing in their world is real. When these people don't want to believe something, something that is proven, hardcore scientific truth, they just claim the entire thing is a conspiracy - this way they can believe whatever they want without the inconvenient intrusion of anything that doesn't make them smile.You should be clearer in your posting about who gave you the butt kicking in the unemployment thread. It wasn't me. I believe it was Goal Tender 66 that beat you like a drum.

As far as talking about scientific truths, when did this thread drift there? Don't you remember, we are talking about the theory of evolution.

Goaltender66
10-10-2012, 05:33
But why the assumption that religion doesn't "self-correct?" Martin Luther, the Reformation, Vatican II, the various Protestant branches of Christianity...how are these not recognized as self-corrections on a par with reclassifying a planet or modifying atomic theory?

JFrame
10-10-2012, 06:00
That's a pretty fancy way of saying "we make up stuff, we teach the stuff, you must believe the stuff, if you doubt us, we will belittle you, and when our stuff turns out to be wrong, we will say no problem, we are scientists, we would have eventually discovered this anyway, so it doesn't matter if the stuff we teach is wrong, because we are scientist and when we are wrong, it proves nothing, because we had a consensus".


Get outta here...Next, you'll be telling me that phlogiston doesn't exist...

Wait -- what...?


.

IvanVic
10-10-2012, 06:38
You should be clearer in your posting about who gave you the butt kicking in the unemployment thread. It wasn't me. I believe it was Goal Tender 66 that beat you like a drum.

As far as talking about scientific truths, when did this thread drift there? Don't you remember, we are talking about the theory of evolution.

I wasn't referring to you, and I was not debating Goal Tender 66 either.

That's a pretty fancy way of saying "we make up stuff, we teach the stuff, you must believe the stuff, if you doubt us, we will belittle you, and when our stuff turns out to be wrong, we will say no problem, we are scientists, we would have eventually discovered this anyway, so it doesn't matter if the stuff we teach is wrong, because we are scientist and when we are wrong, it proves nothing, because we had a consensus".

This represents a view of science that's so misconceived it borders on breathtaking.

Chronos
10-10-2012, 14:48
I'm saying that there are holes in the theory. Not everything fits together yet.

I certainly don't count myself among the "religious posters", and as we have discussed at length, I include atheists as religious posters.

I'm just saying that with all that we have learned as a species, with our very limited travels, and our very limited time spent paying attention when considered the age of the universe, to have a few arrogant self centered egomaniacs pretend that they have solved all of the mysteries of the universe, even events that have not been witnessed, is laughable. The faith exhibited by the atheists in their arguments against the theists is notable.

Some people have a hard time admitting they don't have all the answers, and their insecurity should not prevent us from continuing to ask the right questions.

The only thing that is certain is that what is, is. How it came to be is still unanswered. Some find solace in religion, including the atheists, to console themselves that they are sentient.

There is no problem admitting that we have a lot to learn. Most honest people can do that.

Some basic misconceptions above, which I will address:

1) Scientists are, right this moment as we speak, collecting and analyzing particles from the far reaches of the cosmos. These particles carry information, and it is being analyzed to extract every bit. You don't actually have to "go there yourself" to have information in your hand which has been carried directly to you from billions of years ago, and billions of light-years away.

2) If someone claims to have "all the answers" he is not a scientist. Science would be finished, over and done, if scientists thought "all the mysteries of the universe had been solved." Scientists are people who by definition believe there is more to learn.

3) Scientists do happen to know a great deal about the basic features of the cosmos, as they "egomaniacally" collect petabytes of physical information, and "insecurely" analyze it for those "arrogant" patterns.

If you have no idea what you know and don't know, fine. You have no proper state but one of total humility. Not everyone is in a position of complete ignorance, however. Information is quantifiable -- "knowing something" is completely consistent with "not knowing everything" and is completely different from "knowing nothing."

The role of "faith" is precisely to confuse the issue of what is and is not known. The Bible describes it as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." This is exactly why you see such craziness from the religious posters -- many were basically forced into a faith-based view of the world from a young age, and the results speak for themselves in threads such as this one.

certifiedfunds
10-10-2012, 17:31
That's a pretty fancy way of saying "we make up stuff, we teach the stuff, you must believe the stuff, if you doubt us, we will belittle you, and when our stuff turns out to be wrong, we will say no problem, we are scientists, we would have eventually discovered this anyway, so it doesn't matter if the stuff we teach is wrong, because we are scientist and when we are wrong, it proves nothing, because we had a consensus".

That's interesting considering the very nature of being a scientist means questioning the world around you.:upeyes:

Fed Five Oh
10-10-2012, 18:14
The role of "faith" is precisely to confuse the issue of what is and is not known. The Bible describes it as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Seems that quote would be applicable to evolutionist, wouldn't ya think.

How does your book of faith begin? In the beginning there was nothing. Then nothing exploded, causing the formation of the universe. Sound about right?

Seems you evolutionist have to have way more faith in your religion than a creationist does.

muscogee
10-10-2012, 21:05
1. How do atheists get elected and re-elected? Really? when and where?

2. Nobody believes the Earth is only 9,000 years old.
Christians believe that "adamic" man has only been here about 9,000 years.
There's a big difference between the two. There are cave paintings 40,000 years old.

certifiedfunds
10-10-2012, 22:14
There are cave paintings 40,000 years old.

Put there by the devil!!