By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor
Washington (CNN) – A U.S. congressman is attracting attention and criticism for an online video that shows him blasting evolution and the Big Bang theory as “lies from the pit of hell” in a recent speech at a church event in his home state of Georgia.
“All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, the Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell,” U.S Rep. Paul Broun said in an address last month at a banquet organized by Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Georgia. “And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”
Broun, a medical doctor by training, serves on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
Speaking at Liberty Baptist Church’s Sportsman’s Banquet on September 27, he said that “a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth.”
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
“I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old,” Broun said in the speech, which Liberty Baptist Church posted on its website via YouTube. “I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says."
Scientists say that the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old and that the universe dates back 13.7 billion years.
In his speech to the church group, Broun called the Bible the “the manufacturer’s handbook. … It teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in our society.”
“That’s the reason, as your congressman, I hold the holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I’ll continue to do that,” he said.
A spokeswoman for the congressman, Meredith Griffanti, said that Broun was not available for comment on Wednesday and that the video showed him “speaking off the record to a large church group about his personal beliefs regarding religious issues.”
The congressman’s remarks about science have drawn attention online, with critics taking aim at his role on the science committee.
Bill Nye, the popular science personality, told the Huffington Post in an e-mail that "Since the economic future of the United States depends on our tradition of technological innovation, Representative Broun's views are not in the national interest."
"For example, the Earth is simply not 9,000 years old," said Nye, a mechanical engineer and television personality best known for his program "Bill Nye the Science Guy." Broun "is, by any measure, unqualified to make decisions about science, space, and technology."
Talking Points Memo reported on the church video over the weekend after being tipped off by the Bridge Project, a progressive group that tracks conservative activity.
Most creationists believe in the account of the origins of the world as told in the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible.
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
In the creation account, God creates Adam and Eve, the world and everything in it in six days.
For Christians who read the Genesis account literally, or authoritatively as they would say, the six days in the account are literal 24-hour periods and leave no room for evolution. Young Earth creationists use this construct and biblical genealogies to determine the age of the Earth and typically come up with 6,000 to 10,000 years.
The Gallup Poll has been tracking Americans' views on creation and evolution for 30 years. In June, it released its latest findings, which showed that 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution.
– CNN's Eric Marrapodi contributed to this report.
The problem with most so-called scientific age tests is they assume things which are unknown. And it is regarding those unknown things that such tests error…
For example, the so-called "radioactive decay test" is based on a theory that it takes so many thousands (or millions) of years for a certain radioactive elements to decay and for them to loose certain atoms. Thus, by simply measuring the current state of certain elements, and by determining how many atoms they have, scientists feel they can reasonably estimate how long something has been decaying or how old something is. But the problem with such theories is they "assume" that when the universe first came into being that those elements originally had all their atoms. But who told them that? And where did they get that information from? And that is the false assumption that all such scientific tests make. How do they know that God did not create the earth and the elements at some decayed rate from the start? Whereby at the moment of creation it was already decayed? How do they know that such elements ever had all their atoms? Answer: The scientists DON'T know this. All they can do is "assume" they did. And that is the falsehood upon which all scientific measurements are based. And which is precisely why such scientific measurements are "wrong." If I had to believe someone, I'd much rather believe the word of a perfect and holy person who was actually there when the earth was first created (Jesus) than to believe the word of some sinful, mad and crazy scientist who was not even there when the earth was created, and even worse, who don't even believe in God…
Anybody who uses the word loose instead of lose automatically fails in any argument they are trying to make.
So DvG, you'd rather think yourself as more capable in science and more wise than most modern scientists. Uh huh. Me, I'll bet on the scientists over you any day.
So if you can't accept science, stop making use of modern medicine and ask your god for help next time you're sick. See where that gets ya.
It's obvious that you don't know the science. There is no serious doubt regarding the accuracy of these dating systems.
"For example, the so-called "radioactive decay test" is based on a theory that it takes so many thousands (or millions) of years for a certain radioactive elements to decay and for them to loose certain atoms."
Our first statement contains basic fundamental errors. You obviously did not study or if you did you did not pay attention in chemistry or physics classes.
They're also not losing atoms – they are losing electrons. So many experts.
ok, DvG, now all you have to do is prove your assumption that jesus was present when the earth was created. While you are at it, you may as well prove the existence of any god. You do know don't you that this has never been proven – that religion is 100% based on assumptions, and therefore, by your own logic, is wrong?
Yeah, just all all the fundies on here David vs science, you cut and paste something you found on some fundie site, then run away when the discussion starts and your pitiful attempt at sounding logical gets completely smashed.
Like another poster commented above, we will respect you much more when we learn you have given up science altogetther and just pray to god instead of going to a doctor when you of one of your family members gets ill.
Your god is a made up figment of your imagination, but go ahead and keep wasting your time with it.
Sarah, even Lucifer is far more capable than me in the scriptures. But the don't mean I should believe him…
Ken, I've just provide you with serious doubt regarding the accuracy of such dating methods. And the doubt I've presented cannot be disputed…
ArthurP, I know enough to know the scientific dating methods are wrong…
The glaring flaw in your argument is even IF you were able to prove everything in science wrong, that would still not make the bible correct by default.
yet ANOTHER stunning example of the dunning/kruger effect, elicited by delusional religious indoctrination.
enough is enough
david – there is no perfect and holy person. it is only mythology.
You are joking right ? You fool.
-- "those elements originally had all their atoms. "
YOU FVCKING IDIOT. Atoms ARE elements. There is no evidence for any different atoms, or that they were any different, and in fact mountains of evidence they ARE the same, OR you would not be breathing. The iron atom in YOU hemoglobin came from a super-nova. No scientist disputes this, you damn idiot.
You just made a fool of yourself again, and PROVED you don't even have a grade school level of knowledge of Chemistry.
For educated others ; There are about 10 dating methods, all dependent on different rates of decay. All different atoms. Each of these atomic decay rates ALL produce the same approximate dates. Therefore the probability that they are ALL wrong would by astronomically high, (as they are multiplied to get the probability)..higher than a googleplex.
here are the other dating systems :
 Hydrogen to Flourine
 Neon to Potassium
 Calcium to Copper
 Zinc to Yttrium
 Zirconium to Indium
 Tin to Praesodymium
 Neodymium to Thulium
 Ytterbium to gold
 Mercury to Actinium
 Thorium to Einsteinium
 Fermium to Roentgenium (name not yet officially recognised by IUPAC)
If what you stat above is true then God must be subservient to Man.
...uranium-thorium, uranium series, potassium-argon, argon-argon...
David vs science,
Would you like to share some of your work about how the current scientific dating methods are fake?
I am sure the national academy of science and all the scientists of this planet would love to see it too.
Just because you want something to be true does not make it a fact, regardless of how much you believe it to be.
Your god is a good example of that.
What you're stating is doubt bred out of ignorance and it's common in every field. Even a mechanic probably gets the scattered customer who "doubts" that a part needs replacing because they have a notion that mechanics are crooked. There are doctors who have to deal with many patients who simply cannot understand why treatments aren't working, and why nothing can be done for their loved ones. A wise person accepts that they cannot be experts in everything, and that they have to trust systems that have been proven to work. Science does work, right? We have vaccines developed using evolutionary science and they work. Why would they work if the science wasn't true? Why hasn't a single out of place fossil ever been discovered if the science was false? Creationists cannot answer any of these questions.
david – it fascinates me to what lengths of lies the religious will go to avoid the reality of the falsehood of their religion.
DvG, if you can't provide us with your proof for any god and jesus, perhaps you can provide us with your scholarly, peer reviewed, published in a credible scientific journal article, successfully demonstrating that these dating methods are bogus. Or how about a reference to same? I doubt that you can do any of these things. I don't doubt that you are full of sh!t.
Creationists can't answer anything.
The only thing they have is what this fool congressman has just demonstrated for us.
Attact the science and the scientists.
When your whole argument is based on magic, then that is all you can do when presented with facts that show the magic to be false.
0G-No gods, Jesus Christ is not an assumption. He is an established figure in real world history. He did indeed exist, and he was also the Son of God. And whoever heard of a "son" existing without a father. It's not possible. Therefore, if Jesus existed, then so also does God exist. It cannot be otherwise. And since the God I serve and the religion I follow is based upon Jesus Christ, I don't call that an assumption…
Blessed are the Cheesemakers, because there is no one alive today was there when the earth was first created, all we can do is believe. As I stated, I choose to believe the words of Jesus Christ who was actually there, than to believe the words of some worldly scientist who was not…
Snowboarder, Jesus Christ was not a myth. He was a real person who walked upon this earth. And he was indeed perfect and holy...
So your argument is that you can't as.sume that god didn't make things look old? Well I say that both you and the scientists are wrong. The universe was obviously created 30 seconds ago with just the appearance of having a past. Any evidence otherwise is false. I can't believe that you put faith in historians and veterans that say things happened more than 30 seconds ago.
DvG, you pile on the words but have no proof. You cult's gods are no more real than the 1,000s proposed by other cults. You are a liar or mentally ill.
I'm picturing a 'bad guy' a la Dr. Evil saying (dramatically): "Number two, Loose the atoms!! Ha Ha Ha Ha!"
You say you are a "child of god". Is god your actual father ? Did god fvck your mother DavidvGoliath ?
The term "son of god" was applied to many people. In that culture it meant a "good person" or "good guy". So not only do you know no Chemistry, you also know no Bible study. Who told you to come here and make a fool of your god ?Are you doing the work of Satan ? You are making your religion look ignorant. You are not competent to tie your shoes.
david – jesus as god is just plain myth.
Realbuckyball… and every one of the so-called dating systems you listed are "false" and for the very same reason I stated…
OG-No gods…Jesus Christ is proof enough….
I'm The Best… my faith is only in Jesus Christ. He's the only one that can save me, and he's the only one that matters.
@bucky and @rufus,
... and thorium and thulium and thallium ... always puts me in mind of this:
You are mentally ill DavidvDelusion. You can assert anything from now till kingdom come, just as every other religionist has done for 20,000 years. They were all wrong, and so are you. You have not one shred of proof of your assertions, and no scientist who is reputable agrees with you. You NEED to believe so you do. It's about your NEEDS. That's all.
Tom Lehrer is brilliant! Pick up a copy of "That Was the Year That Was" and enjoy.
@I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV
Love that song. I need to memorize it. :)
Now DavidvDelusion just has to explain how he knows they are ALL wrong, and why he knows more than all the chemists and physicists on Earth, and why we would listen to anyone who doesn't even know that "elements don't have all their atoms".
I'm a big Tom Lehrer fan. I have CDs covering pretty much everything he recorded. Some of it is of course dated but much of it remains remarkably topical today. "Send the Marines" is one.
In the context of this thread the final verse from "It makes a fellow proud to be soldier" resonates with me:
"Our captain has a handicap to cope with, sad to tell.
He's from Georgia, and he doesn't speak the language very well.
He used to be, so rumor has, the Dean of Men at Alcatraz.
It makes a fella proud to be,
Why, as a kid I vowed to be,
What luck to be allowed to be
A soldier. (At ease!)"
david – you are one brainwashed sheep.
Anyone else notice that despite starting this thread, DvG has not provided a single factual answer to any of the questions asked? Add intellectually dishonest to liar and mentally ill – or just your average believer.
I call Poe's Law on DavidvsGoliath!
Realbuckyball… I don't "need" or "want" any worldly scientists agreeing with me (why would I want sinful people who are of the devil and who don't even believe in God agreeing with me?). I already have Jesus Christ agreeing with me. And that is all I need…
As regarding why all the so-calling dating systems you mentioned are wrong, it's because they're all based on the very same principal. And it is the principal itself that is wrong. Thus they are all wrong…
Snowboarder… Thanks. And you are one brainwashed goat...
Right, because although we can send and deploy a remote-controlled robotic laboratory to Mars, when it comes to dating a rock or a bone, we are totally confused.
what very same principle? The "loosing atoms" principle? The fact that you used the term "loosing atoms" demonstrates a total lack of understanding of radionuclides (radioisotopes if you like) and radioactive decay on your part.
That you are willing to debunk science with no evident comprehension of science shows your stripes as a believer.
Yes you can make yourself believe anything you want, including that a bunch of ignorant bronze age people claim that Jesus is god despite there being no good reason to think it is true.
But if you want your argument to be taken seriously you have to provide valid reasoning for position. What you are doing is poking holes in an extrmely well researched theory and then accepting a bronze age book full of contradictions based on a belief. You attempt to refute science using science, but then do not require a scientific basis for your creationist belief.
Look up "special pleading" and confirmation bias".
DvG, more words, more assertions – zero facts after repeated requests. Add asshole to previously earned attributes.
David v Goliath
I know you are too stupid to get this, but for those who follow this discussion, this I will explain why your "they were all wrong" is fallacious, even if they were "all wrong".
The thing is it doesn't answer the question. If "they were ALL wrong", then why, TODAY, do they ALL produce the same answer. Somehow a chaotic universe in which "they were all wrong", would STILL have to produce a system where they are ALL now the same. So they would have had to be "all wrong' in EXACTLY the same way wrong", to ALL produce the same result today. The probability of THAT is, (in the opposite direction), just as highly improbable, as
they ALL are to be wrong today. So from EITHER end, the creation crap does not answer the question. The probability is STILL the same.
I already have Jesus Christ agreeing with me
How do you know Jesus agrees with you? I would imagine that if Christ could observe your ways, and listen to your words, he'd be embarrased and disappointed with how you tarnish his name.
The problem I have with religion is this; They were all created around the 1st century or before. Lets take a look at what man believed in the first century. First most people believed the earth was flat, that there was sea monsters, that illness was caused by spirits etc. Now, I am suppose to believe in a book or person that was created by men that were barely literate and believed the world was flat? Use a little reason. Religion was away for rich/powerful people to control the masses.
Blessed… once you wind up in the lake of fire and brimstone, let's see if you can imagine your way out of that. Let's see if you can "imagine" that the flames are not real. LOL!…
Secondly, I'm not looking for you to take me seriously. Because I know you won't anyway no matter what I say. I'm only appealing to the sheep…
Madtown… I know Christ agrees with me because the scriptures agree with me. I'm saying the exact same thing the scriptures has been saying. For example…
2 Timothy 4:3 – For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine (the truth written by God); but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth (from the Bible), and shall be turned unto fables (fables such as the Big Bang Theory and the Evolution Theory)…
Tracy… Men were worshipping God all the way back in the Garden of Eden. And that is the origin of religion. So what are you talking about?…
DavidvsGoliath = HeavenSent = ...... LOL!
"2 Timothy 4:3 – For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine (the truth written by God); but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth (from the Bible), and shall be turned unto fables (fables such as the Big Bang Theory and the Evolution Theory)…"
2 Timothy 4:3 – For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine (the truth written by God); but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth (fBig Bang Theory and the Evolution Theory), and shall be turned unto fables (fables such as the Bible)
The Bible is not truth.
Well that explains things!
2 Timothy 4:3 – For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine (the truth written by Men); but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth (Big Bang Theory and the Evolution Theory), and shall be turned unto fables (fables such as the Bible)
I find it hard to understand.evolution and the big bang are recent and have proof.every shot you got was proof of evolution.The big bang is in line with observations done by Spitzer and Hubble and on the ground scientists.The bible doesn't have that kind of proof.It is your beliefs and I respect it,But your assertions about evolution are wrong.Also,You altered the scripture.
Actually that's the write in clause to say keep believing we know it's all a lie so let's put some fear into it so they won't recognize it's not true, they won't use their brains and recognize the con when they see it. The biggest con going is the Bible.
To "." … For something that you say is not truth (the Bible) it sure seems to have your number. LOL…
MDAT… So-called on the ground observations of space means nothing. All it does is provide a platform for speculation. Speculation that in this case is wrong because it's speculation guided by Lucifer. To know the truth you have to get it from an unimpeachable and informed source. And that unimpeachable and informed source is Jesus Christ via the word of God. Jesus Christ is the only living human being who walked upon this earth who was actually there when the world was first created. And that same Jesus has stated via the word of God, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". So who are you going to believe? Some worldly and sinful scientist being controlled by Lucifer, standing on earth some 6000 years later and peering through a telescope and "speculating" about how it all began. Or do you trust and believe in the word of an impeccable source, a holy and a perfect source, and someone who was actually there (Jesus Christ). Your choice…
Dogulas… Actually the biggest con is Lucifer getting you to believe and think the bible is just a con – just so you won't believe in it or follow it and wind up in hell. That's the biggest con of all…
"Dogulas… Actually the biggest con is Lucifer getting you to believe and think the bible is just a con – just so you won't believe in it or follow it and wind up in hell. That's the biggest con of all…"
That's what you have to tell yourself even though there is no proof of your god, hell, heaven or your soul. It's just a con to make people give up their money whether it's to the church or charities. It's the old mechanism of making you love who you are since you're not capable of doing it for yourself.
Your problem is Douglas, someone told you that lie and you believed it. You want to doubt the Bible's validity and doubt that it is true, but if you're so interested in the truth, then why didn't you question the people who told you all that nonsense about the bible in the first place. Why didn't you question them and ask them to "prove" their statements to you? You didn't. You accepted their statements without a shred of proof and now you are deceived. And you now want us to show you undeniable proof to straighten your unbelief out. You're the one who got yourself into it. So get your own self out…
Secondly, for any person to make the statement there is no God or to doubt there's a God, they'd have to first be standing on a mountain high enough that they can see into heaven to even know whether or a God was up there or not. And no human has ever done that. So the best any human can say is "I don't know" and leave it at that. To make a flat out statement that "there is no God" only makes you look like a fool. But if a person needs proof there's a God, then Jesus Christ is all the proof you need. For he was the Son of the living God and he walked upon this earth. And no son can exist without a father. Thus, is Jesus existed, then so also does his father exist. And it cannot be otherwise...
It’s been proven not to be true only and idiot ignores that fact.
“but if you're so interested in the truth, then why didn't you question the people who told you all that nonsense about the bible in the first place.”
Why aren’t you questioning the nonsense that people that told you about the bible and the nonsense of the people who wrote it. Or do you simply ignore facts that prove the bible is wrong.
“You accepted their statements without a shred of proof and now you are deceived.”
No you accepted the bible without a shred of proof it’s actually true which is why you are so gulliable and deceived.
“You're the one who got yourself into it. So get your own self out….”
You’re the one that believes in your cult and the biggest issue for people that belong to them is being about to get out because their minds are too week and they lack the courage to face the real truth.
“"I don't know" and leave it at that.”
Yet here you are spewing your nonsense that the Bible is the real truth when in fact you actually don’t know.
"But if a person needs proof there's a God, then Jesus Christ is all the proof you need. For he was the Son of the living God and he walked upon this earth. "
No he wasn't. What about all the other son of gods that make that same claim and rose from the dead. Or do you ignore those facts too. There is no proof that this Jesus was the son of a god.
Douglas, you say "It's been proven not to be true." If that's the case then where is that proof? I've seen no such proof. All I've seen is just a bunch of idiots voicing their opinion about the bible, and opinions based on someone else's opinion. I haven't seen one shred of proof…
As for questioning the bible, only a fool would question Jesus the creator who was perfect and true. The scriptures state, "it is impossible for God to lie." And Jesus has stated the scriptures are true… So yes, I believe the bible, unequivocally. And if someone says the bible is not true, then prove it…
Yes, I believe and trust in my religion and I have no desire to get out. Because my religion is the same religion that Jesus started and it can save my soul. Who's saving yours? Lucifer?…
There is only one true "begotten" Son of God who walked upon this earth. And that was Jesus Christ. All others were not begotten sons, but just sons…
As for proof he was the Son of God, Jesus did miracles and things at the time that no one else on earth could do. And his apostles personally witnessed those miracles. Even witnessed him stepping on a cloud and ascending up into heaven. And what did you witness? Absolutely nothing. So who are you to dispute it? All you have is just your false ideas and concepts, and opinions about events in history you know nothing of…
So lets see if I have this right.
Evolution and Astrophysics are the work of the devil. That must mean that the sciences that support them must also be the work of the Devil.
So chemistry and physics are the work of the Devil.
Then medicine, which is based on chemistry and physics, is itself the work of the Devil. U.S. Rep. Paul Broun studied and in fact practiced the arts of the Devil.
So that makes U.S. Rep. Paul Broun a Devil Worshiper and practi.tioner of such things as the Black Mass.
Yes, you have it about right Arthur.
I work with fundies and they hate science (even though the job they do is defined by it).
They hate anything and anyone who might contradict their god myth.
One of their wives told me she teaches their kids that whales are not mammals because it clearly states in the babble that Jonah was swollowed by a fish.
How can one even begin to have a logical discussion with someone that far removed from reality.
Sad to say, this is where the republican party is trying to take this nation.
And they are only going to get more vocal and of course more violent when Obama wins in Nov.
Man!!! that devil is one busy dude......
ArthurP… Just because some people who are involved with religion are corrupt and have misused religion for their evil purposes, that doesn't make religion itself corrupt. It only makes the person who has misused it corrupt. Likewise, just because some aspects and parts of science have been used by Lucifer to mislead and to deceive people, and are therefore evil, that doesn't make all science evil. Some parts of science have done lots of good (like developing cures for diseases and medicines to help the sick). People who try to say that religious people are saying that all science is bad, is not only lying on us and distorting the truth, but they're also just looking for an excuse not to believe in God….
Why bother to cure diseases? Just g'wan off to your "heavenly father's" paradise. (If 'he' wants you here to preach 'his' word, he can cure you).
Why bother to ease pain? Suffering gets you a better place in "heaven". It is "God's" will.
God bless this congressman for speaking the truth!
Call any vegetable!
On the Truth Scale, what he said and The Babble are about equal – that is pretty much zero! Unless of course you have some evidence to indicate either is true.
Ned, there probably isn't a god, and there certainly isn't truth in that congressman's remarks. Do catch up on modern science soon.
Or you can dwell in the past and stop using modern medicine. Try asking god for help next time a relative is very ill, and see where that gets you.
Believers relying on prayers when someone is ill is an excellent example of evolution in action, not to mention the strengthening of the gene pool as the dumb ones weed themselves out.
I understand that the truth can get on all of your nerves, but you dont have to name call. Just shows your lack of intelligence.
ned – you are either joking or you are seriously brainwashed.
Ned, it's not the truth that bothers anyone, it's the repeated lies believers tell about gods and myths that they do not have a single shred of evidence for, and using those lies to discredit science, for which there is enormous evidence. You, and all other believers, are consciously telling lies, or are delusional, yes, mentally ill.
lol if only fishing was this good on the lakes today.
0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls
They also tell lies directly about evolution. I sure wouldn't believe in the evolution they describe in their books.
"call it by name....... call one today, when you get off the train"
They don't want to hear what you have to say. All the more reason to tell them. Be loud, email or call.
Don't just post here.
it is absolutely appalling that a public figure would equate science to evil.
He did not do it, he pointed out to a hypothesis "not a fact" of evolution as fact, no need to be a hindu, ignorant to twist his word's.
hindu – why do you always talk jibberish?
what he said was “All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, the Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell,”
that is equating science to evil.
Nothing is wrong for him to say, what he said, hypothesis is unsubstantiated claim, and it need not to be stated as a fact, as is the case by hindu atheist's, lair self centered. Evolution, a building built without a foundation, just in the air to hind, fool humanity.
ALLAH IS ZERO CONSTANT iS 1.. NO DOGS!
hindu – even when you make an actual statement you follow it up with jibberish.
evolution is the only origin theory with any foundation at all, not that religious creationism is actually a theory. creationism is plainly mythology.
What amazes me is how many people consider themselves expert enough to dismiss the foundational theory of biology – the result of generations of advanced research by tens of thousands of PhD level specialists.
I am a trained scientist, but I wouldn't have the arrogance to start dismissing particle physics. That's not my field and I'm sure I don't understand it. But every Walmart shelf stocker seems to believe they possess the level of knowledge not only to understand the complexity of evolution, but to dismiss it. In other words, they clearly believe they understand it better than the sum total of all professionals in the life sciences for the last 200 years.
May I ask what is your area in science?
My background is archaeology and geology. My research is focused on Late Pleistocene human ecology.
rufus – this is so true. religion doesn't even really require people to actually read – yet it can elevate the lowliest intellect to the status of wise sage or trusted scholar.
it's ridiculous and has to end.
the dunning/kruger effect elicited by religious indoctrination would be comical if it didn't literally threaten to effect the lives of every human on earth.
At its lowest fundamental level biology relies an understanding of chemical reactions, how molecules are made. Which is pretty easy to understand. Everything else is just an extension of this and can, as you say get quite complicated.
Is archaeology a science? I'm not being a wise ass, just curious.
Yes. It's a science. Could you not look that up on google?
Why ask him if you know you aren't going to believe his answer?
the scientific study of human remains and artifacts.
Horse's mouth I suppose. I'm still not sure though if I'd call an archaeologist a scientist though. I have a Masters in political science, but I wouldn't call myself a scientist. I'd call myself and all political 'scientists' a complete waste of time.
Rational Libertarian, that's a fair question. Like anthropology (although to a lesser extent) archaeological science suffered from the influence of post-modern relativism in the 80's and 90's, but most archaeology is carried out from a pretty scientific worldview. This is especially true with older time periods, the more "fluffy" research often involves late prehistoric time periods and complex societies ("civilizations").
Don't get me wrong, though. There's plenty of pseudoscience silliness on archaeological subjects out there.
Yes Rufus, I'm perfectly aware of all the pseudoscience in fields that are really not quantifiable from my experience in the political science world. I suppose all the 'lesser sciences' have aspects of pseudoscience.
Compared to political science, archaeology may employ more hard-science analytical methods (many taken from geology, physics, chemistry, etc). But for me, if you are systematically testing ideas against observations, you are practicing science.
"if you are systematically testing ideas against observations, you are practicing science."
@Rufus T. Firefly –
I second R.L.'s sentiment.
Thanks, guys. Nice to have a rational conversation!
Irrational Libertarian has a masters in political science? Seriously? HA HA HA HA HA HOO HAH!
A masters and you worship Ayn Rand? LOLOLOLOL
It must have hurt when they dropped you on your head. But it doesn't hurt now, does it? HA HA HA HA!
We should all be thankful for leaders like U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, for without them there would be no pool of scientifically illiterate people to fill the menial service jobs in our economy .
"Would you like fries with that?"
You're implying he's actually qualified to work at a Fast Food Service Industry......you overstep your bounds sir, you are presumptuous of his rationality and skills.
"If you believe in Judgement Day then I seriously question your judgement" – Bill Maher
But he's not in menial service. He's a public representative. Oh, wait...
LOL – I just had an image of Broun in a McD's uniform, spreading his hands and saying, "and god said, let there be fries!"
Jesus thus foretold about the Son of Man here (=John 6/27, 40)
and thus absolutely confirmed the Big bang and Evolutionary Creation;
here is the absolute MATHEMATICAL PROOF now:
===UNIVERSAL MAGNIFICENT MIRACLES===
Jesus foretold nothing. He never existed.
DEMOCRATS SUPPORT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS IN EMPLOYMENT AND COLLEGE PROGRAMS. THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE.
That's right! That way everyone gets an even chance. You're right, we all need to vote Democrat
46% of Americans believed in creationism...
Guess we know who voted for Bush that second time.
46% of people have no idea why their children look like them but different, or why they get a flu shot, or how the food they eat was developed.
50 % of Americans cannot answer the question : "Around what celestial object does the Earth revolve/rotate?"
Lots of Americans still believe that the moon landings were just a hoax. About a third believe in ghosts and about two thirds are superst.itious in some way. About 10% actually believe that environmentalists intentionally cause oil spills just to prove their point. 18% still believe that Obama is a Muslim and over half think that Fox News is the most trustworthy news source. It's scary, isn't it?
Atheism is a chosen belief and that by definition is a religion.
Thus condemning it is a hate crime.
A-theism is a dismissal of the claims of theism. Nothing more.
Absence of belief, is not belief in absence.
Like bald is a hair color.
you – that is a false dichotomy. a lack of belief in something is not a belief.
atheism is not a religion. it is simply the application of rational thought
Did you actively choose to not believe in fairies, godzilla or Zeus? No? Similarly, I didn't choose not to believe in a god or gods. It is the default position.
Atheism is NOT a belief, it's a rational way of thinking. Religion is irrational. THAT'S the difference. For the same reason we all know there's no tooth fairy or Bigfoot, some irrationals still like to believe that it's possible there really are ghosts and that there really is a troll under that next bridge.
I didn't choose to be an atheist, it's just a by product of sanity.
Considering that as a child fairy tale characters are very real and when one grows up you leave it behind consciously, Atheism is a religion by your own analogy.
It is a proven fact that those with a fulfilled religious lifestyle are healthier in all aspects than those who throw off all restraint.
@Nii – "Considering that as a child..."
I'm not sure that could be more poorly reasoned.
An agnostic does believe in the existence or nonexistence of a god/gods. Atheists believe there is no god. Are many people who are agnostic calling themselves atheists?
What? Do you mean I reason poorly? He made a submission saying that fairy tales equal religion so if u leave them behind you become an Atheist. How dumb is that. A lot of wisdom resides in these fables allegories etc. In no way are u better off if u discard them but of course as you grow you will know that Neverland is not a real place. If that is supposed to be a major leap then I will be sorry to be an Atheist.
Fact is for most of you slogan-writing is all you do on these blogs!
Incredulous – your definitions don't match what I use, or any other atheist that I know. An agnostic does not know (and usually thinks others cannot know) whether or not there is a god or gods. An atheist simply lacks belief. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. I am agnostic because I admittedly do not know whether or not a god or gods exist, but I am also an atheist because I lack belief in them.
I didn't choose to be an atheist. I was a happy believer until I realized that the basis for my belief was flawed. I've tried to convince myself that this was wrong, and I've looked for arguments to prove that, but I haven't found any. It's been over 30 years and I'm very comfortable with what I believe. Are you suggesting that I could choose to just ignore what I know and become a believer again?
nii – what does being an atheist have to do with "throwing off all restraint?"
Do you imagine that, just because we don't show up at mass on Sunday mornings, we're secretly meeting at some kind of wild party?
Actually, I usually just do my laundry and watch "Meet the Press."
Disusing The Theory of Evolution or abiogenesis with a Creationist is pointless for they do not have the required educational background to understand the principles involved to even support their own position let alone contradict an opposing view.
Disusing The Theory of Evolution or abiogenesis with a Fundamentalist is also pointless because their faith is absolute as opposed to the faith of a Creationist who requires bast.ardized and antiquated scientific 'facts' in order to shore up their own wavering faith.
It's like trying to discuss the rules of Cricket with a Nascar fan...
Or listening to the opinion of a 3rd grader on quantum physics... very entertaining but hardly informative.
Or trying to explain the internet and computers to your 100 year old granny. There are a lot of people who aren't wise enough to imagine a thing working, or being true unless they can figure it out. They have inflated egos and think that nobody can be smarter than they are.
This guy is on the commission for science and space technology!? If the bible is so factual how come the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, that was absolute truth for the church for how many years? I could bring up the hundreds of inconsistencies the bible has shown us but you already know them.
How can we have someone on a commission that is supposedly a medical doctor that has totally denied his education making decisions on the future of America's science and technology?
As a medical doctor did he pray for his patients or use that knowledge that came from the "Pits of Hell" to treat his patients?
No wonder America is falling so far behind the rest of the world in science. If we truly valued education and critical thinking we would have jobs aplenty, good jobs driven by innovation, and free exchange of knowledge not hampered by short sighted bottom line driven dogma bound hypocrites.
These are the kind of bat crazy people that the religious right wants in positions of power and they are getting them.
Republicans want to take America back, Democrats want to take it forward.
Shouldn't the fact that the church used to imprison and kill people for saying the sun was the center of the solar system (universe at the time), vs. the earth give some credence to science over religion? Or do you just keep believing until there's no possible way to deny it? Do you see that the church is not always right? At least they gave in on the solar crusade...
What are you talking about. Not all Christians are Roman Catholics in the case of Galileo or are hostile to Science like the American Evangelical Fundamentalists. Besides for all we know as a politician Mr. Bround is securing his political future as usual.
All I seem to see on this forum is just people who love defending Lucifer – along with all the lies that has been told by Lucifer such as the Big Bang theory and the theory of Evolution – when all Lucifer wants to do is to deceive you and to send your soul to hell. Is there no one left in the world who has the courage and the nerve to stand up for God? Or am I the only one? How about a show of hands...
For God – 1
And while you're at it, please pick between the Lucky Charm's Leprechaun and Count Chocula.
Count Chocula – 1
+1...why did iyou give gawd a -1...who's side are you on?
lol – "for lucifer"
you just can't make this stuff up.
I've never talked with anyone named Lucifer, but the evidence fully supports evolution.
The Devil Lucifer
Devil 666 to 1, see you soon, you may want to stay healthy.
Lucifer, is that the guy who planted those dinosaur bones to mess with us?......
For god -10
"All I seem to see on this forum is just people who love defending Lucifer "
Maybe you need your eyes examined.
For Crom the god of Conan – 1
How long have you been driving an electric or ethenol powered car, since you probably do not believe fossil fuels exists?
Lucifier who? As for the Big Bang and Evolution, obviously someone failed basic science class and does not understand a thing about Scientific Theories.
What does it take to make fossil fuel? Millions of years or heat and pressure? Do you think diamonds are artificially created or a natural occurence that takes millions of years? Hmmmmm...
"What does it take to make fossil fuel? Millions of years or heat and pressure?"
For the process to occur naturally, yes, it generally takes millions of years.
"Do you think diamonds are artificially created or a natural occurence that takes millions of years? Hmmmmm..."
Again, for the process to occur naturally, yes, it generally takes millions of years.
Can such things be produce in a shorter amount of time? yes, artificially.
So diamonds are fake and the whole blood diamonds thing where we have all these checks to make sure our diamonds don't come from war lords doesn't really exist? Yes we can make them artificially but they have been around in india for thousands of years as used for religious icons. But of course they had the tech to fake them also is what your saying?
Ugh...no...science has been able to decrease the amount of time it takes to make diamonds and even artificially create fossil fuel...it's a matter of how great the pressure and heat were over the period of time it took to create the end result. Since no one was there when the biosource was put down and covered and took periodic measurements of the pressure and heat, we can't really say how long it really took...that's why I mentioned artificially created diamonds since they are something we've bee seeing more of in technical articles and that we don't have to wait long periods of time to create them.
We know enough about dimonds to know how much pressure it takes to make them and we can get a good estimate on the depth need for them to form and how much pressure the earth can produce at that depth and from those numbers we can calculate a time scale for the formation of diamonds. And thats why its know that it takes so lnog for them to form.
Your premise here is faulty. Just because a person has a different view than you do, and many Christians have a different POV than you do on creation – does not mean that Satan is involved.
I will NEVER understand the rabid defence of literal interpretations of Bible myths and parables, to the exlusion of Christ's message.
Translation – Does it really matter if the creation story is reality, or a myth? How does the belief one way or another affect one's belief in Jesus' message? Is anyone silly enough to think that if a story in the Bible is really a myth, that everything else must be as well? Does your faith really depend on the answer?
Without original sin the whole point of Jesus dying on the cross for everyone's sins kind of falls apart.
I wonder how many of Brouns out there holding key positions in Congress, Senate, defense, executive branches, and calling the shots on important issues impacting our lives, like [religious] wars?
For those Young Earth Creationists who reject Carbon 14 dating out of hand –
Do you believe that counting the rings on a tree is an accurate measure of that tree's age?
If so, then I'm afraid the Earth is older than you assert.
Noah was born 126 years after Adam's death at age 930, which brings us to the year 1056.
Gen 7:6 tells us that Noah was 600 years old when the flood came, which brings us to the year 1656.
If the Earth is 6,000 years old, minus 1656 gives us 4,344 years since Noah built the Ark.
The oldest living tree thus far found (measured by ring count) was a Great Basin Bristlecone Pine which was 4,862 years old. That means the tree was around 400 years older than Noah's oldest son Ja.pheth when the flood happened.
In California there is a colony of Palmer's Oak trees called Jurupa Oak that has been alive 13,000 years through clonal reproduction.
Professor Frank Vasek confirmed the age of a Creosote bush in the Mojave Desert known as "King Clone" using two different methods. His project counted rings and measured the distance of annual growth, and then used radiocarbon dating on chunks of wood found in the center of the ring. Both dating methods yielded an age of 11,700 years.
That makes the plant more than 7000 years older than Noah's flood.
Now that we've established that your estimated age of the Earth is a load of bunk, I suggest you move on to explore the plethora of dating methods scientists have used to determine the true age of the Earth.
Some of these include:
Ice Core samples, Cosmic Ray exposure dating, electron spin resonance, dendrochronology, paleomagnetism, Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating etc. etc.
There is some legitimacy in the Carbon dating discussion, but there are literally dozens of other ways to date things which they ignore. Creationism is simply fase, and Behe has been debunked. Debunked SO bad, he won't even answer his phone anymore.
There's not really any "debate" in carbon dating. It is acknowledged that 14C has varied in the atmosphere throughout history. That's why dates are calibrated. Furthermore, the variation makes dates appear slightly younger than they actually are, not older. For example, an 11,000 year 14C date is closer to 13,000 years old in 365-day calendar years.
Tree rings are only an indication of growth, not a good marker of time just alternating periods of dry and wet weather.
Ice cores were proven ineffective recent (and scientists still use it) when some WWII P-38 lightnings were found buried under 250 feet of ice and snow after only 50 years. The Inuit know that varying rates of snowfall create the different layers and that varying number of layers are deposited over the course of a year.
Cosmic radiation has been known to fluctuate and with only a small window of our history having the ability to actually measure it without a good time period of sampling or knowing the conditions that created increased or decreased permeability of our atmosphere (Van Allen belt strengh) there's no way to determine it's accuracy. The farther in the past items need to be dated the less accurate the methods prove to be.
That's right, Russ. And airplanes don't really fly. It's all a hoax. We scientists keep it a secret.
Okay whatever you say "scientist"
No. I meant carbon dating is only legitimate back so far. Beyond that one has to use other methods, if there are no carboniferous materials available, or you're dealing in millions or billions of years. But the other decay methods are not dependent on the presence of carbon ... that's all I meant. BTW you are 100 % correct, Rufus.
If you are willing to accept the FSM as the creator you will understand that HE placed these contradictions on earth to test the "faith" of his followers. May his noodly appendage touch you.
PS: His Noodliness has noticed an increasing girth on his followers; HE reccomends switching to whole wheat pasta, cut down on the meat balls and drink low-cal beer. Stay clear of "Born Agains" unless they are buying the next round of beer, even then be wary and have an escape route planned. Peace.
Russ thinks he is smarter than 99.99 % of all the scientists on Earth, and 99 % of the National Academy of Science. Tree rings are an annual phenomenon, NOT wet/dry periods. Take a Biology course, and STOP lying. Your holy book is wrong, and some day you must face facts.
Hahaha Tree rings are only annual phenomena when the wet/dry cycles happen to coincide with a year's time...do a little web research (hopefully that's not too hard for you – you found this article).
Russ is a liar. If he were in prison, and DNA could get him out, he would use it. He is just too stupid to understand why and how DNA works. He really DOES believe in Evolution.
Russ, anybody can post anything on the web. You might do a little research based on legitimate sources. Peer review exists for a reason.
Found another angry evolutionist...not too hard to drum them up.
@ Rufus – so you're saying there is NO peer reviewed good research on the web????
Russ also lies about tree rings.
The width varies by wet/dry cycles, NOT the actual annual ring. Russ takes what his deluded pastors tell him, and does not find out the truth for himself, as he is afraid the whole ball of sh1t will fall apart if his holy book is not literally true. Russ is an.al retentive. His groceries are in alphabetical order in his kitchen. He takes meds for OCD.
@Russ since your so smart about everything please explain how radiometric dating is false and how the halflife of many isotops can be used to check each other is not accurate. Some how when we date some old thing with multipule tests and they all verify the age...well they're all wrong and it was one gaint coincidence....
I see a common thread of aggravation and anxiety when someone supports the possibility that creation is valid....ask yourself why? The short time that these posts will be here is not sufficient to analyze the earth evidences out there and what they support. If you really seek truth do it on a large scale – examine every evidence if it causes you consternation ask yourself again why? Keep digging. I only ask that you seek truth it's out there.
@Al – radiometric (carbon-14) dating ASSUMES a constant rate of decay. It is not constant and can even be affected by sun spot activity. If we assume this it becomes a guessing game – mainly because we don't have record of the forces that may have caused a speed up or slow down of the decay rate.
"It is acknowledged that 14C has varied in the atmosphere throughout history. That's why dates are calibrated."
Maybe you missed that part.
You seem not to know what radiometric dating is carbon dating is a small part of it.
Radiometic dating is more then carbon-14. There are many isotops used for the dating and they all have diffrent half-lives and yet when used to check each other they come out consistent. So its impossible for your sun spot to affect all the different isotops in a ways that they would still all correspondwith each other and that the half-life of many diffrent isotopes would still give the same dating of an object.
And by the way, it's not the rate of decay that varies (that is an average to begin with), it is the amount of 14C produced in the atmosphere that varies as a result of fluctuations in solar energy acting upon existing 14N.
When multiple dating methods are applied in a given scenario and they all indicate the same age (as in the case of the creosote bush) do you still disregard the results?
In the original post, I didn't address the absurdity of people lliving to be a thousand years old – but, c'mon now....
Furthermore, even if you don't believe in darwinian evolution, you've got to admit the basic mendelian genetic theory is sound. Based on that alone, it is known that in order to avoid the very real and demonstrable effects of genetic drift as a result of inbreeding, around 70 genetically distinct breeding pairs are required lest a species go extinct within only a handful of generations.
Noah, his three sons and their respective wives could not possibly have re-populated the entire human species a few thousand years ago.
"According to NIST scientist emeritus Richard Lindstrom, the variations observed in other experiments may have been due to environmental conditions interfering with the instruments themselves."
It is not a "guessing game". Even if it is shown that there is a minor fluctuation, the measurements are consistent with other measurements, such as dendrochronology, magnetic banding of the ocean floor, Thermoluminescence, etc.
Again – TL, OSL, ESR ASSUME a set amount of absorption that occurs over a given period of time – who knows what absoption rates have occurred over millennia.
Th/U and Pa/U ASSUME the initial ratio of the elements and that they are related by the radioactive decay such that no addition or removal of the elements takes place over the course of time the item to be dated was in contact with the surrounding environment.
Get this guy off the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, asap! Who thought it was a good idea to put someone on that committee that doesn't believe in what that committee stands for? Ridiculous.
This is no different than Paul Ryan's claim that eliminating the mortgage interest, health care, and education deductions in order to reduce corporate tax rates would somehow improve the economy – they're both pandering for donations from the extreme elements of their party.
Jesus absolutely endorsed the "Son of Man" here (=John 6/27, 40),
and the "Son of Man" has thus unmistakably proven now
that Big bang and Evolution are the most Powerful and Superb "Creation Acts" of GOD
through the "Language of Mathematics" here:
It's a bunch of crap.
what is the purpose of this scam?
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.