Congressman calls evolution lie from 'pit of hell'
Comments
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0 ... 47125.html
'...along with many others who viewed the video, the well-known science educator Bill Nye heaped scorn on Broun, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
"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," Nye told The Huffington Post in an email. "For example, the Earth is simply not 9,000 years old," he continued, contradicting a remark made by Broun later in the video. "He is, by any measure, unqualified to make decisions about science, space, and technology."0 -
Byrnzie wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/07/bill-nye-paul-broun-science-space-technology_n_1947125.html
'...along with many others who viewed the video, the well-known science educator Bill Nye heaped scorn on Broun, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
"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," Nye told The Huffington Post in an email. "For example, the Earth is simply not 9,000 years old," he continued, contradicting a remark made by Broun later in the video. "He is, by any measure, unqualified to make decisions about science, space, and technology."
Finally, some common sense seems to be prevailing0 -
Byrnzie wrote:pandora wrote:He believes that men of science are lying with a clear motive.
This is true in that science and religion has been at odds since forever.
So, because science and religion have generally always been at odds, this means that men of science are liars, and that, therefore, this congressman was telling the truth and should be defended?
Can you please elaborate on this point? Thanks.
Do you think men of science are liars?
Do you think this congressman believes men of science are liars with a clear motive?
Do you think he has the right to speak his opinion?
Do you have the right to speak yours?
Are we hearing others being called liars a lot lately
Did I say umpteen times I did not agree with his opinion?
Is that not easy to understand?
Can you not comprehend defending a persons right to say
what they believe?
Do you not believe in right of the voters to vote in whom they think is
a good representative?
One who represents their views though not the most popular?
that should keep you busy for awhile :P
0 -
not for you moonpig for the other ladyMoonpig wrote:pandora wrote:Byrnzie wrote:Who doesn't respect his right to voice his opinion? This thread was asking how people like him him can gain positions of power and influence, not claiming he has no right to free speech.
Once again you're just trying to change the subject as it suits you.Moonpig wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10471734
How the fuck are these people in power. I'm in utter, utter shock. I'd be fucking embarrassed if this horses ass represented me, but I'm sure some of you will make excuses for him.
Actually it is about him representing the people of his district. They voted him in
that's the way our system works, maybe not yours
I don't have a problem with his beliefs nor with the voters who supported him.
As far as the committee that is kissing some ass somewhere in the system maybe ??
or maybe somebody thought he was qualified.
Do you not know anything about Ireland? Don't believe everything you hear about Europe. Sheesh, I can't believe I'm having the conversation. :fp:
please do us both a favor then and don't have it 0 -
Byrnzie wrote:EdsonNascimento wrote:Sure, he sits on committee that you think is nonsensical. So, when you create committees for whatever you're doing, you want folks that all think the same way? It seems having folks from different background would be the best way to foster innovation.
Nobody said the committee he sits on is nonsensical. We were saying that his wacky notions about the World are nonsensical, which they are, if you adhere to a rational view of things, as opposed to basing your view of the World on a literal reading of the writings of a 2000 year old Middle Eastern cult.
His views would in no way foster innovation. His views have nothing to do with reality, or with expanding scientific understanding, which I presume is what the 'House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology' was created for.
Poorly written on my part. Meant other's belief that his views make his standing on the committee nonsensical. Not the committee itself is nonsensical (though, like most government things it probably is. That just wasn't the point I was trying to say in this instance).Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.0 -
Sounds like something you have saidByrnzie wrote:pandora wrote:I'm thinking those angered don't believe in a hell anyways ...
nor do the men of science he is directing his words to ... yes?
If you call someone a motherfucking son of a bitch, would you expect them not to take offence on the grounds that your words shouldn't be taken literally, in that; of course they don't fuck their own mothers, and of course their mothers aren't members of the canine family?
Therefore, in your alternate universe, is it perfectly acceptable to throw such insults at people, along with calling someone a liar who's views originate from the pits of hell?
Do you believe in hell?
This the most ironic part of this story, makes me laugh truly.
The liar thing is tossed about freely based on opinion, polls, beliefs etc...
nothing like the nasty words you just posted there.
Again this man believes science is lying and that science has a motive to do so.
Do you believe that?
Do some people believe that?
Do they have the right?
Do they have a right to vote for others who represent their views and express them?
This is just another bashing thread from those so offended .... ha!
they are bashing right back. Something they seem to be pretty good at,
better than the bible side for sure.
If that wasn't so sad it would be funny stuff 0 -
the jist behind this I agree with. Let people have their beliefs ...whygohome wrote:The funny thing about religion is that everyone else's plans are wacko except for "yours."
Ask a Christian about the Muslim view of 40 virgins in paradise--they'll likely laugh and call it ridiculous; but, their version of heaven is okay.
Ask a Jew about what they think of Scientology--they'll likely call it a strange cult. I guess that means that Scientology simply needs to be around for another 2,000 years to be considered legitimate..........
"the human mind is extremely susceptible to hallucination."
if the Democrats can continually claim the Repubicans are liars
then this man can do the same
sorry couldn't resist
it's almost over
0 -
pandora wrote:Byrnzie wrote:pandora wrote:He believes that men of science are lying with a clear motive.
This is true in that science and religion has been at odds since forever.
So, because science and religion have generally always been at odds, this means that men of science are liars, and that, therefore, this congressman was telling the truth and should be defended?
Can you please elaborate on this point? Thanks.
Do you think men of science are liars?
Do you think this congressman believes men of science are liars with a clear motive?
Do you think he has the right to speak his opinion?
Do you have the right to speak yours?
Are we hearing others being called liars a lot lately
Did I say umpteen times I did not agree with his opinion?
Is that not easy to understand?
Can you not comprehend defending a persons right to say
what they believe?
Do you not believe in right of the voters to vote in whom they think is
a good representative?
One who represents their views though not the most popular?
that should keep you busy for awhile :P
I'll answer just two of your questions as the rest of them are completely nonsensical and irrelevant.
1. Do I think he has the right to speak his opinion? Yes, I do, as I said previously in this thread. Did you miss that post?
2. Do I believe in the right of the voters to vote in whom they think is a good representative? Yes, I do. But were not talking merely about the fact that he's a congressman. The discussion here is regarding his fitness to be on the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.0 -
pandora wrote:The liar thing is tossed about freely based on opinion, polls, beliefs etc...
nothing like the nasty words you just posted there.
'The liar thing'?
This is what he said: "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell."
So now you're going to pretend that the above is a common statement and something that's 'tossed about freely' on a regular basis?
Seriously, do you really believe that, or are your constant efforts to change the subject and make shit up simply a result of your desperation to come out on top in this 'debate'?pandora wrote:Again this man believes science is lying and that science has a motive to do so.
Do you believe that?
Do I believe that? Do I believe that scientists are lying when they say that the World is 4.54 billion years old? No, I don't believe that they're lying. Why would I?Post edited by Byrnzie on0 -
the election of course...Byrnzie wrote:pandora wrote:it's almost over
Are you referring here to the election, or to the fact that you'll more than likely succeeded in getting this thread locked like so many others?
Anyway, I'm done with this thread. I can see where it's heading.
and if people can remain respectful threads don't get locked.
Do you like to blame others? that is really funny stuff 0 -
Byrnzie wrote:pandora wrote:Byrnzie wrote:
So, because science and religion have generally always been at odds, this means that men of science are liars, and that, therefore, this congressman was telling the truth and should be defended?
Can you please elaborate on this point? Thanks.
Do you think men of science are liars?
Do you think this congressman believes men of science are liars with a clear motive?
Do you think he has the right to speak his opinion?
Do you have the right to speak yours?
Are we hearing others being called liars a lot lately
Did I say umpteen times I did not agree with his opinion?
Is that not easy to understand?
Can you not comprehend defending a persons right to say
what they believe?
Do you not believe in right of the voters to vote in whom they think is
a good representative?
One who represents their views though not the most popular?
that should keep you busy for awhile :P
I'll answer just two of your questions as the rest of them are completely nonsensical and irrelevant.
1. Do I think he has the right to speak his opinion? Yes, I do, as I said previously in this thread. Did you miss that post?
2. Do I believe in the right of the voters to vote in whom they think is a good representative? Yes, I do. But were not talking merely about the fact that he's a congressman. The discussion here is regarding his fitness to be on the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Why only two?
I will quote the original OP again and her words....
"How the fuck are these people in power. I'm in utter, utter shock. I'd be fucking embarrassed if this horses ass represented me, but I'm sure some of you will make excuses for him".
this is what the thread is about... bashing someone else's beliefs calling him a "this horses ass "
and basically insinuating his supporters should be embarrassed to be so.
As far as fitness to be on the committee it seems he qualified to be so...
met the conditions for being appointed perhaps based on the fact he is a Physician
not based on religious beliefs. I don't believe he was speaking to any government
committee when speaking of his beliefs in this article. Was that on his own time?0 -
Moonpig wrote:Byrnzie wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/07/bill-nye-paul-broun-science-space-technology_n_1947125.html
'...along with many others who viewed the video, the well-known science educator Bill Nye heaped scorn on Broun, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
"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," Nye told The Huffington Post in an email. "For example, the Earth is simply not 9,000 years old," he continued, contradicting a remark made by Broun later in the video. "He is, by any measure, unqualified to make decisions about science, space, and technology."
Finally, some common sense seems to be prevailing
0 -
Byrnzie wrote:pandora wrote:The liar thing is tossed about freely based on opinion, polls, beliefs etc...
nothing like the nasty words you just posted there.
'The liar thing'?
This is what he said: "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell."
So now you're going to pretend that the above is a common statement and something that's 'tossed about freely' on a regular basis?
Seriously, do you really believe that, or are your constant efforts to change the subject and make shit up simply a result of your desperation to come out on top in this 'debate'?pandora wrote:Again this man believes science is lying and that science has a motive to do so.
Do you believe that?
Do I believe that? Do I believe that scientists are lying when they say that the World is 4.54 billion years old? No, I don't believe that they're lying. Why would I?
Yes, the word liar we are hearing daily in the media...
have you tuned in?
No, not do you agree but do you believe this man believes that science is lying
and that science has a motive to do so.
Let him speak his opinion, you do.
Do you believe in hell?
I do not, so if someone said to me that my Mama was born in hell
and that person really believed that, I'd respectfully chuckle to myself
and think idiot. I might even roll my eyes if no one was looking
You can not come here now and claim you could possibly be offended by this man,
not after words you have spoken to others... really?
This is another bashing thread towards those of religion, when by now one would
think the bright stars of MT would let people believe what they will,
speak what they want and if someone thinks they are an idiot for it so be it,
not much of a discussion, just bashing.
This man was voted into office, he has supporters, others believe as he does,
he was found suitable for the committees he's been on.
He did not take his opinion to the floor of Congress, he was speaking on his own time.
So most don't agree with him including me but we can understand
and defend his right to believe what he chooses.
Let's remember too it is opinion not fact :fp:
One would think that would be the end of story. Kind of a boring story too.0 -
i see the trend here...
■Ideological purity
■Compromise as weakness
■A fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism
■Denying science
■Unmoved by facts
■Undeterred by new information
■A hostile fear of progress
■A demonization of education
■A need to control women’s bodies
■Severe xenophobia
■Tribal mentality
■Intolerance of dissent
■Pathological hatred of US government
They can call themselves the Tea Party. They can call themselves conservatives. And they can even call themselves Republicans, though Republicans certainly shouldn’t. But we should call them what they are: The American Taliban. And the American Taliban cannot survive if Dorothy Cooper is allowed to vote.
– Will McAvoy, The Newsroom"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
Byrnzie wrote:2. Do I believe in the right of the voters to vote in whom they think is a good representative? Yes, I do. But were not talking merely about the fact that he's a congressman. The discussion here is regarding his fitness to be on the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
The problem with the "people have a right to vote in the person who represents them" argument is that this guy's disbelief of science probably doesn't represent his constituents. But they probably never stopped to ask about that before they voted him in. They probably just voted for him because he's a republican. But, even for those who actually voted for him because of his ideas, I doubt the anti-science idea was part of his platform.0 -
We know Georgia voters! Proud people! I would say people know exactly_ wrote:Byrnzie wrote:2. Do I believe in the right of the voters to vote in whom they think is a good representative? Yes, I do. But were not talking merely about the fact that he's a congressman. The discussion here is regarding his fitness to be on the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
The problem with the "people have a right to vote in the person who represents them" argument is that this guy's disbelief of science probably doesn't represent his constituents. But they probably never stopped to ask about that before they voted him in. They probably just voted for him because he's a republican. But, even for those who actually voted for him because of his ideas, I doubt the anti-science idea was part of his platform.
who he is and what he believes and they support him.
He is a Christian Fundamentalist unchallenged, we know who supports him
in his district, there are many.
This is not his first vocal moment. He has had his share. This appeals to many
whose Christian faith is important to them, even those who are not Fundamentalists.0 -
Is this the guy that really lost it? I can see why they are saying that :?gimmesometruth27 wrote:i see the trend here...
■Ideological purity
■Compromise as weakness
■A fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism
■Denying science
■Unmoved by facts
■Undeterred by new information
■A hostile fear of progress
■A demonization of education
■A need to control women’s bodies
■Severe xenophobia
■Tribal mentality
■Intolerance of dissent
■Pathological hatred of US government
They can call themselves the Tea Party. They can call themselves conservatives. And they can even call themselves Republicans, though Republicans certainly shouldn’t. But we should call them what they are: The American Taliban. And the American Taliban cannot survive if Dorothy Cooper is allowed to vote.
– Will McAvoy, The Newsroom0 -
pandora wrote:
We know Georgia voters! Proud people! I would say people know exactly_ wrote:Byrnzie wrote:2. Do I believe in the right of the voters to vote in whom they think is a good representative? Yes, I do. But were not talking merely about the fact that he's a congressman. The discussion here is regarding his fitness to be on the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
The problem with the "people have a right to vote in the person who represents them" argument is that this guy's disbelief of science probably doesn't represent his constituents. But they probably never stopped to ask about that before they voted him in. They probably just voted for him because he's a republican. But, even for those who actually voted for him because of his ideas, I doubt the anti-science idea was part of his platform.
who he is and what he believes and they support him.
He is a Christian Fundamentalist unchallenged, we know who supports him
in his district, there are many.
This is not his first vocal moment. He has had his share. This appeals to many
whose Christian faith is important to them, even those who are not Fundamentalists.
Exactly. People probably voted for him in large part because he's a Christian - NOT because he opposes science. They probably never thought about his views on science. (Since when do we have to ask candidates about that?) But most Christians believe in science, so saying people voted for him because he's a Christian says nothing about their knowledge of his anti-science stance.0 -
_ wrote:Byrnzie wrote:2. Do I believe in the right of the voters to vote in whom they think is a good representative? Yes, I do. But were not talking merely about the fact that he's a congressman. The discussion here is regarding his fitness to be on the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
The problem with the "people have a right to vote in the person who represents them" argument is that this guy's disbelief of science probably doesn't represent his constituents. But they probably never stopped to ask about that before they voted him in. They probably just voted for him because he's a republican. But, even for those who actually voted for him because of his ideas, I doubt the anti-science idea was part of his platform.
You may be right with your assumption _.
"Broun, who sits on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and occupies a seat in Congress so staunchly Republican that local Democrats are not even bothering to oppose him, added that a literalist interpretation of the Old Testament informs how he governs. "
This is a bit of a worry though.... what were we saying about 'educated'/ignorance/feigned ignorance? Quite shocking poll (though, as with all polls, need to see what the scope of it was):
"Regardless of how they dovetail with mainstream science, the Congressman’s comments views may strike a chord with many right-leaning US voters. A recent Gallup Poll suggests that 46 percent of Americans think God made humans within the past 10,000 years, while only half the nation believes in evolution"
The whole poll is quite interesting. The breaking down of these figures by education, etc.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold- ... igins.aspx
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 02896.html0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help