"Lies straight from the pit of Hell"..........

[g5000]

Explain how having an opposing viewpoint on certain scientific theories disqualifies hiim?

Oh and who appointed him to that position?

Should we then ban anyone who's viewpoint is different than ours?

Is this not a country where you're free to express your opinions and ideas without being punished for them?

I don't agree with everyone's opinion but I would defend their right to voice their opinion.

If a jackass like this guy had been around in the 50s, he would have been a stumbling block on our way to the moon.

He's a dumbass and should not be making decisions which affect our scientific achievements and turning us into an uncompetitive nation.




.

The 50's were one of the most faith-backed eras in American history, and science was nurtured and exploited in our great Christian nation - just like always.

Fail.

And the Klan was calling evolution a tool of Satan. It was not the ignorant jackasses like that who got us to the moon.

Nor was it people like you.

We succeeded in spite of people like you.

People like you had actually held us back. Until Sputnik in the late 50s. Then our nation woke up to the colossal mistake we had made in ignoring science and math.


.

 

[SniperFire]

If a jackass like this guy had been around in the 50s, he would have been a stumbling block on our way to the moon.

He's a dumbass and should not be making decisions which affect our scientific achievements and turning us into an uncompetitive nation.




.

The 50's were one of the most faith-backed eras in American history, and science was nurtured and exploited in our great Christian nation - just like always.

Fail.

And the Klan was calling evolution a tool of Satan. It was not the ignorant jackasses like that who got us to the moon.

Nor was it people like you.

We succeeded in spite of people like you.

.

You are struggling.

Were 'jackasses like this guy around in the 50's' - or not?

Remember, I know the answer before I ask.


LOL

 

[SnagNasty]

“Would somebody who privately claims that religion is mythology be fit to serve on the House Science Committee?
Or in other words, are only atheists (something like 5% of the world population)
fit to serve on the House Science Committee?”

I’m willing to bet that most people serving in public office are solid in their Christian belief. However, most of these people are not saying they know the underpinning of Classical Rational Thought – that of Satan.

 

[geauxtohell]

I don't know.

Should that preclude me from holding public office?

No. It makes you honest about the question but it should preclude you from using that rediculous "something from nothing" arguement.

Not to sidetrack, much, but was our 'singularity' inside of the universe when it went KAPOOWIE and created the...... universe?

I don't know. Neither do you, but you can't really go on about the logical fallacies of "something from nothing" and then switch to creationist mode.

 

[g5000]

“Would somebody who privately claims that religion is mythology be fit to serve on the House Science Committee?
Or in other words, are only atheists (something like 5% of the world population)
fit to serve on the House Science Committee?”

I’m willing to bet that most people serving in public office are solid in their Christian belief. However, most of these people are not saying they know the underpinning of Classical Rational Thought – that of Satan.

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

Calling science a lie of Satan is irrational.

There are plenty of God-fearing people who have no idiotic fear of science who could serve our national interests quite well on a Congressional science committee.


.

 

[g5000]

You are struggling.

Were 'jackasses like this guy around in the 50's' - or not?

Remember, I know the answer before I ask.


LOL

I'm not struggling at all. The only people struggling are those who are confronted with facts who cannot handle them because their faith is resting on a whole pile of false premises.

Do you think this idiot politician would advance the science of cosmology or hinder it?

The answer is obvious.

He would cut off any funding for cosmology given the opportunity to do so.

His actions would be based on a belief that cosmology is a lie of Satan, and that makes him an idiot and a threat to our national competitiveness.

Why you find that LOL-worthy is beyond me.


.

 

[SniperFire]

You are struggling.

Were 'jackasses like this guy around in the 50's' - or not?

Remember, I know the answer before I ask.


LOL

I'm not struggling at all. The only people struggling are those who are confronted with facts who cannot handle them because their faith is resting on a whole pile of false premises.

Do you think this idiot politician would advance the science of cosmology or hinder it?

The answer is obvious.

He would cut off any funding for cosmology given the opportunity to do so.

His actions would be based on a belief that cosmology is a lie of Satan, and that makes him an idiot and a threat to our national competitiveness.

Why you find that LOL-worthy is beyond me.


.

Were 'jackasses like this guy around in the 50's' - or not?


LOL

 

[g5000]

You are struggling.

Were 'jackasses like this guy around in the 50's' - or not?

Remember, I know the answer before I ask.


LOL

I'm not struggling at all. The only people struggling are those who are confronted with facts who cannot handle them because their faith is resting on a whole pile of false premises.

Do you think this idiot politician would advance the science of cosmology or hinder it?

The answer is obvious.

He would cut off any funding for cosmology given the opportunity to do so.

His actions would be based on a belief that cosmology is a lie of Satan, and that makes him an idiot and a threat to our national competitiveness.

Why you find that LOL-worthy is beyond me.


.

Were 'jackasses like this guy around in the 50's' - or not?


LOL

Of course they were. They have always been with us.

.

 

[SniperFire]

No. It makes you honest about the question but it should preclude you from using that rediculous "something from nothing" arguement.

Not to sidetrack, much, but was our 'singularity' inside of the universe when it went KAPOOWIE and created the...... universe?

I don't know. Neither do you, but you can't really go on about the logical fallacies of "something from nothing" and then switch to creationist mode.

GS500 claims that nothing existed in the universe before the universe was created. I would probably agree.

But are not many scientists loath to concede that something exists outside of our observable universe? I mean, look at Ed The Flat-Earther's refusal to even admit that there are possibilities pertaining to origin of energy which science cannot quantify.

So is not the 'something from nothing' the defacto argument in many cases?

 

[g5000]

Not to sidetrack, much, but was our 'singularity' inside of the universe when it went KAPOOWIE and created the...... universe?

I don't know. Neither do you, but you can't really go on about the logical fallacies of "something from nothing" and then switch to creationist mode.

GS500 claims that nothing existed in the universe before the universe was created. I would probably agree.

But are not many scientists loath to concede that something exists outside of our observable universe? I mean, look at Ed The Flat-Earther's refusal to even admit that there are possibilities pertaining to origin of energy which science cannot quantify.

So is not the 'something from nothing' is the defacto argument in many cases?

I've already recommended a good book on the Big Bang theory. Would you like one for M-theory?

.

 

[SniperFire]

I don't know. Neither do you, but you can't really go on about the logical fallacies of "something from nothing" and then switch to creationist mode.

GS500 claims that nothing existed in the universe before the universe was created. I would probably agree.

But are not many scientists loath to concede that something exists outside of our observable universe? I mean, look at Ed The Flat-Earther's refusal to even admit that there are possibilities pertaining to origin of energy which science cannot quantify.

So is not the 'something from nothing' is the defacto argument in many cases?

I've already recommended a good book on the Big Bang theory. Would you like one for M-theory?

.

Thanks. I am way ahead of you.

 

[edthecynic]

Not to sidetrack, much, but was our 'singularity' inside of the universe when it went KAPOOWIE and created the...... universe?

I don't know. Neither do you, but you can't really go on about the logical fallacies of "something from nothing" and then switch to creationist mode.

GS500 claims that nothing existed in the universe before the universe was created. I would probably agree.

But are not many scientists loath to concede that something exists outside of our observable universe? I mean, look at Ed The Flat-Earther's refusal to even admit that there are possibilities pertaining to origin of energy which science cannot quantify.

So is not the 'something from nothing' the defacto argument in many cases?

Of course it is unless you are claiming that energy existed before the Big Bang.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Indeed. But the thread is about ORIGINS, isn't it?

Fine, then we can discuss the question of "origin" of energy, if it'll make you feel better.

You are failing, Libtard.

No, I'm simply asking you to be clear with what you want, and where you want to go with such information.

So, to answer your question, asking whether science knows such and such about the origins of energy is no different than asking what they know about the origins of the universe. Any scientist will tell you that at this point in time, the best we have are hypothesis regarding the actual origins of the universe and how it came to exist at all. There are possibilities that are being uncovered as we continue to learn more about quantum mechanics. I'm not sure if you'll understand them well, but I can give you a brief run down of a couple.

One rapidly developing model in the world of physics is called string theory, which offers the potential to reconcile differences between the Einsteinian physics of general relativity and those of quantum mechanics. In any event, certain mathematical consequences of quantum mechanics have been found to offer potential agreement with Einstein's model of planar spacetime. In other words, the universe can be thought of as having the shape of a cosmologically large bed sheet. Not only that, but if we go further with the math, it becomes necessary that our "universe" itself would actually be only one of an infinite number of such sheets within a larger "multi-verse." Within this multi-verse, the many "universes" existing as sheets would not be taunt and rigid. They would flex and sway. That being the case, it becomes theoretically possible that different universes could actually come in contact from time to time. And if that were to happen, the results that we can expect based on what we already do know about physics would be a cosmic scale "big bang."

Another theory is the Hawking-Turok Instanton Theory. It's very complicated, but it hypothesizes the previously mentioned singularity was actually a single particle called an instanton. If true, the mathematical consequences create a different picture than what we currently have regarding quantum mechanics. Much of currently observable physical law becomes warped. The creation of a universe full of matter and energy becomes a mathematically necessary consequence. It's important to understand that the instanton in this model isn't so much an object, as it is a property. Those who are philosophically minded have, at times, drawn comparisons to this with the non-existence paradox; that it is impossible for nothing to exist, because "nothing" is itself a thing, therefore "nothing" existing would require "something" to exist. The instanton, therefore, is considered to be the product of that principle.

 

[NoNukes]

A good, intelligent thread. Well done on all sides to the arguments.

 

[g5000]

GS500 claims that nothing existed in the universe before the universe was created. I would probably agree.

But are not many scientists loath to concede that something exists outside of our observable universe? I mean, look at Ed The Flat-Earther's refusal to even admit that there are possibilities pertaining to origin of energy which science cannot quantify.

So is not the 'something from nothing' is the defacto argument in many cases?

I've already recommended a good book on the Big Bang theory. Would you like one for M-theory?

.

Thanks. I am way ahead of you.

Not if you are okay with a dipshit who believes real science is a lie of Satan being in a position to determine our national competitiveness, you aren't.

.

 

[ABikerSailor]

"OP took the position that if one does not flatly accept the flawed science of the likes of Ed and InTheMiddle, then they are unfit for office. "

That is not correct the OP said

“Quick question..............should a person who thinks that major theories that scientists have come up with are satanic lies really be on the House Science Committee?”
The differences between the 2 statements are noteworthy. The first (yours) is not accepting science as the end all. I’m ok with that.

The 2nd question (the OP question) adds in judgment by Paul Broun that he knows where classical rational thought came from – the devil/hell. I’m not ok with that. Very worrisome.

Would somebody who privately claims that religion is mythology be fit to serve on the House Science Committee?

Or in other words, are only atheists (something like 5% of the world population)
fit to serve on the House Science Committee?

Christians, or any other kind of religion that you would like to name can and should be allowed on the house committee. However..............membership to that committee should be to OPEN MINDED PEOPLE who are willing to listen to the theories of the scientists without denouncing them by using their religion.

As far as a "flat earth", that theory was out there all the way up until the 1400's, even though it had been proven the earth was round a lot earlier, like about 6th century BC earlier.

Spherical Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Matter of fact, the concept of a flat earth was pretty handy to the religious people, because that meant that God created the Earth and was responsible for everything working like it does. As a matter of fact, when Copernicus and Galileo challenged the theory of the Church that we were the center of the Universe, they were jailed, because it would loosen the Churches power over the people. However.............if you DO believe the Earth is flat, wait for a lunar eclipse and watch the shadow as it crosses over the moon, because you'll see a curve.

I don't know where the origin of energy is, or even if it can be created, but I do know that the Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and the measurements made by current day physicists and scientists state the same thing as well.

The law of conservation of energy, first formulated in the nineteenth century, is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The total energy is said to be conserved over time. For an isolated system, this law means that energy can change its location within the system, and that it can change form within the system, for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy, but that energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

In the twentieth century, the definition of energy was broadened. It was found that particles that have rest mass, and those that do not, are subject to interconversions. There can occur creation and annihilation of (ponderable) matter particles, and imponderable non-matter particles. Matter is then not conserved. Matter particles (such as electrons) can be converted to non-matter (such as photons), or even into potential or kinetic energy. In such a transformation process of an isolated system that is alternatively described by these apparently distinct quantities, neither the mass nor the energy changes over time. Conservation of total energy, and conservation of total mass, each still holds as a law in its own right. When stated alternatively, in terms of mass and of energy, they appear as the apparently distinct laws of the nineteenth century.

A consequence of the law of conservation of energy is that no intended "perpetual motion machine" can perpetually deliver energy to its surroundings.[2] Any delivery of energy by such a device would result in delivery of mass also, and the machine would lose mass continually until it eventually disappeared

Conservation of energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Having someone like this tea party congressman on the science committe doesn't make much sense, because he's already brought his bias with him (as reflected by his statements) and that would make him unable to form an impartial opinion.

Science isn't about faith and belief, it's about theories leading to proveable and repeatable experiments.

 

[Liberal]

“God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. It’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior. There’s a lot of scientific data that I found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I believe that the Earth is about 9,000 years old. I believe that it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says. And what I’ve come to learn is that it’s the manufacturer’s handbook, is what I call it. It teaches us how to run our lives individually. How to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all our public policy and everything in society. And 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.”

9000 years old?

Say whatever you want about his other ideological fallacies, but that is one comment that should not be tolerated. The level of blatant disregard for the real science behind dating goes to prove that he has become blinded by his faith and unfit to lead, even a conservative district.

Too much of anything makes you an addict, even church and the bible.

This guy probably thinks women belong in the kitchen too..

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know...........it's amazing how some people can be at the point where they just can't get along without all the benefits of science and technology (cell phones are just 1 of many examples), yet will deny science when they think it will suit their purposes.

I also remember when Bill O'reilly made his comments about the tides, saying that God did it and we don't know how. (Hint for all the right wingers out there, the tides are caused by the moon and gravity shifts.)

Me personally? I think that God laid down the rules of the Universe (remember, it says in Genesis that He brought order out of chaos), and then gave us the ability to question everything (even Him) by the gift of free will, meaning that He wants us to understand where we live. I also believe that the more we understand about the Universe, the more we will come to understand God.

 

[beagle9]

Indeed. But the thread is about ORIGINS, isn't it?

Fine, then we can discuss the question of "origin" of energy, if it'll make you feel better.

You are failing, Libtard.

No, I'm simply asking you to be clear with what you want, and where you want to go with such information.

So, to answer your question, asking whether science knows such and such about the origins of energy is no different than asking what they know about the origins of the universe. Any scientist will tell you that at this point in time, the best we have are hypothesis regarding the actual origins of the universe and how it came to exist at all. There are possibilities that are being uncovered as we continue to learn more about quantum mechanics. I'm not sure if you'll understand them well, but I can give you a brief run down of a couple.

One rapidly developing model in the world of physics is called string theory, which offers the potential to reconcile differences between the Einsteinian physics of general relativity and those of quantum mechanics. In any event, certain mathematical consequences of quantum mechanics have been found to offer potential agreement with Einstein's model of planar spacetime. In other words, the universe can be thought of as having the shape of a cosmologically large bed sheet. Not only that, but if we go further with the math, it becomes necessary that our "universe" itself would actually be only one of an infinite number of such sheets within a larger "multi-verse." Within this multi-verse, the many "universes" existing as sheets would not be taunt and rigid. They would flex and sway. That being the case, it becomes theoretically possible that different universes could actually come in contact from time to time. And if that were to happen, the results that we can expect based on what we already do know about physics would be a cosmic scale "big bang."

Another theory is the Hawking-Turok Instanton Theory. It's very complicated, but it hypothesizes the previously mentioned singularity was actually a single particle called an instanton. If true, the mathematical consequences create a different picture than what we currently have regarding quantum mechanics. Much of currently observable physical law becomes warped. The creation of a universe full of matter and energy becomes a mathematically necessary consequence. It's important to understand that the instanton in this model isn't so much an object, as it is a property. Those who are philosophically minded have, at times, drawn comparisons to this with the non-existence paradox; that it is impossible for nothing to exist, because "nothing" is itself a thing, therefore "nothing" existing would require "something" to exist. The instanton, therefore, is considered to be the product of that principle.

We are only allowed to see that which we are allowed to see within the relm in which we have been placed in, and that which we are not allowed to see then we can't see it (beyond the relm), at least until we are allowed to. We cannot see our own soul as existing outside of our body, but we know that it exist within as this energy that is us, even though we can't seem to explain how this energy acts, just as a motor for our very being, and lives as us for the duration of our lifetimes, but it just does. It exist or has been placed within our tiny bodies upon conception, but by whom was it placed ? It was God himself that knows even the amount of every hair that exist upon our heads (each and everyone of us). There are many things that we shall not know until we are allowed to know them, but we can search our hearts and souls for the answers in which may be given to us when we least expect it. We must have faith, hope and charity, but we must abide more in charity than all other. Love is what we communicate best with in life, and where there is Love, then so shall God be within your presense. There is a physical relm in which we know, and then there is the spiritual relm in which we should also know of as well. Some have great knowledge of these things, and they have illustrated this knowledge in books, movies and teachings over time.

If we look real hard, we shall understand within these works that have been created, in which give great illustration of, theeee very messages in which are being brought forth into this relm from the relm in which we are not yet allowed to physically see straight into, but rather we are allowed to see or gain knowledge of this other relm through the works of those who have been chosen to give us a glimpse of that which we cannot see for ourselves (or) do we understand from our viewpoints from within our relm. As these individual works have been completed just as they have been in the past, and still are until the end, we will be learning about these things.

 

[Bubba]

Personally I don't believe Broun deserves to sit on the House Science COmmittee because he is TOO HOSTILE to real science and far too enclined to use his bible/religion for his science.

The very fact that he considers EVOLUTION (and evolutionists) EVIL is enough to justify removal.

There can be NO DOUBT that since he regards evolution as EVIL he would (as he states) vote according to his religious beliefs and BAN EVOLUTION! criminalizing those who would teach it.

zealots like him tend to have more than one biblical glitch;


beyond EVOLUTION what ELSE does he think is EVIL...?
divorce? (maybe not...he is working on his fourth marriage)
sex before marriage, sex education in schools, homosexuality, atheism, atheists, abortion, pot...islam, non christian religions...

and since he freely admits he would VOTE to ban evolution (make it a crime to teach?) can't we assume he would also vote to criminalize;
atheists, homosexuals, muslims

and bring us back to the dark ages on issues of sex and marriage

Believing in creation and denying evolution is one thing

but calling evolution EVIL is far too extreme and dangerous

Evolution is a sane and rational concept accepted by millions of good, decent, sane and rational people who are NOT evil!