Skip to comments.U.S. Rep. Paul Broun: Evolution a lie 'from the pit of hell'
Posted on 10/08/2012 4:44:56 PM PDT by markomalley
Evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are major underpinnings of mainstream science. And Georgia Republican Rep. Paul Broun, a physician who sits on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, says they are lies straight from the pit of hell.
Broun, who is unopposed for reelection in November, made the comments in a videotaped Sept. 27 speech at a sportsman's banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Ga., according to the Associated Press.
Here are his remarks:
Gods word is true. Ive 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. Its lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior. Theres 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. Thats what the Bible says. And what Ive come to learn is that its the manufacturers 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 thats 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 Ill continue to do that.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Things like this are like the Akin idiocy, things that give the liberals something to beat us over the head with. Was this really necessary? I wanna win folks, whatever it takes. Yes, I said it.
He’s right. Evolution is a lie. Some just can’t handle the truth.
He’s right. Evolution is a lie. Some just can’t handle the truth.
Please explain. Why does finding the stars in a particular place (as indicated by light rays emanating from them) have anything to do with whether they were created?
(Some subtle implicit assumptions may be involved).
Microsoft's even-numbered releases excepted.
Plenty of human input, yet very disorganized.
Simple Hormonic Motion, no doubt -- and in degenerate modes.
Consider the following family of related chemical compounds:
i am talking about genetic information, life from non-life. dna just doesn’t make itself and know what the end result is or have an overall plan without intelligence behind it directing and knowing what it’s supposed to make.
“Believing that the earth is only 9000 years old might. “
Ah. Better tell Galileo. And Linnaeus, Mendel, Kelvin, Pasteur, Agassiz, Newton, Pascal. . .
This is America and I don't dispute your right to believe that the Bible is allegory, or to call us “kooks.”
For those of us who believe we should read the Bible the same way we would read any other book — i.e., the plain and obvious meaning unless the context shows some other meaning is intended — be careful about where your logic goes.
I believe in things like resurrections from the dead and walking on water. It's pretty hard to argue that we must reject Genesis 1-3 as not being history because they are “unscientific” and still maintain that the miracles of Christ, the virgin birth, etc., are not also to be rejected because they are “unscientific.”
If Genesis 1-3 is allegory, you've also got a problem of what to do with original sin. Christianity collapses if original sin isn't real — that makes the Father a child abuser who sent His Son to die a horrible death on the cross for no good reason.
1 posted on Mon Oct 08 2012 18:44:58 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by markomalley: “Couldn't possibly be any connection between this ariticle and one from the comPost: ‘In Missouri, clergy in the fray of Akin race, seeing it as start of a battle for the soul of GOP’ Nearly 400 Missouri pastors gathered at the podium of a hotel ballroom recently to pray over the kneeling figure of Rep. Todd Akin, a Senate candidate whose campaign had been pronounced dead by national Republican leaders weeks before. Akins political revival has become a cause celebre for this group of clerics and other conservatives, who have launched a carefully orchestrated effort to lift the GOP candidate back into contention for a seat that could help decide control of the Senate. ‘People are drawn to Akins cause because they see it as the opening battle for the soul of the Republican Party,’ said strategist David Lane, who has spent months in the state organizing pastors to fight for Akin, at times bucking the wishes of GOP leaders in Washington. Akins campaign, Lane said, represents the fight against establishment politicians, their consultants and ‘a morally flawed approach to politics.’ Nah, no connection whatsoever. Just a coincidence that both legs of the LAT-WP news service publish articles about crazy conservative religious wackos in flyover country.”
Mark, I believe you are absolutely right.
At first, I thought the attack on Akin was purely an effort to push a second-tier candidate out of the slot to avoid losing a seat and/or to avoid Missouri problems affecting candidates nationwide. Talking about "legitimate rape" was really, really stupid.
As matters developed, I no longer believe that. I believe there are powerful forces in the Republican Party which don't like the official GOP position opposing abortion even in cases of rape or incest and are embarrassed by Akin’s core views, not just a poorly worded statement of his views.
Secular conservatives are welcome to their views. But don't argue that we, as conservative Christians, can't hold our views.
The same American Constitution that gives you the right be wrong (if you are wrong) gives us the right to be wrong (if we're wrong).
He was British, not American. He necessarily used 'race' in the British sense ~ BTW, that's two centuries ago ~ but you knew that, right?
Back then a 'computer' was a guy who computed numbers.
I Think your conspiracy theory falls flat on its face if only because of the primary.
The most Conservative candidate would have won if Akin had not run BTW, and she'd be the candidate facing the evil McCaskill person.
Think about that a moment ~ then, look up an old article about holographic universe?
Given what we know now do you honestly think that any of those men would subscribe to the 9000 figure if they lived today?
Clarification — I wasn't talking about the primary, and I don't think there's a conspiracy. On the contrary, Scott Brown's agenda is open and public. I have never believed Mitt Romney's views on abortion are driven by much more than polls, and what he said when running for governor is consistent with Brown's views today.
Todd Akin’s badly-stated comments about abortion in cases of rape created a major problem for Republicans nationwide in places far less conservative than Missouri. I don't have a problem with Republican candidates in left-of-center states distancing themselves from Akin or from the national Republican platform on abortion. In a place like Massachusetts, I'd rather get a senator who votes with us some of the time or maybe even most of the time rather than a senator like Teddy Kennedy who almost always voted wrong.
I believe in federalism and voters have every right to elect who they feel represents their own state's interests. No problems there. But I don't want national GOP leaders pushing a Massachusetts agenda on us down in Missouri.
Also, it's no secret that the GOP-e faction of the Republican Party in Missouri was unhappy with all three candidates, believing they were a weak field to put up against McCaskill. Efforts were made to recruit other candidates, but Akin, Brunner and Steelman ended up being the only three serious candidates to run.
Akin is now the nominee whether we like it or not. We're stuck with him, for better or for worse. He's our baby as social issues conservatives, he's been largely abandoned by the national Republican establishment, so if we want to win this thing, it's now up to us as social conservatives to clean up the mess and try to do the best we can with the cards we've been dealt.
Overlook the obvious. Be my guest.
And, you don’t own or understand God’s word or works.
One of the many proofs offered for evolution is embryology. This is the conclusion that animals of different classes of the phylum chordate are remarkably similar indicating a common origin. It is further supported by the observation of embryotic of derivative classes go through the earlier stages of development (mammals going through fish like, amphibian like, and reptile like phases). It is a little more complicated than that, but you could read the description in a textbook like Strickberger.
Haeckel’s drawings are one of the biggest criticisms of evolution since he showed more similarity than what was actually present in the later stages.
“Given what we know now do you honestly think that any of those men would subscribe to the 9000 figure if they lived today? “
Do you honestly believe that they’d chuck their belief that the Bible is true for the sake of political correctness?
I don’t pretend to know, either way. But I hope their belief in God’s word was sincere.
I mentioned famous scientists from history. Plenty of current scientists are six day creationists, too. My son has a BS in Physics (UCLA) and works in Bioinformatix science, developing delivery systems for state of the art drugs. He’s a believer in six day; and he is a sought after and recruited employee. My church elder has a BS in Chemistry (UC Berkeley) and a six day creationist. I am sure his work in chemistry is quite adequate. Another church elder is a Podiatrist, with his MD from UCLA - six day.
All around you, at all sorts of various levels of scientific endeavor, are men and women who hold to six day creation and do excellent scientific work. The two are not mutually exclusive. Creation is confessed as a miraculous act of God, not as scientific law. As a matter of fact one definition of a miracle is that it defies known scientific law.
Can we believe in the resurrection and be good scientists, from your point of view? Can we believe that water was turned into wine, the blind made to see, the crippled to walk - spontaneously, with no medical intervention?
Or are Bible believing Christians forbidden from science now?
I refer you to what Darrell said in post 91:
I believe in things like resurrections from the dead and walking on water. It’s pretty hard to argue that we must reject Genesis 1-3 as not being history because they are unscientific and still maintain that the miracles of Christ, the virgin birth, etc., are not also to be rejected because they are unscientific.
If Genesis 1-3 is allegory, you’ve also got a problem of what to do with original sin. Christianity collapses if original sin isn’t real that makes the Father a child abuser who sent His Son to die a horrible death on the cross for no good reason.
And you say I overlook the obvious. If you claim to believe the Bible, the obvious is right in front of your face. The miraculous, the supernatural.
If God can multiply seven loaves of bread and two fishes, Matthew 15, to feed FOUR THOUSAND men, not counting women and children, with seven baskets full left over, he has no trouble creating ANYTHING. Including all these so called proofs for an evolutionary universe.
Lets see, there was probably more women than men at the miraculous feeding cited above. When we include their children, we’re probably looking at ten to twelve thousand people fed from just 7 loaves and two fish. Can’t you see, my scientific evolutionist friend, who claims to also believe the Bible, God doesn’t need gazillions of years TO DO ANYTHING.