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 ...
All life begins with some random combination of genes.
From "Darwin's Ghost" by Steve Jones, we have ... "About a thousand genes are shared by every organism, however simple or complicated. Although their common ancestor must have lived more than a billion years ago, their shared structure can still be glimpsed. It shows how the grand plan of life has been modified through the course of evolution." ... Pg 284.
And again, from Jones ... "One set of genes is found everywhere. It translates the information coded in the DNA and allows it to make proteins. The job is so essential that such structures changed little over millions of years." Pg 285.
information doesn’t organize and create itself. life is an effect, not a cause. there are no self-creating effects. it also goes against all of our obeservable scientific methods as we’d never be able to rely on something spontaneously reorganizing into something else. further the concept of non-living to living has never been recreated, much less observed in nature.
i mean if you only bank on what you can observe through the senses, then you can’t make any 100% fact statements on anything you haven’t witnessed yourself, you still have to take it on faith that another witness saw it, or the tape recording the event isn’t fake, or word of mouth passed down by one or more people, you have to have faith and believe they are reliable sources.
as science continually makes 180 degree course corrections on many things all the time, science’s answers are only as good as fallible man and what he knows, at any given time. do you realize the latest findings throw the whole notion of a nuclear sun out the window, yet the sun is nuclear was science gospel for how long?
yeah i think i will put my faith in a book that has yet to be proven incorrect historically by anyone. archaelology and non-biblical historicalsources have only confirmed the accounts they’ve tried to point to and say the bible is wrong.
and that supports evolution? or that the mind of man is a God-given gift whether acknowledged or not.
Well, the Gaia satellite launching next year will be able to measure the distance to stars by parallax (no use of red shift, etc.) to the galactic center, about 30,000 light years, which, in a rational world, would put the last stake in the decomposing carcass of 6,000-9,000 year old Young Earth Creationism.
This not being a rational world, I expect the idiots of Answers in Genesis and their ilk to do elaborate hand-stands involving the speed of light changing rapidly in the last 6,000 years, the principles of triginometry being wrong, etc. Should be amusing to watch.
it would be a waste of time to discuss this with you, it’s very clear from your post. all you seem to do is insult people who don’t believe what you do. you can go back to DU with your fellow insulters, anytime.
paint mixes ~ and does so in ways we cannot yet understand. Take that issue up with God ~ possibly He’ll create you a different universe someday where paint does not mix.
Not even that will keep young earth creationists from reveling in their ignorance.
Wow! What anger! I pity your asinine ignorance!
The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. If you need more of an explanation then talk to a minister, priest, or rabbi.
Things self-organize in nature all the time, without humans or some deity having to do it.
I am proud to say that I was an early (donor) supporter of Paul Broun! I lived in SC at the time, but Broun was a congressional candidate from neighboring GA, and I somehow found out about him. Gave him $50, later he sent a handwritten note thanking me, and I am proud to say I was one of his early supporters!.
different pigment isn’t a mutation, they had that information in there genes as an option, all along. the ones with poor coloring get eaten off, so no kidding the ones that prosper are the ones that belnd in better.
different colors are variations in an existing gene, not new info or mutations. for the mths you’re talking about, when the trees were dark, the lighter moths got’picked’off and most of the dark ones were the majority, when coal got clener and the trees weren’t so sooty anymore, they found the dark ones stuck out and birds ate them and the nubmers of the lighter moths increased.
There are some fakes out there who want you to think they combine Pentecostalism into the picture but they don't ~ you start doing anything out of the ordinary around those snakes you get bit bad!
Only that Jesus (and the appostles including Paul) believed in Noah and the historical record in Genesis.
I would also add that how do you explain the geneologies from Adam-Isaac-David-Christ?
There is the direct tree mentioned linking Adam to Christ in some Biblical Books!
Could someone please address why embryology comes from the pit of hell?
Agreed. The congressman is correct but I would much rather like to leave the preaching to my pastor.
Your comments would be more at home on DU, please consider going over there. You are adding nothing productive to this thread with personal attacks and insults.
The Brits use the term ‘race’ where Americans use the term ‘breed’ ~ which, in England, is a process and not an categorization. You don’t want to know what the Dutch say about either term ~
what things are those?
If I worried about derision from nøøbs, I would have developed an ulcer long ago.
Nope. Not going to argue with faith. Just saying not all men act like animals, though the great majority do.
I don’t believe in the “Big Bang” .. I believe in the “Big Oscillation”. :)
Maybe you can explain coal.
How did crude oil get where it is ?
How did fossils from the seabed find their way to the mountain tops ?
The biblical days and references to creation are beyond our understanding.
If you have read the book, you will see that he meant “race” as in the way we use it today. In fact, it’s such a scandal, that the title has been changed for more recent publication of the book (i.e. a copy printed after 1960 does not have the same title).
Ideas have consequences.
One of Darwins’ consequences is the “science” of eugenics (started in Germany and the US). Followed by Margret Sanger.
Google around for connections between racism, eugenics, darwin and margret sanger — you will find many
A few days later, Hurricane Katrina, 2005:
An amorphous blob of clouds into a highly organized system with a perfectly symmetrical eye, counterclockwise spiral bands at the surface, and clockwise outflow at high altitudes. And all of this just from a bunch of air and water vapor molecules with no intelligence whatsoever, just the input of energy.
If you don’t believe the Biblical days and references to creation, your choice, but please don’t expect those of us who do believe to consider you a believer. God could dissolve this universe in an instant, and create another one just like it if he so chose. Built-in with all these so called “proofs” of yours. Your evolutionary deity has to have billions of years, mine doesn’t. Your “god” is not my God.
Oh, boy! Popcorn, please.
No two popped kernels have ever likely shared the same geometry.
No matter how old the world is God created it. He does this on his time schedule, not ours.
Can he help it if he looks down the Democrat side of the table, then goes “Those guys survived millions of years of evolution? Are you freakin’ kiddin’ me?”
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.