Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Reason #1
  • Reason #2
  • Reason #3

Site Description

"Straight from the pits of hell"

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by The Maggy, Oct 6, 2012.

  1. The Maggy

    The Maggy

    Dec 24, 2008
    Stillwater, OK
    The topic is not exactly about the man's faith; the thread and my point is about someone on the very extremes of religion, being in a policy making position over our own scientific organizations.

    Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jew... none of it really matters to me; it does matter to me when:

    A.) You are in a position to make policy

    B.) Your beliefs are so far fanatical that you fore-go the scientific method and ignore most of the basic principles of science, in the name of religion.

    If you have never talked with a young earth creationist, you should attempt to have a talk with them about the physical world. They ignore the understood principles or everything from meteorology to geology to biology to physics.

    To answer your question, yes; I am more comfortable with what ever Obama's beliefs are (Is he a Muslim or is a Christian... I thought we are supposed to be mad about Rev. Wright :upeyes:) because he is far less on the fringe than young earth creationists
  2. countrygun


    Mar 9, 2012

    No, we should all be like you. Just throw something up there and walk away for two days. You started with a ridiculous comment and couldn't even defend it yourself.

    Your late in life defense of your position includes the concept that we shouldn't allow a potentially dissenting opinion to be heard in a decision making body of out Government. Who knows, he might slow up funding for a Government Agency.

    Not to mention you want to exclude those who don't agree with your view from representation. I find that to be a typical liberal attitude.
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2012

  3. Given that we're talking about the science committee, if that dissent is based on scientific evidence, no problem. If that dissent is based on religious dogma and requires someone to reject core tenets of physics/cosmology, biology, paleontology, anthropology, chemistry, geology and botany, then that person really doesn't belong in role overseeing the field of science.

  4. Chronos


    Nov 26, 2007
    What I find really amazing is that you seem to count yourself and the religious posters in the category of "having learned so much about cosmology that you now fully understand how much still has to be learned before basic claims should be regarded as credible."
  5. countrygun


    Mar 9, 2012

    I am surprised that you don't feel a bit uncomfortable about throwing around the phrase "overseeing the field of science" when we are talking about the Government, It makes me nervous.

    Even so, since we are talking about the distributiion of tax money, don't the voters that elected him have a right to be represented? Just suppose, for the sake of argument, that they elected him specifically because of his beliefs that they share (this is hypothetical you understand) don't they have a right to be represented? I think you will find he was appointed to those comittees so why not go after the system that put him there and demand that they have someone like yourself, un elected, who should decide who gets representation where.
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2012
  6. Goaltender66

    Goaltender66 NRA GoldenEagle

    Well, they are except when they aren't. If you were to poll other physicists in that same time period I think you'd find more arrogance than not. I think that holds true even today. Question some basic tenet of science and you're more apt to initially meet with ridicule and dismissal than thoughtful debate.
  7. Chronos


    Nov 26, 2007
    Lemaitre gets an immediate pass -- Lemaitre had a command of modern physics that was objectively superior to that of his own pet dog, and didn't use those fairy tales you speak of to vigorously defend a position of ignorance.
  8. series1811

    series1811 Enforcerator. CLM

    Well as long as we are clear that there are some types of dissent that liberals absolutely won't tolerate, then we have found one thing we agree on.
  9. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    I'm saying that there are holes in the theory. Not everything fits together yet.

    I certainly don't count myself among the "religious posters", and as we have discussed at length, I include atheists as religious posters.

    I'm just saying that with all that we have learned as a species, with our very limited travels, and our very limited time spent paying attention when considered the age of the universe, to have a few arrogant self centered egomaniacs pretend that they have solved all of the mysteries of the universe, even events that have not been witnessed, is laughable. The faith exhibited by the atheists in their arguments against the theists is notable.

    Some people have a hard time admitting they don't have all the answers, and their insecurity should not prevent us from continuing to ask the right questions.

    The only thing that is certain is that what is, is. How it came to be is still unanswered. Some find solace in religion, including the atheists, to console themselves that they are sentient.

    There is no problem admitting that we have a lot to learn. Most honest people can do that.
  10. series1811

    series1811 Enforcerator. CLM

    That's a joke right?

    I've never met anyone more arrogant than scientific researchers (and, it was my distinct displeasure to have to investigate a group for falsifying data, and committing fraud, and running up against as big a stone wall of silence as any criminal gang ever put up).

    I finally asked one researcher, who was slightly cooperative, why I was getting the silent treatment from everyone and she told me I was exposing the dirty secret of scientific research everywhere- the fact that much of it was faked, and changed to fit pre-conceived notions of researchers.
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2012
  11. Funny that you call that out, because I will admit that I wasn't that happy with the wording, but nothing better came to me at the time.

    Just having a majority doesn't make a non-scientific proposition become scientific. To have a demonstrably anti-science member on the committee responsible for advancing science is wrong, regardless of popularity.

    Now if Rep. Broun has some scientific evidence that he would like to present demonstrating that our current understandings of physics/cosmology, chemistry, biology, botany, geology, paleontology and anthropology are all wrong, and that the earth actually is roughly 9000 years old, then I'm sure many people would love to see it.

  12. countrygun


    Mar 9, 2012
    Representation on a Government comittee shouldn't depend on agreement with the principles, perhaps quite the opposite is needed. By your measure all members of the associated comittees should be believers in Global Warming. No Dissention from popular thought should be allowed. In the name of "freedom" we should all tow the line.

    Now, there is some merit in your position of "If you don't belive in it, you shouldn't be part of it". We could start with requiring anyone participating in the political system say the Pledge of Allegiance, then we can move to do something about those on finance related comittees who aren't capitalists. Any religon related issues shold not have aatheists invlved and so on.

    sound good?
  13. I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. We're not discussing something like finance or foreign policy. We're discussing a hard science where evidence rules. While Broun is calling evolution and the Big Bang theory lies, do you think there is any chance of him presenting falsifying scientific evidence? Care to speculate upon what he has based his conclusions? Anything that you would care to present on his behalf?

    Simple question: do you think that somebody adhering to a young earth outlook is doing so because of the scientific evidence supporting it, or despite all the evidence to the contrary?

  14. countrygun


    Mar 9, 2012

    I'll answer you question first and pose some counter questions

    I would say that they reject what you call evidence, for right or wrong, and have chosen their faith as an alternative to what is (to them) called science. They simply reject what they feel is incorrect science.


    Who is responsible for this person's appointment to the comittees?

    Again, would you like to explain how and who gets to decide which comittees can't have non-believers on them?

    Do all members of environmental comiittes have to believe in "Global Warming" since that is commonly accepted "science"?

    Is there no room to question something if it is called "science"?
  15. I appreciate the answer, and I don't disagree, but the problem I have is that they're rejecting conclusions strongly supported by evidence because of what "they feel". The equivalent of covering their ears while singing "la la la". There is no evidence that could be called scientific upon which they are basing their rejection.
    Despite how I may be coming across, I'm not trying to censor what anybody has to say, but I contend that somebody committed to the willful ignorance required to maintain a young earth worldview has no business making decisions that impact NASA and numerous other scientific endeavors. That's not to say they should be prohibited, but they're clearly not acting in the best interests of our future.

    No, there is plenty of room for questioning our current understanding of the world and universe that we live in. I would only hope that objections were based on science rather than feelings or interpretation of scripture.

    Since the beginning of the 20th century there have been paradigm shifts from relativity, quantum physics, and plate tectonics. New understandings is how our knowledge grows. I would only pray :) that discussions of science be based on science.

    <shutting down for a flight -- back later>

  16. Chronos


    Nov 26, 2007
    You seem to be on the verge of making a valid point that scientific research cannot be funded both democratically and scientifically. I agree with this point -- science should be a free-market endeavor (like the rest of the economy), so that it can be managed by the scientists themselves. Incidentally, free markets are also the only moral way to fund science.

    There is plenty of evidence that government funding of science actually hurts scientific progress, and one of the underlying reasons is that you end up with nutcases like Broun exercising control over the flow of funds.

    This is a point of view that most scientists abhor, not for any scientific reason, but simply because many of them are addicted to money from the government (as so many professions have become).
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2012
  17. countrygun


    Mar 9, 2012

    That was indeed where I was headed, thank you.

    Like it seems with several other issues, contentions about "who" in the Government should have the greatest voice, obfuscate the fact that the topic at hand isn't Government's job and the private sector is more efficient and effective when it comes to the topic.
  18. Syclone538


    Jan 8, 2006
    And just about everything else.
  19. Fed Five Oh

    Fed Five Oh NRA Member

    Dec 28, 2006
    Quck to make a broad statement like that, but even quicker to belittle people that say man made global warming is a lie.

    Even quicker to belittle anyone that says there is a God and He created the Heavens and the earth.

    Which reminds me, Mr. Scientist, how many planets are in our solar system?:rofl:
  20. I have not deliberately belittled anyone for their belief. My issue is when people abuse or reject science or try to have their creation story taught in public schools as science. I have said a number of times that even if we were to the point of Little Jimmy and Little Susie having science kits to spawn life and miniature universes in the backyard, it would still not disprove God's existence.

    If you're interested in a humorous look at the demotion of Pluto I would recommend:
    [ame=""]How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming:Amazon:Books@@AMEPARAM@@[/ame]