GOP Congressman: evolution is lie from Hell

[CID1990]

I'm going to engage in a little Houndawg hyperbole here..

We knock the fundies for blind faith; that they trust without verifying, and yet we encourage this characteristic... we cultivate it even- in the electorate. It is the bread and butter of both political parties. Right now, the ads from the right are correctly criticized for being lacking in detail (even though hope and change isn't exactly detailed either) but some of the stuff coming from the left right now is high comedy.

Only a bureaucrat would call this weak **** "hyperbole"?

You got to exaggerate wildly, bubba. All you've done here is tell the truth...

I know. I just can't do it.

[Chizzang]

Nobody seems at all alarmed that this clown is the Chairman of The House science committee...
This is why people like me CANNOT support the Republican Party
This complete buffoon is the freakin' Chairman of the House SCIENCE COMMITTEE

beyond amazing - bordering on complete disbelief
What is this, the year 1450...

You fucking Dark age retards go back to your pre-penicillin shacks
This vaudeville act known as the Republican Party needs to be flushed

[houndawg]

Nobody seems at all alarmed that this clown is the Chairman of The House science committee...
This is why people like me CANNOT support the Republican Party
This complete buffoon is the freakin' Chairman of the House SCIENCE COMMITTEE

beyond amazing - bordering on complete disbelief
What is this, the year 1450...

You **** Dark age retards go back to your pre-penicillin shacks
This vaudeville act known as the Republican Party needs to be flushed

They aren't even smart enough to be embarrassed by their imbecility.

[houndawg]

Only a bureaucrat would call this weak **** "hyperbole"?

You got to exaggerate wildly, bubba. All you've done here is tell the truth...

I know. I just can't do it.

We each have our own strengths.

[Chizzang]

Nobody seems at all alarmed that this clown is the Chairman of The House science committee...
This is why people like me CANNOT support the Republican Party
This complete buffoon is the freakin' Chairman of the House SCIENCE COMMITTEE

beyond amazing - bordering on complete disbelief
What is this, the year 1450...

You **** Dark age retards go back to your pre-penicillin shacks
This vaudeville act known as the Republican Party needs to be flushed

They aren't even smart enough to be embarrassed by their imbecility.

It's amazing
How can we be the beacon of hope for the free world
Leading the world out of ignorance and into prosperity and light
How can PARTY LEADERS let this complete CLOWN anywhere near a Science Committee

[kalm]

They aren't even smart enough to be embarrassed by their imbecility.

It's amazing
How can we be the beacon of hope for the free world
Leading the world out of ignorance and into prosperity and light
How can PARTY LEADERS let this complete CLOWN anywhere near a Science Committee

Crickets.

[houndawg]

They aren't even smart enough to be embarrassed by their imbecility.

It's amazing
How can we be the beacon of hope for the free world
Leading the world out of ignorance and into prosperity and light
How can PARTY LEADERS let this complete CLOWN anywhere near a Science Committee

They're buffoons too?

[JohnStOnge]

He's just wrong (period) and a liar

If you're saying he's a liar because he referred to himself as a "scientist" you are mistaken. A MD is an applied scientist. Here is a definition of "scientist" from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.

A MD clearly meets the definition. All other things aside: He IS a scientist and was not lying by referring to himself as such. Anybody who looks up his education knows, or should know, what his scientific credentials are and knows what he's talking about.

[BlueHen86]

He's just wrong (period) and a liar

If you're saying he's a liar because he referred to himself as a "scientist" you are mistaken. A MD is an applied scientist. Here is a definition of "scientist" from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.

A MD clearly meets the definition. All other things aside: He IS a scientist and was not lying by referring to himself as such. Anybody who looks up his education knows, or should know, what his scientific credentials are and knows what he's talking about.

That would be true if he kept his mouth shut. The stupidity of his comments more than nullify any academic credentials the guy may have. Maybe he was smart once and dementia has kicked in, but no sane scientist would say the crap that he said.

[JohnStOnge]

We knock the fundies for blind faith; that they trust without verifying, and yet we encourage this characteristic... we cultivate it even-

I agree. I was thinking about this conversation yesterday and thought about how many people who ridicule this guy are coming from a belief they have because they have blind faith in what the scientific community says. They have faith in it. They have not independently verified much of what they believe. They just take it on faith because the received wisdom was generated through a process they've always heard is very reliable. To a certain extent they can see the process works. They can take medications and they have the desired effect. They can see that ice freezes when you put it in the freezer. They can use devices with a lot of science behind them.

But there are an awful lot of things they...we...including me...take on faith.

[JohnStOnge]

That would be true if he kept his mouth shut. The stupidity of his comments more than nullify any academic credentials the guy may have. Maybe he was smart once and dementia has kicked in, but no sane scientist would say the crap that he said.

I once actually met and spoke to a Nobel Prize winner in one of the sciences who was a creationist. I think he was a chemist. It was during the 1980s when I was living on St. Simons Island, Georgia. I read that this Nobel Prize winner was going to speak at a Church in Brunswick Georgia and that he was a creationist.

So I went to see what he had to say. Afterwards I talked to him for a while personally. I can't remember anything of what was said back and forth. I only remember that I went wondering if he could give a really good argument for believing the creation story is literally true and came away thinking he could not.

Nevertheless, no one would say that this guy wasn't a scientist.

[JohnStOnge]

I spend a lot of time around phds, and they aren't that exceptional outside of their own narrow specialty. A lot of them seem to feel that because they have a phd in one field that they are an expert on any subject.

Someone with a PhD in one of the sciences SHOULD understand certain basic rules that do apply to any scientific discipline. There are principles that transcend specific fields. As an example: One you've seen me tout repeatedly is the idea that cause and effect cannot be inferred with statistical data unless those data were generated through a controlled experiment.

So you don't have to be a specialist in a particular field in order to look at the structural support for a conclusion and judge whether or not it is adequate. The rules pertaining to the structural support are always the same.

[kalm]

I spend a lot of time around phds, and they aren't that exceptional outside of their own narrow specialty. A lot of them seem to feel that because they have a phd in one field that they are an expert on any subject.

Someone with a PhD in one of the sciences SHOULD understand certain basic rules that do apply to any scientific discipline. There are principles that transcend specific fields. As an example: One you've seen me tout repeatedly is the idea that cause and effect cannot be inferred with statistical data unless those data were generated through a controlled experiment.

So you don't have to be a specialist in a particular field in order to look at the structural support for a conclusion and judge whether or not it is adequate. The rules pertaining to the structural support are always the same.

And you can still be stupid and ignore the vast majority of evidence in another given field.

[JohnStOnge]

My example GWB is spot on, and you know it.

No, it's not spot on. And I know that because we have the information to determine that. What I'd say is that your example is a manifestation of how a popular mythology based to some extent on someone's difficulty in expressing themselves verbally in certain environments can take root to create false beliefs. Of course in that case there was also a persistent effort by political opponents to cast him as "dumb" when he is not.

[JohnStOnge]

[quote]Nobody seems at all alarmed that this clown is the Chairman of The House science committee...
This is why people like me CANNOT support the Republican Party
This complete buffoon is the freakin' Chairman of the House SCIENCE COMMITTEE[Qquote]

I didn't know this going in but since you mentioned it I checked the committee web site and he is not the chairman. Ralph M. Hall is (see http://science.house.gov/legislation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

Not that that matters that much. He is on the committee.

But I think it's a shame that you think that's all that important. As I've written before: Whether someone accepts the overall theory of evolution or not has no practical significance. If you tell me he doesn't believe that antibiotics kill bacteria in the body then I'd be concerned. That has practical significance.

But nothing "bad" is going to happen because a member of the House Comittee on Science doesn't believe the overall theory of evolution or believes the universe and all life was created in seven days. He's not going to try to forbid people from pursuing evolutionary theory or anything like that. And, frankly, if the job of the committee is to decide on spending priorities I don't think looking at evolutionary biology as a low priority would be the end of the world.

[JohnStOnge]

And you can still be stupid and ignore the vast majority of evidence in another given field.

I think I know what you're getting at but provide an example for discussion.

Then hopefully I'll come back soon enough to find it and respond.

[kalm]

My example GWB is spot on, and you know it.

No, it's not spot on. And I know that because we have the information to determine that. What I'd say is that your example is a manifestation of how a popular mythology based to some extent on someone's difficulty in expressing themselves verbally in certain environments can take root to create false beliefs. Of course in that case there was also a persistent effort by political opponents to cast him as "dumb" when he is not.

No, almost his entire presidency proved what a moron he is...even throwing out the fundamentalist crap...or partisanship. Any self respecting, intellectually honest conservative would agree. The dude was a in almost every way.

[kalm]

And you can still be stupid and ignore the vast majority of evidence in another given field.

I think I know what you're getting at but provide an example for discussion.

Then hopefully I'll come back soon enough to find it and respond.

No, you. I'm not a scientist, but you are...so you prove the negative.

I would also submit that you can be so in love with an idea to become a moron in your own field. Apologies for creating a shit storm with C-grad, but see Hayek or Friedman in economics.

[Chizzang]

Nobody seems at all alarmed that this clown is the Chairman of The House science committee...
This is why people like me CANNOT support the Republican Party
This complete buffoon is the freakin' Chairman of the House SCIENCE COMMITTEE

I didn't know this going in but since you mentioned it I checked the committee web site and he is not the chairman. Ralph M. Hall is (see http://science.house.gov/legislation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

Not that that matters that much. He is on the committee.

But I think it's a shame that you think that's all that important. As I've written before: Whether someone accepts the overall theory of evolution or not has no practical significance. If you tell me he doesn't believe that antibiotics kill bacteria in the body then I'd be concerned. That has practical significance.

But nothing "bad" is going to happen because a member of the House Comittee on Science doesn't believe the overall theory of evolution or believes the universe and all life was created in seven days. He's not going to try to forbid people from pursuing evolutionary theory or anything like that. And, frankly, if the job of the committee is to decide on spending priorities I don't think looking at evolutionary biology as a low priority would be the end of the world.

First: You're embarrassing yourself - busily defending this buffoon
Second: This website lists him as The Chairman of The Committee
http://science.house.gov/subcommittee-i ... -oversight" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thirdly: The running gag of a joke that calls itself the Republican Party should never let a buffoon like this get a chair position on something that will promptly identify the entire party as Dark Age Fundamentalists seeking to return us to the glory days of the inquisition

Seriously John
You should be appalled
Not backing this guy up like he is somehow logical and reasonable as a choice for Chair position of a Science Committee

Seriously

[BDKJMU]

This guy is the Republican Chairman
Of the House Science Committee

1) He's a liar - he is NOT a scientist (What would Jesus say about that lying stuff..?)
2) He's completely insane - I'm not saying stupid, I'm saying insane

This is why we're going nowhere fast as a country
because both of our Parties provide us with a collection of lying deceitful nutballs

Never heard of the guy...

Apparently, he's from Atlanta, went to the house in 2007 on a special election and also received a career service award from Taliban State College. Wonderful.

Well, he's not the dumbest Congressman from Atlanta. This donk Congressman from the Atlanta area is FAR DUMBER. You can just skip ahead to about the 1:15 mark if you'd like
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg[/youtube]

[D1B]

Never heard of the guy...

Apparently, he's from Atlanta, went to the house in 2007 on a special election and also received a career service award from Taliban State College. Wonderful.

Well, he's not the dumbest Congressman from Atlanta. This donk Congressman from the Atlanta area is FAR DUMBER. You can just skip ahead to about the 1:15 mark if you'd like
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg[/youtube]

Conk Brownshirt fuck who never has anything of substance to say.

[BlueHen86]

Nobody seems at all alarmed that this clown is the Chairman of The House science committee...
This is why people like me CANNOT support the Republican Party
This complete buffoon is the freakin' Chairman of the House SCIENCE COMMITTEE[Qquote]

I didn't know this going in but since you mentioned it I checked the committee web site and he is not the chairman. Ralph M. Hall is (see http://science.house.gov/legislation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

Not that that matters that much. He is on the committee.

But I think it's a shame that you think that's all that important. As I've written before: Whether someone accepts the overall theory of evolution or not has no practical significance. If you tell me he doesn't believe that antibiotics kill bacteria in the body then I'd be concerned. That has practical significance.

But nothing "bad" is going to happen because a member of the House Comittee on Science doesn't believe the overall theory of evolution or believes the universe and all life was created in seven days. He's not going to try to forbid people from pursuing evolutionary theory or anything like that. And, frankly, if the job of the committee is to decide on spending priorities I don't think looking at evolutionary biology as a low priority would be the end of the world.

When someone says that they don't beleive in evolution and that the world is 6000 years old it tells me that they have been brainwashed and are incapable of thinking for themselves. That may be fine for most occupations, but I think it should disqualify someone from any position of leadership, and that includes public office.

[Chizzang]

Never heard of the guy...

Apparently, he's from Atlanta, went to the house in 2007 on a special election and also received a career service award from Taliban State College. Wonderful.

Well, he's not the dumbest Congressman from Atlanta. This donk Congressman from the Atlanta area is FAR DUMBER. You can just skip ahead to about the 1:15 mark if you'd like
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg[/youtube]

Right but I'll take a guess without even looking it up...
This guy has not been given the Chair Position of a committee
YES: He is sadly and pathetically getting re-elected by somebody - so congratulations to him
but the Party leaders haven't given him a position of Authority over a committee RIGHT..?

[kalm]

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 ... -hell?lite


"God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says.

I just listened to his actual speech and if you read the first 4 sentences again, the guy might have been trained as a scientist but he has since rejected what he was taught. Defend his expertise all you want John, but he is refuting science with belief. He is clearly stupid.

[CID1990]

Well, he's not the dumbest Congressman from Atlanta. This donk Congressman from the Atlanta area is FAR DUMBER. You can just skip ahead to about the 1:15 mark if you'd like
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg[/youtube]

Right but I'll take a guess without even looking it up...
This guy has not been given the Chair Position of a committee
YES: He is sadly and pathetically getting re-elected by somebody - so congratulations to him
but the Party leaders haven't given him a position of Authority over a committee RIGHT..?

Cleets. Seriously.

You're up in arms about who is on a useless House committee? It's a HOUSE committee. Only slightly less toothless than a neighborhood association in a trailer park.

There are only a few Congressional committees that have any play at all. If you want to be outraged, go look at the House finance committee. It's all a joke. Fortunately for us, Congress has little say over much of anything, and they have long abrogated their responsibilities where they could actually make a difference. Regardless of the damage Obama has done to the executive-legislative relationship, I can't honestly say that I would want a House that actually CAN get anything done. They're better off inept and unable.