Baked
Lifer
- Dec 28, 2004
- 36,152
- 17
- 81
That guy isn't a scientist, he's a fucking idiot.
It says so much more about the people who voted him into office.
That guy isn't a scientist, he's a fucking idiot.
yaye, another Christian bashing thread
yaye, another Christian bashing thread
Actually it wasn't.
Fuck Christians, Muslims, and Jews now it is.
He doesn't think, he believes. When he tries to think, it's only to support what he already believes.
That's what makes him a Conservative.
This is not isolated to the conservative party.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html
Nor are Broun’s views radically out of whack with other Republicans on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. Another member is Missouri Rep. Todd Akin, still dodging flak for saying victims of "legitimate rape" were unlikely to become pregnant because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Akin is running for the Senate.
Over at Wired, Brandon Keim has run down the list of other views held by House science committee members:
"The committee’s chair, Ralph Hall (R-Texas),' lumps 'global freezing' together with global warming, which he doesn’t believe humans can significantly impact because 'I don’t think we can control what God controls.' Dana Rohrbacher (R-Huntington Beach) thinks cutting down trees reduces levels of greenhouse gases they absorb. Mo Brooks (R-Alabama) still trots out the debunked notion that a scientific consensus existed in the 1970s on 'global cooling,' which he portrays as a scare concocted by scientists 'in order to generate funds for their pet projects.' "
This is not isolated to the conservative party.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html
Science and religion don't need to be mutually exclusive. If you read the first few verses of Genesis it sounds like a very simplistic description of The Big Bang. If you look at Genesis 1:11 the Earth brings forth grass, trees, etc. Earth bringing forth could be seen as evolution. I think it's possible this modern era is 6000 years old but how many civilizations have we not discovered because they are buried in the ocean or hidden by jungle? As long as scientists are ethical then there is no reason to doubt their efforts.
I used to think that as well, but the more I thought about it, the more I've come to support the idea that science and religion ARE mutually exclusive. Not because we can't come up with some situation where their respective explanations are compatible (or at least aren't contradictory), but because their underlying methodology is completely different.
Science is about exploring mysteries, gathering evidence, formulating theories and testing those theories. Religion is about coming up with an "answer" to a question that explicitly must be taken on "faith". The idea isn't to find out the real answer, it's to satisfy the person asking the question. Trying to introduce religious beliefs in scientific pursuits is the exact opposite of what science is all about.
I used to think that as well, but the more I thought about it, the more I've come to support the idea that science and religion ARE mutually exclusive. Not because we can't come up with some situation where their respective explanations are compatible (or at least aren't contradictory), but because their underlying methodology is completely different.
Science is about exploring mysteries, gathering evidence, formulating theories and testing those theories. Religion is about coming up with an "answer" to a question that explicitly must be taken on "faith". The idea isn't to find out the real answer, it's to satisfy the person asking the question. Trying to introduce religious beliefs in scientific pursuits is the exact opposite of what science is all about.
He is a physician who received his medical degree from the Medical College of Georgia (now Georgia Health Sciences University) and he calls himself a "scientist". Yet he proudly utters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eU4B86AL5Go
My mind is blown that someone with such a disdain for the scientific method and reason and facts can be amongst those who chart the course of scientific research at the U.S. government level.
-snip-
I used to think that as well, but the more I thought about it, the more I've come to support the idea that science and religion ARE mutually exclusive. Not because we can't come up with some situation where their respective explanations are compatible (or at least aren't contradictory), but because their underlying methodology is completely different.
Science is about exploring mysteries, gathering evidence, formulating theories and testing those theories. Religion is about coming up with an "answer" to a question that explicitly must be taken on "faith". The idea isn't to find out the real answer, it's to satisfy the person asking the question. Trying to introduce religious beliefs in scientific pursuits is the exact opposite of what science is all about.
He is a physician who received his medical degree from the Medical College of Georgia (now Georgia Health Sciences University) and he calls himself a "scientist". Yet he proudly utters
A crazy and irrational politician, that's not all that unusual. But this guy was a medical doctor?? That's just scary.
That's adaptation, not evolution. See, one involves a life form experiencing natural selection by way of favorable genetic mutations that allow some individuals to survive, while the other involves a life form experiencing natural selection by way of favorable genetic mutations that allow some individuals to survive.So as a physician, how does he treat any of the drug-resistant bacterial infections? MRSA? VRE?
I mean he should be prescribing penicillin only, since obviously bacteria could not have evolved resistance to antibiotics right? What a f-ing idiot.