"Lies straight from the pit of Hell"..........

[SniperFire]

You are telling us that since science is not capable of measuring the possible origin of energy, it must not have a source?

You are quite the flat-earther.


LOL

I'm telling you it has been proven that energy cannot be created, the burden is on you to prove otherwise.

Where is you proof ed the liar?

Ed makes up mythology to explain things he cannot understand.

LOL

 

[earlycuyler]

According to a tea party elected congress critter (who incidentally sits on the Science committee in Congress), evolution, the Big Bang and other scientific theories are lies straight from the pit of hell.

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:

“God’s word is true. I’ve 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. It’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior. There’s 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. That’s what the Bible says. And what I’ve come to learn is that it’s the manufacturer’s 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 that’s 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 I’ll continue to do that.”

Broun spokeswoman Meredith Griffanti told the Athens Banner-Herald that “Dr. Broun was speaking off the record to a large church group about his personal beliefs regarding religious issues.”

The church had posted Broun’s full speech to YouTube on Thursday, according to the Athens Banner-Herald, but the video appears to have been removed as of Sunday.

U.S. Rep. Paul Broun: Evolution a lie 'from the pit of hell' - latimes.com

Quick question..............should a person who thinks that major theories that scientists have come up with are satanic lies really be on the House Science Committee?

Especially when he says you don't need science, you just need a Savior?

Wow, a that's pretty inclusive considering some of the thoughts held by a few lefties up on the hill . Say, why the name change ?

 

[edthecynic]

You are telling us that since science is not capable of measuring the possible origin of energy, it must not have a source?

You are quite the flat-earther.


LOL

I'm telling you it has been proven that energy cannot be created, the burden is on you to prove otherwise.

Where is you proof ed the liar?

Already posted in this thread, do try to keep up.

 

[SniperFire]

I'm telling you it has been proven that energy cannot be created, the burden is on you to prove otherwise.

Where is you proof ed the liar?

Already posted in this thread, do try to keep up.

 

[edthecynic]

Have scientists ever arrived at conclusions which were later disproved with better tools?

In other words, is is possible that you don't know shit about the source or origins of energy?

It is up to you to invent the tools to prove energy can be created. Until that happens, what is proven stands.

Was the earth flat until proven otherwise, or was the earth always round and just not understood to be?

Logic fail.

OK, let's apply your "logic" to the flat Earth. The Earth is flat, we simply have not invented the tools good enough to measure its flatness.

 

[SniperFire]

It is up to you to invent the tools to prove energy can be created. Until that happens, what is proven stands.

Was the earth flat until proven otherwise, or was the earth always round and just not understood to be?

Logic fail.

OK, let's apply your "logic" to the flat Earth. The Earth is flat, we simply have not invented the tools good enough to measure its flatness.

Not very bright or logical.

We have certainly invented such tools, as everyone knows.

Is it your contention that science has the toolset to measure the origins and complete nature of energy?

Did I mention you suck at logic, reason and scientific method?

 

[edthecynic]

Was the earth flat until proven otherwise, or was the earth always round and just not understood to be?

Logic fail.

OK, let's apply your "logic" to the flat Earth. The Earth is flat, we simply have not invented the tools good enough to measure its flatness.

Not very bright or logical.

We have certainly invented such tools, as everyone knows.

Is it your contention that science has the toolset to measure the origins and complete nature of energy?

Did I mention you suck at logic, reason and scientific method?

Yet again you are reduced to a Straw Man.

We have the tool set to measure specifically whether energy can be created or destroyed. It was done by James Prescott Joule over 150 years ago, so we've had the necessary tool set for over 150 years.

Interesting how you reject your own "logic" when its stupidity is applied to your own claims.
Thank you.

 

[SniperFire]

OK, let's apply your "logic" to the flat Earth. The Earth is flat, we simply have not invented the tools good enough to measure its flatness.

Not very bright or logical.

We have certainly invented such tools, as everyone knows.

Is it your contention that science has the toolset to measure the origins and complete nature of energy?

Did I mention you suck at logic, reason and scientific method?

Yet again you are reduced to a Straw Man.

We have the tool set to measure specifically whether energy can be created or destroyed. It was done by James Prescott Joule over 150 years ago, so we've had the necessary tool set for over 150 years.

Interesting how you reject your own "logic" when its stupidity is applied to your own claims.
Thank you.

Again, you trot out a red herring instead of answering the direct simple question.


I will once again ask you a direct, simple question, and you will duck or obfuscate and not answer the direct, simple question.


Ready?


Is it possible that our limited scientific knowledge is unable to tell us everything about the source of what we call 'energy', and that our limited scientific knowledge is not able to tell us everything there is to know about the nature of said energy?


LOL

 

[SniperFire]

I enjoy arguing science with fucking cavemen.


LOL

 

[edthecynic]

Not very bright or logical.

We have certainly invented such tools, as everyone knows.

Is it your contention that science has the toolset to measure the origins and complete nature of energy?

Did I mention you suck at logic, reason and scientific method?

Yet again you are reduced to a Straw Man.

We have the tool set to measure specifically whether energy can be created or destroyed. It was done by James Prescott Joule over 150 years ago, so we've had the necessary tool set for over 150 years.

Interesting how you reject your own "logic" when its stupidity is applied to your own claims.
Thank you.

Again, you trot out a red herring instead of answering the direct simple question.


I will once again ask you a direct, simple question, and you will duck or obfuscate and not answer the direct, simple question.


Ready?


Is it possible that our limited scientific knowledge is unable to tell us everything about the source of what we call 'energy', and that our limited scientific knowledge is not able to tell us everything there is to know about the nature of said energy?


LOL

It has already been proven with a repeatable experiment that energy cannot be created, with the knowledge we have now. It's as proven as the Earth is not flat even though we don't know everything about the source of the Earth and the Moon, etc. You don't have to know everything to know they are not flat just as you don't have to know everything to prove energy cannot be created or destroyed.

 

[edthecynic]

I enjoy arguing science with fucking cavemen.


LOL

You seem to enjoy making a fool of yourself more!

 

[Mac1958]

 

[SniperFire]

 

[SniperFire]

Yet again you are reduced to a Straw Man.

We have the tool set to measure specifically whether energy can be created or destroyed. It was done by James Prescott Joule over 150 years ago, so we've had the necessary tool set for over 150 years.

Interesting how you reject your own "logic" when its stupidity is applied to your own claims.
Thank you.

Again, you trot out a red herring instead of answering the direct simple question.


I will once again ask you a direct, simple question, and you will duck or obfuscate and not answer the direct, simple question.


Ready?


Is it possible that our limited scientific knowledge is unable to tell us everything about the source of what we call 'energy', and that our limited scientific knowledge is not able to tell us everything there is to know about the nature of said energy?


LOL

It has already been proven with a repeatable experiment that energy cannot be created, with the knowledge we have now. It's as proven as the Earth is not flat even though we don't know everything about the source of the Earth and the Moon, etc. You don't have to know everything to know they are not flat just as you don't have to know everything to prove energy cannot be created or destroyed.

He ducks again!

ROTFLMAO

 

[Inthemiddle]

Where did this singularity that contained all of the matter and energy of the universe exist?

If it didn't exist in the universe, then it must have existed outside the universe in some other universe. But, the universe means all, so what could be outside of all?

This is a well enough question, but unfortunately it's also a little bit skewed. The short answer is that it existed everywhere. The singularity was the entirety of the universe at that time (interestingly enough, saying "at that time" is itself somewhat of a misnomer, because time itself did not exist yet). Now, as for understanding why that is the answer is a bit more complicated, because it would seem that you probably don't actually know what a singularity is. In brief, a singularity is a mass where matter, energy, and spacetime become so condensed, under its own gravity, that they essentially combine into a homogenous primordial cosmic "stuff" if you will. The distinctions between them break down, and they all combine together. Thus the name "singularity."

You have all of this grand knowledge, and you are keeping it all to yourself. Now, that is selfish.

I'm not keeping anything to myself. But nobody asked until now, so here you are.

 

[edthecynic]

That is not the equipment James Prescott Joule used to prove that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. No wonder you keep making a fool of yourself.
FYI, Joule actually used 3 different experimental methods to measure if energy was created or destroyed. So he had 3 tools 150 years ago, others have come up with other methods since, but all confirmed Joule's results.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Was the earth flat until proven otherwise, or was the earth always round and just not understood to be?

Logic fail.

The logic fail is on your part. Nobody has said that something is not true until it's proven. But logically speaking, when the study of science has brought us to conclusions regarding matters (like the fact that energy cannot be created) your insisting that it's not true requires positive proof for your position.

 

[SniperFire]

That is not the equipment James Prescott Joule used to prove that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. No wonder you keep making a fool of yourself.
FYI, Joule actually used 3 different experimental methods to measure if energy was created or destroyed. So he had 3 tools 150 years ago, others have come up with other methods since, but all confirmed Joule's results.

Are you, therefore, stating that James Prescott Joule used better instruments to achieve more accurate results?


Is it POSSIBLE that we could have even better instruments 400 years from now which indicate there is, indeed, a source of energy?

Has science EVER been wrong on conclusions?


Are you really a close minded, flat-earther ideologue who simply discounts the possibility that you do not know what you do not know?


LOL

 

[SniperFire]

Was the earth flat until proven otherwise, or was the earth always round and just not understood to be?

Logic fail.

The logic fail is on your part. Nobody has said that something is not true until it's proven. But logically speaking, when the study of science has brought us to conclusions regarding matters (like the fact that energy cannot be created) your insisting that it's not true requires positive proof for your position.

Sure he did. Ask Ed the Flat-earther if it is possible that science does not fully understand the nature of and origins of energy.

He simply will refuse to admit the possibility.


LOL

 

[edthecynic]

Was the earth flat until proven otherwise, or was the earth always round and just not understood to be?

Logic fail.

The logic fail is on your part. Nobody has said that something is not true until it's proven. But logically speaking, when the study of science has brought us to conclusions regarding matters (like the fact that energy cannot be created) your insisting that it's not true requires positive proof for your position.

Sure he did. Ask Ed the Flat-earther if it is possible that science does not fully understand the nature of and origins of energy.

He simply will refuse to admit the possibility.


LOL

Again, that is YOUR Straw Man. I said you don't need to know EVERYTHING to prove energy cannot be created or destroyed. Your moronic position is that if we don't know everything we can't know anything.