'lies straight from the pit of hell'

[sandwiches]

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/06/republican-congressman-paul-broun-evolution-video

A Republican congressman who sits on the science committee of the House of Representatives has dismissed evolution, the Big Bang theory and embryology as "lies straight from the pit of hell".

Paul Broun, who is running for re-election as Georgia representative this November unopposed by Democrats, made the comments during a speech at a baptist church last month. A videoclip of the event was posted on YouTube on Friday.

Anyone on here who lives in America (i.e. the USA)?

I have always wondered about the supposed prevalence of fundamentalism in America. Do people in positions of responsibility in America really hold these views?

[noons]

Well, he's a congressman. The way the two houses work is that there's the Senate and the House of Representatives. Two senators for every state, and the number of representatives is based on population, and the states are each divided up into districts accordingly. So in order to get elected to the senate, one has to appeal to the entire state. But in each state, you can get some crazy districts who send their representatives to congress.

[fortigurn]

And in order to court the favour of his district, the congressman has to identify with their wacky beliefs. Even so, Fundamentalism is not only a minority view in the US, but it's also a movement with very little real political power.

Despite millions of dollars poured into endless lobbying campaigns, it has been a complete failure for the last 30 years, losing every single major political battle it has contested.

[sandwiches]

It worries me slightly that it says he is unopposed. Is he related to everyone in Georgia or something?

[sandwiches]

OK, now I am seriously worried :

www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/06/paul-broun-evolution-big-bang_n_1944808.html


Broun is a high-ranking member of the House Science Committee, of which Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) is also a member.

Akin made headlines last month for suggesting that women don't get pregnant from "legitimate rape" because their bodies have "ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Mind you, in the light of this, I am now beginning to understand at last how Mitt Romney can be a Presidential candidate.

[fortigurn]

Oct 7, 2012 20:47:34 GMT sandwiches said:

Mind you, in the light of this, I am now beginning to understand at last how Mitt Romney can be a Presidential candidate.

Behold, free speech and democracy working exactly as intended.

[jonkon]

Having a Master's in Biomedical Engineering with 30 years experience successfully applying scientific principles to the design of commercially successful instruments and controls, I found the congressman's remarks to be rather restrained. The congressman is from the heart of the Bible Belt, where fundamentalism is every bit as much a cultural phenomena as it is a religious belief. As a northern Southern Baptist, I have seen many transplanted southerners come to the north, only to be turned off by the small size (200 is considered a large congregation here as opposed to 1000 - 10,000 member churches in the South) of Southern Baptist congregations and join denominations with larger churches. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are two notable examples of politicians who have exploited a fundamentalist background to gain power only to turn against those principles once in office.

The fact that the congressman is a practicing physician indicates that his Creationist beliefs are sincere, having the practical experience to recognize that the need to present Evolution as "scientific" has rendered formal science education to be useless bunk. A specific problem is that the methodology taught is incapable of distinguishing between causal relationships and mere coincidence. As taught in any (good) statistical analysis course "correlation does not imply causality." This is of immense importance in the assessment of a product's safety and reliability. Besides internal contradictions that render the scientific endeavor untenable, Evolution is contradicted by the fossil evidence. Human remains and artifacts have been found throughout the geologic column. I have personally handled two such artifacts, a fossilized human finger and a hammer encased in 135 million year old Cretaceous sandstone. The handle has been C14 dated to 10,000 years, while the hammerhead is a chlorine alloy of iron that cannot be replicated with known metallurgical techniques.

[noons]

Jonkon, are you referring to the London Hammer?

[sankari]

Oct 8, 2012 3:47:14 GMT jonkon said:

Besides internal contradictions that render the scientific endeavor untenable, Evolution is contradicted by the fossil evidence.

This is not a credible claim.

I have personally handled two such artifacts, a fossilized human finger and a hammer encased in 135 million year old Cretaceous sandstone. The handle has been C14 dated to 10,000 years, while the hammerhead is a chlorine alloy of iron that cannot be replicated with known metallurgical techniques.

Proof please.

However, for years Baugh refused to allow the hammer to be C14 dated. In an exchange of letters between creationist Walter Brown and Jim Lippard in Creation/Evolution, Brown (1989) suggested that the hammer handle has not been dated because Baugh had three "understandable" conditions for dating it: that it be done with mass spectrometry, that Baugh be present during the dating, and that someone else pay for it.

However, Lippard countered that no one has objected to the first two conditions, and that Baugh had no right to expect the third, since he's the one making the claims, and thus the one obligated to back them up. Even so, even after others offered to pay for the dating, Baugh declined to have it done.

As Day (1991) wrote in a follow up letter: "Far from being 'understandable,' Baugh's stipulations seem to be little short of evasive tactics... If four years have gone by and nothing has happened, I think it is safe to conclude that Baugh has no interest whatsoever in determining the truth about his marvelous hammer."

Finally, in the late 1990's Baugh supporter David Lines reported on a web site (Lines, 1997, 1999) that carbon 14 dating had "recently" been done on a specimen from the inside of the handle, and that the results "showed inconclusive dates ranging from the present to 700 years ago."

No information was given by Lines about when or where the dating was done, nor was any formal report referenced. The date range also seems a little curious, since most C14 labs report a date with a plus-or-minus margin of error, rather than a wide range. Perhaps a number of tests were done with different results, but Lines does not clarify this.

Evidently preferring a date in the thousands of years, Lines asserted that the dating results provided "graphic evidence that the handle has been contaminated by current organic substances." However, C14 labs have ways of minimizing modern carbon contamination, and it would not likely produce ages orders of magnitude in error.

At any rate, if the reported date range is even roughly indicative of the hammer's age, it is more supportive of the mainstream view of the hammer than Baugh's. After all, Baugh considers the hammer to be a "pre-Flood" relic-- presumably at least a few thousand years old. Baugh reportedly dismissed the results as only evidence that C14 is untrustworthy.

However, even many creationists consider C14 dating reasonably accurate to several thousand years or more.

...

Lacking any rigorous geologic evidence for their claims, hammer advocates have tried to make hay from the composition of the hammer head.

Mackay (1985) and Lang (1983) reported that the hammer was studied at the renown Batelle Laboratories in Columbus, Ohio, where the head was found to consist of 96.6% iron, 2.6% chlorine, and 0.74% sulfur by weight. Baugh suggested this profile was impossible to duplicate with modern technology under present atmospheric conditions (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994).

However, this claim would be difficult to substantiate. Even if the composition were truly unique, it would more likely indicate a lost or abandoned technology, not evidence against mainstream geology.

According to Helfinstine and Roth (1994) a "tomographic x-ray" of the hammer, taken by Texas Utilities in 1992, showed no inclusions or irregularities in the head. Curiously, they and Baugh interpreted this as evidence of "advanced metallurgy" from a superior pre-Flood culture, rather than further evidence that it is a relatively modern hammer.

(Source).

[fortigurn]

Oct 8, 2012 3:47:14 GMT jonkon said:

A specific problem is that the methodology taught is incapable of distinguishing between causal relationships and mere coincidence. As taught in any (good) statistical analysis course "correlation does not imply causality." This is of immense importance in the assessment of a product's safety and reliability.

The modern evolutionary synthesis does not confuse correlation with causation. The conclusions are the result of robust testing, including accurate predictions and verification through repeated experimentation. The genetic evidence alone is utterly incontrovertible.

Besides internal contradictions that render the scientific endeavor untenable, Evolution is contradicted by the fossil evidence.

Evidence please.

[jamierobertson]

jonkon, a quick heads-up: Although the posters here are predominantly Christian, the vast majority are accepting of evolutionary theory as commonly understood. By all means comment on the issue at hand, but putting forward Creationist arguments may not produce a very enjoyable (or productive) dialogue.

[jonkon]

jamierobertson, your point is well taken. The problem is Creationism is not going away as long as there are people like me who actually have to try to use the garbage being taught in the schools. I will therefore conclude with a few closing remarks in answer to objections raised.

The "London Hammer", along with the supporting documentation and test results, is now in the possession of a geologist friend, who converted to Creationism because his field experience in locating oil and gas deposits did not correspond to the "geology" he was taught.

Quote:
"it would more likely indicate a lost or abandoned technology"
- that is precisely the point. The hammer was found in an area that was uninhabited frontier prior to the 19th century. 18th and 19th century metallurgy is well understood, ruling out a modern origin of the hammer as asserted in the supporting source.

Quote:
"The modern evolutionary synthesis does not confuse correlation with causation. The conclusions are the result of robust testing, including accurate predictions and verification through repeated experimentation."
- I am sorry, but Mill's Methods simply do not cut it when, as is the case of a new product, an experiment must produce repeatable results 100's of thousands of times in the course of a day under conditions no longer under the control of the investigator. A product designer unaware of this faces the risk of recalling as many as five years of a product's production. For this reason I undertook the study of the history of science, where I found from the investigators' writings that the defense of historic Christianity impacted not only the subject matter of the investigation, but also the methodology used to investigate and defend their findings.

Quote:
"The genetic evidence alone is utterly incontrovertible."
- While a contemporary of Darwin, Mendel's work was not well known until the early 20th century after de Vries established his own theory of mutations. His concept of recessive traits alone accounts for Darwin's observations on finches and Hugo de Vries observations on mutations without invoking any mechanism for evolutionary development of new forms of animals. It also presents a serious problem for the Darwinian mechanism of "survival of the fittest." Darwin claimed to base this mechanism on the practices of breeders, but because of the existence of recessive traits, breeders, to produce desirable traits that breed true to form, must focus on an animal's blood lines in breeding decisions rather than on specific individuals, as demanded by Darwinism. (My wife and I breed sheep and horses.)

[unkleE]

Oct 8, 2012 18:42:18 GMT jamierobertson said:

jonkon, a quick heads-up: Although the posters here are predominantly Christian, the vast majority are accepting of evolutionary theory as commonly understood. By all means comment on the issue at hand, but putting forward Creationist arguments may not produce a very enjoyable (or productive) dialogue.

I would go a step further. I accept the science of evolution, but I am always willing to hear other viewpoints, even if I disagree with them, because I still learn something.

So I would be interested to see you explain yourself a little more clearly please. When I read your post I thought at the start that you were supporting evolution against fundamentalism, then by the end I thought the opposite. A more complete explanation would be helpful please.

And a plea to the rest - please don't jump in and savage Jonkon or treat him with anything other than respect. Better to hear someone than to browbeat them into not bothering. We can disagree gently!

[fortigurn]

Oct 8, 2012 22:15:38 GMT jonkon said:

- I am sorry, but Mill's Methods simply do not cut it when, as is the case of a new product, an experiment must produce repeatable results 100's of thousands of times in the course of a day under conditions no longer under the control of the investigator.

The experiments supporting the evolutionary synthesis have been conducted thousands of times. The science underlying them is sufficiently reliable to be used in a court of law; and it is used in courts of law, on a daily basis.

- While a contemporary of Darwin, Mendel's work was not well known until the early 20th century after de Vries established his own theory of mutations.

This, and what follows, is completely irrelevant to what I wrote. Please address the modern genetic evidence for common descent, starting with pseudogenes.

[sankari]

Oct 8, 2012 22:15:38 GMT jonkon said:

Quote:
"it would more likely indicate a lost or abandoned technology"
- that is precisely the point. The hammer was found in an area that was uninhabited frontier prior to the 19th century. 18th and 19th century metallurgy is well understood, ruling out a modern origin of the hammer as asserted in the supporting source.

You're jumping the gun. It has not been confirmed that the hammer was produced with 'a lost or abandoned technology.' This is just a possibility suggested by the evidence, and one which is more likely than Baugh's own conclusions.

Remember, Lines claimed that carbon dating 'showed inconclusive dates ranging from the present to 700 years ago.' Even if we accept this curious result (which remains unconfirmed) it would still mean the hammer could be modern after all.

To date, nobody has proved that the hammer is an 'out of place' object. Note:

Although the hammer has been kept under close guard by Baugh and thus not readily available for detailed analysis by conventional scientists, in 1985 NCSE researcher John Cole briefly reviewed Baugh's hammer claims.

Although Cole did not challenge Baugh's presumption at the time that the nearby rocks were Ordovician, Cole pointed out that minerals dissolved from ancient strata could harden around a recent object, stating:

[/b]" (Cole, 1985).
[/ul]

Cole also noted that the hammer is of "recent American historic style," and concluded that it was probably a 19th century miner's hammer.

Others have suggested that it might be a metal working hammer, and that the protrusion on one end of the head might have once contained a leather or wood cap that has since weathered away (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994).

Perhaps further research will clarify its actual use and precise age.[/quote]

(Source).