Guess what's a lie straight from the pit of hell.





http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2...t-of-hell?lite

I thought I was done being surprised by things like this--I guess I'm just surprised someone with an M.D. and a science background would say this so openly.

I hate to make sweeping generalizations, but when a self-described 'science guy' says something that goes against well-established scientific truths, I pretty much expect to see "M.D." a big proportion of the time.

I bet those deer were atheists.

The scientific data that he found out as a scientist proves their is a young earth... also... science.

Coupled with the scientific evidence he found for hell, I'd say his case is slam dunk.

so damn scary

Things like this make me worry for our american cousins

So which of RGT's resident creationists will be first to chime in defending this guy?

Given how much scientific advancement comes from the US, I'm always surprised how much they tolerate and even encourage scientific illiteracy.

EDIT

What could be the cause of this strange phenomenon? Hmm...

I don't have an established scientifically backed interpretation of the Genesis account. I believe God created the earth and the universe. However, I have no clue how old the earth or universe is. The Genesis account is more about the relationship between God and man than about HOW God created.

I don't see any problem with species developing and changing over time. I don't see any place where God said that won't happen. Some Christians have taken a hard and fast stance that they now have to defend. Conversely, God Himself has actually not let very much information out of the bag as to what actually happened at Creation.

Meh, it depends on how you read Genesis' creation account.

As an example, we know using the Bible's genealogies when Adam & Eve were supposed to of lived. Now, we know that humans existed way before then, so the scientifically minded Christian of today interprets the "creation" of the first man and women to mean the first man and women with a soul, i.e. there were plenty of men and women roaming around before Adam & Eve, just without a soul. Personally, I don't think that's how the target audience of the time would interpret it, so I think it likely that the author didn't intend that either.

^^ I do wonder sometimes a clever scientist could parody the "oh, now we have a more deep and sophisticated understanding of X religious dogma" trope replacing God with phlogiston.

Well lets be honest, this guy was making this speech in a church. So he's gonna say that stuff whether he believes it or not because he was in a church and he wants those people to vote for him. So the question is was he lying?

Very doubtful he's lying. There are plenty of Biblical literalists out there, no reason why he couldn't be one.

yea sort of out of the question honestly... he had to know he'd get a fair amount of blowback from this... not sure that's a position a politician would want to put himself in. He could have easily said nothing

can you point me to evidence of this.
very interesting if true.

I'm assuming you're referring to the genealogy. Sorry for the non-professional looking site, but I couldn't find one (besides this one) that was formatted to be read easily and included the necessary information.

No I am good on the genealogy part of Genesis (yeah that site is ghetto lolz).
I am referring to :

i.e. there were plenty of men and women roaming around before Adam & Eve, just without a soul

Looking for evidence on above statement.

Oh, that statement is based on a simple inference. Jibninjas and, I think, RLK have spoken similarly.

For instance, if you accept evolution (and you will eventually, I promise ) you will understand that there never was point where a non-human gave birth to a human. Now, presumably no non-human has a soul. Therefore, a soul had to be "injected" somewhere along the line. In order to somewhat shoehorn in the Genesis creation story some have taken to calling the first male and female with a soul "Adam" & "Eve". This gives the creation account in Genesis meaning since they couldn't of been the first "physical humans", but they could of been the first "spiritual humans".

Just another example of the ridiculousness of religion. Wake up people.

wtf is going on here.

I lived together with medical students during my own studies in psychology. My observation was that medical studies generally seemed to have a fairly stable core of hardcore christians and creationists... and it seemed to be a trend in all the classes.

This was also a bit weird, because good grades in biology is pretty much a must to enter the study to begin with... so are they really sitting around for years on end answering exams completely opposite from personal beliefs?

He's the one behind the failed legislation for 2010 to be The Year Of The Bible. This genius ran unopposed in GA, what does that say about the education level of his constituency

btw, I've obv heard evolution, climate change, Big Bang deniers, but not sure I've heard embryology being called lies from Satan though. Does he think the baby-carrying stork is real?

This seems like it would be problematic.

So Adam and Eve get souls, and breed with a population of soulless proto-people?

Apparently. That, or I suppose souls could of been injected into everyone, and Adam & Eve were simply the first.

I always wonder why this all powerful all smart God had to intervene and inject souls instead of just making souls evolve as a part of evolution. Seems like his initial design was not vary good and needed some fixing if souls was the goal.