Final Results
Here are some final election results and some comments:
West Bend Alderperson D3
LuAnne Salmon - 44.27%
Ed Duquaine - 55.73%
Congratulations to Mr. Duquaine. He’ll be a good addition to the council.
West Bend School Bd
Lynn Corazzi - 20.93%
Kathy Van Eerden - 21.85%
Randy Marquardt - 29.01%
David Weigand - 28.02%
Write-in Votes - 0.18%
This was an overwhelming victory for the two conservative candidates. I was heartened to see it. This is a clear mandate from the community that they are unhappy with the current direction of the school board and want to see a change.
Personally, I thank both Corazzi and Van Eerden for their work on the board. Although I have disagreed with their methods, I think that both of them have worked for what they thought were the best interests of the district.
As much as it stinks for Corazzi and Van Eerden to lose, it must feel at least kinda good for them to see a whole bunch of meetings disappear from their calendars. School board members really do have a lot of commitments.
I really am happy for Randy. I’ve never met David Weigand, but I do know that Randy is a really good guy. I know he will do a great job. I hope Mr. Weigand does, too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 06, 2010 at 2256 hrs
Bill was commenting in the prior election thread about the Germantown results. Looking at the other races there, it looks like Charlie Hargan and Charlene Brady both went down. Maybe some of you Germantown people can comment for me on those races. I haven’t kept up, but if I recall, those two were fixtures in local government for a long time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 06, 2010 at 2300 hrs
Next on the list…......Joe Carlson, Kris Deiss.
Posted by GAMazy on April 06, 2010 at 2318 hrs
Its time to take back our country 1 election at a time. Taxes just can’t keep going up when pay doesn’t.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2010 at 0505 hrs
Charlie is a good person who has served Germantown well in the past. I was surprised at the margin of the vote total. I voted for Wolter because we need some new ideas here. Charlie should look to enjoy his retirement.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2010 at 0646 hrs
Before your arms get too tired from patting yourselves on the back, credit should be given to Mark Peterson over at Motley Cow for his assistance in electing Duquaine, Weigand, and Marquardt. Making issues about Eagle Forum, Koch Industries, Creationism, AFP connections, etc seemed to have raised the profile of these candidates. Mark is 0-3 on this one.
On a different note, does it seem like more incumbents lost than won? Just glancing at the Daily News, it looks like Hartford had some aldermanic incumbents lose.
This fall should be interesting - pity the fools who dismiss the impact that the Tea Party will have on motivating citizens to become more engaged in the politcal process.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2010 at 0721 hrs
Hopefully Tim will come out from hiding now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2010 at 0913 hrs
CAN YOU HEAR US NOW !!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2010 at 0931 hrs
Just make sure the tea party elements are all we get.
I understand the desire for less taxes.The tea party founders scrupulously are avoiding social issues.
When an individuals religious beliefs start to become board policy objectives-You’ll lose just as quickly as you won.
I’ll be watching both candidates closely.Congratulations to both
Winning in a terrible economic climate was the easy part.
Now- Dave and Randy- comes the hard part.
Try to Figure the funding issues out with Solomonic wisdom and I will support you every step of the way.
There are places to cut (one school is the obvious one)Turn this school district into a test case for the so called imaginary line between church and state and you’ll be bounced as quickly as you arrived.
Elections matter and the problems are severe.
The best to both of you-
keep it secular.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2010 at 0946 hrs
Wasn’t Solomon a man in the Bible?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2010 at 0954 hrs
Now- Dave and Randy- comes the hard part.
That would be the beat down Joe tries giving them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2010 at 1031 hrs
Wasn’t Solomon a man in the Bible?
Stories from the Bible are a part of our cultural heritage. They can be referenced as a convenient shorthand that most others understand. It’s completely legal to teach classes that happen to include many of these stories either as part of a literature class or cultural history class or similar classes. It is completely illegal to teach religion. It’s not at all hard to see the difference.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2010 at 1048 hrs
It is completely illegal to teach religion.
... and thus, the need for expansion of vouchers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2010 at 1136 hrs
Smeety,
Why should your tax dollars go to teach religion?
Is there a list of religions that you approve of when the vouchers go to religious schools?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2010 at 1300 hrs
“Turn this school district into a test case for the so called imaginary line between church and state and you’ll be bounced as quickly as you arrived.”
Nice try.
Posted by GAMazy on April 07, 2010 at 1302 hrs
Why should your tax dollars go to teach religion?
Is there a list of religions that you approve of when the vouchers go to religious schools?
Any religion that can get a group together to teach all of the necessary topics plus their religion. It’s called freedom of religion…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2010 at 1421 hrs
Menomonee Fall Disaster:
Two libs Vanderhorst (I) & Blodorn win.
1 Conservative, Ternes will be out-voted. Hold on to your wallets.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2010 at 1542 hrs
Off topic but Smeety started it:
We, the subscribers, citizens of the said Commenwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled “A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” and conceiving that the same, if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abouse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State, to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined.
6. Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.
7. Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments
Read the rest of it. It is considered one of the foundational documents concerning freedom of religion in the United States. I would dare say that Madison had a higher view of religious freedom and the need to keep religion and government separate than most in the religious right today. Just take a look at all the extra requirements from the State that private schools have to abide by if they accept vouchers and those requirements will grow as the program grows. Vouchers are not an expansion of religious freedom, they are an oppression of it.
Posted by wbfreethinker on April 07, 2010 at 1615 hrs
Where does it declare that education is a part of govt?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2010 at 1934 hrs
Gmazy
Thanks for the compliment.
However, trying aimlessly is not one of my forte’s. Doing is better
I like you because your agenda is clear cut. Not so with the new guys.
To use an old bromide from the sainted Ronald Reagan,
When it comes to the new board members agenda as fiscal but not religious
I will“trust,but verify”
When the school board changes away from fiscal to religious policy ,I will be there
it will be Mark H Maley v. the WB Board of Education and Religiuous Practices
has a nice ring to it
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2010 at 2206 hrs
Here is what I will say, Mark. You won’t see it. You seem terrified of it, but it will not happen. You are afraid of something that was never said, never planned and “not gonna happen.” It would be foolish to try to interject “religious” teaching into a public school for a number of reasons. 1) Legality, 2) The mess that would be created by nonChristians teaching Christianity? NonBuddhists teaching Buddhism? 3) A public school is just that - public. We have parochial schools we can support for the purposes of personal faith-based choices in education.
My agenda is clear cut, Mark? I am glad you know me so well. Perhaps a face-to-face would be nice. I have learned that those who do not like me don’t really know me at all.
Posted by GAMazy on April 08, 2010 at 0803 hrs
Thanks for the encouraging words about what you expect, Ginny. The religious aspect did not come from thin air. It had come from comments made by David Weigand himself including these false claims still on his web site:
1. Origin studies, (whether Creation or evolution) and the idea of “millions of years” does not belong in the science classroom because these are not testable, repeatable or observable; they are philosophical and accepted by faith.
The claims that scientists have made about the age of the earth and life on earth have come from scientific testing. Weigand’s claim is contrary to fact and he cannot defend it with any supporting evidence. He is either ignorantly repeating falsehoods or knowingly lying about science. Either way, his opinion about science education is of no value to anyone in West Bend because it is not formed from evidence and understanding.
2. If evolution is taught in school, students should be taught the truth about it and the scientific data surrounding it. Ideas that were once championed by evolutionists are no longer valid, much like the false science behind man-made global warming. Students deserve the truth.
The truth is that scientists rely on evidence for their understanding of evolution and anthropogenic climate change. Weigand does not. He cannot support his claims about science. That is why some people expect him to try to get his false ideas taught in West Bend.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 0844 hrs
I don’t want a buddhist THEORY of evoluation taught at my school and can appreciate that someone else doesn’t want my Christian evolution taught at school…that said you miss a HUGE POINT Free Lunch…
The truth is that scientists rely on evidence for their understanding of evolution and anthropogenic climate change.
science never lists anything as fact unless it can be clearly demonstrated. This can not be done due to the fact that the predecessors are no longer living to positively verify what the fossils suggest. Hence Evolution based on Darwin’s Theory NOT Darwin’s FACT.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 0903 hrs
The truth is that scientists rely on evidence for their understanding of evolution and anthropogenic climate change.
A statement further from the truth cannot be made.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 0904 hrs
Grow up people, it was an election mud was being slung, I guess some cant get over that taste of sour grapes. I think your real concern is these two new guys could come up with some great fiscal changes making others look like fools.
As much devotion Maley has always shown the board is funny how they casted him out like old cat litter when talk of combing schools came up, yet he continues to crawl deeper up there bodily cavities.
Why dont ya back off Maley give these guys a chance to roll up there sleeves and get to work, they didnt even have a session and your already putting false labels on them.They may even listen to you Maley, imagine that a board member willing to listen? normal procedure is they hand you a paper with 3 questions and you are allowed to ask one of the three pre chosen board approved questions.
If you would like to help Maley keep an eye open for Joe , if you see him heading to the woodshed with ole hickory in hand give the new guys a heads up.
Nobody has any intention of placing religion in the public school system, however I did hear they hired a retired, blind nun to coach girls basketball, could just be a rumor as I heard others talking at the unveiling of the pope statue at the district office.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 0924 hrs
Samantha, the theory of evolution was around before Darwin. Through Darwin’s work, a workable mechanism of evolution, natural selection, had finally been identified. Evolution has been demonstrated, observed and verifired time and again over the last 150 or so years. It has been so well verified by biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, astronomy, chemistry, and geology that the vast majority of scientists regard it as fact.
Smeety and Samantha, your statements are completely baseless and ignore 150 years of science, and completely diismiss all of the above areas of science that I mentioned. They are true denialist statements and simply a parroting of people like William Dembski, Ken Ham and Michael Behe. Who themselves have been thouroughly discredited over and over again. See talkorigins.org for more information that would belie your claims.
Ginny, how you can say what you did in comment #21 with a straight face is remarkable. If you really believe what you said, why did you ask the question about teaching creationism in your school board candidate questionaire? All your actions to date regarding the harrassment policy, the library, your affiliation with the Eagle Fourm, and your questionaire, undermine your claims.
Posted by wbfreethinker on April 08, 2010 at 0929 hrs
Free Lunch / WB ‘free thinker’,
Alright you have my full attention. Enlighten me with your wisdom and intelligence regarding evolution. Put my doubt in the THEORY of evolution to rest. Let’s start at the beginning. How was life first created? Where has this process been proven out and duplicated?
The arrogance of these people with their insistence on teaching an UNPROVEN THEORY and nothing else.
Excuses made in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 0931 hrs
I gave you a website that will give that information from people far smarter than I. But I know your kind Smeety, and I have followed this blog long enough to know that you will not be swayed from your beliefs by sound arguments, logic and evidence.
Posted by wbfreethinker on April 08, 2010 at 0935 hrs
The theory of evolution was developed from the evidence for evolution. It has been refined by added scientific evidence over the past century and a half, but Darwin’s theory is still the core of the theory of evolution. It remains that way because Darwin relied on all of the evidence he had available. It was certainly not as much as scientists have today, but it was enough to see what had been happening on earth over the billions of years that life has been here. He did not rely only fossils to arrive at his explanation of change, but on the way living organisms showed that they were related to each other. Linnaeus had been foreshadowing this with his work a century earlier.
Evolution happens through variation and natural selection. The mechanisms of variation were an area that Darwin did not have evidence about, but scientists eventually understood how Mendel’s discoveries about inheritance tied to Darwin’s discoveries about evolution. The discovery of DNA and imperfect replication showed at the molecular level how this works.
Those who have persuaded people like Samantha and Smeety that evolution is not based on scientific evidence have done them a disservice. Neither one has any evidence that evolution does not happen, yet they believe without any supporting evidence that all scientists are wrong about it. They have been misled by people who are repeating falsehoods. Those who are interested in learning about evolution should look at the University of California’s helpful web site, Understanding Evolution.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 0939 hrs
on cue .. the excuses on the THEORY of Evolution….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 0941 hrs
FL,
Can you provide me with a link to the science that duplicates the creation of life?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 0946 hrs
The issue here is not one of evolution vs creationism. It’s simply one of those who are trying to (unsuccessfully) attach a pile of incorrect information (using my “nice words”) to the new candidates. Now that they are in, take a deep breath and give them an opportunity to work. Tossing the creationism issue around now is pretty lame. It’s old news. Nobody cared about it before, and nobody cares about it now. They aren’t going to work to change policy so they can institute a JESUS 101 class. For the record, Dave, Randy, Joe, Pat, can all have their own personal beliefs and still (gasp!) serve the board well. Get a grip, people.
Posted by GAMazy on April 08, 2010 at 0949 hrs
And yes, I said PAT can serve the board. A new concept, so don’t let it freak you out. It’s SUPPOSED to be that way.
Posted by GAMazy on April 08, 2010 at 0951 hrs
Smeety,
The theory of evolution explains how life changes over time. You will note that the theory of evolution does not explain how life started on earth. It does not explain why computers work or stars shine, either.
Life has completely transformed earth from what it had been like as a pre-biotic planet. Because of that transformation, it is possible that we will never know exactly how life began. That does not change the evidence we have about how life has changed over the years, nor does it change that there are known possible mechanisms for life, a self-sustaining biochemical reaction, to begin.
Scientists do not prove any theories. They develop and refine theories based on the evidence available and the results of investigations that the last iteration of the theory implied they should make. Strongly supported theories like the theory of evolution still have questions that scientists are interested in.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 0953 hrs
Free Lunch, Dave’s website quotes (as you posted above and I won’t waste bandwidth reposting here) do not state he wants creationism taught in the schools, nor does it state that he will push for it or insist on it. Those belief statements posted above and on his blog are just that - belief statements. According to his own words, Dave believes that if something like creationism were taught in a public school, it would have to be done correctly. I would agree. Therefore, he does not feel a public school setting is one in which that can really happen. His statement is being taken out of contact. But I’m not surprised. At all. Much ado about nothing.
Posted by GAMazy on April 08, 2010 at 0956 hrs
Ooops…meant to write “taken out of context”
Posted by GAMazy on April 08, 2010 at 0958 hrs
Ginny,
Dave was making a claim about what he thought should be taught in school on his website. I quoted it. You said that he was not saying that. You have confused me with your claim. Why would he have written ‘the idea of “millions of years” does not belong in the science classroom because these are not testable, repeatable or observable’ if he did not mean it?
I do agree with him that “students deserve the truth”, but he doesn’t appear to want them to have it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 0958 hrs
@ FL:
So evolution is UNPROVEN THEORY... interesting.
Now we are getting somewhere…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 0959 hrs
Smeety,
Repeating the meaningless phrase “UNPROVEN THEORY” only serves to remind us all that you do not understand science.
You will not get anywhere until you decide to learn how science works and act on that decision. The theory of evolution is strongly supported by all of the related evidence gathered to date. If you were to be looking at proven in the legal sense, then, yes, the theory of evolution has been proven to be valid beyond reasonable doubt.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1008 hrs
Oh the arrogance….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1010 hrs
Smeety, you misunderstand the concept of theory in science. You are using the word in its everday common usage but in science it means something far more. For example, gravity is a fact, hovever, scientists do not understand the essence of gravity, how it works and why. As a result gravity is still consdered a theory in science. Despite what we know about electrons, protons and neutrons, we still have Atomic Theory, and Molecular Bond Theory. A theory in science explains what we see in nature and has predictive power. You use the word theory in the same way that scientists use the word hypothesis.
Secondly, Samantha was partially correct in that science never proves anything beyond an absolute shadow of a doubt. Once again Smeety, you have shown that it is impossible to have a rational, logical discussion with you becasue the basic premises of your arguments are wrong to begin with.
P.S. Your arrogance comment in #27 was hilarious. If your comments aren’t the pinnacle of arrogance I don’t know what the meaning of the word is.
Posted by wbfreethinker on April 08, 2010 at 1015 hrs
It’s amazing how someone self-proclaims themselves as ‘freethinker’ yet is so closed minded to the point where they prescribe to one theory, and one theory only. Then they insist on teaching society this one and only UNPROVEN THEORY.
- - - - -
For example, gravity is a fact, hovever, scientists do not understand the essence of gravity, how it works and why. As a result gravity is still consdered a theory in science.
Gravity is a force created by a field, based on mass. This can be duplicated. Evolution, and the evolutionists (lack of) theory on the creation of life, cannot.
- - - - -
It all goes back to my original statement about vouchers. Citizens of Wisconsin need to determine if they want wingnuts like FL & ‘freethinker’ to determine what their kids do and do not learn, or if they want to take that power for themselve.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1024 hrs
Ginny, nobody was interested in the creation v. evolution issue until you brought it up in your questionaire. Can you say that if the bilogy curriuculum ever comes up for review that you, Randy, Dave will not bring this issue up? Can you say that you will not attempt to put warning stickers on the covers of the biology books stating that evolution is only a theory and is not fact, can you say that you three will not attempt to “balance” the science curriculum with intelligent design? Can you say that you three will not push to have evolution completely removed from the biology curriculum? Can you assure me that Randy and Dave are not at all acting in the same way that the Dover, PA board members did? To refresh memories the two main board players there ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility but as soon as the district considered buying new biology books the board members did an about face and fought to have the creationist textbook “Of Pandas and People” added to the curriculum, resulting in a law suit that they lost miserably and almost got them charged with perjury. A resounding yes to the above questions would go along way in laying this issue to rest.
You can fool yourself into believing that other people created this issue, but you’re the one who drew first blood with this. Dave’s comment on his website only fanned the flames and Randy hasn’t helped the issue either with his comments. You and they have rightly earned the skepticism and distrust of people concerned about this issue.
Posted by wbfreethinker on April 08, 2010 at 1031 hrs
Gravity is a force created by a field, based on mass. This can be duplicated. Evolution, and the evolutionists (lack of) theory on the creation of life, cannot.
Every time a cell replicates, evolution is shown to happen. The lack of a theory about the beginning of life does not affect the validity of a theory about how life changes over time.
Wisconsin’s biology standards integrate evolution into the teaching of biology. This is consistent with the understanding of scientists. The theory of evolution is the only scientific theory about the history of life on earth. Why would you not want science taught in science classes? Why would any school that refuses to teach science be allowed to have vouchers?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1034 hrs
Free Lunch,
Can you please provide me with a link duplicating ameobas evolving into monkeys?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1036 hrs
Actually Smeety, I used to be a Christian Fundamentalist and firmly believed evolution was a false science being perpetrated by secular humanists to undermine the Bible and Christianity. I went toe to toe with one of my professors in college defending the Biblical account of creation. I even believed that the ID people were heretical because they refused to acknowledge the literal truth of Genesis.
I used to be a devoted follower of Phyllis Schlafly, VCY America, Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research and James Dobson. In fact, I would bet I know the arguments for and against evolution better than you do Smeety. At least your comments to date show an incredible lack of understanding of the issue. Even when I still believed I would have considered your arguments weak, ignorant and unconvincing.
The only other theories of origins, which is itelf an inaccurate statement as FL mentioned, exist only in the minds of religious fundamentalists insistent on a literal reading of ancient texts that are thousands of years old. There are many Christians and other religions that accept evolution, that have found a way to reconcile science and their religion. You might want to check out the writings of Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins as two evangelial Christians that accept evolution as a starting point.
Posted by wbfreethinker on April 08, 2010 at 1042 hrs
Can you please provide me with a link duplicating ameobas evolving into monkeys?
Posted by Smeety on April 08, 2010 at 1036 hrs
Again, Smeety, an incredible lack of understanding of evolution. If you are going to succesfully argue against evolution you need to understand it first. You don’t argue against it intelligently. You sound like someone grasping at straws, much like I did when I argued against that professor in college.
Posted by wbfreethinker on April 08, 2010 at 1046 hrs
sounds like you can’t provide a link…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1048 hrs
a link duplicating ameobas evolving into monkeys?
Here you go!
http://smitty1037.blogspot.com/
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1121 hrs
WOW, What happened to all the “It’s for the kids” stuff??
Or, “We need a Operating Referendum”!!!
Did the libbys and their buddies lose the election?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1137 hrs
Can you please provide me with a link duplicating ameobas evolving into monkeys?
You seem to misunderstand what has happened over the time that life has existed on earth. Amoeba did not evolve into monkeys. Amoeba and monkeys share a common ancestor. You can see some of the evidence for their common ancestry by comparing their DNA.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1140 hrs
I understand it perfectly. It’s unproven and can’t be duplicated.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1141 hrs
Libbys,
Keep this phone number near by, you’ll need it come November.
1-492-686-6669 (I-WANT MOMMY)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1150 hrs
Smeety,
You know you are wrong here. I have explained to you that evolution can be seen every time cells divide. Why are you incapable of understanding that simple concept?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1152 hrs
... because developing an immunity to a disease thru genetics doesn’t prove that we came from amoebas….
Evolution is unproven and can’t be duplicated.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1206 hrs
Seeing that science is based on testable, observable and repeatable phenomena, can you say that the Grand Canyon formed “millions” of years ago? Can you say that man has evolved from lower creatures? Are you aware that even Darwin said that if the fossil record did not show transitional creatures, then his theory would not be valid? In 150 years, all we have are a few very controversial specimens. Dave has repeatedly said he wanted the TRUTH taught in the science classroom. How many times do we have to say it? Our students deserve the truth. Are you aware of the growing list of PhD scientists that are publicly denouncing Darwin’s evolution theory?
Posted by GAMazy on April 08, 2010 at 1221 hrs
... it’s all about vouchers. Take the power away from the control freaks, and WEAC while we are at it…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1222 hrs
I agree with GAMazy. Teach the controversy!
http://controversy.wearscience.com/design/coexistence/
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1254 hrs
Seeing that science is based on testable, observable and repeatable phenomena, can you say that the Grand Canyon formed “millions” of years ago?
There is no need for the scare quotes. It did. The scientific evidence is clear about it.
Can you say that man has evolved from lower creatures?
Lower? Not sure that has a meaning, but we have evolved from earlier species that other species of today share as common ancestors.
Are you aware that even Darwin said that if the fossil record did not show transitional creatures, then his theory would not be valid?
Your attempt at making a point ignores the evidence. There are fossils from transitional species.
Are you aware of the growing list of PhD scientists that are publicly denouncing Darwin’s evolution theory?
There are zero scientists who research in this area who reject evolution by variation and natural selection for scientific reasons. There are a few who work on the edges of this discipline who refuse to accept it for religious reasons.
Did you believe the tobacco companies when they told you that smoking was safe?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1306 hrs
So, FL .... back to the beginning… how was life initially created?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1323 hrs
I do love asking this question. Evolutionists believe evolution is all about science, until you ask how it all started…
- - - - - -Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1330 hrs
Dave has repeatedly said he wanted the TRUTH taught in the science classroom. How many times do we have to say it? Our students deserve the truth.
Ginny, so much for not having an agenda about creation and evolution. I’ll echo Free Lunch’s comments Ginny. We can very easily say those things that you ask about, even though you framed the second question incorrectly as FL pointed out. What Darwin said about the fossil record is what every good scientist will do when presenting a new theory. They will point out ways in which their theory can be falsified. The controversy over whether transitional fossils exists, again only exists in the minds of the creationists. Even if we didn’t have any fossils the recent advances in genetics overwhelmingly support descent from a common ancestor.I also used the very same argument about the growing number of PhD’s that were questioning evolution when, 20 years ago, I went toe to toe with that professor I mentioned earlier. In fact, Michael Denton was one of my favorites. He had a PhD in molecular biology and wrote a book called Evolution: A Theory in Crisis that I relied on heavily for my arguments against evolution. His relply to my argument and referencing Michael Denton was, “a PhD means diddly shit”.
In any field of science you will be able to find people with PhD’s who disagree with the majority view. As I mentioned before, there are still competing theories about gravity. A PhD means absolutely nothing if it can’t be backed up with research published in reputable journals, that contributes to the knowledge base of the field the scientist is working in.
Posted by wbfreethinker on April 08, 2010 at 1337 hrs
Evolution is not a theory of the origins of life, nor does it claim to be. Your question is akin to asking how VORP explains defense. It’s a non sequitr.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1342 hrs
Smeety, you are using a logical fallacy known as arguing from incredulity. You assume, that since we can’t figure out how life originated in the first place, then it must be impossible and therefore a deity had to create it.
However, there are some hypotheses out there that scientists are currently working on. For example, panspermia, proteinoid microshperes, clay crystals, emerging hypercycles, iron-sulfide precipitates, polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces or something that no one has thought of yet. See The Counter-Creationism Handbook, by Mark Isaac, Page 48 for more information and other sources to look up for further investigation into this topic.
Posted by wbfreethinker on April 08, 2010 at 1345 hrs
I’m merely pointing out the gaping holes in the unproven theory of evolution.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1354 hrs
You’re merely pointing out a bunch of garbage because you haven’t taken the time to do any actual learning. Why don’t you go play in the sandbox and leave science to people who occasionally take the time to crack a book.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1356 hrs
Getting your panties twisted up isn’t going to be productive.
- - - - - - -
I’m asking honest questions for which you simply don’t have answers. Get over it….Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1359 hrs
I haven’t read the whole thread, but I’ve answered the one question I’ve read of yours, which was, “where does like come from?” That has nothing to do with evolution. I’malso not mad. I’m calmly stating facts. The ignorati doesn’t make me angry, I think they’re funny.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1409 hrs
Smeety, you’re actually using the God of the Gaps argument, which itself is a form of the argument from incredulity. Dietrich Bonhoeffer recognized the fallacy of this argument. See God of the Gaps for futher details.
Posted by wbfreethinker on April 08, 2010 at 1412 hrs
Call it whatever you want. It’s a gaping hole in the unproven theory of evolution.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1419 hrs
I believe that fallacious argument is known as Tebaggious Boldus Uneccesar.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1423 hrs
No need to get your panties in a tizzy. I’m just pointing out the gaping holes in the unproven theory of evolution.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1425 hrs
It’s a form of “argument from authority” used almost exclusively by conservatives on the internet. It basically holds that bolding your words makes them truer. Here, watch:
Smeety is completely ignorant on the subject of biology.
That statement is true, but now conservative will think it is even more true. This is a valuable skill to keep in mind when arguing with them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1430 hrs
Sorry, Paul I didn’t mean to offend you. Let’s get your panties unbunched and get back on topic…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1438 hrs
Conservative will also attempt repetition of the same vapid point over and over again rather than addressing a substantive point with facts. These may include basic ad hominems (ex: “panties in a bunch”) or a point that they have repeatedly made, but which has been refuted in a way in which they do not understand (ex: how did life start? EH?!).
While a smart person would respond by not accusing people of having their panties in a bunch, and perhaps by asking a question like “Why does evolution not cover the origin of life itself?” instead of just blindly assuming that it does, or by actually reading about the God of the Gaps problem, conservatives of this type will smugly assume that their ignorance is a plus and continue to parrot pablum.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1445 hrs
Paul,
You are the one with the bunched panties and no answers…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1447 hrs
The Theory of Evolution is true because God programmed our genetics to evolve.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1448 hrs
Aaaaand I think we’re done here. My thanks to Smeety for being an excellent subject and living up to every stereotype imaginable.
And remember, teach the controversy:
http://controversy.wearscience.com/design/devil/
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1451 hrs
Paul, I would like to say that despite our disagreement, I have very much respect for you and the fact that you can have such blind faith in something with no proof whatsoever. Kudos.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1452 hrs
And that’s the whole theory of evolution in a nutshell. Liberals demanding only evolution be
taught, and not being tolerant of any other thoughts whatsoever. And when challenged, rather
than having answers, or admitting their theory has holes ... getting frustrated, taking their toys
and going home.
- - - - -
Can’t back down to these people. These are the ones in many cases in charge of our libraries and schools, among others.
- - - - -
Special thanks to Paul, free ‘thinker’, and Free Lunch….Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1500 hrs
Oh, OK, one more.
Can you provide a coherent, consistent explanation other than common descent for the patterns of appearance of endogenous retroviruses in vertebrate genomes? Francis Collins, the Christian geneticist who headed up the Human Genome Project, lays out much of the data on ERVs in his book The Language of God and argues, quite correctly, that it simply cannot be explained without common descent (which is, of course, the theory of evolution).
Good luck to you.
(Thanks to Ed Brayton for the question)Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1513 hrs
Could we agree to disagree on this one? It’s crazy to see the thread that “evolved” from the original post.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1515 hrs
Paul, you forgot to add that the Theory of Evolution is true because God programmed our genetics to evolve.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1527 hrs
Ok, I could take up a lot of space here, or I could simply invite all of you to this event. C’mon - be my guest!
Creation Ministries International asked the First Baptist Church of West Bend if they would be willing to host a Creation/Evolution & the Authority of Scripture seminar. Sunday, April 11, 6 p.m. (2300 S. Main).
Double-dog dare ya.
Posted by GAMazy on April 08, 2010 at 1632 hrs
Could we agree to disagree on this one?
I agree that this has morphed from the original discussion. I don’t agree that students should be denied a good science education, not even because someone’s religious dogma disagrees with the reality or some parent might be offended that their child will find out that a religious doctrine they have been taught is contrary to physical evidence. I don’t agree that people should be allowed to repeat falsehoods just because they dress them up in religious garb. I don’t agree that people who refuse to learn about science should have any say in how science is taught. I certainly disagree with all creationists who reject evolution. They have nothing to support their claims.
When critics of scientific discoveries want to say something, it is their duty to know enough about the science to make sense when they make the criticism. It is their duty to be honest. It is also their duty to know whether they are being duped by other supposed critics. Those who listen to groups like Answers in Genesis, Creation Research Society, Institute for Creation Research, and the Discovery Institute have been duped. Every one of those organizations has a track record of dishonesty and fraud. If you care even a little about science, you will not pay any attention to their lies. None of those organizations can defend what they have done, except to religious people who want to believe the lies those organizations pedal.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1642 hrs
Nasty weather we are having today, how bout them Packers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1700 hrs
I certainly disagree with all creationists who reject evolution. They have nothing to support their claims.
Be my guest, be my guest! :::::singing Disney song:::::
C’mon, Free Lunch. I’ll even bring ya a cup of Starbucks!
Creation/Evolution & the Authority of Scripture seminar. Sunday, April 11, 6 p.m. (1st Baptist 2300 S. Main, WB).
Posted by GAMazy on April 08, 2010 at 1703 hrs
Free Lunch, you forgot to mention that the Theory of Evolution is true because God programmed our genetic code to evolve.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1741 hrs
Ginny,
I have no desire to go to a religious function about creation. I realize that false claims will come thick and fast, that they will try to use the Bible to justify rejection of scientific discoveries and that there are few people there who would be willing to listen to me even if I were to be so rude as to point out every single time the preacher made a claim that had been demonstrated to be false by scientists over the past couple of centuries. If you want to pass on my objections, please do.
I grew up in that environment. It hasn’t changed. In some ways, it cannot change, since the doctrines are set up in such a way that all change, no matter how well motivated those are who are willing to make changes based on facts outside the doctrine, outside the faith, would undermine the authority of those who preach these doctrines.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1811 hrs
It’s just amazing that these left wing nut jobs make all of these claims about evolution, then when questioned about this unproven theory have no answers and a lot of bitterness. Fact of the matter is evolution is unproven theory that doesn’t even account for the creation of life. Evolution cannot be duplicated in an experiment. I’ve never heard more excuses than today…
- - - - -
This is why my case for vouchers is so cut and dry. No thanks, my kids don’t need these nut jobs teaching them…Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1826 hrs
Smeety,
I have answered your questions and offered you a place to start if you are interested in learning. Despite Stephen Colbert’s mocking comment, reality does not really have a liberal bias. If you have a problem with reality, it is your problem. Correct it.
Fact of the matter is evolution is unproven theory that doesn’t even account for the creation of life.
The theory of evolution does not attempt to account for the beginning of life. There is no evidence that life was created, so that does not matter. You have been corrected on this repeatedly, but you choose to repeat the falsehoods rather than act in an honest manner. Theories are not proven, except in the legal sense of shown to be true by the evidence. The theory of evolution has been shown to be true. You have refused to acknowledge that fact.
Evolution cannot be duplicated in an experiment.
Once again, you repeat a falsehood after you have been corrected. Evolution has been confirmed by thousands of different experiments.
Thank you for showing me why I should never support vouchers. As long as you act as if the purpose of vouchers is to allow you to tell lies about science to children, I cannot possibly support them. I have no idea why you have such an overwhelming desire to tell those lies to children, but you are doing more to persuade me that vouchers are a very bad idea than any liberals have ever done.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1851 hrs
I once had a philosophical physics teacher in (public) high school who never let us call anything a “fact.” He said that instead of that word, we should use the phrase, “Scientists currently believe…” because there are so many things we cannot know for sure.
I believe in creation, but I can’t prove it. And if I say, “I believe in creation because it’s in the Bible,” then to some of our readers that’s even less reliable than wikipedia. I also don’t think that souls will be lost because they do or don’t believe that the world is billions of years old. I kind of don’t think God cares too much about that. I think He just wants to make sure we know the important stuff like grace, salvation, love your neighbor as yourself; and if you ever get together with more than three people at a church event, you need to bring a dish to pass and have a freewill offering.
I’m cool with kids learning about evolution, because I’ve never had a teacher who has said, “We are certain this is how we came to be…”. My kids are learning about evolution in their parochial school because it’s something they need to know, and I think that the history of how the theory of evolution, er, evolved is interesting.
That said, I really don’t think that this debate is going to show up at a WB school board meeting. I hope not, anyway, because this school board has a whole bunch of other things to talk about that are a whole lot more important.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 2009 hrs
Agree with Wendy.
My pastor likes to say “combining science and religion diminishes both”.
Science is all about never accepting anything as fact – always questioning.
In the opposite corner, faith, accepting things without need of proof.
That said, I have spent considerable time in curriculum meetings with local folks who were VERY CLEAR in their desire to teach creationism in science class. Who was that?? Hmm, the name will come to me soon.
And can we stop with Darwin? He was dead before we even knew there was such a thing as a virus. It would be impossible to imagine that he had everything right.
I agree that if science teachers claim this as a fact, they are in need of education.Posted by Charlie Hillman on April 08, 2010 at 2109 hrs
honestly, if you would all read Article 10 Section 3 of the state constitution you would realize that this entire conversation was a complete waste of time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 2217 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134035
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 08:52 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 99
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 09:33 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).