Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...


Everything but tech support.

0757, 19 Nov 19

Enrollment Decline in West Bend School District

The West Bend School Board met last night in a committee of the whole to discuss a few things. One item on the agenda is a closer look at enrollment in the district. The data is very interesting.

Like this:

The school district has 524 fewer kids than it did in 2010. That’s a 7.7% decline. And the trend appears to be accelerating. It is not unreasonable to think that the West Bend School District will be a 5,000 student district within the next decade.

I would also note that when the West Bend School District was educating 6,803 kids in 2010, they spent about $74.1 million. Last year, with 254 fewer kids, they spent a total of $82.6 million. Fewer kids. More money. I realize that school district spending isn’t linear – there are a lot of fixed costs. But over time, all fixed costs become variable costs. If the district is educating 7.7% fewer kids (or 10% fewer, or 20% fewer), then shouldn’t the taxpayers reasonably expect a commensurate decrease in spending?


0757, 19 November 2019


  1. jjf

    Only if you are willing to hand-wave instead of actually digging into the budget to see which costs are rising and which aren’t over the course of a decade.  What about that “Private School Voucher Information” slide?

  2. Owen

    Oh, jjf. Surely you jest. Do you really think that I couldn’t find plenty of things to cut? We could shut down one elementary school and the district office tomorrow and cut the overhead staff. The staff is still paying less than 10% of their health insurance premiums with a free clinic that was supposed to lower costs, but didn’t. Combine the high schools and cut the admin staff. Outsource food service, grounds keeping, and IT (to start). Need I go on?

  3. jjf

    I’m sure you have lots of ideas.  Inflation alone turns $100 into $118 over the course of those years, no?

    I’m trying to Follow The Logic™ that gets you from “I know spending isn’t linear” to “7.7% fewer kids, shouldn’t we expect a drop” inside of one paragraph.  Three fewer kids in a classroom does what?

  4. dad29

    Jiffy wants a 1500 word response and graphics, Owen.  Before close of business today.  Hop to it.

  5. jjf

    Come on, Dad29.  Throw me a bone.  I’m not asking for the moon.  I’d be happy if Owen just tried to use the back of the envelope.  What’s inflation between 2010 and now?  18%?  So $74.1 turns into $87.4 right there.  Assuming that removing a few students should drop the entire budget, remove 7.7% and you get $80.7?  So if we simply consider inflation, we’re down to quibbling about less than $2 million across nine-ten years and an entire district?

  6. Jason

    > I’d be happy if Owen just tried to use the back of the envelope.

    Go somewhere else for your mis-information, jackass.   Pretty simple, but no you’re here complaining.

  7. Owen


    Inflation is the lazy man’s metric for this. 70%(ish) of spending are personnel. Due to unionization, labor costs are relatively inelastic in a government body. It is not subject to most market pressures because it is taxpayer funded. So the taxpayers were probably overpaying for labor during the recession and underpaying right now. The fact that the cost of consumer goods, fuel, etc. have gone up is not really relevant when discussing school spending. It’s just a marginally interesting benchmark.

  8. jjf

    From a Post-Crescent story from October:

    “The $81.7 billion biennial state budget includes $87 million more in annual per-pupil aids and the largest dollar increase in state general aid since the 2005-07 budget, approved at nearly $330 million.

    But Wisconsin school district officials told us the extra funding would help avert potential budget shortfalls and cover teacher raises and inflation costs, not create new services or programs.”

  9. Owen

    Uh huh. So?

  10. Le Roi du Nord

    “The fact that the cost of consumer goods, fuel, etc. have gone up is not really relevant when discussing school spending.”

    Why not?

  11. jjf

    Inflation appears to be on the radar of districts.  Of course employees are the big expense.

    But my question remains:  if the number of students drops by X%, what should we expect “commensurate decrease” to be and why?  If a classroom of 30 drops to 27, do you need one less teacher?

    And Le Roi, we forgot health care.  Do these lousy teacher thugs deserve health care?  Has the cost of that dropped in the last decade?

  12. Mar

    Comparing inflation and student enrollment declines is like comparing apples to orangutans. One has very little with the other.
    With student enrollment, you have to consider the decline along with other costs such as the number of special students in the district, ESL kids, how many teachers are in non-teaching jobs, the number of support staff employed, amount of State and Federal aid.
    With inflation, you pretty much have the same factors involved.

  13. Mark Hoefert

    School costs do not move in lock step with the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

    CPI is based on a “market basket” based on expenditures made by a selected sample of families and individuals, not school districts.  Like Owen said, a school district might spend 70% on personnel costs. Your typical household is not allocating 70% of it’s spend to hired domestic help, so right there the CPI becomes moot as a metric.

    That is why there is Zero Based Budgeting or hybrids.  You look at individual costs and predict if they will be the same, go down, or go up and budget accordingly.

  14. jjf

    Mark, Mar – I agree.  So isn’t it all much more complicated than thinking that if there are 7% fewer students across a district, that there’s an easy metric to think the whole budget will drop by some fraction of 7%?

  15. Owen

    There isn’t an easy metric, and nobody here has said there is. Specifically, what I said was, “If the district is educating 7.7% fewer kids (or 10% fewer, or 20% fewer), then shouldn’t the taxpayers reasonably expect a commensurate decrease in spending?”

    That’s a binary question. If enrollment is declining, then can we at least stop spending MORE money every year in the district? Shouldn’t spending go down at some point? It’s a simple question.

  16. Le Roi du Nord

    Just a follow-up question to the one that wasn’t answered; if there are 7.7% (or 10%, or 20%) fewer students, are you implying that the lights should be turned off for a commensurate amount of time?  Or the heat/AC ?  Or the water/sewer? Building maintenance?

  17. Owen

    Absolutely. At some point, we should reduce the physical footprint of the district and close all or parts of buildings. But more importantly, we should reduce the number of teachers, aids, administrators, etc.

    For example, when you go from 522 1st graders to 346 1st graders (which we have), then we don’t need as many 1st grade teachers, no? At 17 kids per class, that’s 31 teachers in 2006. We could still have 17 kids in class in 2019 with only 21 teachers. That’s a fully-burdened savings of something over $1 million per year – not including aids and administrators or the fact that we need 10 fewer classrooms. Where are those savings?

  18. jjf

    Le Roi, hence my suggestion that we should at least try to use the back of the envelope.  I understand that he thinks it’s important to reflexively demand reductions in taxation, but you can’t just wave your hands and say it’s reasonable to expect a decrease just because you have fewer students.

    Owen might remind us his statement was phrased as a question, but he knew the answer he wanted to impress on his readers.  Of course there should be a reduction, Uncle Owen, because there always should be.  Our thinking can stop here, because his did!

    There are tipping points.  The changes could be uneven, too.  You might have fewer fourth graders but more ninth graders.  If an elementary school with 400+ students has an even 7% drop, sure, you might get excited to think that’s 30+ kids and therefore a classroom-worth and therefore we can drop a teacher who costs us $75-100K total.  But it’s not 30 kids from one grade, right?

    And no mention of the vouchers.  Where does that money go?  Energy costs matter, as in heating, cooling, and the cost of bus transportation.

    As if the business director and super and principals and school board members don’t think about this every day.

  19. Le Roi du Nord

    That isn’t what I asked.  The required time in the classroom is still fixed regardless of the number of students.  Unless you can close an entire building the fixed cast for lights, heat, etc are still there.

  20. Le Roi du Nord


    My response above is meant for Owen, not you.  And you are right, SD admin ponders these sort of problems every day.  It sure isn’t anything new or unique.


  21. dad29

    It’s funny to watch LeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeRoy and med-missing Jiffy spray foofoodust and unicorn farts because they cannot argue with clear logic.


  22. Mark Hoefert

    At the elementary school that my daughter attended during the school year ended 2009 had 19 teachers K-4th grade teachers. All but one K-4 class had 4 sections, the 3rd grade had 3*.  This  year there are 17 teachers.  The 4th & 3rd grades are each 4 sections, the K-2nd are 3 sections.  It can be assumed that absent some kind of in-migration of new students, next year the 3rd grade will be 3 sections, and the following year the 4th grade will be 3 sections.  At that point there may be 15 teachers.

    One of the teachers who lost her section picked up a class in a different school – I assume it was to replace someone who left or was laid off. Her pay was & benefits were about $82,000. Another one who left (was a later hire) was at about $60,000.  So right there, $142,000 in their site budget went “bye-bye.”

    * – actually that year the school was structured K-5 with 23 teachers/sections. There was a reconfiguration where 4 new classrooms were added on, 5th graders were transferred to and expanded/remodeled middle school, and an existing elementary school was closed and the attendance area was reassigned to this school.

    The superintendent has stated that the number of teachers has decreased. I have no reason to doubt that. But Owen rightly poses the question, where has that $142,000 gone, as well as the costs associated with staff reductions at other sites?  Just at that one school. Maybe there is a rational explanation that has not been communicated out yet.







  23. Mark Hoefert

    Unless you can close an entire building the fixed cast for lights, heat, etc are still there

    Not at the school my daughter attended.  Me & a few other retired guys used to do math & reading tutoring with the young kids. Sometimes we would be shagged into an empty classroom.  There was actually a device that we could utilize to fill the empty dark room with light. And then when we were done, the room could be made dark again.  Come back a week later, and the room was dark and we would repeat the process.

    Going into the room, one would notice a temperature drop.  Could have been attributable to poltergeists or something. But then the custodian would enter the room and offer to stick something into a device on the wall to make the roomer. Of course, being used to a cool weather climate, we would decline that offer, so he stopped doing that.

    The other thing with Kindergartners & 1st graders – they love to leave class and go to the bathroom whether or not they need to. Of course, to make it seem realistic, they sometimes flush the toilet and usually washed their hands.  So, you drop a class of 25 students running water and flushing toilets all day long (think at least 10 times), there should be a reduction in water/sewer charges too.

    Granted, the utility cost reduction may not be significant. Although we have a school board member who may think so – his platform was the budget could be balanced by achieving energy efficiency.

    So, no, light, heat, and sewer/water costs are not fixed. They are variable based on consumption practices and space utilization.

  24. Mark Hoefert

    Yikes – the custodian’s device was to make the “room warmer”.

  25. Jason

    >It’s funny to watch LeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeRoy and med-missing Jiffy spray foofoodust and unicorn farts because they cannot argue with clear logic.

    Remember the time he was spreading it to justify big spending on LED lighting upgrades?  Haha

  26. jjf

    Dad29, step up, show me your business acumen.  It’s not an unsolvable problem, but it’s more complex than Owen’s wishful hand-waving.  And you are smart enough to know that.

    Owen, your numbers about first graders is district-wide, right?  So keep marching…  tell me what happens next.  You shift some first graders to another school where the numbers look better?  And transport them how?  And their siblings stay at the first school?  Or are we shuffling or shuttering entire schools because of this?

  27. Le Roi du Nord


    You really missed the point.  Let’s say there is a 4K-5 elementary school with 2 rooms for each grade, with 25-30 per room.  And let’s say the census shows a 7.7% decrease (or 10%, or 20%), so are you proposing eliminating a room in each grade and putting the remaining kids in one room per grade?  And then turning out the lights and heat in each empty room?  The building still has fixed utility and maintenance costs that don’t change under any scenario. And this isn’t a hypothetical, that school exists right down the road from here.  Thank goodness you aren’t on our school board.


    No foofoo or flatulence from here.  You were (and no doubt still are) too lazy to do the math.  Better yet, contact WI Focus on Energy and they can explain the benefits of modern lighting options for public spaces..  It is never to late to get smart.  Try it.


  28. Owen

    No, I think you and JJF missed the point. Will costs ever go down? Is there any scenario that you can envision where we would spend less?

  29. Le Roi du Nord

    Sure, if you lose enough students to close facilities, or can consolidate with other districts/buildings/facilities. But a loss of 7.7, 10, or 20% probably won’t trigger those scenarios. Or you can decrease personnel cost by lowering salary/benefits, increasing class size, eliminating classes, teachers, or administration, etc.  Or, contrary to the opinion of some commenters, you can do your best to use the most efficient and cost effective equipment in the physical plant.   I’d be all in favor of eliminating sports as a school activity, but that would never get anywhere in any district.

  30. Mark Hoefert

    Thank goodness you aren’t on our school board.

    Yes, thank goodness I am not on your school board. I would have no patience being on a school district where the entire citizenry is special needs or uneducable. Not sure which category you fit in – most likely uneducable?

  31. Owen

    But a loss of 7.7, 10, or 20% probably won’t trigger those scenarios.”

    Wow. So even with a 20% drop in enrollment, you can’t imagine how we could spend any less. How did we possibly manage when the district was 80% of what it was now and growing?

  32. Mark Hoefert

    so are you proposing eliminating a room in each grade and putting the remaining kids in one room per grade?  And then turning out the lights and heat in each empty room?

    That is kind of what was done, except “remaining kids” were not put in a different room, because the issue was non-existent kids. The school has had as many as 5 sections in a grade, now they have some grades down to 3 sections, a few at 4 sections.  The year in my example (2009) was actually 20 sections/teachers – another check of the yearbook shows that there were 5 1st grade sections – that cohort is showing up as one of the larger graduating classes (2020) before the high school enrollment starts to dip. In 2009, the student body was 444 students. Sections varied from between 19 to 25 students. The average per teacher/classroom was 22 students. This year the enrollment is 340 students with 17 sections/teachers. That is an average of 20 students per teacher/section.  So, 3 less teachers, 3 unused classrooms, and an average decrease of 2 students per class.

    That confirms one of the findings of the Citizen Facilities Study Task Force – that a larger number of sections provides greater flexibility to adapt to enrollment changes, up or down.

  33. jjf

    What baffles me is the willful arrogance, the ill will towards people you don’t know, the lack of respect for other humans toss that Golden Rule out the window, the belief that somehow your thoughts and desires are better than someone who’s made it their career to actually be the one to do something, the ones who are actually volunteering to make decisions for a district…

    You think the superintendent, the business director, the school board, administrators, teachers…  they don’t want to cut costs, they’re just union thugs, they’re in on the worldwide Soros conspiracy to spend more of your tax dollars, they don’t care, but you care…  They don’t know what they’re doing, there’s a 7% reduction in students, why aren’t they doing something…

    You think this is different than your job, your company?  You think what they’re doing isn’t complicated, doesn’t the essence of their task include balancing a bunch of concerns that aren’t even on your radar?

    Tell me, Owen, why does the new phone system require six-digit extensions, why can’t it have three-digit extensions like the old phone system?  Why can’t you just change the six to a three?

  34. Owen

    You sure are assuming a lot, jjf. Who mentioned union thugs? Who said anything about Soros? We’re having a rational discussion about a downturn in enrollment and a rational response to that. When my business has a downturn, we have to lay off people. We cut back on expenses. It’s what you do. All we’re asking is why school districts assume that they are immune.

  35. Mark Hoefert

    @ Owen: Who mentioned union thugs?

    John Foust did.

    Two times: 11/19 @ 4:53 pm & 11/21 @ 6:41 am.

    Word search shows no other commenters having introduced the word “thugs” into this thread.

  36. jjf

    School districts don’t assume they’re immune.  Where do you get that from?

    I think there are people there who are just as interested in saving taxpayer dollars as you are, and they probably think about it much more than you and me (because it’s their job, and because they’re much more in the public eye), and they’ve probably trained and trained again in the options and methodologies for how to address ups and downs in the number of students in a school.  You want a rational discussion about this?  Me too.

    Any superintendent has plenty of motivation to keep costs down.  Even at the teacher-to-teacher level, I bet there’s plenty of nice self-interested motivation for them to notice whether someone else has any sort of a lower load, whether someone else is wasting resources, and there’s motivation to point it out and address it.  Just like any organization, public or private.

    When your business has a downturn, someone makes a decision.  They juggle a bunch of constraints.  The foot soldiers might not know them all.  How easy is it to let someone go, who takes over their workload, how easy is it to hire someone else when the wind changes again.  Is it better to keep someone on, but avoid the costs of firing or hiring, is there another project where we can shift them?  Or should we just let go of the entire product line or division?

    As for “thugs,” there’s a search bar here.  It only searches your posts, it doesn’t search comments, and you’ve flushed the comments on many old posts.  You’ve never heard your visitors rail against the educational establishment in general, nor point at Soros as the boogeyman?

  37. dad29

    You sure are assuming a lot, jjf

    No, Owen.  Jiffy is a professional, trained, certified, mind-reader.  It’s how he knows that Trump is really evil, for example.\

    Have some respect for him!!

  38. jjf

    I bet you stepped up and said “Don’t talk like that” the last time Kevin said “union thugs,” right Daddio?

    Trump University, and his cancer charity, yeah, the courts said he’s quite the stand-up guy.  And there’s more to come.

  39. dad29

    You’re the mind-reader, Jiffy.  What, pray tell, is “to come”?

  40. Le Roi du Nord

    To all you folks headed out this weekend in pursuit of Odocoileus virginianus, be safe, be smart, shoot straight, and if successful, submit a sample for CWD testing.

  41. Kevin Scheunemann


    When did I use that term?

    Are you taking up false witness, like Nord?

  42. Le Roi du Nord


    I’m sure jjf, like me, has seen you use the term “union thug”.  And jjf, like me, probably has better things to do in life than keep track of all the insulting terms, juvenile names, and outright untruths that you spew forth.  You are the last person that should call anyone out for “false witness”.

  43. Kevin Scheunemann


    I have used the word “thug” in relation to criminal behavior and criminal acts.

    Please point out this other use you claim.

    Accurate, in context, quote please.

    Otherwise, you should again apologize for your false witness.

    We go through this every time, you always lack proof, and an accurate quote.

  44. Kevin Scheunemann


    …and don’t do the crime of false witness if you don’t have time to get the accurate source.

    Just common courtesy, which you seem to lack.

  45. Mar

    Le Roi is just a troll, Kevin. He doesn’t want to debate, he just wants you to do his bidding or get you upset.
    At least jjf will debate you and even make some good points at times.

  46. jjf

    Dad29 – Either President Pelosi or President Clinton, not sure, my crystal ball grows hazy.

  47. Mar

    jjf, i think you meant to write that your crystal ball is crazy instead of hazy.
    Honest mistake, though.

  48. Le Roi du Nord


    I used you as the source, so are you admitting that you aren’t an accurate source?

    And if you are truly concerned about accuracy, perhaps you should use accurate sources when making claims regarding the age of the earth, CC/GW, evolution, the difference between fascism and socialism, etc.  Or encourage the leader of the free world to use accurate sources when claims about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election, British airports during the Revolutionary War, or the size of the crowd at his inauguration (or any of the 13000+ fibs he has told since in office).

  49. Le Roi du Nord


    Those are some pretty silly claims coming from you, a guy(?) that doesn’t know the difference between an All-Star first baseman and a deceased football player.  But go ahead, spin away…..

  50. Kevin Scheunemann


    You still have not provided proof of your claim.

    You, and your cohort in incivility, jiffy, should apologize.

    If you are going to assert false claims about me,at least have courtesy to back them up.

    Did you see the Covington kids are getting their mega lawsuit against the reckless liberal media  moved ahead?

    Something for you to ponder.

  51. Le Roi du Nord

    And you have provided no proof of the claims you made (see above), so why is it OK for you but not for me.

    BTW, you have used the term “union thug(s)” to describe teachers, public employees, and act 10 protestors on a number of occasions.  I even pointed out to you in one thread that after act 10 unions were neutered by walker (you agreed at the time), and that many public employee unions disbanded because of it.    None of us dedicated pursuers of the truth can help you with your memory issues, but we can and do try to keep you up to date on things that repeatedly slip by you.  We do what we can, as onerous as it is.

  52. Kevin Scheunemann



    I refer to criminal behavior as “thuggish” and criminals as “thugs”.

    So context matters.

    Produce the quote.

  53. Le Roi du Nord

    “union thug”.

  54. Kevin Scheunemann


    Where? When?

    Facts, not emotion please.

  55. Kevin Scheunemann

    Do you think this is Trump impeachment hearing and we rely on your twisted perception as reality?

    There is a higher standard here…actually almost anywhere than awful liberals in Congress.

  56. Le Roi du Nord


    I don’t get emotional about little things like catering to your every whim.  And I never will.  Get over it.

    You asked for the quote and I provided it verbatim.  I understand that doesn’t satisfy your need to be right, and your corresponding need for me to be wrong. We all know that is your MO and probably won’t change.

    And for you to compare this back and forth to the impeachment process is really a great example of how you value your self-importance over that of all others.  “(H)igher standard”  here?  Really?  No wonder you think the earth is 6000 years old…..

  57. Kevin Scheunemann

    So you got nothing in terms of proof.


    Proof is for everyone else but you…

  58. Le Roi du Nord


    I provided a verbatim quote.  No, I wasn’t sitting next to you when you typed it, but I read it on this blog just the same.  I guess we are at a stalemate.  No surprise.  As proof is such a big thing for you, why don’t you prove some of your outrageous claims?  Different standard for you no doubt.  But I understand your unwillingness to attempt to prove something that can’t be proven.

  59. Kevin Scheunemann

    Link to quote?

    I can tell you, that is NOT a “verbatim”, in context, quote.

    Stop lying.

    You only add to your error.

  60. Le Roi du Nord

    Verbatim:  “in exactly the same words as were used originally”.

    Websters New World Dictionary

    So, by definition, I am correct. And I pointed out the context(s) above.

    Now I am off to deer camp and probably won’t respond until next week.  Be safe, get smart, be truthful.

  61. Kevin Scheunemann


    Where? And when?

    Context? (If any).

    So far, all that is: is a quote from you.

  62. Kevin Scheunemann

    Jjf, Nord,

    Neither of you has apologized for dragging me into this discussion with your false witness.

    Neither of you can be trusted to have basic facts in your awful personal attacks.

    Awful. Just awful.

  63. Le Roi du Nord

    As I have told you numerous times, I don’t apologize for your errors.

  64. Kevin Scheunemann


    If you don’t have proof of your assertion, I tell you the assertion is false….how in the world is it “my error”?

    Is this what passes for rational thought process in the liberal sphere these days?

  65. Le Roi du Nord

    You also claim the earth is 6000 years old. Your credibility is zilch.

  66. Kevin Scheunemann


    I told you I live by faith on it.

    Why does my exercise of my faith get you so worked up?

  67. Le Roi du Nord

    Interesting that your “faith” depends on a lie. That’s a pretty sad commentary on your gullibility and willful denial of the truth.

    I don’t get “worked up” about it in the least. I pity those who pass on opportunities to add to their knowledge base. But it sure puts a dent in your credibility.

  68. MjM

    Nort stares at mirror: ‘…your “faith” depends on a lie.’

  69. Mar

    LevRou, why are you such a bigot?

  70. Le Roi du Nord

    What makes me a bigot? A preference for truth?

  71. Kevin Scheunemann

    Oh Nord,

    My faith is based on Jesus as my Savior.

    Are you so given over to Satan, and your sin, that it is impossible for you to tolerate the slightest expression of Genesis chapter 1-3 to be commented on as accurate history, openly?

    Since you insist on using your hopelessly corrupted, fallen, sinful, human reason in this matter…answer these 2 questions. Does evil exist? If so, how could evil possibly come to exist under an evolution/Big Bang scenario?

    If you deny existence of evil, that is a whole other debate, or mental illness, we need to deal with.

    For the time being, we will ignore your reason problem on your origin religion and your failure to answer the simple reason question: ” where did the material leading up to the Big Bang come from?”

    Also, you still have not apologized for your false witness (sin/evil)?

  72. Mar

    You rip on Kevin’s religious beliefs. Unless you were around 6000 years ago, you cannot without 100% certainity that Kevin is wrong.
    But your attitude toward his religious beliefs is beyond bigoted.

  73. Le Roi du Nord


    The entire scientific is certain he is wrong. FYI: k wasn’t around 50 years ago let alone 6000.


    Faith does not equal truth. I don’t care what you believe, nor should you care what I believe. But when you try to foist off belief as truth I feel compelled to point out the error.

  74. Kevin Scheunemann


    Back up a minute…you claim to have truth in your orgin religion?

    Why do you avoid the base question reason cannot answer in your religion?

    “Where did the material leading up into Big Bang cone from?”

    Remember you cannot use faith because you deny you are a religion.

    Reason dictates you should be able to answer that simple question of truth.

    Enlighten me.

  75. Mar

    Le Roi, and science is always right? Umm, ok.
    Personally, I think the Earth has been around longer but I am not judge his beliefs.

  76. Kevin Scheunemann


    The issue with Nord is: he never applies reason to his Big Bang religion.

    He can’t answer my simple question because he has to take any answer he gives, or believes in, on faith.

    He knows he is caught refusing to live by his “science” and “reason” standard, so he lashes out and ridicules others.

    It is interesting he avoided the “Where did evil come from question?” Because science has no rationale for that in evolution as well.

    Maybe he can ponder these things on his derr stand the next few days.

  77. Mar

    A Christian can believe different things. Based on my life experience, I believe in reincarnation. Now, most people wouldn’t agree with that but that’s belief. I can’t prove it, but if you have seen some of things I’ve seen, you may agree with me.

  78. Kevin Scheunemann

    That means you will have to rip Hebrews 9:27 out of your bible.

  79. Mar

    Aahg vs {{}}}

  80. Mar

    ok, Kevin, but how do you explain how some people on Earth were born to suffer since day 1?

    Like the kids I have with: A person due to hydrocephalus whose head was 3 feet across, or the kids with Lech-Nyham Syndrome who literally eat themselves or rub themselves so hard they don’t have noses anymore and they have eaten their lips, or kids who are born with 1/2 brain or less, or the ones who were born with so many contractures that they are in constant pain or the kids that are born with such deformities that they born without a nose fingers or toes and the list can go on and on and on.

    What does the Bible say about that?

  81. Kevin Scheunemann

    How could God allow suffering and evil?

    This is a classic question. When it’s a challenge to the Christian faith, trying to prove that God doesn’t exist, it’s usually phrased like this: “If God is truly omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful) and loving, how could he allow suffering and evil?”
    Here is a classic answer.
    God exists. Jesus said he does, and he rose from the dead to show that he could be trusted to tell the truth.
    God is all-knowing. That trustworthy Jesus said so. And since God knows everything, he is smarter than we are. So he may do or say things that are perfectly right, but we don’t understand them, because we’re not as smart. We have that experience every day with people who are smarter than we are.
    God is all-powerful. In philosophical terms, all-powerful means that he can do whatever he wants. He can always put his will into action.
    God is loving. God showed his love for all people by sending a Savior (John 3:16).
    Does God allow evil to occur? That depends on how you define evil. Sometimes what seems bad or evil to one person seems good to another person.
    But let’s grant that God does allow evil to occur. It’s only temporary. Death intervenes. Since God is smarter, perhaps that temporary evil actually turns out to be for some good in the end. For example, the Bible tells the story of a man whose brothers sold him into slavery. That was evil. But it turned out for good. The man himself said so (Genesis 50:20).
    Since God is smarter than I am, I trust that when he allows evil or suffering in my life, it will work out for my good (Romans 8:28). Since he’s loving, I trust that everything really will work out for the best in my life. And since he’s all-powerful, I can ask him to get rid of the evil, and trust that if that’s what he wants at that time, he can and he will (Matthew 7:7).
    Romans 5 tells us:   “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4 perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.”

    Suffering, pain,and even death of ones we love is part of the perseverence of faith.   To draw us closer to God.   As a Christian, are you closer to God in times of prosperity and ease?    Or when there are challenges and sometimes,suffering in your life.    I know Romans 5 has always been true during the suffering times in my life.

  82. Kevin Scheunemann


    Waiting for you to back up the “truth” of your origin religion, with reason…

    “Where did the material leading up to Big Bang come from?”

    If you answer that question with reason, without reliance on faith, I will give you free pass to ridicule me on Creation as much as you want.

    What are you afraid of? You are a smart guy that can hold yourself to the standards you demand of others, right?

  83. jjf

    What kind of evidence or reasoning would satisfy you, Kevin?

    Your bar for belief seems pretty high.

  84. Mark Hoefert

    Well, kind of on topic about 40+ comments in, now the last 40+ comments have turned into the usual troll circle jerk.

    Owen, maybe you need to spike this one – these guys have the stamina for another 40+ back and forths before they are done.

  85. jjf

    Mark, did anyone care to answer my November 20, 2019 at 1:07 pm questions?

  86. Kevin Scheunemann


    I will settle for same standard of “proof” Nord demands from me on Creation. I am not fussy. I am a fair guy.

    Would you care to answer the simple question?

    Don’t you find it interesting that I squarely say I live by faith on it, get ridiculed, for not having fallen, depraved reason on matter, but then you Big Bang zealots fail to apply the same standard to yourselves by one simple question?

    I find it detestable and the height of intolerance on the part of godless religion Nord subscribes to.

  87. Mar

    “Suffering, pain,and even death of ones we love is part of the perseverence of faith.   To draw us closer to God.”
    Kevin, I’m not talking about loved ones who deal with those horrible afflictions, I’m talking about those maybe .1% who suffer from horrible afflictions.
    Of course, there will always be people with disabilities through nature or neglect.

  88. jjf

    When your standard of proof is “God did it” then everything is quite easy, isn’t it?  Science has tested, measurable answers all along the way…  but that’s not good enough for you.

  89. Kevin Scheunemann


    The answer still does not change.

    Admit it, there are many great stories of those with what seem to be insurmountable disabilities that overcome all odds to be an inspiration to the Godly and the godless.

    We have a child in congregation right now that has a rare disease that has been, usually, 100% fatal for kids beyond 4 years old. Countless surgeries later and after much prayer, aid and assistance of congregation, she is now 10. Did the Lord use this to strengthen the members of his flock? Absolutely.

  90. Kevin Scheunemann


    Using your standard of proof…

    “Where did material leading up to Big Bang come from?”

    Or should we take your view on “faith”, as godless as it is?

  91. Kevin Scheunemann

    Jjf and Nord,

    For 2 guys that enforce “reason” and “science” on others like the Gestapo in a Jewish ghetto….why does my question got you so scared to answer?

    Is your gross godless supremacy been shattered? Do you realize “science” and “reason” betrays you here, and are afraid to admit you really rely on godless faith for the answer.

    I really expected better from the disciple of “reason” than to shy away from one little question about the origin religion you claim to use “reason”.

    Come on guys, I am waiting.

  92. Kevin Scheunemann

    Jjf and Nord,

    Don’t forget I expect an apology for your false quote of me, despite your diversion by falsely ridiculing me on Creation to a standard you cannot hold your godless religion to, again..

  93. jjf

    Kevin, your question is the one that the scientists are asking and trying to answer, too.  There’s nothing scary about it.  Why are you afraid of so many other conclusions of science, especially the ones about the origins of life, the evolution of life?  What’s so scary to you about this question about the origin of the universe?

    What does the Bible say about the source of cosmic background radiation?  If it doesn’t have an answer beyond “God did it” can I declare it to be a poor source of understanding?

  94. Le Roi du Nord

    k et al:

    Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner, but I have returned from a successful hunt in the far north.

    First off; as I have told you numerous times, smart and rational folks don’t apologize for the mistakes of others, so no I won’t apologize for your continued perpetuation of a false narrative.

    But here is a pretty good answer for your repeated denial of reality, “Where did the material leading up into Big Bang cone(sic) from?”

    As I am sure you will deny this explanation I will supply more as needed.  Or you could do some actual research on your own, however troublesome that may be for you.  Suggested authors; Cooper, S. and Hofstadter, L.; Winkle, L.; and Kripke, B.

    Now supply some “proof” that the earth is 6000 years old.

  95. Paul

    Le Roi du Nord was committing sex crimes against children.

    Why does Owen Robinson defend sick pedophiles?

  96. Paul

    Owen Robinson is a sex offender defender.

  97. Kevin Scheunemann


    That is not proof, but faith.

  98. Kevin Scheunemann


    That is not “proof”, but a lot of guessing about what answer could be.

    Scientists “are not sure” is the only reasonable answer. Reason dictates you live by faith the answer may someday be explained ed by science.

    Nothing in your link answers the question with verifiable “proof”.

    Stop ridiculing others for having faith when your religion relies on error prone scientists for its faith…

    You do not even live by the standard you demand of others when it comes to “reason”. It shows how depraved your, sinful, fallen, reason really is.

    You still did not point out where I used that quote and doubled down on you false witness. Awful. Just awful.

  99. Mar

    It is interesting to see you guys battle it out. The funny thing is, no one really knows what happened with 100% certainty.
    Both sides need faith to support their side.

  100. jjf

    Mar, saying you don’t know an answer is not relying on “faith.”

    Kevin, you didn’t address anything I said.

    Just because we don’t know an answer to your particular question doesn’t even mean you have the right question, nor does it mean the answers to all the other questions are wrong.

  101. Kevin Scheunemann


    The difference with me is: I am honest about my faith and trasparent.

    The godless are not honest about the giant leap of faith needed to a question that has never been answered.

    Honesty, or lack of honesty, is what difference is here.


    There is no need to address your questions, because the first question, upon which everything is based, has no proof, but pure faith to make all the theory work.

    Why do you dodge? Where did the material leading up to Big Bang come from?

    I’ll help you guys out. Big Bang is not proven, but just a “theory”. It is not proof, but a guess.

    Believing guesses on something requires faith.

  102. Le Roi du Nord


    I tried to keep it simple for you, but that didn’t work.  And there is no “faith” involved with the explanation.  Obviously you didn’t read any of the material I provided.  But I still haven’t received an answer from you regarding how you can prove that the earth is 6000 years old.  You have been dodging that for a long time..

  103. Mar

    Let Roi, how can you prove, with 100% certainty that earth is not 6000 year old.
    So, you say science. How many times has science been proven wrong thought the ages. Probably more times wrong than right. Not a living creature has been around that long, not even Carl Reiner and Mel Brooks.

  104. Kevin Scheunemann


    It says “In the beginning there was no matter, but there was energy”….

    No explanation or proof to that conclusion.

    No explanation or proof where energy came about.

    Only a guess as to what happens to energy at Big Bang. It is all speculation.

    I have more proof on Creation account through Moses in Genesis than your link testimony.

    You are very arrogant, dishonest, and hypocritical on your standards.

  105. Kevin Scheunemann


    I don’t have to live by your standard of proof on Cemreation, I live by faith.

    But you do have to live by your standard on godless Big Bang, proof and reason, you are falling way short, and exposing your godless faith in error prone science on this matter.

    Your dishonesty and hypocrisy is astounding, awful, and disgusting.

  106. Kevin Scheunemann


  107. jjf

    See, sometimes they need 100% certainty, sometimes they just need faith, sometimes God is quite clear and it says so right here, sometimes God is deeply mysterious and we can’t possibly know His ways.

    Come up with measurable evidence and an explanation, and they’ll say it’s not 100%, and then they’ll say they only need “faith” to believe the most outlandish creation of a Bronze age mind.

  108. Kevin Scheunemann


    If it is not 100%…is it certainly or guessing?

  109. Mar

    Except, if, my point earlier, is that both sides need for their beliefs.
    To be honest, I see that both sides can be right, except the big bang. I believe God created the universe but we have also evolved mentally and physically.

  110. jjf

    You think science doesn’t worry about certainty and proof?  Do you need faith to know that apple falls when you drop it, because you’re not 100% certain of what you believe about gravity?  Why are you holding science to one standard, but religion gets a free pass on, well, almost everything it claims?  You overlook at the entirety of science, find an edge where the unknown still lurks, and declare that because there’s a margin they don’t know anything for certain and therefore the talking donkeys and virgin births might still be true?

  111. Le Roi du Nord


    Was it “faith” that cured the child in your congregation, or the science and expertise of the doctors and other smart folks that treated her?

    Is it “faith” that allows you to type such nonsense into the ether and end up on my screen?  Or was it years of work by scientists all over the world?

    Is it “faith” that keeps the aircraft you fly in aloft, or the cumulative works of scientists, engineers, and lots of smart folks over a long period of time?

    Is it “faith” that allows you to freeze a dilly bar in July?  Or the smart folks that invented modern refrigeration units?

    Or would you prefer to maintain bronze age standards of living commensurate with your “faith” ?

  112. Kevin Scheunemann


    We can observe the apple falling.   No one witnessed Creation.

    Why do you avoid the question.   It is so easy for someone so sure of themselves and fullof “proof”….


    Why are you avoiding the question?

    You are confusing observable technology today, as a blessing from God, to a guesswork arrogance no one is sure about.   Even scientist argue among themsleves about where the material the led up to alleged Big Bang and where some of the material went.  that is guesswork and speculation.  If you believe it as Gospel, that is faith on your part.

    “Proof” does not happen by your avoiding the simple, reasonable, question.

    Just be honest, you have faith in the guesswork, despite fact guesswork has no unified theory or idea where the material came from.

    I am honest about faith, you are not.

    Hold yourself to the standard you demand of others,is all I ask.

    You still have not apologized for your false witness….

  113. Le Roi du Nord


    I have supplied you with responses and you don’t read them.  I attach articles that explain it in simple terms.  I supply a list of authors of more technical papers.  There is no way to satisfy you.  Ignorance can be cured by knowledge.  Your choice.

    So is your determination of the 6000 YO earth based on fact or faith?  Even though there is plenty of evidence that the earth is much, much, much older.  Care to answer, or you just going to dodge it again ?

  114. jjf

    Kevin’s afraid to nudge his house of cards.  No answer will satisfy him, he’s convinced science is all guesswork.  But his Bible and his interpretation of it, that’s self-evident and no proof necessary.

    Are you certain that apple will fall if you let it go?

  115. Kevin Scheunemann


    Did you even read your links? They say at least 5 different conflicting things.

    We need your brand of crazy to bring it together, I guess. Can you do that in your fervent faith?


    I dare you to point to an answer to the question that ISN’T guesswork…

    Why do you guys squirm?

    Just apply reason and science and answer the question…where did it all come from? The matter? The energy? The anti-matter? And whatever alternate form, multiverse, dimension, or magic asymmetry you think helped it along.

    Why is this so hard for both of you?

    I thought both of you lived by proof….

  116. Mar

    Science is guess work. Remember, science said the world is flat.

  117. Le Roi du Nord

    “Science is guess work”.

    No, dear uneducated mar, it isn’t. You have embarrassed yourself.

    And unlike religion, the knowledge of science is always advancing.

    No k, they didn’t.  You just don’t understand the terminology.  And are unwilling to learn.

    Now, what proof do you have that says the earth is 6000 years old?  Or did you just make that up?

  118. Kevin Scheunemann


    I don’t think you read the link.

    The question was being answered with sweepuming generalizations, no data, no proof, no explanation where matter, anti-matter, or energy ( we still haven’t cleared up which state you subscribe to prior to Big Bang) came from. Only that it was there, depending on which guesz you are adhering to.

    It does not matter which man made guess you subscribe to. Where did it all come from?

    Use facts and proof.

    You are like talking to a two year old.

    I admit my faith, why can’t you admit your godless faith in the snobby academic guessing game?

  119. jjf

    Come on, Le Roi, Kevin’s an expert on baryonic interactions, give him some proof he can understand!

    You know, like the way he supplies hard detailed proof for his Biblical claims!

  120. jjf

    Mar, when did science say the world was flat?

  121. Le Roi du Nord


    I provided him all the info a rational being would need to be able to delve into the issue.  As I mentioned, I dumbed it down for him, but obviously not far enough. But he did come up with yet another memorable quote;

    “The question was being answered with sweepuming generalizations, no data, no proof, no explanation”.   Yet he persists with his 6000 YO earth nonsense.

    Have a great Thanksgiving.

  122. Kevin Scheunemann


    You still have not explained anything.

    I can at least articulate where and how everything came into existence.

    You dodge, like a rat in front of a combine.

    Very disappointing you cannot articulate and produce any “proof”.

    Don’t hold others to standards you fail to hold yourself to.

    Still no apology from you for your false witness…figures.

  123. Le Roi du Nord

    “I can at least articulate where and how everything came into existence”.

    Then do so.  Don’t hold back.  Facts would be a bonus.

    And as I have told you numerous times, I don’t apologize for your mistakes.  Or can’t you read?

  124. Kevin Scheunemann


    Genesis Chapter 1,2 and 3.

    Read it. It’s all there. Explains how everything came into existence, and how evil came to be a part of Creation.

    Simple. I live by faith, so the inerrant Word of God is all I need to fulfill the covenant I live by.

    You however, fail to live by the covenant of “proof”, you live by while criticizing others under that standard. Awful. Just awful.

    Saying your false witness is not your mistake is yet another false witness on your part. You really show your depravity on this one. Awful. Just awful.

  125. Le Roi du Nord


    That isn’t proof, that is, to use you own terminology, “no data, no proof”.

  126. Kevin Scheunemann


    I told you, I don’t have to live by your religious standard of “proof”. I live by faith.

    I meet my standard.

    You do not meet your own covenant/standard of “proof”.

    Where did material leading up to Big Bang come from? Use facts, data and proof.

    Until you live by your own standard, please stop trying to inflict your covenant on others, it makes you a big time hypocrite.

    You need to apologize for your gross false witness against me which you now have doubled. Awful. Just awful.

  127. jjf

    One standard for Kevin and his beliefs, and another for others.  Yet somehow he says he can recognize that someone else isn’t following a standard of proof used by science.  One side of his brain is happy with no proof, the other demands something he claims he’ll be able to understand.

    The Big Bang may be a difficult problem for science to untangle.  Yes, it’s hard because most of the evidence has been erased because it was billions of years ago.  But Kevin’s confident that the fossils were planted by God just to mess with you.

  128. Kevin Scheunemann


    Simple solution to problem.

    You only have to admit Big Bang is only acceptable on Faith, since you admit proof is impossible.

    This is about Nord’s double standard. He thinks he acts outside of faith in his religion.

    It’s this insistent “proof” you demand that presents the problem when you fail to live by it on your end.

  129. jjf

    You’re wishing that faith would be equal to reason.  You aren’t suggesting this to give more credence to science, you’re wishing for a foundation for your religious beliefs – and that they’d deserve the same respect as the findings of science.

  130. Kevin Scheunemann


    But you rely on faith for things you cannot use reason to explain.

    If you canot answer the simple, reasonable, question:  “where did all the material leading up to the Big Bang came from? then why do you get to claim “reason” to a universe origin theory that you admit has no proof?

    That makes you a hyprocrite, because you use faith scientists currently have the data right or are going to fill in the missing pieces.

    Many, reasonable scientists, are now conceding dvinity is needed to explain the any theory they come up with outside Creation.

    This is about you and Nord’s painful, ignorance.   Pretending to have an answer when all you have is an empty faith in the mistake prone theories of man.   It is also a painful arrogance to watch and try and explain to you without being negative toward your ignorance.

  131. Le Roi du Nord


    Just to set the record straight:

    I have provided you many times with multiple sources of information regarding the age of the earth, Big Bang, etc.  You have declined the opportunity to become familiar with the material each and every time.  As the old saying goes, ” You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink”.

    There is no “religious standard” in science.  You made that up to divert attention from your willful ignorance. Nor am I inflicting my “covenant” on anyone, but rather trying to get you to accept reality.

    And, for the umpteenth time, I don’t apologize for your errors in judgement.


  132. Kevin Scheunemann


    You did not read your own links.

    How arrogant can you possibly be?

    I never say this, but you are an awful human being on this false witness. You made a false claim. I told you it was false. Asked you to produce proof. You failed to do that. And you still persist in the lie. That makes you very, very disgusting.

  133. Le Roi du Nord

    Yes, but it is obvious you didn’t.  Why do you persist in embarrassing yourself?  Pathology?

    You say a lot of things that are devoid of truth, why would anybody take much heed in your, “I told you it was false” nonsense.  You also said the earth is 6000 years old, and that is demonstrably false.  You have no credibility with folks interested in the truth.

  134. Kevin Scheunemann


    In the first link, it implies, with no data, or explanation, that everything was energy before Big Bang. Where did this “energy” come from? There is no comment on subject, just a lot of arguing and debate what form this energy was in. (Which means no one is sure because they lack proof.)

    Point to these answers…if you really want to get into your links pretending to be “reason”.

    Stop bearing false witness about me and your non-answer to such a simple question.

  135. Le Roi du Nord


    Except there is an explanation.  Can’t you read?  Amazing case of aggressive denial of the written word.

    Now where is the data and explanation for your 6000 YO earth?


  136. Kevin Scheunemann


    Then point to “explanation” and “proof”.

    Should not be this hard for someone as arrogant as you…unless you are evading?

  137. jjf

    It’s not like B&S was created for experts about first-microsecond Big Bang cosmology.  It’s not that Kevin is unable to search for answers in other places.  It’s that Kevin doesn’t want other answers.  It’s not that Kevin believes everything else science has found, up to the edge of the gap.  He doesn’t.  He needs the gap.

  138. Le Roi du Nord


    Over the last couple years I have provided you numerous links, sites and authors.  If you are too lazy or hidebound by ideology to take heed I can’t help you.

    Perhaps attending this presentation will kick start your educational process;

    PS: You have never provided any proof either of creation or the 6000 YO earth, while I have presented a substantial bibliography for your perusal.  Quit being so small-minded and petty.  Those qualities may have helped you as a third grader, but certainly don’t befit an adult.

  139. Le Roi du Nord


    Bingo !  Great catch.

    “… into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God.”

  140. Mar

    And yet,Le Roi, you cannot say with 100% accuracy that the world is not 6000 years old.
    You believe in science, which has been proven wrong time after time.
    And Kevin cannot say with 100% accuracy that the world is 6000 years old.
    Both of you rely on faith for your statements/arguments.

  141. Le Roi du Nord


    I could fill this site up with peer reviewed scientific papers that prove the earth is older than 6000 YO.  That isn’t an issue.  Nor would it be productive in convincing k.  He needs to come to the light of knowledge on his own.

    Question for you:  On Jan 1st will the earth then be 6001 YO ?  Come on, help k out.

  142. Mar

    Again Le Roi, science has been proven wrong many, many times. Even if peer reviewed.
    I guess it will be year 6001, but I am not a believer of the 6000 year argument.

  143. Kevin Scheunemann


    I did not ask for your incredulity, which is result of your failure…

    I asked you to point where the pre-Big Bang energy came from (if we agree it is energy, scientists are not sure at links you posted).

    Not one of links has data or proof.

    Show me.

    You have not shown squat yet because scientists have no agreement on anything in relation to this topic…other than your awful arrogance.

  144. Pat

    “ It’s not like B&S was created for experts about first-microsecond Big Bang cosmology.”

    No, it was created for entertainment purposes only. And I find this very entertaining.

  145. Kevin Scheunemann


    It is an excuse for the arrogant to not produce the “Proof” that does not exist.

    It is entertaining and hilarious to see them both squirm at such a simple question.

  146. Mar

    So, I will ask this of Kevin….where did God come from? There had to be a starting point.

  147. dad29

    where did God come from? There had to be a starting point.

    There is no ‘starting point’ for God in Jewish and Christian theology.  God is the Prime Mover, un-moved.  Yes, that’s a bit of a challenge, ain’a?

  148. Le Roi du Nord


    Come on up here and I will read several of the papers for you since you are unable or unwilling  to do so on your own.  I have done all I can do from this remote location.  Unfortunately I can’t transmit the data to your noggin via ESP, mind-melding, or some other pseudo-science that you believe in.

    No, where is your 6000 YO earth proof?

    dud: Why hasn’t k asked for proof?

  149. Kevin Scheunemann


    Excuses. Excuses.

    Don’t lecture others when you fail to articulate your own position.

  150. Kevin Scheunemann


    Short answer: our corrupted, fallen, sinful nature cannot fathom the concept.

    Long answer: Where did God come from?

    Our only answer is to express what the Bible tells us about God. God didn’t come from anything. He always was and always will be. Passages like Psalm 90:2 and Psalm 93:2 touch on this subject. “Eternity” and “everlasting” are terms that we finite creatures use to express the concept of something that has no end and/or no beginning. God has no beginning or end. He is outside the realm of time. The problem in saying this, of course, is that we cannot comprehend the idea of being beyond time or being without beginning or end. What Solomon expressed in Ecclesiastes 3:11 is humbling but true. We are informed of the concept but cannot fathom it.

    I suggest that in talking about this to your children you simply emphasize that (1) God is different from everyone and everything else. Everything else comes from something (ultimately from God himself), but God doesn’t. He is simply different; and (2) God is especially different in the kind of love he shows to us. He loves us so much that, even though we disobey him and often disrespect him, he sent Jesus to take away the guilt of our sin and adopt us into his family as dear children.

  151. Le Roi du Nord


    It isn’t my position, but that of the entire scientific community.  And I didn’t lecture you, I gave you the information needed to reach a rational conclusion.  If you chose not to use it, that is on you.  But your inability to grasp the knowledge doesn’t mean that the scientific community is wrong, but rather that you have chosen ignorance rather than enlightenment.

    And you still haven’t supplied one iota of proof that the earth is 6000 YO. What are you afraid of?

  152. Kevin Scheunemann


    Then explain the position.

    Scientists cannot even agree it was all energy before alleged Big Bang, and none of your linked info ventures a data driven guess where energy came from.

    Why are you so scared to articulate a simple answer here?

    Proof lacking?


  153. jjf

    Mar, when you went looking for what you wanted to find, did you find it?  Did your search for evolutionary knowledge end when you found an “apologetics” site?

    Yes, the Earth is more than 6,000 years old, and that’s certain – unless of course like Kevin, you want to redefine “certain.”  All this talk of needing “proof,” and we’re supposed to play along while you deny all the other proof and reasoning that millions of scientists over hundreds of years have assembled, and that this proof wasn’t good enough for you – you want a little bit more, from me?

  154. Le Roi du Nord


    Did you look at the source of your link?  It’s a rabidly anti-science religious group. Just take a look at some of the cherry-picked references and quotes.  They used one to dismiss radio-carbon dating, yet forgot to include, from the same source, that modern dating is accurate to 80+ years out to 75,000.

    AP is as accurate as Genesis, meaning neither are worth reading as proof the earth is 6000 years old.

  155. Mar

    Le Roi, you said the following: “It isn’t my position, but that of the entire scientific community.”
    You said the entire scientific community and I found a scientist who disagrees.
    Proving you wrong again.

  156. Mar

    jjf and Le Roi, I believe the earth is older than 6000 years but that’s my belief. I also believe in God and he created the Earth.
    But that my beliefs. I cannot 100% say I am right or not. Kevin can’t and you guys cannot say with 100% certainty that you are right.

  157. Kevin Scheunemann

    The standard Nord uses is “proof”.

    I use “faith” as not standard, as I have said many times.

    Nord continues to insist to hold me to a “proof” standard despite telling him what my standard is.

    I knew for a long time he could not hold himself to his own standard of “proof”….he cannot even articulate his position to such a simple question.

    I had to blow him apart on it because he resorts to (every time he loses his liberal position on the merits), ” yeah well at least am not stupid enough to believe in creation.”

    Nord is a bigot against Christians.

    Worse, he is a hypocrite to his own covenant he lives by.

  158. Kevin Scheunemann

    “Faith as a standard”… fill is the deviL.

  159. dad29

    The standard Nord uses is “proof”.

    I use “faith” as not standard,

    Be careful here, Kevin.

    Hadley Arkes–no slouch legally–is insistent that “belief” is nice, but will be shredded in any Constitutional battle over ‘freedom of religion.’

    He prefers “reason” as foundation.

    In the instant case, whether 6,000, 6,000,000, or 6 Umpty-ump bazillion, that distinction may be irrelevant.  But be careful where else you apply it.

  160. jjf

    Geez, Dad29, at least have a small hope that Kevin can come around, and give him a link to read.

    It’s not like Kevin accepts “proof” in great broad areas of other science contexts.  Why should we expect we can satisfy his fluid-dictionary-definitions when it comes to the edge of the Big Bang?

  161. Mar

    jjf, but yet you have no 100% proof of the big bang therory.
    Watching a comedy show with the same name does not make you smarter.

  162. jjf

    At the cutting edge of knowledge, at the most hard-to-see point we can imagine in the universe, what kind of proof and reasoning would you like?

    You have a better explanation for any aspect of the Big Bang or you think the explanations that have come along so far aren’t right?  Then join the science fray.  If your explanation explains more observations and interactions, you win.  Doesn’t matter if you’re a PhD or not.  Maybe you’ll get the Nobel.

    Waving your hands and saying “like, that’s just your opinion, man” doesn’t prove anything, either.

  163. Kevin Scheunemann


    Sounds like you just explained faith.

    Let me sum up what you just said,

    “We really don’t have proof, but we will someday.”

    Nord says same thing, but is in denial because he is dishonest.

    That is not science, that is faith.

  164. Le Roi du Nord

    No, that isn’t what jjf said.  Nor did I.  Read it again, this time without the religious blindfold.

  165. jjf

    I would think it should be obvious, but much useful evidence from the Big Bang has been obliterated.  There’s a similar problem with deciphering the beginning of life on Earth.  Nothing may remain, everything eats everything.

Pin It on Pinterest