More People Overdosing on Opioids

Nothing to see here. Carry on. Go back to panicking over the Rona.

169 Responses to More People Overdosing on Opioids

  1. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Be interesting to see if it is worse in Marxist Democrat hells like Michigan and New York.

  2. Mar says:

    And according to Le Roi, it’s their own damn fault.

  3. Randall Flagg says:

    Be interesting to see if it is worse in Marxist Democrat hells like Michigan and New York.

    It isn’t; it’s worse in Republicans hells:

    Opioid Deaths Per Capita

    #1:  West Virginia (Republican Governor)

    #2:  Maryland (Republican Governor)

    #3:  New Hampshire (Republican Governor)

    #4:  Ohio (Republican Governor)

    #5:  Massachusetts (Republican Governor)

  4. Pat says:

    Very interesting!

  5. jjf says:

    Kevin, quick, pivot to abortion!

  6. Mar says:

    Of course Randall uses data from 2018-19. More fake news.

  7. Pat says:

    Feel free to post the recent data, Marbles.

  8. jjf says:

    Mar, and feel free to explain why the relevant data from 2018-2019 can be dismissed as well as why exactly it is “fake news.”

  9. Mar says:

    jjf, because Randall’s info has nothing to do with the post.
    Pat, I looked and could not find anything yet.

  10. Pat says:

    “because Randall’s info has nothing to do with the post.”

    But it has everything to do with what Kevin said.

  11. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Oh please, Maryland and Mass are liberal hells. Those governors are, at best, are Mary Panzer, or really Democrats.

    West Virginia may be Republican leaning but has been hurt by liberal hell energy policies under Obama.

    Anti-prosperity liberals bear most of blame here.

  12. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Jjf,

    I do not pivot, that is a disgusting, gross, tactic you and Nord use when you are embarrassed on something.

    I may address the pivot when you or Nord’s anti-Christian bigotry, or horrible misconstruing of the Gospel pops up.

    So please stop transpising your awful tactics on me. False witness is not aporeciated.

  13. Mar says:

    No, Pat. Kevin, if I am not mistaken, was talking about the moronic actions by the NY governor and Michigan governor, who actually killed thousands and thousands by their actions, during this pandemic.

  14. Pat says:

    But, but, but…. Excuses, excuses.

  15. Mar says:

    Interesting facts from the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner: Death investigations in Milwaukee County involving victims ≤21 y/o YTD: 34 homicides, 11 MVA’s, 6 suicides, 6 OD’s, and 0 COVID deaths.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/mkemedexamine/status/1308766056459182080

  16. Pat says:

    Marbles,

    Twitter isn’t news!!!!!!!!!

  17. Pat says:

    “Kevin, if I am not mistaken, was talking about the moronic actions by the NY governor and Michigan governor, who actually killed thousands and thousands by their actions, during this pandemic.“

    No, Marbles, that’s not what Kevin was talking about. You are mistaken.

  18. Pat says:

    Kevin,

    Using your logic, Wisconsin‘s political system is dominated by Republicans. What are they doing about helping the citizens they supposedly represent.

  19. Mar says:

    Gee Pat, I used facts. You used opinions. Big difference. Nice try.
    And you know what Kevin meant? Darn, you are good at ESP.
    And Randall was talking about governors.
    3 strikes.
    You’re out.

  20. Pat says:

    Marbles, what facts????
    How do you know what Kevin meant? Are you his sock puppet?
    You’re saying state Governors don’t matter. It’s the legislative and senatorial that matter?

  21. Mar says:

    Pat, serious suggestion: get some reading lessons.

  22. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Pat,

    You can hardly argue WI is dominated by Republicans when Evers is dictator in chief.

  23. Pat says:

    Kevin,

    Are you seriously saying Wisconsin is dominated by Democrats?

  24. Pat says:

    Marbles,

    Seriously, put the bottle down.

  25. Mar says:

    Oh, I did Pat, but you drive me to drink when I read your posts.
    Sometimes your posts can be brilliant and other times, bat shit crazy.

  26. Tuerqas says:

    Randall, I don’t really see a correlation overall.  There are 13 states with 19.1 deaths per 100,000 or more.  The top 5 you listed were the states with 27.8 or more.
    #1:  West Virginia – Trifecta, all Reps
    #2:  Maryland (Republican Governor) Dem House and Senate
    #3:  New Hampshire (Republican Governor) Dem House and Senate
    #4:  Ohio – Trifecta, all Reps
    #5:  Massachusetts (Republican Governor) Dem House and Senate
    6 thru 13 are:

    Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island – Trifecta all Dems

    Michigan, Kentucky (Dem Governor) Rep House and Senate

    Tennessee, Missouri – Trifecta, all Reps

    So 5 mixed State Governments, 4 all Reps, 3 all Dems.  Not false data on your part, just slanted to ‘prove’ a false point.

    The most interesting thing to me was that there is only one State that has a divided legislature:  Minnesota.  Everyone else is either all Dem or all Rep.

     

  27. Le Roi du Nord says:

    “And according to Le Roi, it’s their own damn fault.”

    No mar, I never said that.  You continuously accuse others of lying, yet resort to lies yourself.  Significant hypocrisy on your part, little fella.

  28. Le Roi du Nord says:

    And k is back making stuff up again:  “Oh please, Maryland and Mass are liberal hells. Those governors are, at best, are Mary Panzer, or really Democrats.”

    Charlie Baker, R, Governor of Mass.

    Larry Hogan, R, Governor of Maryland.

    Both Republicans, none named Mary Panzer.

  29. Mar says:

    And Pathological Liar Le Roi lies again.
    You said that those overdose and commit suicide did it because they were weak and that it was their own fault.
    Come on Le Roi admit you are a liar.

  30. Le Roi du Nord says:

    No mar, I did not say that. And you can’t prove that I did.

    Why crawl down this rabbit hole of dishonesty?  Is it all you know, or all you understand?

  31. Mar says:

    Le ROI doubling down on his lies.
    What a pathological liar.
    Again blame others for his dishonesty.
    What a sociopath.
    What a pathetic human being.
    What a coward.
    What a sissy boy.

  32. Le Roi du Nord says:

    Hey mar, if I actually said what you claim, it shouldn’t be too difficult for one so highly educated as you to prove it.

    But as usual, you have nothing.

  33. jjf says:

    That’s Dr. Mar to you, Le Roi!  Hmm, I kind of miss his HCQ talk.  It’s a cure, I tell you!

  34. Jason says:

    >Hmm, I kind of miss his HCQ talk.  It’s a cure

     

    Trump never said that.  I never said.  I don’t recall Mar ever saying that.  So why lie?  It’s simple Foust, and this goes to the root of why you’re treated like a shitbag of a person by me…  you’re either lying about what was said to be a snarky ass, or you’re simply incapable of comprehending what was written / said.  All day, every day, this is all you do.

  35. jjf says:

    I bet if you googled, you could find a recent news story where Trump called his recent treatment “a cure”.

    Yes, he wasn’t talking about HQC, which is part of my point.  Dr. Mar once said it was a great help, and yet Trump didn’t get it when he got the virus, did he?

    Why you treat other people like that?  That’s a completely different conversation that you don’t ever seem to want to have.

  36. Jason says:

    >Dr. Mar once said it was a great help, and yet Trump didn’t get it when he got the virus, did he?

    What’s your point?  Are you actually implying that anyone here or in Washington DC said “If you get the Rona, you have to get HQC”?  Are you really that simple?

    >Why you treat other people like that?  That’s a completely different conversation that you don’t ever seem to want to have.

    With what I just quoted from you, that explains why I treat you like I do.  You want to get a doll out and touch it, go ahead, I’m very comfortable with how I talk to you.  You’re a troll and an asshole, that’s a you problem, not a thing I can do about it.

  37. Mar says:

    “Dr. Mar once said it was a great help,”
    Show me where I said that, jjf.
    What I said that will help some patients. But not all patients. It depends on when it is given.

  38. jjf says:

    You think you didn’t say it was a great help?  Run with it Mar.  Wasn’t Trump taking HQC long ago, as a preventative?

    Jason, tell me how you were affected, personally.  Tell me how the way you treat others helps improve your life, and how it doesn’t provoke others to treat you poorly…  or should I say, why it doesn’t encourage others to treat you the way you treat others.

  39. Mar says:

    jjf, yes he took it but the effects wore off, so he wasn’t mostly immune from it.
    And my position certainly was better than yours.
    Remember when you were cheering for more Democrat virus deaths that you said that hydroxychloroquine should never be used.
    I guess you were wrong, weren’t you?

  40. jjf says:

    yes he took it but the effects wore off, so he wasn’t mostly immune from it.

    O RLY.  Who claimed that, besides you?

  41. Mar says:

    It’s common sense jjf, something you clearly lack.

  42. Le Roi du Nord says:

    trump said he was taking hydroxychloroquine daily.  How could the effects wear off? Or was he just making that all up?  Or herd mentality?

  43. jjf says:

    Or maybe his doctors said “don’t do that” or maybe he wasn’t actually taking it.  The lie is the point, right?  Keep ’em guessing.

    Or as Owen says, don’t pay any attention to what someone says, just pay attention to what they might say they’re doing.

  44. Jason says:

    >Tell me how the way you treat others helps improve your life, and how it doesn’t provoke others to treat you poorly…  or should I say, why it doesn’t encourage others to treat you the way you treat others.

    You created your little blog of douchery long before I started calling you an asshole.  Long before I was falsely accused of doxxing you.  Are you trying to revise your history?   You’re an asshole, that’s why you get treated like an asshole.  Add that to your bookshelf.

  45. Mar says:

    And jjf adds nothing to the conversation.
    Just being a troll and and moron.

  46. jjf says:

    Jason, you think I should improve my behavior, but yours keeps getting worse and worse.  Where’s the logic in that?

    Mar, why isn’t Trump on your wonder drug HQC?

  47. Mar says:

    “Mar, why isn’t Trump on your wonder drug HQC?”
    Because the doctor didn’t prescribe it, you dumb ass.

  48. Le Roi du Nord says:

    Why wouldn’t trump continue to take hydroxychloroquine if ideas such a miracle drug? Why wouldn’t his doctor prescribe it if it works miracles?? Or was that just bs?

  49. Jason says:

    >Jason, you think I should improve my behavior, but yours keeps getting worse and worse.  Where’s the logic in that?

    I’ve already stated that I’m willing to “be nicer” but you can’t meet the bar required.  You are a troll here, you are never interested in honest, intellectual discussion and debate.  So I’ll continue to be “worse and worse” in your idiotic opinion.  Who are you cry to about it?

  50. Jason says:

    >Why wouldn’t trump continue to take hydroxychloroquine if ideas such a miracle drug? Why wouldn’t his doctor prescribe it if it works miracles??

    Ask them dummy.  You’re not proving a point here, other that asking stupid nonsense questions.

  51. jjf says:

    Jason, up on the Cross, absorbing the sin and pain inflicted on others!  Defender of the Crown and the Helpless!

    If you want honest intellectual debate, why not lead?  Why not behave yourself, set an example for others?  You get a particular tingly thrill from insulting other people?  Makes you feel powerful?  Doxxing quickens your pulse?  You think your poor behavior will somehow improve my behavior?

    As for HQC, Doctor Mar was a big defender of it, all because Trump promoted it.  Now Trump isn’t even on it.  Miracle drug!

  52. Le Roi du Nord says:

    My apologies j, I should have caught the typo. But that probably wouldn’t have made a difference, as you have chosen to be the juvenile one in the conversation.

    I’ll ask again: if hydroxychloroquine is such a miracle, and trump was taking it every day, how could the effects war off, and why wouldn’t his doctor prescribe it?

    If I type slower would it help your comprehension?

  53. Le Roi du Nord says:

    And now it looks like the drug trump did receive, Regeneron, contains fetal stem cells. The evangelicals must be in a quandary.

  54. jjf says:

    Was tested using fetal cells.

  55. Jason says:

    >As for HQC, Doctor Mar…

    Why not behave yourself, set an example for others? You get a particular tingly thrill from insulting other people? Makes you feel powerful?

  56. Jason says:

    >If I type slower would it help your comprehension?

    Why not behave yourself, set an example for others? You get a particular tingly thrill from insulting other people? Makes you feel powerful?

  57. Mar says:

    again jjf, I said hydroxychloroquine is not for use in every situation but go ahead, act like an ass, cheer for more deaths and keep taking people out of context.

  58. jjf says:

    And when I said it was risky and not designed for this, you said I was just hating on Trump.

  59. Mar says:

    Show me where the drug is risky. The drug has been used for decades. And it was not designed to help against the Democrat virus bevause hydroxychloroquine was invented decades earlier.
    Are you just being stupid for being stupid on purpose or just trolling?

  60. Le Roi du Nord says:

    Gee mar, your memory is getting worse. We had the same discussion months ago, you were all in for using hydroxychloroquine as recommended by trump.

  61. jjf says:

    Maybe one side effect of HQC is memory loss.  Or maybe Regeneron makes you say things like “I won the second debate, too.”

  62. Jason says:

    Hey Leroy, your article answered your stupid question, and you don’t even realize it.

    Your question…
    >I’ll ask again: if hydroxychloroquine is such a miracle, and trump was taking it every day, how could the effects war off, and why wouldn’t his doctor prescribe it?

    Your article…
    >May 20..Trump said he would be finishing his hydroxychloroquine regimen in “a day or two.”

    If I type slower would it help your comprehension?

  63. Le Roi du Nord says:

    j:

    So if it was a miracle cure, or a miracle prophylaxis, why would he quit taking it? Adverse side effects? Someone finally convinced him it did no good? Forgot?

    I typed really slowly. Perhaps that helped you. Or ask dr. mar, he is the self proclaimed expert.

  64. Jason says:

    So its obvious nothing will help your comprehension problem. Good luck with that.

  65. Le Roi du Nord says:

    Can’t answer, j?

  66. Jason says:

    Its been answered and dismissed.  What are you trying to do?  Proving to the few people that visit less than once a week just how dense you are?  Again, good luck with that, I hope you don’t expect great things in your life with your disability.

  67. Le Roi du Nord says:

    Ha! You are no better than mar and k. You can’t answer, and blame the questioner. So you really have nothing. Bravo!

  68. Jason says:

    Your lack of comprehension is already beyond contestation, relax, or we’re going to start thinking you’re bragging about it.  M’kay Pumpkin?

  69. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    I know I constantly ask this in your constant false witness against me, but example?

    You never produce one when I ask.

    Awful. Just awful.

  70. jjf says:

    Wait a minute.  Le Roi, is this one of those parody sites?  You know, where some commenters are actually just bots?  Just algorithms that keep spouting the same stuff over and over?

  71. Jason says:

    Lil John, since you have actually built and managed parody sites that just spout the same stuff over and over, you should know already. Whats the point of asking Leroy?

  72. jjf says:

    If you were a bot, Jason, what would your programming make you say?

  73. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    I’ll give you an example, and a follow-up, that you have never answered in spite of me asking you at least a dozen times:

    How do you know the earth is only 6000 years old?  Was it 5999 years old last year?  Will it be 6001 years old next year?

    I have been asking you that question for a long time, so how about an answer?

  74. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    That has nothing to do with your false witness above.

    Couldn’t come up with an example?

    You could apologize.

  75. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    You asked, I gave you an example.  And yet again you declined to answer.  Why should I apologize for your inabilities ?

  76. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    It had nothing to do with the subject at hand.

    I have answered the Creation question multiple times.

    I live by faith in the inerrancy of the bible, not the ever changing, shifting sands of science.

    I can’t help it that you hate the answer.

    Why does that answer bother you so much?

    Why is it so important for you to see me embrace your godless belief in questionable shifting truth of evolution?    Is your evangelism for the false cult of evolution that strong?

     

  77. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    No, you have never answered the “creation” question.  You have stated your religious beliefs, your biases, your misconceptions, but have never provided one iota of proof that the earth is 6000 years old.  Or is it 6003, since you have been dodging the question since 2017?

    And the age of the earth and evolution are different subjects (both of which you can’t comprehend), so why blame me for changing subjects?

  78. penquin says:

    I live by faith in the inerrancy of the bible, not the ever changing, shifting sands of science.

    Are you under the impression that the words in the Bible has never been changed nor shifted? Not even during translation? Please clarify…thanks

  79. jjf says:

    What?  Now the Bible provides answers for science?

  80. Le Roi du Nord says:

    pen and jjf:

    We will never get a straight and honest answer from k.  But I am sure he will dodge and weave, calling us all nasty names.

  81. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    penquin,

    We have the original languages.   Faithful transalation can and has been done in its original langugae to modern english.   We constantly discuss original language in our church and some of the shortcomings of english language to describe different types of love in the New Testament.

     

  82. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    Why have you declared it verboten for me to answer the question with my faith in the inerrancy of the bible?

    Are you bigoted against the Gospel?

    You should work on eliminating your bigotry.   Makes you look bad.

     

  83. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    “You should work on eliminating your bigotry.   Makes you look bad.”

    Quite a bit of hypocrisy there coming from a person that denies science at every turn.

    I don’t care about the gospel either way in this context, as it has nothing to do with proving the age of the earth.  As far as the “inerrancy of the bible”, we are talking science here, the age of the earth, not a comedy routine.

  84. penquin says:

    We constantly discuss original language in our church

    Having attended many different churches in my lifetime, am curious to know which translation yours beleives to be the “true” one.

     

  85. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    penquin

    Any of these are considered faithful translations.

    NPH will utilize NIV11 in the future as one translation option. NPH will also utilize the English Standard Version (ESV) and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) as translation options. We anticipate revisions to the HCSB as a result of the recommendations submitted by the WELS Translation Liaison Committee.

    A new translation of the Bible—the Evangelical Heritage Version (EHV)—is now available from Northwestern Publishing House (NPH).

     

  86. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    Disagreeing with wild ideas of ever changing science is not “bigotry”.

    Your hate of Christians expressing a faithful conviction of the origin of the world is bigotry.

    We have gotten into this before…in all your “science”, in all your human arrogance, in all your pomposity, you are still tripped up on one simple question:

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

    No matter what your answer, you have to rely on faith, at some point, to complete the answer….unless you buy into the very unscientific theory that everything can come from nothing…which requires cult-like faith.

     

  87. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    If you didn’t already know, there is a difference between “faithful” and factual.

    And you still haven’t provided proof that the earth is 6000 years old.  Or is it 6003?

  88. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    Or really? What are the “facts” on where the material leading up to the Big Bang came from?

    The difference is:  I am not ashamed of my faith.

    You are ashamed of your faith and refuse to admit you even have faith in your godless origin of the world.   You should not shame others for their faith when you cannot even admit the truth of your own faith.

    Shameful.  Just shameful.

     

  89. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    I do not have to provide proof.   I live by faith.

    You do have to provide proof for my question though…if you are honest to your science covenant.

    Have at it.    Answer without using faith.    I dare you.

     

  90. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    “I do not have to provide proof. ”  But you demand it of others.   Hypocrite.

    The question is: Can you prove the that earth is 6000 years old.  Obviously you can’t, never could.  In other words, you are, and always have been, wrong.

    My faith, and surely not religion, isn’t at issue here, it is your complete and continuous denial of science, and reliance religious ideology rather than fact.

  91. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    I demand those that live by the scientific covenant demonstrate it in action.   Unless you renounce that?  Why do you live by “science” if you are offended like a tantrum child by simple demand for “proof” on your positions?

    I live by faith in Christ as objective truth.   I do not live by the standard of “proof” on Creation.

    I suggest you get a new religion if you hate living by covenant of  your godless religion.   You dodge my question of universe orgin pretty quickly.   Are you sure you don’t want to produce “proof”?

    I have answered the question on Creation, you have not answered the question on your orgin faith…which is disappointing…and dishonest.

    I figured a smart guy like you would know that answer by heart.

     

  92. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    Can you stop with your whining about my open belief in Creation, when you cannot even hold yourself to standards of proof on your cult orgin religion?

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

    You must live by “proof”, not “faith”

    I anxiously await you holding yourself to the very standard you demand of others….even though they have explained they do not live by your godless covenant.

     

  93. jjf says:

    And to think this post was about opioids.  Now Kevin’s turned it into his regularly scheduled discussion of the Bible.  Even Mar and Jason are too embarrassed to join in.

  94. Mar says:

    Not embarrassed jjf, but I am not going cut down another’s religous beliefs.

  95. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    JJF,

    Stop bearing false witness…Nord pivoted again.   I am just finishing up the subject since he insisted several times…again.

    As you can see, he is both ashamed of his covenant of “proof” for his origin “science”…and he is ashamed of his faith…because he cannot admit he needs faith to believe in his godless Big Bang fairy tale.

    I am slapping down the bully once and for all on this issue, so we can stop diverting to it everytime Nord get embarrassed by the issue at hand.

     

  96. Le Roi du Nord says:

    Sorry k, but I didn’t pivot.  You asked for an example, I gave you one.  Don’t blame me if you can’t prove your claim.  You are really just proving the original thesis, ” You can’t answer, and blame the questioner.”.

    And proof that the earth is older than 6000 (or is it 6003?  you never answer) years is different than what you pivoted to, first evolution, then Big Bang.  Further proof that you rely solely on your religious ideology rather than any semblance of fact.

  97. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    If you can’t hold to your own standard of proof for your orgin beliefs, why do you hold others to same standard?

    I have been infinitely patient with you in your disgusting, bigoted, attacks.

    Why don’t you show me how its done and prove your origin belief?

     

  98. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    I’ll type slower, how old is the earth?  Can you prove it? Quit pivoting to something else.

  99. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Not sure, but it is probably under 10,000 years.  I like by faith on a literal Genesis.  I live by my covenant.

    Now, will you answer my question,living by your covenant of “proof”?   no?

     

  100. Le Roi du Nord says:

    I’ll buy the , “Not sure” part, not anything else.

    Now read this, or have someone read it to you, and tell me how the earth is 6000 years old.  Looks like you aren’t the only “christian” with faulty math skills.   Enjoy.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/02/07/how-do-we-know-the-earth-is-4-5-billion-years-old/#1df525292554

  101. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    If you have no proof for your orgin of the world…you take your godless theory on “faith”…pretty bad form to ridicule others who are sure about the objective truth of the matter, by faith.

    You are “not sure” about origin of universe, but feel the need to tear down others who are sure? Why?

  102. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    We aren’t talking about the origin of the world, but rather your still unproven claim that the earth is 6000 years old.  Or is it 6003, or the 6024 that Ussher calculated?  Why do you keep trying to change the subject?  If your “truth” is so objective, why can’t you answer?

  103. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    We are talking orgin of world and your version does not make sense.

  104. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    The question at hand is your claim that the earth is 6000 years old.  You still haven’t answered that question, nor any follow-up.  You are the one diverting, dodging and weaving.

  105. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    The question is how your origin of the world came to be if you have no answer?

    You can’t claim your age is correct if you have no idea where it all came from.

    I told you, I am not held to “proof”, but you are.   Put up or stop whining.

  106. Le Roi du Nord says:

    So you continue to avoid the question at hand.  You have nothing.  No surprise.

  107. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    If you demand a data driven universe orgin with proof, show me yours.

    Then you can gloat. You have a cold, empty, nothing, in your faith in a science theory rife with shortcomings.

    I have faith in Christ.

    Hold your standard to yourself first before you ridicule others.

    It is indecent.

  108. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    I know better than to demand anything from you.  It would a futile, as you never, ever, answer the question at hand.

    I can show you all sorts of data, evidence, whatever you want to call it, that will prove the earth is much older than 6000 years (or is it 6024?).  Would you read it?  Probably not. Could you comprehend it? No.

    Can you provide even one iota of actual proof that the earth is 6000 years old?

    Now change the subject again.

  109. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    We cannot buy into your theory of orgin until you lay the “proof” out there.

    that is your covenant.

    I don’t have to live by your covenant, I live by faith.

    You do not live by faith, so I suggest you follow through on your covenant and answer my question.

    Otherwise, you are a giant hypocrite because you do live by faith on your orgin story.   In that case, I suggest stop ridiculing the faith of others for a standard you refuse to live up to.

     

  110. Tuerqas says:

    KS

    I live by faith in Christ as objective truth.   I do not live by the standard of “proof” on Creation.

    Well no, you live by faith in Christ as subjective proof.  There is not really any objective faith, imo, or it would be provable in the same manner (with the same scientific tests, as it were) to an extent that the majority of people would believe the same things, much as most people believe in gravity the same way.  Or at the very least, Christians would all have the same beliefs as they would/could use the same tests to prove their faith.  I mean, most people have the same concept of what gravity is and they don’t denounce a bunch of other people’s beliefs in gravity because they have applied the same proofs to its existence.  Faith in religion is really the very definition of subjective proof.  That is why there are so many religions and sects of religion and everyone comes to faith through a myriad of different paths rather than one path because it was personal…subjective..

    Now if you mean ‘objective truth’ as the philosophical phrase for ‘that which exists whether we acknowledge it or not’, don’t forget that that objective truth can be equally applied to the opposite of every position you may take.

  111. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    Who is the “we”?  You are the only one here claiming the earth is 6000 years old. You probably don’t have a clue who or how that number was determined, nor of all the built in errors in the calculations.  But that probably doesn’t bother you one iota.

    T:

    Well said.

  112. Mar says:

    Lots of bigotry going on.
    Kevin has his beliefs and believes in the Bible.
    The sociopath’s religion is science and science says something else, but science has been wrong so many times. But the sociopath believes in science regardless.
    Others have an in between views.
    None of us can absolutely say for certain they are 100% right.
    We all have beliefs and faiths which can be right or wrong

  113. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    “WE” means all believers in Christ that hold to a biblical, literal, Genesis on Creation.

    Trying to draw believers in Christ away to your unproven, godless, religion, is just demonic.

    Why do you shy away from the eleohabt question in the room?

    WHERE DID ALL THE MATERIAL LEADING UP TO THE BIG BANG COME FROM?

    Answer without using faith…

    If you can do that, then, even though still crass, you can ridicule my answer using faith.

    Simple. Why do you choose hypocrisy and bigotry instead?

    Awful.

    Shameful.

    Pathetic.

    Disgusting.

  114. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    “Elephant question”

  115. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    Getting back on subject here, you still haven’t answered the question: can you prove the earth is only 6000 years old (or 6024, depending on whose faulty math you use) ?

    If you want to actually see something here in WI that has been scientifically proven to be much older, check out the Two Creeks Buried Forest in Manitowoc County.  Material buried by a glacier has been radio-carbon dated at 13,000+ years old.  Enjoy.

  116. Le Roi du Nord says:

    mar:

    I don’t care what k believes, it is what he claims to be fact, like the 6000 YO earth nonsense, that matters.  The world is being taken over by folks spewing unadulterated lies, be it you (The sociopath’s religion is science, K. Hernandez is a murderer, etc) k, trump, or Qanon, and somebody has to stand up to the darkness of deceit.  I’ll do my part.  You?

    “We all have beliefs and faiths which can be right or wrong”  Like I said, believe whatever you want, but don’t foist it off as truth when you know it isn’t.

  117. Mar says:

    You are the perfect description of darkness. You are a liar, a hater, a sociopath, a bigot, a racist and a coward,Le Roi.

  118. Le Roi du Nord says:

    Poor attempt, mar.  You can’t prove any of that.  You can believe whatever nonsense you want, but stick to the facts, ma’am.

  119. Tuerqas says:

    Le Roi, thanks.

    But you know my statement applies to theoretical science as well.  The big bang theory, for instance, is an excellent example.  It is a theory with no proof and is accepted by scholars on faith alone.  That a mighty being created and executed the big bang seems a more likely scenario than a random ‘singularity’ to me and many people smarter than me.  And if you can accept that caveat to a scientific world, we’re probably good.

    I happen to believe that whom I call God created the universe and used the term ‘days’ in his creation story because early man had no concept of what 5 or so billion years would mean.  How long is a ‘day’ to a being that created the whole universe?  I never really understood the literalists interpretation that God limited himself to the 6 spins of the access on a single world in his billions of worlds creation.  The Bible is a perfect tool, if you want to find God.  It tells fables to teach (fables are not truth, they are fiction so how can the entire book be actual ‘perfect truth’). And like any tool, it can just as easily be misused to not find or even fight Him.

  120. Le Roi du Nord says:

    T:

    But the Big Bang has more supporting evidence, perhaps not 100% proof, but certainly much more (and repeatable), than does say, the 6000 YO earth fable. And as time goes on, and scientific advances take place, we will know and understand even more.  Stay tuned.

  121. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    So you admit your faith on the Big Bang?

    Great.

    You can make room for my faith on Creation.

    Problem solved.

  122. Mar says:

    Question: How was God created? And did he start out as a baby?

  123. Le Roi du Nord says:

    No k, I respect the evidence that scientists have been compiling regarding the origins of the universe.  Faith is for folks with no evidence. Like you.

  124. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    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 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.

    When we are more fully occupied with the gospel, we grow more content with what we do not know.

  125. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    You just stated you did not have the evidence to prove your origin theory, for you to believe the theory….unless you are extremely dishonest….is faith.

    Are you full of faith, or just an extremely dishonst hypocrite?

  126. Tuerqas says:

    T:
    But the Big Bang has more supporting evidence, perhaps not 100% proof, but certainly much more (and repeatable), than does say, the 6000 YO earth fable. And as time goes on, and scientific advances take place, we will know and understand even more.  Stay tuned.

    I will stay tuned, of course.  Just like when I wrote a paper in 9th (1978) grade scoffing at the global cooling scare being taught as proven science and the laughed at outliers were showing evidence that the earth had been warming and should continue.  I wrote about how all experts agreed that the model used to conclude these opposite outcomes were the same models that had admitted flaws and varying levels of repeatability, so how could they be used to prove either side?  And, after staying tuned for 44 more years, those same models are still being used today while the ‘coolers’ are being laughed at.

    Last time I looked there were ‘4 pillars’ of evidence supporting the BBT and there were 4 primary ‘problems’ to it.  Both sides included what is currently just a faith belief in dark matter, how it works and what its actual properties are.  It would still be a theory if it had 7 pillars and only 1 major flaw.  More importantly, there aren’t any proofs.  That the universe is expanding is not proof that a singularity decided to explode, it just means there is an origin point.  Take out a mighty being and most of what you have left are random explosions, sure, but I would bet on Someone playing with fire being a more likely cause than a random explosion.  The only real reason the BBT exists at all is because scientists needed a non-God creation myth and have been trying to fit facts into it ever since.

  127. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    Admitting faith here?

    Or just dishonest?

     

  128. Le Roi du Nord says:

    “You just stated you did not have the evidence to prove your origin theory”.

    No k, I did not say that.  Why must you make stuff up when you so easily proven wrong. Isn’t lying in violation of one of your big 10 rules?

  129. Le Roi du Nord says:

    T:

    I don’t recall that global cooling was taught as “proven science” in 1978.  That year I was a senior in college getting a BS in Environmental Sciences/Earth Sciences.  There certainly was some chatter about global cooling, but nothing to the point of proven science.

    As far as the BBT vs creation, there a continuously growing body of work explaining how the things may have started.  And that knowledge base will continue to grow and expand as time goes on, unless of course, k gets to be supreme ruler and arbiter of the truth.  There is nothing proving the creation theory other than a ~2000 YO compilation of even older non-christian folk lore.  And the whole 6000 YO earth fable is only ~400 YO dreamed up by a clergyman, not a scientist, using some really strange assumptions.

    I’ll stick with the science for now.

  130. Tuerqas says:

    There certainly were a large group of scientists saying they had the answers about cooling and discouraging talk of the opposite.  It shocked me into distrusting scientists without learning about their funding first, back when I was 13.  That was the year I joined the YLA too (Young Libertarians).  I was hard into my teacher about how so many accredited scientists could have multiple admitted flaws in the models they used to prove something and then be that certain and arrogant about it.  It made an impression.

    To be clear, I do not support a 6,000 year old creation myth.  I will, however, defend it above the BBT because one side embraces faith and one side rejects it, but both use it about equally in their theories.  If you require faith for your theory, you should not be disparaging the faith requirement in an opposing theory nor denying it in your own.  That’s double jeopardy among BBT believers and and only single jeopardy among creationists.

  131. Tuerqas says:

    There certainly were a large group of scientists saying they had the answers about cooling and discouraging talk of the opposite.  It shocked me into distrusting scientists without learning about their funding first, back when I was 13.  That was the year I joined the YLA too (Young Libertarians).  I was hard into my teacher about how so many accredited scientists could have multiple admitted flaws in the models they used to prove something and then be that certain and arrogant about it.  It made an impression.

    To be clear, I do not support a 6,000 year old creation myth.  I will, however, defend it above the BBT because while one side embraces faith and one side rejects it, both use it about equally in their theories.  If you require faith for your theory, you should neither be disparaging the faith requirement in an opposing theory nor denying it in your own.  That’s double jeopardy among BBT believers and and only single jeopardy among creationists.

  132. Tuerqas says:

    Heh, thought I found a way to edit, but it just posted twice…oops.

  133. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    If you don’t have proof for complete picture, you are relying on faith for the complete the picture, correct?

  134. Le Roi du Nord says:

    Sorry k, but there is overwhelming proof that the earth is far older than 6000 years.  And so far you have provided absolutely nothing to prove your claim.

    So the answer is a resounding, NO !

  135. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    Then you are a dishonest jackwagon.

    You expect us to accept faith to complete your theory, but you disallow faith to complete my theory.

    Awful. Just awful.

  136. Mar says:

    Kevin, didn’t you know the sociopath is actually 6500 years old so he has 100% knowledge of how old the Earth is.

  137. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Mar,

    True.

    At least we finally got Nord to acknowlege he does not have proof for his origin story this time…he still denies his faith, but at least I can throw his open, unshakeable, faith in lack of proof back at him now, when he keeps demanding I live by his worldly covenant on Creation.

    Nord is kind of guy that you could grab him by ankles before he foolishly jumps into hell, but then would chop your wrists off to make sure he drops into the pit. Some people are just determined to deny God in eternity.

  138. Jason says:

    He’s actually only in his mid 60’s.

  139. penquin says:

    My faith is saying that Kevin is possessed by demons who are controlling his actions&words.

    Since he expects us to accept his faith to complete his theories, will he allow my faith to complete my theory? Stay tuned to find out…

  140. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Penquin,

    Nord is free to expound his faith all he wants, I just ask him to be honest and transparent about his faith. He expounds like he has proof for his crazy origin story, when he does not.

    I admit my faith on Creation and Nord uses ot like a weapon agaist me constantly (every time he badly loses an argument)….demanding I live up to his godless covenant of “proof”. He can’t even get close to completing his own proof.

    I distribute my faith, and that’s OK, because I am transparent with that.

    Nord lives by godless covenant of “proof”, imposes the soul destroying standard on others, while he cannot even utilize the standard himself. That is awful. Just awful.

    I always cede to Nord the ability to express his godless faith, just be openly honest about his godless faith, stop acting like it is “proof” to the godless covenant he lives by.

    Simple. Honesty. Transparency. Why is that so hard for those that love the covenant of “proof”?

  141. Mar says:

    Interesting religion there, penquin.

  142. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    You keep dodging what should be an easy answer for you and changing the subject.  To get back to the original question: Do you have “proof” that the earth is only 6000 years old, or 6024 as calculated by Ussher, or not?  Don’t keep diverting to “creation theory”, or origin theory, as that isn’t the question at hand.

    You have provided absolutely no proof of your claim, yet I have pointed out where, in WI, you can view objects more than twice as old as your claim.  I don’t need “faith”, nor “belief”, nor “worldly covenant” (whatever that is) to point that out, I’ll rely on science.  Feel free to prove me wrong.  But you won’t, because you can’t.

    And feel free to call me whatever juvenile names you can muster, they don’t make you look any smarter, nor more righteous, only more desperate and ideological.  Just like your idol, trump.

  143. Le Roi du Nord says:

    Pen:

    We won’t have to wait long…..

     

  144. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    Provide proof for your origin faith, so I can see what good, valid proof looks like.

    You can do it.

    Unless it is really faith you rely on.

    I don’t have to provide proof for Creation, I live by faith, honestly.

    You live dishonesty until you put up.

  145. Jason says:

    >As far as the BBT vs creation, there a continuously growing body of work explaining how the things may have started

    Hell, science can’t even accurately measure distances… you have Faith that science will unravel all the mysteries.  Just like Kevin has Faith that his God created all the mysteries.  I do not see the distinction in your Faiths, just the object of it.

    https://scitechdaily.com/strangely-behaving-red-supergiant-betelgeuse-smaller-and-closer-than-first-thought/

     

  146. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    You keep diverting to origin, we are talking your 6000 YO earth claim.  Focus.

    If you don’t want to prove your 6000 YO earth claim, fine, we will all know you can’t.

  147. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    Demonstrate “proof”without faith in your orgin theory first so we know what “proof” without faith looks like in your mindset.

    You have to demonstrate your covenant in action.

    I have demonstrated my covenant of faith in action.

    Why are you so ashamed of your covenant you live by?

  148. Le Roi du Nord says:

    No k, we are talking your 6000 YO earth claim.  All you have demonstrated so far is a gigantic error on your part.

    I’m proud of the ability of mankind to think their way out of the stone age.  You should be as well.

  149. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    I don’t live by your rules. I live by faith. I am congruent and transparent, you are not.

    I suggest you show you live by your rules, because you are a miserable failure at one littlr basic question.

  150. Mar says:

    The sociopath shows once again, that he is a bigot and a hater.

  151. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    “I don’t live by your rules.”  Correct, nor do I live by yours.  Remember that the next time you demand that others denounce things you don’t understand.

    Having said that, you and I both live under things that are proven science; gravity, physics, thermodynamics, etc.  Just because you “believe” a 2000YO fable, or have “faith” that the fable is the absolute truth, doesn’t mean you can dismiss those proven by repeatable science without some push back.

    Believe whatever you want.  Have faith in whatever you want, but don’t get all huffy when you get called on it.  And don’t try to force your mistakes on others.

  152. Mar says:

    More bigotry from the sociopath.

  153. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    Even godless atheists should have agreement on basic right and wrong with Christians.

    It is clear you embrace alot of open evil most normal atheists have no problem denouncing.

    You should stop with open dishonesty about “proof” of your universe origin story you claim to have.

  154. Mar says:

    Kevin, the sociopath is just a hater. He knows he lost the argument when he calls the Bible a fable.
    He is just a sociopathic old man, who has to belittle people and their beliefs who have proven him wrong.
    Do I think the world is 6000 years old.
    Do I have absolute proof that it’s not? No.
    Do I have absolute proof that it isn’t that old?
    No.
    Actual absolute science is great, unless it is politicized.

  155. Le Roi du Nord says:

    mar:

    There is more proof that the earth is much, much older than 6000 years.  There are even things here in WI, not 100 mikes from k, that are more than twice that old.  Yet you guys keep jamming you heads even deeper in the sand.  Amazing.

    k:

    What evil am I embracing, the truth?  And you embrace a falsehood.  And remember, we are talking about origin, but rather your 6000 YO earth claim.

  156. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    Your constant failure to denounce criminals and defend police when asked specifically.

  157. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    Can’t defend your 6000 YO earth claim so you change subjects.  Epic fail on your part.  Absolutely epic.

  158. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    I can. I live by faith God created the earth. Whether he created an earth to appear old would mean I concede your faith in science in this area is correct…given that it seems science is always being re-written on subject..I don’t have as much faith in godless works of men looking to destroy God as you do.

  159. Le Roi du Nord says:

    And you still can’t defend it. Never could, never will.

  160. Mar says:

    Kevin, the sociopath is so stupid. You have been defending your position based on your faithng.
    He is defending his view based on his faith.
    He just is being ignorant and a troll.

  161. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    I can defend Creation to the covenant I live by: faith in Jesus.

    You cannot defend BiG Bang Theory to covenant you live by: “proof”. You require massive faith in cold, empty gods to get by.

    I suggest that you stop ridiculing the faith of others, since in reality, you cling to a godless faith that makes little sense, without God as a trigger for all Creation.

  162. Le Roi du Nord says:

    mar:

    Wrong again.

    k:

    If the only way you can “defend” your 6000YO earth claim is to change the subject, you have no defense.

    I haven’t ridiculed your faith, as I don’t care what you believe, I only asked you to prove a claim you made and consistently insist is fact.  If you can’t, you can’t.  I understand that.

    Now go to bed.

  163. Mar says:

    And the sociopath lies again.

  164. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    Again, why do you demand “proof” of something I take by faith?   I do not live by your covenant.

    I demanded “proof” of your orgin story because you live by “proof”….and failed miserably.

    The problem here is,you spit on faith, including your own.

  165. Le Roi du Nord says:

    So you can’t, right?

  166. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    Yes, I can’t participate in your gross, disgusting, dishonesty.

     

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.