Scientist and Democratic candidate for District 24 Senate Amanda Bachmann sat down for her first public forum against anti-science conservative incumbent Senate Jeff Monroe Thursday. Monroe appears to have escaped un-cussed-at; Bachmann reserved the stern critique of Monroe’s ostrichly approach all that is good and learned that I know is whirling her good soul and instead focused on diagnosing one of South Dakota’s gravest challenges:
…and offering her blood, sweat, toil, and tears to reverse that trend:
Amanda Bachmann, South Dakotan by choice.
But she has bought a home and a business — she is a partner in Prairie Pages bookstore since earlier this year — and wants to find ways to provide more to the community and the state, she said.
…Bachmann closed with: “I got into politics relatively recently because I want to serve this state that I have kind of adopted as my new home… I’m invested in this community… I want to see South Dakota make national headlines for good things… I want to see South Dakota grow and attract and retain people and have a good government that is working for all South Dakotans” [Lee, 2018.10.19].
Glad to have you with us, Amanda. District 24 will be glad to have you in the Senate. I’ll be glad to join you… and vote for you for Majority Leader.
Scientist and Democratic candidate for District 24 Senate Amanda Bachmann sat down for her first public forum against anti-science conservative incumbent Senate Jeff Monroe Thursday.
Government “education” has now indoctrinated two full generations of Americans into believing the Bible isn’t true, the earth is billions of years old, and human beings are conglomerations of molecules that came together by chance somewhere in the vast recesses of deep time.
Most creationists aren’t anti-science. Follow the link below to learn more.
Don’t blame Amanda Bachmann for any decline in religion, Kurt, and don’t blame our constitutionally mandated and absolutely necessary public education system.
I may be the most openly atheist person you know, and in my many years of opportunities to corrupt young minds, I have never exerted myself to prove to them that God does not exist or that the Bible is not true. I have chosen to focus my intellect, voice, and efforts on teaching young people to take seriously their moral obligations to each other and to their community.
So, it seems, does Amanda Bachmann, whom I will gladly elect to be my majority leader.
Donald Pay
Natural selection is not chance, Kurt. The problem with many people is that they don’t really understand science. You seem to be one of them.
I may be the most openly atheist person you know, and in my many years of opportunities to corrupt young minds, I have never exerted myself to prove to them that God does not exist or that the Bible is not true.
The word science refers to knowledge as distinguished from ignorance, and you’ve clearly exerted yourself to persuade any young minds who encounter blog posts like this one that those of us who believe the Bible is true are anti-science.
The problem here is that it is not the Legislature’s job to teach science or religion. District 24 voters who get hung up on question Kurt has raised might deny themselves the opportunity for far better, more intelligent representation by Amanda Bachmann.
While I will state bluntly that creationism is bunk, I will also say that that scientific fact does not negate the value of the Bible or the existence of God.
I will also state that the fact that Amanda Bachmann would be a far superior Senator to Jeff Monroe, with a far more reliable focus on broader, more practical public policy issues and no agenda of imposing her worldview on her constituents, does not in any way call into question the moral worth of Christianity.
Porter Lansing
The term science refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using the system of observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena.
Science is knowledge. Religion is faith. Both have value to humanity.
o
Kurt,
1) Radioactive age determination does work (I can link to an article too). https://ncse.com/library-resource/radiometric-dating-does-work
2) If the Earth is only thousands of years old, how has the light from such distant stars and galaxies (further than 10,000 lightyears away) made it to us?
3) Science, different from religion, is based on observable data. What observable data says your God created the universe?
4) Is it your position that all statements in the Bible are LITERALLY true?
Donald Pay
Well, I’ll state it: people who believe the Bible is a scientific treatise believe in bunkum. You can believe in bunkum if you like, but our Constitutional Schools should teach scientific knowledge in science courses, not bunkum. I bet I can even get an Amen from Grudz on that. #4Science.
Donald, you would enjoy talking with Amanda Bachmann.
Donald, I do not want to misinterpret your statement. However, it seems to me there’s a difference between saying, “The Bible is no a scientific treatise” and “The Bible is not true.” Am I correct?
Some radiometric dating methods give consistently reliable results, but most don’t.
2) If the Earth is only thousands of years old, how has the light from such distant stars and galaxies (further than 10,000 lightyears away) made it to us?
If the earth was in a deep gravity well on the fourth day of creation, the light could be billions of years old as measured from the objects where it originated and only a few thousand years old as measured from the earth’s surface. Robert McTaggart and I discussed this extensively here at Dakota Free Press in January of 2017:
3) Science, different from religion, is based on observable data. What observable data says your God created the universe?
Most people would probably call the data historical rather than scientific, but there’s strong historical evidence that Jesus Christ publicly recognized the Hebrew Bible as true, and there’s even stronger historical evidence that He rose from the dead.
4) Is it your position that all statements in the Bible are LITERALLY true?
Of course not, but the Bible generally makes it clear which statements are literally true and which are metaphorical.
grudznick
Mr. Evans writes:
a lot of quoting of other people that we can all read here
Mr. Evans, as far as those who are insaner than most, you are for sure among the most entertaining. “The Bible is real.” “The Earth is only 6,000 years old.” That’s hilarious stuff, man.
Porter Lansing
Some radiometric dating methods give consistently reliable results, but most don’t. ~ You just made that up, Evans. Do you lie with self proclaimed impunity or are you just full of self serving misinformation? I catch you lying almost every post you make.
Some radiometric dating methods give consistently reliable results, but most don’t.
Porter Lansing writes:
You just made that up, Evans. Do you lie with self proclaimed impunity or are you just full of self serving misinformation? I catch you lying almost every post you make.
Obviously I didn’t just make it up, Porter, and you’re the one who lies in almost every post you make.
Porter Lansing
Biblical Science Institute is an invalid source. Try again. http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2901 says it’s a highly reliable source.
(Are sure you’re not Pee Wee Herman? “I know you are but what am I?”)
Amanda and I recognize that the people will not be electing us to debate creationism on the Senate floor. We’ll be paying teachers, paving roads, and protecting parks.
We’ll also vote to fund K-12 education, including science education. Science. Real, secular science, which will do nothing to destroy anyone’s religion.
Cory writes:
Government “education” has now indoctrinated two full generations of Americans into believing the Bible isn’t true, the earth is billions of years old, and human beings are conglomerations of molecules that came together by chance somewhere in the vast recesses of deep time.
Most creationists aren’t anti-science. Follow the link below to learn more.
https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/origins/creation-101-radiometric-dating-and-the-age-of-the-earth/
Don’t blame Amanda Bachmann for any decline in religion, Kurt, and don’t blame our constitutionally mandated and absolutely necessary public education system.
I may be the most openly atheist person you know, and in my many years of opportunities to corrupt young minds, I have never exerted myself to prove to them that God does not exist or that the Bible is not true. I have chosen to focus my intellect, voice, and efforts on teaching young people to take seriously their moral obligations to each other and to their community.
So, it seems, does Amanda Bachmann, whom I will gladly elect to be my majority leader.
Natural selection is not chance, Kurt. The problem with many people is that they don’t really understand science. You seem to be one of them.
Cory writes:
The word science refers to knowledge as distinguished from ignorance, and you’ve clearly exerted yourself to persuade any young minds who encounter blog posts like this one that those of us who believe the Bible is true are anti-science.
The problem here is that it is not the Legislature’s job to teach science or religion. District 24 voters who get hung up on question Kurt has raised might deny themselves the opportunity for far better, more intelligent representation by Amanda Bachmann.
While I will state bluntly that creationism is bunk, I will also say that that scientific fact does not negate the value of the Bible or the existence of God.
I will also state that the fact that Amanda Bachmann would be a far superior Senator to Jeff Monroe, with a far more reliable focus on broader, more practical public policy issues and no agenda of imposing her worldview on her constituents, does not in any way call into question the moral worth of Christianity.
The term science refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using the system of observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena.
Science is knowledge. Religion is faith. Both have value to humanity.
Kurt,
1) Radioactive age determination does work (I can link to an article too). https://ncse.com/library-resource/radiometric-dating-does-work
2) If the Earth is only thousands of years old, how has the light from such distant stars and galaxies (further than 10,000 lightyears away) made it to us?
3) Science, different from religion, is based on observable data. What observable data says your God created the universe?
4) Is it your position that all statements in the Bible are LITERALLY true?
Well, I’ll state it: people who believe the Bible is a scientific treatise believe in bunkum. You can believe in bunkum if you like, but our Constitutional Schools should teach scientific knowledge in science courses, not bunkum. I bet I can even get an Amen from Grudz on that. #4Science.
Donald, you would enjoy talking with Amanda Bachmann.
Donald, I do not want to misinterpret your statement. However, it seems to me there’s a difference between saying, “The Bible is no a scientific treatise” and “The Bible is not true.” Am I correct?
“o” writes:
Some radiometric dating methods give consistently reliable results, but most don’t.
If the earth was in a deep gravity well on the fourth day of creation, the light could be billions of years old as measured from the objects where it originated and only a few thousand years old as measured from the earth’s surface. Robert McTaggart and I discussed this extensively here at Dakota Free Press in January of 2017:
https://dakotafreepress.com/2016/12/30/hickey-reviews-2016-previews-2017-and-calls-for-open-party/#comment-70172 (and following)
Most people would probably call the data historical rather than scientific, but there’s strong historical evidence that Jesus Christ publicly recognized the Hebrew Bible as true, and there’s even stronger historical evidence that He rose from the dead.
Of course not, but the Bible generally makes it clear which statements are literally true and which are metaphorical.
Mr. Evans writes:
Mr. Evans, as far as those who are insaner than most, you are for sure among the most entertaining. “The Bible is real.” “The Earth is only 6,000 years old.” That’s hilarious stuff, man.
Some radiometric dating methods give consistently reliable results, but most don’t. ~ You just made that up, Evans. Do you lie with self proclaimed impunity or are you just full of self serving misinformation? I catch you lying almost every post you make.
I’d written:
Porter Lansing writes:
Ph.D. astrophysicist Jason Lisle wrote it nearly a year ago:
https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/origins/creation-101-radiometric-dating-and-the-age-of-the-earth/
Obviously I didn’t just make it up, Porter, and you’re the one who lies in almost every post you make.
Biblical Science Institute is an invalid source. Try again.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2901 says it’s a highly reliable source.
(Are sure you’re not Pee Wee Herman? “I know you are but what am I?”)
Amanda and I recognize that the people will not be electing us to debate creationism on the Senate floor. We’ll be paying teachers, paving roads, and protecting parks.
We’ll also vote to fund K-12 education, including science education. Science. Real, secular science, which will do nothing to destroy anyone’s religion.