Jump to content

Who do we like for Governor?

GaryP

By GaryP
in Grand Rapids Coffee House

Who do we like for Governor II?  

118 members have voted

  1. 1. Who do we like for Governor II?

    • Jennifer Granholm
      57
    • Dick DeVos
      58
    • Other
      3

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 555
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Lplan Unincorporated Area

Lplan

Posted
Posted

Intelligent Design: I think people are confusing the teaching of intelligent design in science class with the teaching of religion in science class. Evolution is a theory and can not be proven. Many very credible scientists have shown the numerous holes in evolutionary theory. Intelligent design is also a theory that can't be proven. Many very credible scientists would argue though that there is just as much evidence, if not more, to prove intelligent design over a random big bang.

I don't want science teachers teaching our kids religion, how to be "saved" etc. I am very comfortable however with our science teachers teaching evolution as one theory and another theory that something larger than us created us. Could be the Christian God, or a giant Matrix like computer. I don't care. The fact is that many people, including scientists believe in an Intelligent Designer. This can be taught very reasonably without promoting a specific religion. I think it's very reasonable to look at the evidence and believe that some larger force out their created our univers. Again, this can be taught as a theory without teaching religion.

You seem to be considering the two on equal footings as scientific theories. To me, that is the crux of the argument. I am fine with ID being taught in church or parochial school, but it is not science and does not belong in a science class. What's more, evolution is a theory, sure, but it is also fact. There seems to be a lot of confusion in this debate surrounding the difference.

I would like to quote Stephen J. Gould on this, because he's smarter and more eloquent than I:

"Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution." -SJG 1981.

Essentially, a fact is a theory that is so probable that there is no reason to believe otherwise. Science has shown that evolution holds up 99% of the time. I would equate this with the theory that we exist. :) I can't prove my theory. Some philosophers might in fact debate the point. But I don't expect scientists will do so, since it is generally accepted by people who (ostensibly) exist as well, and has seemed to pretty much hold up when challenged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
civitas Burg

civitas

Posted
Posted

Science has shown that evolution holds up 99% of the time.

Really? Evolutionists continually use micro-evolution, changes within a Genesis kind, to prove evolution. But this approach is not the point. Darwinism requires macro-evolution from one Genesis kind to another, such as the transformation of reptiles into birds or apes into people. What is the proof that this has ever happened? If the theory of evolution is actually fact, shouldn't there be empirical proof after looking for 150 years?

It can be argued that, because evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, it does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. In that regard it is no different than intelligent design. Both must be accepted with faith by its believers.

"The theory of evolution. . .is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation [iD], is clearly incredible." D.M.S. Watson, a British evolutionist

Link to comment
Share on other sites
michaelskis Hamlet

michaelskis

Posted
Posted

This just in: Muhammad Ali has given his endorsement to Governor Granholm, citing her work to overturn the ban on stem cell research - Ali suffers from Parkinson's disease. See the story here on mlive

So, ah, can we add him to the UP poll or what? :whistling:

I did not know he lives in Michigan. (Does he live here?)

In the article it says that she supports Stem Cell Research, but has been mostly silent beyond that. Has she done anything to overturn the ban?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veloise City

Veloise

Posted
Posted

I did not know he lives in Michigan. (Does he live here?)

In the article it says that she supports Stem Cell Research, but has been mostly silent beyond that. Has she done anything to overturn the ban?

He lives in or near Berrien County, has for years.

When this topic came up the other night, one of the MST3K 'bots opined, "she's a governor, not a doctor!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
torgo Town

torgo

Posted
Posted

He lives in or near Berrien County, has for years.

When this topic came up the other night, one of the MST3K 'bots opined, "she's a governor, not a doctor!"

MST3K! Classic television programming! I have a small collection of them at my house.

I find the Granholm ad touting 400 new jobs at $5 million investment by kenmore or whoever to be a bit odd. In the grand scheme of things, isn't that, I dunno, small potatoes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WOT Whistle-Stop

WOT

Posted
Posted

MST3K! Classic television programming! I have a small collection of them at my house.

I find the Granholm ad touting 400 new jobs at $5 million investment by kenmore or whoever to be a bit odd. In the grand scheme of things, isn't that, I dunno, small potatoes?

In the grand scheme of economic development for a state, yes $5mm is small potatoes. However, any political office seeker if they have any kind of good support system behind them is told that all politics is LOCAL. Translation is that $5mm is still a HUGE number to any individual who hears that number. Most people when they hear a figure like that immediately personalizes that number to how it relates to them. Sooo, when average Michigan citizen hears $5 MILLION dollars, it makes a IMPACT impression - thus why any politician throws out IMPACT figures.

my $5mm cents :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RustTown City

RustTown

Posted
Posted

In the grand scheme of economic development for a state, yes $5mm is small potatoes. However, any political office seeker if they have any kind of good support system behind them is told that all politics is LOCAL. Translation is that $5mm is still a HUGE number to any individual who hears that number. Most people when they hear a figure like that immediately personalizes that number to how it relates to them. Sooo, when average Michigan citizen hears $5 MILLION dollars, it makes a IMPACT impression - thus why any politician throws out IMPACT figures.

my $5mm cents :unsure:

On the other hand, DeVos new commercial showing that the amount of Michigan jobs loss since Granholm has taken office could fill two Comerica Parks is another very good strategy. I think that's his best commercial yet.

The fact is that both of them are asking a lot of Michigan voters. Granholm is asking for us to trust that her economic plan is working, even in the face of a manufacturing sector that is still not at the end of its full downscale where thousands of Michiganders are still hurting.

DeVos is asking for us to believe that Granholm is responsible for almost all of Michigan's economic woes, and that we should "just trust him," to make things better without giving enough details.

At the end of the day for those few that are still undecided that aren't enthusiastic about either candidate, I guess the question is which one of the two is asking for too much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TJSupreme Unincorporated Area

TJSupreme

Posted
Posted

I'm perplexed. I've been behind DeVos for his leadership skills, but i have to be honest, I'm not seeing it. Funny though, if anything swayed me back to him it was that insulting nursing home thing. Doesn't the governor appoint those who oversee the inspections of these facilities? That would be more directly responsible to me. It's all a moot point though..obviously neither would condone such conduct. Go Tiggers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
francishsu Hamlet

francishsu

Posted
Posted

On the other hand, DeVos new commercial showing that the amount of Michigan jobs loss since Granholm has taken office could fill two Comerica Parks is another very good strategy. I think that's his best commercial yet.

The background music they play in those commercials.. I hate to admit that I can't get it out of my head and it's driving me crazy! And that's exactly what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRobserver Whistle-Stop

GRobserver

Posted
Posted

EPIC-MRA just released results from a poll which has Granholm 46 - Devos 40

WOODTV Details: Post-debate governor's poll

Interesting that only 6% feel that DeVos won the debate.

I would have figured that more than 6% of the people polled would have said he won even he had dropped his pants and mooned the crowd.

That's got to be, well, "disappointing" to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
allbusiness Whistle-Stop

allbusiness

Posted
Posted

Interesting that only 6% feel that DeVos won the debate.

I would have figured that more than 6% of the people polled would have said he won even he had dropped his pants and mooned the crowd.

That's got to be, well, "disappointing" to him.

Winning the debate isn't all that important. I think most people expected Granholm to win the debate -- and probably the next two debates. The mere fact that she didn't bury him makes him look pretty good. DeVos will have to improve his skills, but he'll never beat her on points of style, communication skills, charm and knowlege of the issues. After all, she's a sitting governor and former attorney general. It's what she does.

He needs to win, IMHO, on an image of grabbing the reins of this state and turning it around before it runs off the cliff. :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
civitas Burg

civitas

Posted
Posted

I'm perplexed. I've been behind DeVos for his leadership skills, but i have to be honest, I'm not seeing it. Funny though, if anything swayed me back to him it was that insulting nursing home thing. Doesn't the governor appoint those who oversee the inspections of these facilities? That would be more directly responsible to me. It's all a moot point though..obviously neither would condone such conduct. Go Tiggers!

"Go Tiggers!"

6305942331.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RustTown City

RustTown

Posted
Posted

Well Devos certainly still has a reasonable chance. Looking back at the Bush-Kerry debates, Bush did horrible in that first debate but recovered in the following ones.

He recovered ever so slightly, but it didn't matter if he'd won or lost those debates. People knew Bush was a bad public speaker, and no one cared. Again, I fear some place far too much importance on the debates. They really are for political junkies like many of us here. The general public, though, really couldn't care less who's a better speaker/debater.

However, DeVos must look like a confident, with-it leader if he's even able to pull it off. Again, much like Bush, no one expected DeVos to come in an transform into some wordy debater. That's why it's so incredibly important that DeVos gives off the apperance of someone with his finger on the pulse of Michigan. I'm afraid he didn't (and maybe he just can't) do that. Has anyone seen the "Cardboard Debbie" commercials Bouchard is running against Stabenow? That's exactly how DeVos appeared during much of the debate: one dimensional. If Granholm comes off as plastic to some, DeVos is even more a cardboard cutout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Michi Burg

Michi

Posted
Posted

I'm perplexed. I've been behind DeVos for his leadership skills, but i have to be honest, I'm not seeing it. Funny though, if anything swayed me back to him it was that insulting nursing home thing. Doesn't the governor appoint those who oversee the inspections of these facilities? That would be more directly responsible to me.

You'd blame John Engler? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.