Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 149680 comments on the The Courier-Journal story from Feb 10, 2010, titled Bible study rules for public schools proposed. In it, The Courier-Journal reports that:

FRANKFORT, Ky. - The state would create rules for teaching about the Bible in public high schools under a bill filed Monday by three Democratic senators.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Courier-Journal.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103912 May 17, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>My argument is so strong, it is why abortion is legal.
What may be the less likely person getting the abortion is the person who's rights we still must protect.
I gave a hypothetical that is based upon reality. You failed to answer the hypothetical.
Legal <> right

You wouldn't want your mother to kill you right now. But it would have been just fine if she killed you before you were born?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103913 May 17, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So you trust mans answers?
It lines up with the rest of what I believe just fine.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103914 May 17, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>No, I'm not saying treat the symptom instead of the cause. I'm pointing out the fact that allowing women to choose their own reproductive futures reduces poverty. Restricting women's reproductive rights *increases* poverty. This is a fact. It is not controversial, it is not speculative, and it is not subject to your opinion or mine. The numbers bear it out. Do some poking around outside of religious websites and you will see what I mean.

Regarding the second issue I understand where we have a breakdown in communication. I do not believe in magic or souls, I do not think that when my sperm busts into an egg God zaps a soul into the mix. I am a naturalist. It is biology and nothing more.

My moral foundation is about well being. Suffering is a moral issue. If a fetus does not have the wiring hooked up to have feelings then there cannot be any suffering *by definition*. Therefore there is no moral problem. I don't care if the fetus might become a great person, that is not something I can know. All I can know is the statistics and the desires of the human being who is 100% responsible for growing the fetus into a real baby or deciding not to finish the process.

As long as the fetus has not yet developed into a person who can feel, know, or sense anything at all then there simply CANNOT be any suffering involved.

That is why I say prior to 26 weeks should be nobody's business. And I'm only saying it that way because I can accept that once the wiring is all hooked up suffering CAN happen. Then it becomes a moral issue. Messy, but morally important to talk about.
You are beyond ignorant on abortion. Google some videos that show a child less than 26 weeks writhe while the needle breaks the barrier of the protective membrane and begins melting the child with saline. Then tell me it didn't feel anything.

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

#103915 May 17, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Look in the mirror. You are a human. Physical characteristics like you see in the mirror, define a human. Simple enough? Why are you playing word games?
What the f*#^ are you talking about? Word games??? What exactly do you think I'm doing when I ask for specifics and you give me ambiguous stupidity? That is not a game, on my part. I don't know what you're trying to make it, but it's not intelligent communication on your part.
It is exceedingly irritating to have to request, over and over, such a simple thing. I even cited specifics of the sort of detailed answer that would clarify your position. The best that you can come up with is definitions that include the word "human" or telling me to look in a mirror.
So, if the look in a mirror test is really all there is to it, then there are thousands upon thousands born every year that fail and would be declared not human. A chimp would look more like any us, as a whole, than a fetus with many "survivable" birth defects would. I have a feeling this would not fly with you. SO... do better. Put some actual thought into it if you haven't bothered to do so.

And what is "living" for a "human"?

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#103916 May 17, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
A general statement was posted.You,Chrome and Mike took it personally.
Why you might have felt it applied to all of you,I can not explain.
Otherwise,why did you respond?....
I tend to wear shoes that fit me,if they don't fit,I throw them out.
A statement that was clearly intended to be accusatory was cut and pasted. You might have thought it the pinnacle of righteousness, but I only had one word to say about it, and in no way did I take it personally.
You are the one who makes that illogical leap, and the one who chooses to discard racks of well formed footwear.
Idjit.
Sam

Horse Cave, KY

#103917 May 17, 2013
_Ummm_ wrote:
<quoted text>
What the f*#^ are you talking about? Word games??? What exactly do you think I'm doing when I ask for specifics and you give me ambiguous stupidity? That is not a game, on my part. I don't know what you're trying to make it, but it's not intelligent communication on your part.
It is exceedingly irritating to have to request, over and over, such a simple thing. I even cited specifics of the sort of detailed answer that would clarify your position. The best that you can come up with is definitions that include the word "human" or telling me to look in a mirror.
So, if the look in a mirror test is really all there is to it, then there are thousands upon thousands born every year that fail and would be declared not human. A chimp would look more like any us, as a whole, than a fetus with many "survivable" birth defects would. I have a feeling this would not fly with you. SO... do better. Put some actual thought into it if you haven't bothered to do so.
And what is "living" for a "human"?
You sound delusional!
LEGIONS

Elkhorn City, KY

#103918 May 17, 2013
Dr. Duane T. Gish is the Vice President of ICR. Dr. Gish has degrees from both U.C.L.A. and the University of California at Berkeley (Ph.D., Biochemistry), as well as 18 years experience in biochemical and biomedical research at Berkeley, Cornell University, and the Upjohn Company
The Origin of the First Completely Independent, Stable, Self-Reproducing Unit—The First Living Cell
The simplest form of life known to science contains hundreds of different kinds of enzymes, thousands of different kinds of RNA and DNA molecules, and thousands of other kinds of complex molecules. As mentioned above, it is enclosed within a very complex membrane and contains a large number of structures many of which are enclosed within their own membrane. The thousands of chemical reactions which occur in this cell are strictly coordinated with one another in time and space in a harmonious system, all working together towards the self-maintenance and eventual reproduction of this living cell. Every detail of its structure and function reveals purposefulness; its incredible complexity and marvelous capabilities reveal a master plan.
It seems futile enough to attempt to imagine how this amazingly complex system could have come into existence in the first place in view of the vast amount of contradictory evidence. Its continued existence from the very start, however, would have required mechanisms especially designed for self-maintenance and self-reproduction. There are numerous injurious processes which would prove fatal for the cell if repair mechanisms did not exist. These injurious processes include dimerization of the thymine units in DNA, deamination of cytosine, adenine, and guanine in DNA and RNA, deamidation of glutamine and asparagine in proteins, and the production of toxic peroxides, just to cite a few. The cell is endowed with complex, defense mechanisms, in each case involving an enzyme or a series of enzymes. Since these defense mechanisms are absolutely necessary for the survival of the cell, they would have had to exist from the very beginning. Life could not have waited until such mechanisms evolved, for life would be impossible in their absence.
The ultimate fate of a cell or any living thing is death and destruction. No dynamically functioning unit therefore can survive as a species without self-reproduction. The ability to reproduce, however, would have had to exist from the very beginning in any system, no matter how simple or complex, that could have given rise eventually to a living thing. Yet the ability to reproduce requires such a complex mechanism that the machinery required for this process would have been the last thing that could possibly have evolved. This dilemma has no solution and thus poses the final insuperable barrier to the origin of life by a naturalistic process.
We conclude that a materialistic, mechanistic, evolutionary origin of life is directly contradicted by known natural laws and processes. The origin of life could only have occurred through the acts of an omniscient Creator independent of and external to the natural universe. "In the beginning God created" is still the most up-to-date statement we can make concerning the origin of life.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103919 May 17, 2013
_Ummm_ wrote:
What the f*#^ are you talking about? Word games??? What exactly do you think I'm doing when I ask for specifics and you give me ambiguous stupidity? That is not a game, on my part. I don't know what you're trying to make it, but it's not intelligent communication on your part.
It is exceedingly irritating to have to request, over and over, such a simple thing. I even cited specifics of the sort of detailed answer that would clarify your position. The best that you can come up with is definitions that include the word "human" or telling me to look in a mirror.
So, if the look in a mirror test is really all there is to it, then there are thousands upon thousands born every year that fail and would be declared not human. A chimp would look more like any us, as a whole, than a fetus with many "survivable" birth defects would. I have a feeling this would not fly with you. SO... do better. Put some actual thought into it if you haven't bothered to do so.

And what is "living" for a "human"?
I gave you Webster's dictionary definition of the word. If you are smarter than them, by all means submit your own dictionary to the public.
You are so arrogant that you can't take the definition that Webster's gives. So I told you to look in the mirror for the definition. I can't help you anymore if you can't figure out the definition of a human.

As for your ridiculous comparison to other animals, show me one that aborts their babies, then this might be relevant.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

London, KY

#103920 May 17, 2013
LEGIONS wrote:
Dr. Duane T. Gish is the Vice President of ICR. Dr. Gish has degrees from both U.C.L.A. and the University of California at Berkeley (Ph.D., Biochemistry), as well as 18 years experience in biochemical and biomedical research at Berkeley, Cornell University, and the Upjohn Company
Net time you speak to the Doc ask him One Question.... Doc, What Specifically Defines Life?..

He would be able to win the Noble Prize if he can answer that question....

The Point being that Science has no idea what the Specific Definition of Life is... Is a Virus that can only replicate with the inclusion of a host DNA alive? Is the sub set of the simplest life form we know that cannot replicate without it's symbiotic components alive? Since you as a Human Being would die instantly if the 2 pounds of bugs in your body were eliminated, being that there are 10 bugs for each Human Cell in your body, Are You Alive or are you just a Vessel for the Bugs..... Is a Crystal that absorbs surrounding material and uses those compounds to grow and produce offspring Alive?.... Id the Life as we know it here on Earth the Only Possible form of life that could exist?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103921 May 17, 2013
LEGIONS wrote:
<quoted text>Dr. Duane T. Gish is the Vice President of ICR. Dr. Gish has degrees from both U.C.L.A. and the University of California at Berkeley (Ph.D., Biochemistry), as well as 18 years experience in biochemical and biomedical research at Berkeley, Cornell University, and the Upjohn Company
The Origin of the First Completely Independent, Stable, Self-Reproducing Unit—The First Living Cell
The simplest form of life known to science contains hundreds of different kinds of enzymes, thousands of different kinds of RNA and DNA molecules, and thousands of other kinds of complex molecules. As mentioned above, it is enclosed within a very complex membrane and contains a large number of structures many of which are enclosed within their own membrane. The thousands of chemical reactions which occur in this cell are strictly coordinated with one another in time and space in a harmonious system, all working together towards the self-maintenance and eventual reproduction of this living cell. Every detail of its structure and function reveals purposefulness; its incredible complexity and marvelous capabilities reveal a master plan.
It seems futile enough to attempt to imagine how this amazingly complex system could have come into existence in the first place in view of the vast amount of contradictory evidence. Its continued existence from the very start, however, would have required mechanisms especially designed for self-maintenance and self-reproduction. There are numerous injurious processes which would prove fatal for the cell if repair mechanisms did not exist. These injurious processes include dimerization of the thymine units in DNA, deamination of cytosine, adenine, and guanine in DNA and RNA, deamidation of glutamine and asparagine in proteins, and the production of toxic peroxides, just to cite a few. The cell is endowed with complex, defense mechanisms, in each case involving an enzyme or a series of enzymes. Since these defense mechanisms are absolutely necessary for the survival of the cell, they would have had to exist from the very beginning. Life could not have waited until such mechanisms evolved, for life would be impossible in their absence.
The ultimate fate of a cell or any living thing is death and destruction. No dynamically functioning unit therefore can survive as a species without self-reproduction. The ability to reproduce, however, would have had to exist from the very beginning in any system, no matter how simple or complex, that could have given rise eventually to a living thing. Yet the ability to reproduce requires such a complex mechanism that the machinery required for this process would have been the last thing that could possibly have evolved. This dilemma has no solution and thus poses the final insuperable barrier to the origin of life by a naturalistic process.
We conclude that a materialistic, mechanistic, evolutionary origin of life is directly contradicted by known natural laws and processes. The origin of life could only have occurred through the acts of an omniscient Creator independent of and external to the natural universe. "In the beginning God created" is still the most up-to-date statement we can make concerning the origin of life.
Thanks for sharing
LEGIONS

Elkhorn City, KY

#103922 May 17, 2013
Quantummist writes:Net time you speak to the Doc ask him One Question.... Doc, What Specifically Defines Life?..

two basic "ingredients" in living systems are DNA (or an equivalent nucleic acid) and protein. DNA is the molecule of heredity, and proteins are the fundamental molecules of structure and function.

this and the post above pretty much defines life.
Yes and Amen

Richmond, KY

#103923 May 18, 2013
ProvenScience wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you do the pre-plant readiness of pulling weeds? Pesky things.
LOL, I Pray for less weeds, n more food!
Then I till, n hoe the heck out of them... when I can!
Yes and Amen

Richmond, KY

#103924 May 18, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
Not Coming anywhere, Was there before there was a there there...
Hahaha... LOL
Osama says "There's no there, there!"
Good day to ya!
Yes and Amen

Richmond, KY

#103925 May 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Fetus and child are two different classifications.
The word "Fetus" is ONLY used to dehumanize a Child in the womb!
If you did NOT kill it for convenience...
It could be a Blessing for Life!
Yes and Amen

Richmond, KY

#103926 May 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Where? Still waiting for you to present even a little evidence.
I told you...
Seek God with all of YOUR heart!
You WILL have your evidence!
Yes and Amen

Richmond, KY

#103927 May 18, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So you finally admit you cannot know how it all started, great. Now stop demanding we know how it all started.
How it all started has nothing to do with my atheism, and if your religion is based upon it, then your religion is based upon something you cannot know.
We list reasons every day of why we do not believe in your god, so trying to show a gap of knowledge is not going to change anything about our non belief.
You have a gap that is equal to ours. No one can know how all started. But you and your team sure have been quite arrogant about this topic lately and keep claiming to know. Thanks for finally admitting you do not know.
I know how it all started!
"God said"!
You want to fill the gaps with "Man said"!
We know, If God wanted to hold a cardboard box together, with all the animals in it... He could! He let Noah take years building an ark... not only to hold the animals, but to give people time to choose... right, from wrong, they chose to hold your position, and drowned!
There is no use of a half built flagellum, Man tells you there is!
Let every man be a Liar, and God be true!
Yes and Amen

Richmond, KY

#103928 May 18, 2013
kuda wrote:
<quoted text>
I clearly understand that I love sinning, but not the meaning of vague brain teasers like “That is the TRUTH, that IS the ONLY Reason!”
Brain teaser???
So true

United States

#103929 May 18, 2013
Yes and Amen wrote:
<quoted text>I told you...
Seek God with all of YOUR heart!
You WILL have your evidence!
once again so many look with the eyes and not the heart..
Yes and Amen

Richmond, KY

#103930 May 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The mother's wishes are what those rulings are based on, not whether it was a fetus or child.
You KNOW something's WRONG
when a Mother WANTS to Kill her Baby!
How's about teaching Girls NOT to believe a Guy who says
he "Loves" you... without a ring?

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#103931 May 18, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
You are beyond ignorant on abortion. Google some videos that show a child less than 26 weeks writhe while the needle breaks the barrier of the protective membrane and begins melting the child with saline. Then tell me it didn't feel anything.
When you look at the aggregate data on fetal development it seems that the ability to sense pain forms around 26 weeks. The number varies according to which researcher you are reading. Most put it between 24-29, but some say 18-28.

Prior to this time period there is NO pain for the fetus.

Also, there is no awareness in this time period. It isn't even clear when awareness actually begins. It certainly isn't prior to this time period. Without awareness it is hard to imagine that pain has any meaning at all. If your brain was in a state of complete unconsciousness without the ability to wake up and I stuck you with a needle would you feel it?

It does get us into all sorts of moral/ethical questions. It is a messy, messy topic.

I go with the science for my facts and I base my morals on the idea of well being. The mother is already an invested human being. Her rights are paramount. If she wants to end her pregnancy and if it reasonable to say that her fetus is incapable of feeling pain or being aware then abortion presents no dilemma. And since reproductive rights are a proven way to increase general well being I say it is a moral good to allow it.

It is rare for abortions to be done past this time period anyway. The vast majority of them are done very early. An abortion done within the first three months should be no problem for any rational person. Unless you believe in magic, in which case you are possibly a nutter.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Barbourville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Care giver 2 min Trying to help pe... 4
I don't know what it is......................... 1 hr The Specialist 1
Please support our local police 1 hr The Specialist 49
Jo Ore 1 hr lee 8
Wreck!! 2 hr Cant-fix-stupid 9
electronic harassment 3 hr bvillain 17
outlaws 6 hr xxx 10
Knox County Grand Jury Indictments list July 2016 15 hr jerry roark 5

Barbourville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages