Bible study rules for public schools proposed

Feb 10, 2010 Full story: The Courier-Journal 131,542

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.

Full Story
GWB

Roseville, CA

#104839 May 26, 2013
"I secretly thought (and perhaps hoped) that President Smith would write back and say something like: "Dear Brother, your diligence and faith in searching for the truth has led you to a precious secret, not known to many;yes, you can be assured that President Young taught the truth: Adam is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to deal. The church does not proclaim this precious truth because we do not wish to expose the mysteries of God to the mockery of the world. Preserve this secret truth as you do the secrets of your temple endowment."

Why I Left the Mormon Church
Richard Packham

http://www.topix.com/forum/state/ky/TEQBSM980...

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

#104840 May 26, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural mechanisms? Really?...
Yes, you elipsis spewing choad, natural mechanisms. This is not a difficult concept.
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever read any research on Casimir Effect?
Oh, but you have, right? And it certainly wasn't written by some fraud nobody trying to tie it into intelligent design, right?
Nevermind looking for what real physicists say on the topic.
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Or Higgs Boson (God particle)...
Oh, but you have, right? And it certainly wasn't written by some fraud nobody trying to tie it into intelligent design, right?
http://notashamedofthegospel.com/apologetics/...
Nevermind looking for what real physicists say on the topic:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/1...
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
For that matter have you researched anything?
Have you researched anything away from intelligent design websites?
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Belief in God is religion (faith) no one is arguing that... Ok? Understand now?
That is absolutely OK. And I certainly understand the truth of this point. I'm glad to see that you aren't arguing against that. Your belief in the existence of God is and will always be ONLY a matter of faith. So, now we're clear.

To go one step further, now, you must surely realize that ANY "theory" or "hypothesis" that one develops that REQUIRES the existence of something that must be taken on faith, it's NOT science. Not remotely. It's faith. There is NO scientific basis. There is a faith basis. Period.

I'm glad that you aren't arguing against what I just said, because you're abominably stupid if you are.
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
It's is evolution that makes the claim that science stands behind it...
What? NO. Science makes the claim that evolution is probably what happens. Not the other way around. Not any other way that your broken brain tries to mangle the process.
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok then the burden of proof lies on evolution...
The burden of proof? Do you even know what those words mean?

Read carefully:
Every single piece of evidence that we fully understand supports the current form of the theory of evolution. Every one. It's been tested, passed, tested again, passed, tested again, passed, ad nauseum. If it had not been rigorously tested and was not supported by mountains of evidence, NO scientist would accept it.

Why? Because scientists aren't like you. They don't draw conclusions based on bronze age fairy tales, then try to cherry pick evidence that supports the conclusion, and never change their position regardless of what evidence is found. The first look at evidence, then draw a conclusion the is supported by ALL the evidence, and then test it when new evidence is discovered. If it isn't consisted, the theory is modified until it fits it all.
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Now about intermediates : please show me the evolution of just one species!!
blah blah blah etc. etc. demand demand
You don't understand evolution, real timescales, fossilization, or essentially anything else. You are not fit to even speak a word on this topic.
You don't get to demand ALL of the evidence, because science doesn't work like that, you f*%king mouth breather. We don't even know how gravity works. Go ahead and demand that physics supply all of the evidence before you believe it exists.
Why don't you get that your "theory" (which doesn't even come CLOSE to being a theory) doesn't have a single shred of supporting evidence, only arguments from incredulity? And that you can't sweep your COMPLETE lack of evidence under the rug by pointing out that we don't have ALL evidence in existence to prove evolution. And most importantly, why don't you get that your "theory" REQUIRES
God... invalidating it.
defender

London, KY

#104841 May 26, 2013
Mountains of evidence!!! Millions upon millions of fossils yet can't show not one evolutionary line... Really? ID is not a theory McFly it's logic....
Interesting

Saint Louis, MO

#104842 May 26, 2013
Good question
GWB

Roseville, CA

#104843 May 26, 2013
defender wrote:
Mountains of evidence!!! Millions upon millions of fossils yet can't show not one evolutionary line... Really? ID is not a theory McFly it's logic....
Do you belong to the true church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints? If not, why not?

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

#104844 May 26, 2013
defender wrote:
Mountains of evidence!!! Millions upon millions of fossils yet can't show not one evolutionary line... Really? ID is not a theory McFly it's logic....
Yes, that is a wholly appropriate and useful reply that refutes everything I've said.

Here is the only "logic" that arrives at "ID":
1. I believe in a God (as described in some bronze age scribblings).
2. I think evolution goes against the God I believe in.
3. Therefore, I think evolution must be wrong, and God must have intelligently designed it all.

What an idiot. Biff... why don't you make like a tree and get out of here. Unless you can actually demonstrate a valid logical path from all evidence to "ID", you have nothing useful to say here. Do note that what I said has NOTHING to do with all the crap you think you can argue against evolution with. Prove your position, don't try to disprove anything else or you fail.
Ummmmmmmm

Richmond, KY

#104845 May 26, 2013
_Ummm_ wrote:
<quoted text>
.......What an idiot......
It looks like you can't defend your argument without attacking the person you debate instead of attacking his argument.
Is that how the "real debaters" on Topix do it?
Just get mad and call him an idiot. You win.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

Somerset, KY

#104846 May 26, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I hear the law is 16 for consent in many states. Likely Kentucky.
The age is a number picked by society. One could argue that a persons brain is not fully formed until age twenty. This is what the latest science says. So if we are going by brain maturity to make sex decisions, maybe the age of consent needs to be raised.
I personally know of an individual that picked up two girls that said they were 19 and took them home and has sex with them... They got mad at each other and told each others parents (They were 17) and the 22 year old guy was arrested, convicted and sent to 5 years in prison with a life time "Sexual Predator" tag in Kentucky....

The Point I was making with the other poster was that his position of as long as the Child is Developed to some arbitrary level he seems to conclude they are open game for predation... It was just a way to rationalize his proclivities....

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

#104847 May 27, 2013
Ummmmmmmm wrote:
<quoted text>
It looks like you can't defend your argument without attacking the person you debate instead of attacking his argument.
Is that how the "real debaters" on Topix do it?
Just get mad and call him an idiot. You win.
It looks like you're bad at determining what something looks like, and should not quit your proverbial day job. Of course I COULD do whatever I wanted without calling any idiots "idiot". But I choose not to.
I ALSO don't call names "instead of attacking his argument", as you so retardedly put it. I do so while also totally destroying any scrap of an argument he may have had. I would think that anyone capable of reading my insults would also be capable of reading the surrounding content, but apparently I've given some of you morons too much credit.#104840, had you bothered to read, contains maybe 4 insults, yet fills more than one screen. The other 97% of words do the thing that you stupidly claim I do not do.
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
The Point I was making with the other poster was that his position of as long as the Child is Developed to some arbitrary level he seems to conclude they are open game for predation... It was just a way to rationalize his proclivities....
You made no point. That's your own stupid strawman that you defeated, you moron. I never came even close to expressing anything of the sort. Perhaps, if you'd bother reading the words actually written and stop inserting something stupid into their meaning, you'd be able to think straight and not post like you've fallen on your head too much recently.

My "proclivities", as you so eloquently like to over-use, pretty much only involve verbally sh!tting all over people who tend to say stupid things and try to pass them off as fact. I also have a tendency to not stop until after they do or they demonstrate themselves to be so utterly stupid as to not be worthy of my corrections. Committing statutory rape every time I see a sexually mature 13 year old is not on the list, you insulting old windbag.

To further clarify, here's exactly what went down from the perspective of people outside of your overly thick cranium: You claimed something was pedophelia. It was clearly not. While it was not necessarily legal (though it quite possibly was), it was not even close to pedophelia. Aside from further explaining the WHY and HOW of the matter (making no statement concerning what I think or do and only listing irrefutable fact), nothing else was stated, and not a speck of it could even remotely be used to determine anything about me. I remain 100% correct, you are still f*$king wrong, and you are doubly a douchebag for failing to concede after you were supplied page after page of reference material demonstrating exactly what I said in the first place.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

Somerset, KY

#104848 May 27, 2013
_Ummm_ wrote:
<quoted text>
It looks like you're bad at determining what something looks like, and should not quit your proverbial day job. Of course I COULD do whatever I wanted without calling any idiots "idiot". But I choose not to.
I ALSO don't call names "instead of attacking his argument", as you so retardedly put it. I do so while also totally destroying any scrap of an argument he may have had. I would think that anyone capable of reading my insults would also be capable of reading the surrounding content, but apparently I've given some of you morons too much credit.#104840, had you bothered to read, contains maybe 4 insults, yet fills more than one screen. The other 97% of words do the thing that you stupidly claim I do not do.
<quoted text>
You made no point. That's your own stupid strawman that you defeated, you moron. I never came even close to expressing anything of the sort. Perhaps, if you'd bother reading the words actually written and stop inserting something stupid into their meaning, you'd be able to think straight and not post like you've fallen on your head too much recently.
My "proclivities", as you so eloquently like to over-use, pretty much only involve verbally sh!tting all over people who tend to say stupid things and try to pass them off as fact. I also have a tendency to not stop until after they do or they demonstrate themselves to be so utterly stupid as to not be worthy of my corrections. Committing statutory rape every time I see a sexually mature 13 year old is not on the list, you insulting old windbag.
To further clarify, here's exactly what went down from the perspective of people outside of your overly thick cranium: You claimed something was pedophelia. It was clearly not. While it was not necessarily legal (though it quite possibly was), it was not even close to pedophelia. Aside from further explaining the WHY and HOW of the matter (making no statement concerning what I think or do and only listing irrefutable fact), nothing else was stated, and not a speck of it could even remotely be used to determine anything about me. I remain 100% correct, you are still f*$king wrong, and you are doubly a douchebag for failing to concede after you were supplied page after page of reference material demonstrating exactly what I said in the first place.
Spoken like a previous or potential child rapist would be expected to to lash out when their self induced system of denial is made public....

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#104849 May 27, 2013
GWB wrote:
Why I Left the Mormon Church
Richard Packham
... the ultimate goal of the church, as stated publicly by its early leaders Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (but not mentioned so publicly by more recent Mormon leaders), is to establish the Mormon Kingdom of God in America,and to govern the world as God's appointed representatives. The church is already influential in the making of secular policy, as was proven not so long ago when the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated with decisive help from the Mormon church.
To me, the possibility that the Mormon church might control America is a frightening prospect.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richar...
No doubt. There's a LOT of stuff the Mormons have said over the years that they no longer say.

Hell, they even change their most sacred holy book in order to mitigate the stupidity of their faith. "White" and delightsome becomes "Fair" and delightsome.

So much for spiritual authority. It's a pick-and-choose buffet of dumb that they constantly whittle down to the most generic, vanilla, Leave It To Beaver core.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#104850 May 27, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
Spoken like a previous or potential child rapist would be expected to to lash out when their self induced system of denial is made public....
Q, you're being stupid._Ummm_'s point is accurate, you just don't like being schooled. You are saying things that are far outside the realm of logic, where you typically like to reside. That guy made no statement that supports your accusation. You are using terminology incorrectly and making suggestions about people that are unsupportable and invalid. You are wrong.

Deal with it, move on.
so true

United States

#104853 May 27, 2013
Well I am sure you all can agree... Today is the day to honor all.. Who do what so many of us , don't have to do ,for us to remain free. No matter what you think , we all have seen the bad things , from losing someone to a war. I breath free , because so many give up their freedom, and a bound to serve, while we walk freely day to day , being able to see those we love freely. While they give up or have given up so much , for us to remain that way.... A Big Thank You , to all those who have served, who serve and who have given up it all for us all...
How stupid can you be

Winchester, KY

#104854 May 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The same slippery slope fallacy cried when they gave freedom to black folks, and allowed black folks to vote, and allowed mixed "race" marriages .... if you can't see the trend, that your fallacy is stupid, then you're an idiot.
Not even close!
The 14th amendment was NOT to give perverts rights!
But yet they slipped in, and now slipping on down that slope!
Like I was proud our POTUS was a Black guy, and NOW
I'm ashamed for America, as he is FAR from Honest...
FAR from Righteous!
God is real, and judgment is right around the corner!
Repent! turn away from your sins!
curious

Ocoee, FL

#104855 May 27, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Woww, indeed.
How nicely you word those pleasantries and sentiments on a Sunday morning. I'm sure you never fail to make your savior proud with your mindless apologist balderdash and foul interjections.
.
LOL Did I offend?
goes to show ya,those you refer to as idjits and get a brain, are inarticulate enough to sting like a bee.....
How stupid can you be

Winchester, KY

#104856 May 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You just used your religion as an excuse to hate someone.
NO!
Not at all!
Been there, done that, and NOW I know it was Un-Righteous!
The Lord took me away from all that, and I am here to tell
Everyone... You do NOT have to be a slave to sin!
Repent! Turn away from your sins!
Be a Friend of God.... Not His enemy!
He saved me... He can save anyone!
How stupid can you be

Winchester, KY

#104857 May 27, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you are a bigot. You literally have no idea about this girl's sexual identity. And what's more, it is not your business.
So you apply a double standard. A straight couple is ok, a gay couple is not ok.
In the dictionary under "bigot" is you.
"You literally have no idea about this girl's sexual identity"
Neither do you!
But whatever... she was TOO YOUNG to know much, and
chances are... she, like MOST kids only do what feels good
without knowing it's wrong!
It is EVERYONES business, just as it was everyone's business
in Sodom, and Gomorrah!
They closed their eyes to the un-righteousness around them...
Just Like America!
How stupid can you be

Winchester, KY

#104858 May 27, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
The crazy is strong with this one.
Hahaha...
Call it whatever you want...
I'll call it...
Wrong is Wrong... Every day of the week!
curious

Ocoee, FL

#104859 May 27, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Their is zero evidence. If you wish to produce the first evidence of god ever, please do so.
If you,or evolutionists or Scientists wanted to know how to learn about God's existence,the answer is simple and you know where to find it.
All it takes is for one to be willing to look and follow the instructions
How stupid can you be

Winchester, KY

#104860 May 27, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed sir... Since evolutionist cannot give an origin for their theory one can only assume that the beginning of ToE is the first reproduction of the simple cell... How does that violate Cause and Effect?
1) How did this simple cell reproduce?
It's already impossible that it's even here but now this SIMPLE cell somehow has genetic information to pass on... But it's not designed?... Then from where?... We have effect yet no cause...
2) Why did the first cell reproduce?... What's the point? Reproduction has no benefit for this simple cell... If anything this is against evolution as offspring would compete for food...
Any thoughts?
Great post!
Very logical, and astute!
124^10th Against the proteins coming together to make DNA in the first place... seems they forget their own scale for scientific impossibilities!

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
Jenny Mills 25 min Earl 6
Cleve Darrell Smith (Nov '10) 30 min Kari 4
Barbourville High School 2 hr billybob 3
Is Paul Baker a good Disability Lawyer? (Dec '12) 3 hr Arnsbaby 72
larry 3 hr in the know 1
How to make homemade ice melt for steps, sidewa... (Jan '13) 4 hr beeraholic 49
kenitha tried 4 hr The ex 9
Barbourville Dating
Find my Match

Barbourville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Barbourville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Barbourville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:38 pm PST

NFL 6:38PM
Texans' Ryan Mallett might have torn right pectoral
ESPN 7:14 PM
Source: Texans' Mallet played with pec injury
NFL10:12 AM
Ryan Mallett (torn pectoral muscle) out for season
Bleacher Report10:51 AM
Andre Johnson, DeAndre Hopkins Updated Fantasy Outlook After Ryan Mallett Injury
NBC Sports11:46 AM
Bengals' Dalton and Green finally get it going - NBC Sports