Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 143165 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.

ProvenScience

Somerset, KY

#104940 May 27, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Schools do not state why the big bang happened. Religion does, yet has zero evidence.
If schools aren't "allowed" to incorporate decency, ethics, respect for and Of others in daily routines, schools (that don't already), need to teach PHYSICS (again), even if Science itself, has yet to be able to answer ALL the questions all the time.

Such would redeem at least having some Faith in hope in future generations, because at least they might realize then, that until such a time when Science "knows all" (because it doesn't), it is good (Not bad) to treat others decently, ethically and respectfully in the meantime!

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#104941 May 27, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
How's it coming with that fossil list? Never heard back from ya...
I have posted tons of links. I can't help it if you dropped out in 3rd grade and can't read.

Have you ever seen a skeleton of any kind? If so, you have seen a "transitional fossil". Everything is transitional when you create arbitrary labels like species. Life is constantly changing.
defender

London, KY

#104942 May 27, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>I can't answer what? You most certainly did throw in the origin of life. That's your whole "cause and effect" argument. Change through reproduction? Where did you get that from? You really don't understand any of this do you?
It was a simple question... Where did the intelligence for reproduction ( not life ) come from?
ProvenScience

Somerset, KY

#104943 May 27, 2013
_Ummm_ wrote:
Some of you morons are saying things so abysmally stupid that I don't even know what your point is, which I would have to know to be able to respond. And the remainder is the same tired garbage from well known fundamentalist sites that we've all seen before and that still don't make sense or hold water, no matter how many times you scream it, so I don't feel like responding to that.
Quick reboot:
We are talking about a scientific topic. Everyone who has taken the time to read on the subject knows how science produced the theory of evolution, and how it has stood for years while under constant assault and scrutiny for a large part of that time.
So, if we are going to veer off into intelligent design land, and if we are going to treat intelligent design as if it is a scientific theory that can be put on the same shelf as evolution and debate, I want to know how science produced the "theory" of intelligent design.
I don't want to see a single "I'm too stupid to understand evolution so I'm going to try to play gotcha over some stuff I think is clever". Don't even mention evolution. Just explain why anyone should even bother debating intelligent design by demonstrating how science produced it. Once anyone here can demonstrate that it is indeed a product of science and a theory, then we can try to shoot holes in both of them.
I eagerly await the your explanation, because I have honestly not seen one anywhere, ever. You may very well sway my opinion if you can answer me.
They haven't been able to yet.

That is why they call it the "God particle".
Which incidentally was more vulgarly (as in blasphemously)named originally due to to it's elusive, incomplete understanding of, but even science and scientists decide to restrain the vulgarity and opted for the more ethical "high road" instead, dubbing it and publishing it as the "God particle".

And it's actually more "Physics" related, in comparison to the "nature" of the theory of evolution.
defender

London, KY

#104944 May 27, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>One species makes it all the more unlikely to find a complete fossil of a close predecessor or descendant. Out of billions of species.
Oh ok then guess we'll just have to take speculation as fact then... Wait a sec!! You already do that!!!
defender

London, KY

#104945 May 27, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>One species makes it all the more unlikely to find a complete fossil of a close predecessor or descendant. Out of billions of species.
Whatever...(rolling eyes)

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#104946 May 27, 2013
Of course I don't mean to say that every skeleton is a fossil. My point was that all forms are in a state of change over time.

Because that's how life works. It changes. Over time.
defender

London, KY

#104947 May 27, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Again, you are expecting complete fossils, which do not number in the millions. Their are fragments and partials in the millions, but you do not accept them.
So lets start with the actual numbers, not the ones you made up.
How many complete fossils exist?

You are still running from the bird/dinosaur question, so until you answer that, why should I continue? You still run from the many upright hominid question also. I see a trend. I offer evidence and you run.
What question? Please restate...
ProvenScience

Somerset, KY

#104948 May 27, 2013
Doc wrote:
God does not exist, but Jesus has been known to save S&H Green stamps.
But the "God particle" does!

And if one were to wish to archive a green stamp for milleniums ahead, it might behoove them to understand the complexity in nature of isotopes to do so!
defender

London, KY

#104949 May 27, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>I have posted tons of links. I can't help it if you dropped out in 3rd grade and can't read.

Have you ever seen a skeleton of any kind? If so, you have seen a "transitional fossil". Everything is transitional when you create arbitrary labels like species. Life is constantly changing.
Umm... No I looked back.. Nothing...
defender

London, KY

#104950 May 27, 2013
Yiago wrote:
Of course I don't mean to say that every skeleton is a fossil. My point was that all forms are in a state of change over time.

Because that's how life works. It changes. Over time.
Ok let me make it simple as possible.. There has to be somewhere in all that overwhelming evidence a clear intermediate... Perhaps a fossil of a rhino with it's horn in half development or a spices of bat with half developed wings as evolutionist claim mutated from it's fingers... Good luck...

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

#104951 May 27, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok let me make it simple as possible.. There has to be somewhere in all that overwhelming evidence a clear intermediate... Perhaps a fossil of a rhino with it's horn in half development or a spices of bat with half developed wings as evolutionist claim mutated from it's fingers... Good luck...
Good luck with what? Good luck with answering a malformed request based on your complete misunderstanding of evolution, the concept of mya, probability of fossilization, and essentially anything else that we might be talking about? I mean, well over half of ALL known dinosaur genera are known because of single fossils. We expect that we have found fossils of around 1/3 of all genera. It's like looking for a needle in a 300 ft tall haystack that got obliterated by a tsunami and covered by 30 feet of sediment. In other words, holy sh!t are you stupid.

How about, instead, you answer my damn request and quit trying to prove your point by disproving science. It won't work.(And we all know what transitional/intermediate fossils are and that fundie nutjobs never accept them, because they always want something between the transition and the next step, to infinity.)

Tell me how science produced the "theory" of intelligent design. Show me where it has been tested, as all scientific theories have. Once you can do that, we can begin discussing the merits of your theory in comparison to others. UNTIL that point, your "theory" is worth no more than any other baseless, insane rant and is not even remotely worth discussing.

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

#104952 May 27, 2013
ProvenScience wrote:
<quoted text>
They haven't been able to yet.
That is why they call it the "God particle".
Which incidentally was more vulgarly (as in blasphemously)named originally due to to it's elusive, incomplete understanding of, but even science and scientists decide to restrain the vulgarity and opted for the more ethical "high road" instead, dubbing it and publishing it as the "God particle".
And it's actually more "Physics" related, in comparison to the "nature" of the theory of evolution.
...what?
Ye of lil Understanding

Winchester, KY

#104953 May 28, 2013
wtf wrote:
<quoted text>You are a shame.
Romans
1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the
power of God to salvation to every one that believeth; to the
Jew first, and also to the Greek.
1:17 For in this is the righteousness of God revealed from faith
to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
unrighteousness.
1:19 Because that which may be known of God, is manifest in
them; for God hath shown [it] to them.
Ye of lil Understanding

Winchester, KY

#104954 May 28, 2013
wtf wrote:
<quoted text>You judgmental SOB.
Romans
1:26 For this cause God gave them up to vile affections. For
even their women did change the natural use into that which is
against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
woman, burned in their lust one towards another; men with men
working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves
that recompense of their error which was meet.
1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their]
knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those
things which are not convenient;
1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication,
wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder,
debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters,
inventers of evil things, disobedient to parents,
1:31 Without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural
affection, implacable, unmerciful:
1:32 Who, knowing the judgment of God, that they who commit such
things are worthy of death; not only do the same, but have
pleasure in them that do them.
.
Bless you!
Ye of lil Understanding

Winchester, KY

#104955 May 28, 2013
wtf wrote:
<quoted text>You need Special Ed.
You need Ed period!
John
3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten
Son, that whoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have
everlasting life.
3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
world, but that the world through him may be saved.
3:18 He that believeth on him, is not condemned: but he that
believeth not, is condemned already, because he hath not
believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.
3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the
world, and men have loved darkness rather than light, because
their deeds were evil.
3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither
cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
3:21 But he that doeth truth, cometh to the light, that his
deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
How stupid can you be

Winchester, KY

#104956 May 28, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Again, if wrong is wrong, why do you only demand homosexuals not have the right to marry? Why not keep all people who are wrong from marrying?
Families were around long before your god was invented.
What a nut!
God created ALL, Not the other way around!
Buy a clue!
Yes and Amen

Winchester, KY

#104957 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you... I can't seem to get anyone of them to answer these questions...Wonder why?
Darkness hates the Light!
If they seen the Light, they'd be on here posting against
everything they're posting for now!
That scares them!
God Bless :-)

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104958 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a simple question... Where did the intelligence for reproduction ( not life ) come from?
This is the type of question that _Ummm is complaining about. And I agree with him. It's outside the scope of what Evolution explains.

How did life originate? How did asexual reproduction originate? How did sexual reproduction originate? The theory of Evolution doesn't deal with any of these topics, nor should it. Evolution explains the diversification of life, not how it came into existence. Capisce?

All that aside, my question to you was what "cause and effect" provides scientific evidence for ID and not Evolution? This is something that you initially claimed (or at least strongly implied). How does your complaint that the Theory of Evolution doesn't define reproduction's origin provide evidence of ID?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#104959 May 28, 2013
ProvenScience wrote:
<quoted text>
If schools aren't "allowed" to incorporate decency, ethics, respect for and Of others in daily routines, schools (that don't already), need to teach PHYSICS (again), even if Science itself, has yet to be able to answer ALL the questions all the time.
Such would redeem at least having some Faith in hope in future generations, because at least they might realize then, that until such a time when Science "knows all" (because it doesn't), it is good (Not bad) to treat others decently, ethically and respectfully in the meantime!
If the school is teaching ethics, maybe it should hold up the OT to show what is the most unethical rule book a culture could devise then show how logic and reasoning works so much better than rule books such as this.

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
free jessica hubbard 25 min Hippie 1
Hubbards 45 min Truth 6
free jess hubbard!!! 1 hr Abbey 5
free jess hubbard!!! 1 hr Speakclearly 47
Donrick Blevins 3 hr Sickened 1
Flat Lick Ball Coach Devin Mills 3 hr Whatever 27
Sarah tye (Mar '15) 4 hr fact 27
Is judge ex Jm hall going to prison ? 5 hr Knox county voter 21
Sixty minutes asking questions about Knox court... 6 hr Kit 18
Shooting at Walmart??? 18 hr sunshine 54
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages