Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 148930 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.

Yes and Amen

Winchester, KY

#105152 May 29, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
YaA might say "Great answer!" But then, it's the crazies and religious freaks who claim the voices in their heads are "God."
Any rational parent should be a little more cautious about leaving their daughter alone with a guy whose excuse might be "It's in the Bible. Here's 52 sheckles, keep the change." or "God told me to."
"Ask him" Is a great answer!
You will not, because you really don't want the truth... do you?
No!
It would mean you were wrong about... everything!

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#105153 May 29, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Different law for a more carnal people. The NT applies to us more today. Jesus brought the higher law
Forgive me if someone has already covered this, but I call BS on this line of reasoning. It is one of the first things Christians say when challenged on the immoral behavior of God in the OT.

This view, that folks used to have a different moral code handed down by God, is exactly the same as the "moral relativism" that Christians accuse atheists and liberals of practicing. The morality you advocate is relative to the time. God seems to be practicing the very thing that Fundies rail against.

Here's a better explanation. Cultures evolve over time. Our moral intuitions are bolstered by good argumentation and historical lessons, over time. We develop more and more sophisticated systems of justice and governance over time, representative of this growing acceptance of our most basic moral intuitions.

Therefore our religions tend to grow less barbaric over time, in general. Christianity came about after the great golden age of Greece when intellectuality really started to come into its own. It is absolutely consistent and expected that a religious text written in this time period would be more sophisticated in its moral thoughts than things written before it.

There is no reason to do mental acrobatics and rationalize the massive difference in morality from the OT to the NT. It just makes religion and God look wishy washy.

As an aside, let me add that the morality taught in the NT is not nearly as good as people think it is. There is still the condoning of slavery, subjugation of women, hatred for gays, and a whole lot of self-shaming and wallowing in the misery of illusory sins like sex outside of marriage. For all its advances, the NT is still an ancient book that does not come close to matching our modern sense of morality.
ProvenScience

London, KY

#105154 May 29, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>None of this points to gay marriage degrading marriage in general. It seems you cannot answer the question.
I would wager that half the marriages do not result in offspring, so what you believe is the purpose of marriage is not the rule.
I think people marry due to love of each other first and foremost. You deny this to gay persons. Immoral.
It could be soooo much easier if Vegas would just set up an on-line spawrkle spawrle gwitter, gwitter "Git yerself muharried heya" Twenty-nine ninty five... and for fitty cents some muzac of yer choice.

*Disclaimer: Do not expect anymore speshull rights as a result of it than anyone else however, cause that won't ever happen!
ProvenScience

London, KY

#105155 May 29, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>
Proven Science, you are clearly deranged.
That's what the hereTics said about...well...you know how hereTics are lol.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#105156 May 29, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
No she can't hold the priesthood. And I can't have our children. This doesn't bother either of us. We have different roles.
I work and bring home the bacon. My wife stays at home with the kids. This is by choice. We decided that my wife would be a better parent to our kids than daycare. She considers this a privilege.
I rarely ever make a decision in our house unless she doesn't want to make it. I treat her like a queen and want her to be happy. I handle all the financials because she hates it and doesn't want to do it.
Funny thing is if you ask my wife if she feels inferior you'll have to wait until she finishes laughing to get a response.
It doesn't really matter what an individual feels about the situation. The point stands: her special place is decided by nature, your special place is decided by men.

That relationship, no matter how much you and she love it, is inherently unequal. You cannot rationalist that fact away.

You hold the position of authority, by force of church law. If your beliefs are to be taken seriously you were given this power by God himself. All she got was the power to be a breed mare.

It is not equal. You hold a superior position and she has no hope of aspiring to it. It does not matter how happy you are because you are a sample size of 1.
ProvenScience

London, KY

#105157 May 29, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Forgive me if someone has already covered this, but I call BS on this line of reasoning. It is one of the first things Christians say when challenged on the immoral behavior of God in the OT.
This view, that folks used to have a different moral code handed down by God, is exactly the same as the "moral relativism" that Christians accuse atheists and liberals of practicing. The morality you advocate is relative to the time. God seems to be practicing the very thing that Fundies rail against.
Here's a better explanation. Cultures evolve over time. Our moral intuitions are bolstered by good argumentation and historical lessons, over time. We develop more and more sophisticated systems of justice and governance over time, representative of this growing acceptance of our most basic moral intuitions.
Therefore our religions tend to grow less barbaric over time, in general. Christianity came about after the great golden age of Greece when intellectuality really started to come into its own. It is absolutely consistent and expected that a religious text written in this time period would be more sophisticated in its moral thoughts than things written before it.
There is no reason to do mental acrobatics and rationalize the massive difference in morality from the OT to the NT. It just makes religion and God look wishy washy.
As an aside, let me add that the morality taught in the NT is not nearly as good as people think it is. There is still the condoning of slavery, subjugation of women, hatred for gays, and a whole lot of self-shaming and wallowing in the misery of illusory sins like sex outside of marriage. For all its advances, the NT is still an ancient book that does not come close to matching our modern sense of morality.
grasp...grasp (translated: SOME folks can just be sooo difficult..sniff sniff..wah wah).... lol.
ProvenScience

London, KY

#105158 May 29, 2013
Yes and Amen wrote:
<quoted text>"Ask him" Is a great answer!
You will not, because you really don't want the truth... do you?
No!
It would mean you were wrong about... everything!
You should've told him any parent would be a little bit specktakul about leaving their son alone with one dem looking for duh fwee ride for lifers fleamales, telling him not to worry she gort all dar birf contwol stuff unner contwol!!

(BEWARE of ANYone like that kids!!! Learn to be SELF accountable AND actually responsible and Protect THY SELVES, from the parasites of the world!)

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#105159 May 29, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I'm not your cuz... Further more there should be no problem showing a step by step evolutionary line... Remember all the mountains and mountains of evidence? Overwhelming amounts of fossils!!! Yeah whatever...
Trillions of beings have died on this planet. The only ones to become fossils were caught in specific conditions, such as getting stuck in a tar pit or deep mud. We do not possess good fossils for all arbitrary stages of development.

And that is key to your misunderstanding. There isn't a Wal Mart of fossils we can go to and select every intermediate form you seem to want.

Also, intermediate forms are an artifact of our inability to think on a cotniuum. If you were to gain the magic power to watch evolution taking place over millions of years you would not see crocoducks, you would see gradual changes perhaps punctuated by sudden changes due to unusual pressures.

The God of the Gaps fallacy is what you seem to love most. If I showed you Animal 1, then 2, then 3 and there was a pretty clear pattern of evolution your response would be "Show me 1.5, 2.5!"

Then you'd ask for 1.25 and 1.75 and so on. Because those are the "Gaps". You find a dark hold of ignorance and shove God into it.

I mean for pete's sake, do feathered dinosaurs mean nothing to you? What more do you want?

Avimimus portentosus (inferred 1987: quill knobs)[12][13]
Pelecanimimus polydon?(1994)[14]
Sinosauropteryx prima (1996)[15]
Protarchaeopteryx robusta (1997)[16]
GMV 2124 (1997)[17]
Caudipteryx zoui (1998)[18]
Rahonavis ostromi (inferred 1998: quill knobs; possibly avialan[19])[20]
Shuvuuia deserti (1999)[1]
Sinornithosaurus millenii (1999)[21]
Beipiaosaurus inexpectus (1999)[22]
Caudipteryx dongi (2000)[23]
Caudipteryx sp.(2000)[24]
Microraptor zhaoianus (2000)[25]
Nomingia gobiensis (inferred 2000: pygostyle)[26]
Psittacosaurus sp.?(2002)[27]
Yixianosaurus longimanus (2003)[28]
Dilong paradoxus (2004)[29]
Sinornithosaurus haoiana (2004)[30]
Pedopenna daohugouensis (2005; possibly avialan[31])[32]
Jinfengopteryx elegans (2005)[33][34]
Juravenator starki (2006)[35][36]
Sinocalliopteryx gigas (2007)[37]
Velociraptor mongoliensis (inferred 2007: quill knobs)[5]
Similicaudipteryx yixianensis (inferred 2008: pygostyle; confirmed 2010)[38][39]
Anchiornis huxleyi (2009)[40]
Tianyulong confuciusi?(2009)[41]
Concavenator corcovatus?(inferred 2010: quill knobs?)[42]
Xiaotingia zhengi (2011)[43]
Yutyrannus huali (2012)[44]
Microraptor hanqingi (2012)[45]
Sciurumimus albersdoerferi (2012)[46]
Ornithomimus edmontonicus (2012)[47]
Ningyuansaurus wangi (2012)[48]
Eosinopteryx brevipenna (2013)[49]
Citipati osmolskae (inferred 2013: pygostyle)[50]
Conchoraptor gracilis (inferred 2013: pygostyle)[50]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosa...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/f/feathe...

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmenta...
ProvenScience

London, KY

#105160 May 29, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't really matter what an individual feels about the situation. The point stands: her special place is decided by nature, your special place is decided by men.
That relationship, no matter how much you and she love it, is inherently unequal. You cannot rationalist that fact away.
You hold the position of authority, by force of church law. If your beliefs are to be taken seriously you were given this power by God himself. All she got was the power to be a breed mare.
It is not equal. You hold a superior position and she has no hope of aspiring to it. It does not matter how happy you are because you are a sample size of 1.
Some people like it like that. In defense of, it beats the heck out of kids having to raise themselves, while (careless and without regard) parents just do whatever!

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#105161 May 29, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Looking for a crockoduck?
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/...

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#105162 May 29, 2013
Oxymoron wrote:
<quoted text>
The gaps are closing? Not from where I'm standing, it looks to me that the more Scientists try to answer a question the more questions that pop up of How, When, Where, and Why; the conclusion of the last answer came about, it's never ending. The universe will have burned out before all the questions are answered. It all leads to a Big Bang and nobody knows how or why it happened; and if it was just a random occurrence, why hasn't it happened more than once and how could we possibly know if it has happened more than once. Nonbelievers probably have more faith than believers, if they had used all that energy trying to find God rather than trying to disprove Him we would surely all be sitting in the Kingdom of Heaven by now. But I understand why I think, it's because they look at Christianity today and say to themselves "If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed" and I don't blame them. You can not look at Christianity of today because it is not the true representation of Christ, because there is little if any Love left in it, there hasn't been for many many centuries and even then it was only a twinkle at best way back before the Romans slaughtered the original followers of Christ. But the Message he left behind is still just as real today as it was then, it's up to you personally to become a reflection of that light, it cannot be found anywhere today except in yourself. It must start with you, just as a few years ago it started also in me. You don't have to go to church in fact anymore I'd advise against it unless you are just going to learn, it's a school house anymore, a university, but the time comes when one must graduate and leave the school and walk with God where ever he goes, for he is Love, Mercy, kindness, and understanding; and he will guide your steps. But you must listen to Christ's words in the New Testament for he revealed many things to the world that man was confused about prior to that time, it's just that now the world has fallen back into confusion all over again, because we lack the patience and the faith to dig until we find the answers to our questions, but above all we must find the Love we once had for each other because we can have all things but lack that an it all falls apart. Sounds like the world we live in to me.
1 Corinthians 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not LOVE, I am nothing.
Matthew 4:4 It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
2 Timothy 4:5 But WATCH THOU IN ALL THINGS endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make FULL PROOF of thy ministry.
Can I buy a paragraph?
Yes as the questions get answered, more questions arise. Religion keeps inserting god into each unanswered question until science finds the answers then religion moves the goal posts.
So do you believe all was created in six days, or have you moved the goal post?

We do not know how all started and that includes yourself. Difference is, you claim to know.
Religion has made these claims over and over with zero evidence. They claimed it happened in six days but that claim has been proven wrong so religion now says that was a metaphor. Well depending on how hardheaded the person is, as some still believe the six day tale.

Maybe if religion was on the side of facts instead of made up stories and poor morality I would take your claims about Jesus a bit more seriously.
BTW the poor morality is is the bible, not just the followers.
Maybe if the book showed better morality, the followers would be more moral.
ProvenScience

London, KY

#105163 May 29, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Trillions of beings have died on this planet. The only ones to become fossils were caught in specific conditions, such as getting stuck in a tar pit or deep mud. We do not possess good fossils for all arbitrary stages of development.
And that is key to your misunderstanding. There isn't a Wal Mart of fossils we can go to and select every intermediate form you seem to want.
Also, intermediate forms are an artifact of our inability to think on a cotniuum. If you were to gain the magic power to watch evolution taking place over millions of years you would not see crocoducks, you would see gradual changes perhaps punctuated by sudden changes due to unusual pressures.
The God of the Gaps fallacy is what you seem to love most. If I showed you Animal 1, then 2, then 3 and there was a pretty clear pattern of evolution your response would be "Show me 1.5, 2.5!"
Then you'd ask for 1.25 and 1.75 and so on. Because those are the "Gaps". You find a dark hold of ignorance and shove God into it.
I mean for pete's sake, do feathered dinosaurs mean nothing to you? What more do you want?
Avimimus portentosus (inferred 1987: quill knobs)[12][13]
Pelecanimimus polydon?(1994)[14]
Sinosauropteryx prima (1996)[15]
Protarchaeopteryx robusta (1997)[16]
GMV 2124 (1997)[17]
Caudipteryx zoui (1998)[18]
Rahonavis ostromi (inferred 1998: quill knobs; possibly avialan[19])[20]
Shuvuuia deserti (1999)[1]
Sinornithosaurus millenii (1999)[21]
Beipiaosaurus inexpectus (1999)[22]
Caudipteryx dongi (2000)[23]
Caudipteryx sp.(2000)[24]
Microraptor zhaoianus (2000)[25]
Nomingia gobiensis (inferred 2000: pygostyle)[26]
Psittacosaurus sp.?(2002)[27]
Yixianosaurus longimanus (2003)[28]
Dilong paradoxus (2004)[29]
Sinornithosaurus haoiana (2004)[30]
Pedopenna daohugouensis (2005; possibly avialan[31])[32]
Jinfengopteryx elegans (2005)[33][34]
Juravenator starki (2006)[35][36]
Sinocalliopteryx gigas (2007)[37]
Velociraptor mongoliensis (inferred 2007: quill knobs)[5]
Similicaudipteryx yixianensis (inferred 2008: pygostyle; confirmed 2010)[38][39]
Anchiornis huxleyi (2009)[40]
Tianyulong confuciusi?(2009)[41]
Concavenator corcovatus?(inferred 2010: quill knobs?)[42]
Xiaotingia zhengi (2011)[43]
Yutyrannus huali (2012)[44]
Microraptor hanqingi (2012)[45]
Sciurumimus albersdoerferi (2012)[46]
Ornithomimus edmontonicus (2012)[47]
Ningyuansaurus wangi (2012)[48]
Eosinopteryx brevipenna (2013)[49]
Citipati osmolskae (inferred 2013: pygostyle)[50]
Conchoraptor gracilis (inferred 2013: pygostyle)[50]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosa...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/f/feathe...
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmenta...
Non-critical thought of the day. "Feathered dinosaurs probably needed life preservers while swimming."
ProvenScience

London, KY

#105164 May 29, 2013
Yiago wrote:
Would yew like a... new toof brush fer that?
ProvenScience

London, KY

#105165 May 29, 2013
Yiago wrote:
n ya might need to fix he legs a little bit for that realistic balance e-ffect tooo!

Here you some "filler material" lol.

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-a...
ProvenScience

London, KY

#105166 May 29, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Can I buy a paragraph?
Yes as the questions get answered, more questions arise. Religion keeps inserting god into each unanswered question until science finds the answers then religion moves the goal posts.
So do you believe all was created in six days, or have you moved the goal post?
We do not know how all started and that includes yourself. Difference is, you claim to know.
Religion has made these claims over and over with zero evidence. They claimed it happened in six days but that claim has been proven wrong so religion now says that was a metaphor. Well depending on how hardheaded the person is, as some still believe the six day tale.
Maybe if religion was on the side of facts instead of made up stories and poor morality I would take your claims about Jesus a bit more seriously.
BTW the poor morality is is the bible, not just the followers.
Maybe if the book showed better morality, the followers would be more moral.
Six days (in ancient language definition) as compared to what? The variables (that science now explains more secularly) in comparison to the "unknown time" variables as found within the BB theory?

Could you be more precise please?

(and how many examples do ya realllly need of "bad morality" to know it when ya see/read it!) Geez.

Now, wouldn't you rather some, oh say...something constructive (rather than destructive) like perhaps....Physics?

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#105167 May 29, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> I think that the term generally means not a believer in a God. I am not a believer in any God that I ever heard of. I do not claim to know that there is no God, and that explains the agnostic element. Agnostic means not to claim knowledge. Agnosticism often has the additional implication that one does not believe that such matters are knowable - and that is my belief, but I do not claim to know that for sure either.
So I am an agnostic atheist. It is really a very modest view, and does not insist one knows. It does not imply any nasty attitude toward a believer either. Some believers have ethical views that I like, and others do not. Ethics matter more to me than theology. An atheist with ethical views I disapprove of is someone I like less than a believer with ethical views I approve of. I generally call my ethics one of favoring informed, intelligent, effective kindness. or informed kindness for short.
The other reason why I am an atheist and agnostic - I read hundreds even thousands of pages of philosophy when I was l7, and I was brought up as an agnostic with an open mind. I found the philosophers and views I liked. Just as I did with poets. It was a matter of preference. I liked Santayana, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Bertrand Russell, Hume, John Stuart Mill. I liked the Kant ethic of categorical imperative, but it had to be made very specific - It is wrong to lie in some circumstances and not others, for example.
I tip my hat to you. Learned people who appreciate philosophy are few and far between. Yet philosophy sort of underpins everything we think and do in the world. Get a degree in philosophy and what are you qualified to do? Teach philosophy. Or write books.

Yet even the most knuckle dragging whackjob clutching rattlesnakes and praising Jesus is moved on some level by a deep seated notion that his five senses cannot tell him everything there is to know, therefore he needs something more.

I used to call myself an agnostic but eventually I just started embracing atheist as a label. I love the subtle differences between atheist-agnostic, agnostic-atheist, etc. But in the end I find that all of us pretty much seem to live as if no god exists anyway. So I just simplify the matter with "atheist".

Nobody can disprove the fuzzy, irrational version of a god that is just nature or just an idea. But we can destroy any concept of a specific god, such as Yahew or Jehovah or El or whoever. Once you start tacking specific qualities onto your god it is much easier to show how overwhelmingly improbable it is.

One thing I would also argue is that the typical concept of God is a logical impossibility unto itself. If god is all powerful and all knowing then it contains a logical contradiction. If you have all the power then you can act any way you wish. You can break from your predicted pattern. But if you are all knowing then you would already know that, thus nullifying the all powerful act of breaking the defined scheme.

Therefore an all powerful and all knowing god is logically impossible and does not exist.
ProvenScience

London, KY

#105168 May 29, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Can I buy a paragraph?
Yes as the questions get answered, more questions arise. Religion keeps inserting god into each unanswered question until science finds the answers then religion moves the goal posts.
So do you believe all was created in six days, or have you moved the goal post?
We do not know how all started and that includes yourself. Difference is, you claim to know.
Religion has made these claims over and over with zero evidence. They claimed it happened in six days but that claim has been proven wrong so religion now says that was a metaphor. Well depending on how hardheaded the person is, as some still believe the six day tale.
Maybe if religion was on the side of facts instead of made up stories and poor morality I would take your claims about Jesus a bit more seriously.
BTW the poor morality is is the bible, not just the followers.
Maybe if the book showed better morality, the followers would be more moral.
and not to worry, some of us have no problem if you'd rather read and do your book report on Aesop's fables instead! Just do the actual work required yourself plz--NO pretending and/or plagiarizing Anyone else. Thank you.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#105169 May 29, 2013
ProvenScience wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is just ONE theory. It actually is quite a different realm from that of OTHER theories, that often involve other aspects of the Sceinces, such as PHYSICS.
Why do YOU "deny and dislike " Science "? It is OFTEN, VERY applicable in the "world of musuems" as we know it...even if those applications do NOT constitute the use of the "evolutionary" theory.
For example-
Karen J. Gaskell, Aldo A. Ponce and Lynn Brostoff
University of Maryland
Library of Congress
Preservation Science
Preservation Science Symposia
New Research on Iron Gall Ink
Two generally accepted mechanisms
for the depolymerization of cellulose
1) Acid-catalyzed hydrolysis
•
Ink pH ~1.8-2.2
2) Iron(II)-catalyzed oxidation
Part 1
XPS study of an 18th century Italian document
Part 2
XPS clues regarding the chemistry of Iron Gall ink
----------
Why I find MANY areas of Science to quite interesting-not just one.
There are zero competing scientific theories that explain the diversification of life on earth. Evolution is a fact of nature, the Modern Synthesis of Evolution is the theory that explains evolution.

There are no other theories. There are ideas, such as Intelligent Design. But they are not theories and serious scientists do not find them to be worth the time of day.
ProvenScience

London, KY

#105170 May 29, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
There are zero competing scientific theories that explain the diversification of life on earth. Evolution is a fact of nature, the Modern Synthesis of Evolution is the theory that explains evolution.
There are no other theories. There are ideas, such as Intelligent Design. But they are not theories and serious scientists do not find them to be worth the time of day.
I think other wise, simply because it is ALL as of yet, still INcomplete, therefore, further research is deemed quite essential!
Onward SCIENCE!

1. The origin of mass

The Higgs boson has long been thought the key to resolving the mystery of the origin of mass. The Higgs boson is associated with a field, called the Higgs field, theorized to pervade the universe. As other particles travel though this field, they acquire mass much as swimmers moving through a pool get wet, the thinking goes.

"The Higgs mechanism is the thing that allows us to understand how the particles acquire mass," said Joao Guimaraes da Costa, a physicist at Harvard University who is the Standard Model Convener at the LHC's ATLAS experiment, last year when the discovery was announced. "If there was no such mechanism, then everything would be massless."

Gotta run, sane, ethical, rational people have a nice day-nutcase, self absorbed, ego twipper stalker type freaks, you know what you can do!

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

#105171 May 29, 2013
mmmU wrote:
<quoted text>
You automatically win by calling him stupid. Congrats on your impressive debating skills.
No. I automatically win because he IS stupid, not because I made the observation. Man, you people just don't get it. The insults aren't part of any debate and do nothing to diminish the significant amount of ability I have to debate.
ProvenScience wrote:
<quoted text>
This one is already thread enough. Why waste time and space starting another?
However, I will help "change gears" and display a definition of the "rpm's" of part of broken repetitive 45 records, which really has nothing at all to do with TOE, but is also very helpful, for those living in the real world anyway.
Revolutions per minute (rpm) and angular velocity, two measures of how fast a point rotates about another point, are used to solve physics, mechanical engineering and computer programming problems. Often, rpm and angular velocity are used interchangeably, to simulate pulleys turning and wheels rolling in engineering simulators and video games.
You'll have to go check your OWN sums though ...my computers are not into the hypocricy or the hate baiter games of grade school level judgeMental-ist.
Try not to let the "daily spin" confuse you.
If you think that's science, I'm sorry. I don't see how RPM would be worthy of discussion past elementary school. There is no knowledge to be gained there.
Derwoodsgalleryof wrote:
<quoted text>
peanut brain cell.
"It hump day, bweak out duh everlutionary propogandna squawrk parrot and repeat(and repeat and repeat) scwipt, for the perpetually stuck in hor_monial land!!"
Are you really that ridiculously stupid, or are you just trolling?
The most amazing thing about fundamentalists is that they've tricked themselves into thinking that people who believe science are doing the same thing as they are when they believe religion. We are not. We don't regurgitate propaganda and quote scripture. We simply have evidence and a very good idea of what the evidence tells us. There is no faith involved. And our conclusion changes based on evidence. Your conclusion will never change because your brain doesn't work correctly and you've been programmed to believe only what is in that one book.

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
Female Trump Supporters "break the internet"...WOW 20 min BothSidesOfTheCoin 3
Anyone seen Kilgore fight ? 38 min Angie 14
Shawntaea and curt Brown? 49 min John 18
Jill 57 min Msg to you 4
TreadzTireCenter 1 hr satisfied 3
News Walmart contributes to Union technology project 1 hr knox 1
Liquor sales or kids welfare ? CHOICE ! 1 hr private citizen 14
Liquor License to locals only 17 hr governor 14
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages