Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 20 comments on the Feb 10, 2010, The Courier-Journal story 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

#108161 Jul 7, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>What you fail to understand about what is considered a fact is, a fact might not be the truth.
Evolution is considered fact by the scientific community. Evolution is considered fact by the courts. Now lets say hypothetically that evolution is not the truth. This does not mean it is not considered a fact by the definition of the word.

Now you might consider god a fact, but god has zero evidence, so it really does not fit the definition of fact.

Now do I need to spell out what a scientific theory is?
Nothing in that definition says something requires evidence to be a fact. So based off of this definition, why doesn't God fit it?

But it does say that something is in actual existence to be a fact. Doesn't that mean truth?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108162 Jul 7, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>And what drives play? Instincts. Play is practice. This is why kids play. Play hones skills. Skills need to be sharp for survival. Survival is key for evolution.
Not in all cases. Some play just to play. Have you never had or seen an animal that just played?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108163 Jul 7, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I am not sure any species of animal hunts its own species for practice. I am quite sure when an animal hunts its own species, it has a reason, most usually to protect its territory, as I have said and you have continually ignored and diverted.

Observations of apes shows they will hunt down tribes in their surrounding territory, kill them and even eat them.
The hypothesis on this is, the cannibalism is to strike fear in the survivors to keep them out of the territory.

Now, just what about homosexuality is harming anyone to the point of comparing it to cannibalism?
You have to keep up here. If you are going to say that homosexuality is ok because animals do it, which makes it natural. Then by your logic you would be ok with humans killing someone from another "tribe" and eating them in front of the survivors. Because it's natural.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108164 Jul 7, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Again, I never said humans should do what the animal kingdom does.
Again, you claimed homosexuality was not natural, I showed that it is by giving examples in nature.
Now if you wish to show homosexuality as immoral, then you need to show a reason why. You have yet to do so.

I can certainly agree that what is natural is not moral in any absolute manner. But that is not showing homosexuality as immoral.

Do you even know how to demonstrate what constitutes immorality?
You tried by claiming homosexuality was not natural, but that was proved wrong. So try another reason.
Moral is not a word I have used one single time in this thread. And no, just because animals get horny and satisfy themselves in a homosexual nature, does not make it natural. Nature would not survive unless the procreation all urges and powers had a purpose. So just because an animal gets his rocks off this way only proves how powerful the urge is, not that nature intended it to be that way.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108165 Jul 7, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>When the theory of evolution was first hypothesized has no relevancy in the fact it is a sound scientific theory that is thus considered fact.
The concept is considered a fact because all evidence found relating to the hypnosis confirms it as true.
Now if you wish to show it is wrong, then you must produce evidence that shows it as wrong. Claiming their is not enough missing links is not evidence at all. A lack of evidence is not evidence. This is why no one can prove god does not exist. Their is zero evidence against a god existing.
Now their is no evidence showing a god exists, so it cannot be considered a scientific theory.
Evidence can be shown some of the claims of god are false. This is what I often show in my case against god.

So you might consider a 'hypothesis' a hunch, but a 'scientific theory' is not a hunch.
I didn't mention any particular subject when discussing facts and theory. What started us talking about fact and theory though was someone saying it was fact that people are born gay. To which I said the scientific community has said there is no conclusive evidence that confirms this. I didn't make that up. You are free to look it up yourself.
There are some scientists that say yes and some no. But if all are using the scientific method correctly, they would come up with the same conclusion, but this has not happened.

But if you want to talk about evolution, there is no conclusive evidence that man came from apes either. There is a missing link that keeps anyone from calling that fact. There is some evidence that many call compelling, but not conclusive.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108166 Jul 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>You probably have all the bishops of the church wondering why they even let you in the door. Your total lack of education is something more fit for Westboro.
Lack of education in what subject kitty?
I've never had any problem with my education at church. Maybe you misplaced or misused your insult.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#108167 Jul 7, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to keep up here. If you are going to say that homosexuality is ok because animals do it, which makes it natural. Then by your logic you would be ok with humans killing someone from another "tribe" and eating them in front of the survivors. Because it's natural.
No.

I'll jump in on this one. I'm not sure what the other poster actually said but I don't know anyone who advances the argument that BECAUSE animals do it, then it's OK.

Here is the actual argument. Many bigots argue that homosexuality is not natural, its a behavioral choice. We point to studies showing animals doing it *in support of* our argument that it is natural.

"In support of" is different from "because of". For example, the extremely close DNA relationship between humans and chimps *supports* the fact that we evolved from common ancestors. But it does not mean we evolved from common ancestors *because of* our close DNA match with chimps.

Different lines of evidence come together to lend support to an idea or to go against it. All lines of evidence lead to the fact that homosexuality is not a chosen sexual orientation. The fact that animals do it too is *part of* that body of evidence.

See what I mean?

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108168 Jul 7, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Moral is not a word I have used one single time in this thread. And no, just because animals get horny and satisfy themselves in a homosexual nature, does not make it natural. Nature would not survive unless the procreation all urges and powers had a purpose. So just because an animal gets his rocks off this way only proves how powerful the urge is, not that nature intended it to be that way.
"Moral" is a judgement you make all the time - you just don't spell it with 5 letters.
Play is natural, procreation is natural. You are making the argument against recreational sex with your spouse because it is not strictly for procreation and it is therefore immoral and unnatural.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#108169 Jul 7, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't mention any particular subject when discussing facts and theory. What started us talking about fact and theory though was someone saying it was fact that people are born gay. To which I said the scientific community has said there is no conclusive evidence that confirms this. I didn't make that up. You are free to look it up yourself.
There are some scientists that say yes and some no. But if all are using the scientific method correctly, they would come up with the same conclusion, but this has not happened.
But if you want to talk about evolution, there is no conclusive evidence that man came from apes either. There is a missing link that keeps anyone from calling that fact. There is some evidence that many call compelling, but not conclusive.
No.

The scientific evidence dispels the idea that homosexuality is chosen. You are correct that it does not prove conclusively that no choice is involved.

Human sexuality is largely a social concept as well as biological. It is immensely complex. That is why there is disagreement.

But for the most part the scientific community is overwhelmingly against the bigot's argument that gays choose to be gay. It ain't that simple, bro. Sorry to break it to ya.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108170 Jul 7, 2013
happy wrote:
<quoted text>
U all are in serious denial. This post generating so many comments is what is amazing. Lol. GOD IS REAL. If He were not .. U would not b here..:-)
Set down the bottle and back away....
WeNeedGodBackinA merica

Tampa, FL

#108171 Jul 7, 2013
Whatever you are trying?
Really isn't working.
wtf

Pikeville, KY

#108172 Jul 8, 2013
WeNeedGodBackinAmerica wrote:
Whatever you are trying?
Really isn't working.
That sure will not work.
Morgan Freeman

Lubbock, TX

#108173 Jul 8, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Comparing plants and humans is a LOOOOOOOOONG stretch.You musta played 1st base on your baseball team.
Thanks for your answer. I did some research.
Turns out that those who arrived at the same conclusions as you did,did so,not by observing the plants,but by smoking them...
I also talked to a number of jail wardens.
Although their jails are full of men,no one has ever observed one of these men developing and growing female parts
Some may wannabe,but it don't work that way...
You are a complete idiot.
How stupid can you be

Winchester, KY

#108174 Jul 8, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationists never cease to amaze me. This is one of the dumbest things I've read this week. And that's saying a lot.
Evolution is the study of how animals have changed over time.
Atheist is rejection of the claim that gods exist.
Do you see how they are not the same thing at all?
Many Christians call themselves patriots and like American flags. Does that mean American flags are Christian flags? Many scientists are atheist. Does that mean science is atheism?
Any scientist, that cannot see God's handiwork IN His creation, and/or tries hard to deny that there is a Creating God... is an Atheist!
Anti-Christ if you will...
Our American flag WAS Designed by God fearing Christian people, and
sewn By a Christian woman... So Yes!
God Bless America!
How stupid can you be

Winchester, KY

#108175 Jul 8, 2013
aWitchintheWoods wrote:
"Blah, blah, blah...."
"How stupid can you be?"
With every post you show us how truly ignorant you are.
You could be the poster boy for atheism.
Keep up the good work.
No....
The ignorance is on YOUR part!
Every Godless post you make... Proves the God you hate
To be True... That must suck for you, as you cannot say
jack... without proving US, and God right!
We still pray for you!
How stupid can you be

Winchester, KY

#108176 Jul 8, 2013
aWitchintheWoods wrote:
<quoted text>
It is amusing when Christians fight over what they believe primitive superstitious goatherders wrote.
Very!
Hahahaha!
Mock on!
How stupid can you be

Winchester, KY

#108177 Jul 8, 2013
aWitchintheWoods wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! The "truth" bites you on the ass and you shoo it away so you can cling to your delusion. You are funny.
You are sad...
You don't know what the Truth is!
God is real, and you are lost!
Your clock is running out of time, and you really need to
get to KNOW your Lord, or you'll be standing at Judgment saying
"Uhhh, ummm, uh,,,,,"
Those Goatherders... Know more than you!
How stupid can you be

Winchester, KY

#108178 Jul 8, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
I give you facts, you give me a naked assertion. What part of my post was not factually true?
The only mention of god in the founding documents of this nation is "nature's god". By that, Jefferson meant the god of reason. A deist god. If you think otherwise then you don't know anything about Thomas Jefferson.
Don't just reply with a naked reversal of my argument. Don't just say "You're wrong, I'm right". Demonstrate your opinion with evidence.
"They still believed in a God who played an active role in the affairs of the world but they no longer believed in such doctrines as original sin, the infallibility of Scripture, or Christ's sacrificial atonement. Most had also rejected the virgin birth and the Trinity. Rather than subordinating reason to Biblical revelation, they subjected revelation to reason, discarding those parts of the Bible they found unreasonable. The influence of John Locke and the 18th-century Whig tradition had transformed their concept of God. As Frazer points out, no Calvinist would have made Thomas Jefferson's claim that "nature's God" had created man with an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.
If, moreover, the founders had been evangelicals on a religious mission, surely they would have mentioned Jesus Christ in the Declaration, the Constitution, or The Federalist. Jefferson drafted the Declaration in the language of theistic rationalism but was artful enough to make it palatable to a wide array of readers, many of whom, as he knew, would be Christians."
https://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id...
Believe whatever you want... we've been through this before!
How stupid can you be

Winchester, KY

#108179 Jul 8, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>
"But, but... Glenn Beck says all the Founding Fathers were Christians and they wanted the U.S. to be a Christian nation. He even cried when he told me so!"
No you tard...
The Founding Fathers SAID "They were Christians"!
They created this more perfect Union to Stop
Un-righteous man from polluting our nation with his lusts...
Now look at US...
Buy a Clue!
(as if that would help!)
How stupid can you be

Winchester, KY

#108180 Jul 8, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> the rightwing nutcase fundies on this thread are so extremist that they will never see reason. I keep looking for anyone here who is religious and not a rightwing nut, and anyone here who is irreligious and not highly intelligent. Cannot find such persons. I know they exist in the real world.
I would prefer, however, to have intelligent conversations with the nonbelievers on here, rather than wasting time arguing with fundies. If there were any centrist on here it would be worth making rational arguments to try to appeal to them, but I see few centrists either. So could we discuss things among ourselves sometimes, instead of constantly being mired down in replying to the fundies?
I would be interested in knowing more about your own views on various issues. I am an agnostic (not claiming to know) atheist (not believing in a God), and also agnostic and nonbelieving with regard to an afterlife and creation theories and the nature of the universe and a whole set of cosmic questions. I also think it makes more sense to not believe, than to believe - but it also makes more sense not to claim to know, than to claim to know. One has no burden of proof if one does not claim to know.
I also have great doubts about free will, and am inclined to believe in a rather complicated view of determinism. Some of what gets determined by prior causes comes through our thought processes, and sometimes it seems we are making free choices, but we have not evaluated all the things that cause us to do as we do, or to want what we want. So I am opposed to blame in the usual sense, but all the more in favor of detention and deterrence so people cannot hurt each other. That does not stop me from having visceral reactions of assigning "blame" and "guilt" - but it makes me generally oppose the death penalty, for example, and favor life imprisonment under relatively humane conditions, as a prevention - less than punishment. I am just as angry about injustices as anyone else - but who and what caused the bad person to become so bad? That philosophical question would kick in, despite my feeling of hostility to someone - like Zimmerman, for example. He should be prevented from doing it again, however.
"they will never see reason"
Hahahaha!
No... we've found "reason", and you are the ones lacking!
God is real.... You'll know the truth soon enough!

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
Stacy Keys 27 min cafe girl 9
Buddy and Ellen 50 min Hanna 1
Kim bingham 52 min friend of both 20
ralph smith 56 min older woman 9
Anthony N Cortney 59 min I know 7
Sabrina corey 5 hr Katty_Kit 2
UPS drop box in B'ville? 8 hr Big Brown 8
More from around the web

Barbourville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]