Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 177091 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: Sep 13

United States of America

#116446 Nov 5, 2013
Curious, you can apologize if you wish, but the one being schooled here is you!
Elementary my dear Watson!

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.pixoto.com/quantumm

#116447 Nov 5, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
Inserting a god or designer where science has not
yet reached a solid conclusion (sometimes called 'the God of the gaps') does not resolve what it intends, nor does it even answer the 'who'
question in any meaningful sense, because an appearance of design would still not tell us if the designer is a deistic god, a group of
polytheistic gods, any of the gods of monotheism, or something else altogether.
Could be the Other Q.....
PigBenis

Batavia, OH

#116448 Nov 6, 2013
If people want to be childish and naive enough to believe in a Jewish zombie who is his own father, that's their business. What really grills my Chilean sea bass, though...government and society forcing it on everyone as if it is proven fact. It's on our money, in our schools - even our measurement of time is based on it. It's pretty insulting. As an atheist, I cannot legally testify in court or hold public office. The forefathers would be ashamed.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#116449 Nov 6, 2013
Known Fact wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you seen the Secret Gospel of Mark? It kind of paints Jesus as gay. There's a naked boy involved. Sounds weird but when Jesus was getting ready to be arrested, there was a naked boy then as well and that's in the KJV. Check it out, it's an interesting read.
http://gnosis.org/library/secm.htm
Thanks for that - it was interesting.

A gay Jesus?

Hey! Why not?

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#116450 Nov 6, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
My God is not a theory ,He is a reality which Atheists fail to comprehend , at least,so they claim.
I will repeat again. It is impossible for nonintelligent ,nonliving ,nonconscious matter to attain the properties of life,intelligence and consciousness.
If you can find evidence to contradict what I have stated ,do so.
Science itself claims that ONLY life can create life. That is a Fact .
I do not need excuses ,theories or hypothesis in order to believe what is obvious.
Therefore ,since only life can create life and since nonintelligence and nonconsciousness are totally incapable and totally unequipped to imagine ,let alone create those properties of which they know nothing ,of which they are totally unaware , which they have never experienced , it is beyond credulity ,that somehow they were able to attain them by their own nonpower
do you have any evidence to contradict what I have written.
The fact is that God is not your natural superior being.
He is Supernatural and theories and hypothesis based on natural means are incapable and totally and completely inadequate to prove or disprove his existence.
So , I do not rely on your theories ,hypothesis or opinions.
I base my comclusions partly on observing life and the world around me.
I know I exist ,am conscious and have intelligence ,just like you do. The question is ,how did those properties come into existence.
certainly could not and were not created by their complete opposite.
Therefore , any reasonable person can logically conclude that ID ie God is responsible.
Or,if I were an Atheist and could not explain these events , then I would need to concoct excuses for not being able to provide an answer.
I could claim that in a few billion years someone may figure it out or that we may never know the answer ,or make the contradictory statement that Science with it's ever increasing knowledge will be able to create life.
You can't have it both ways , on the one hand ,claim that life does not need a creator ,therefore there is no reason to believe in God and then Creating life to prove God is nonexistent.
Atheists are caught in an untenable position , how was life created , for which they can not provide an answer, only excuses and an" Idon't know and we may never know ,but maybe in a million years we will know" which is the wishful thinking foundation for your faith.
I do not ,nor will i base my faith on such an illconceived and excuses infested foundation.
But , to each his own....
So there you have it - a fine demonstration of the fact that so many religious people are lacking in intelligence.

"Goddidit" is your reply to how anything in our universe came about.

Except that's not an answer. It's an "I don't know" cloaked in superstition and ju-ju.

What's more, we all know about your reality.

It's that fantasy world in which people who don't fall prey to the twins of gullibility and delusion are deemed to be irrational.

Where the hugely successful scientific method is junked in favour of magic, demons, angels and talking animals.

It's a world patrolled by an angry god who hates his creation. A god who creates plagues, diseases, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc to kill millions.

Thankfully it remains a fantasy where it remains in the minds of the gullible and deluded.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#116451 Nov 6, 2013
How stupid can you be wrote:
<quoted text>Again...
I guess that chapter was taken out of my Bible!
See... I never read where Jesus told His followers
to do things like that... So... You can
call them "Christians" all you want...
Fact remains... they were not!
Of course they were christians.

They had a stronger faith than you did and were positively terrified of their god.

No doubt, in 150 years time, believers will look back at christians today and say "they weren't christians".

"They came with a Bible and their religion- stole our land, crushed our spirit... and now tell us we should be thankful to the 'Lord' for being saved."

Chief Pontiac

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#116452 Nov 6, 2013
Yes and Amen wrote:
<quoted text>He'll just be more like a Janitor... taking the trash out!
IMO!
Climb out of the trashcan...
Repent!
Murder is murder

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#116453 Nov 6, 2013
Yes and Amen wrote:
<quoted text>Obscene???
Really?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =3Ra0eH_rNhIXX
God gave you plenty of time to choose, and
soon He'll flush this world, and all who are against Him...
Not looking good for you!
Am I good enough to pull the handle... NO!
I deserve to be flushed too!
So you think that killing children for your creator is not obscene?

Your morality has been warped and twisted.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#116454 Nov 6, 2013
PigBenis wrote:
If people want to be childish and naive enough to believe in a Jewish zombie who is his own father, that's their business. What really grills my Chilean sea bass, though...government and society forcing it on everyone as if it is proven fact. It's on our money, in our schools - even our measurement of time is based on it. It's pretty insulting. As an atheist, I cannot legally testify in court or hold public office. The forefathers would be ashamed.
It's sad but in some places those relics of bigotry and primitive thinking still cling to the minds of the gullible.

Thankfully, religion in the west is dying.

If you look back through history you'll see that whenever religion has had the power, things haven't ended well. That's why secularism and separation of church and state is so popular.
Yes and Amen

Winchester, KY

#116455 Nov 6, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
He just does not understand that a Law in Science is not like getting arrested for being stoned.... He and many others hear the words Law, Theory, Evidence, Proof and understands them as the terms used in general conversation... He reads a mathematical formula that allows determination of components and values but the Law explains Nothing about the physics of electron theory, it give no insight into the basic nature of matter and how energy transfer is actually accomplished... I could set the same mathematical laws for Plumbing an Call a water pipe a Conductor, a water wheel as a Inductor, a smaller pipe as a Resister, a Valve as a Switch, a pressure container as a Capacitor...ect... So if I do the Math and get the values of the water flow at any point it gives me little to no understanding of the Water..give little understanding of the H2O chemical bonding or the structure of the H2O molecule...
Being a Plumber ALSO... you don't think I know the correlation between circuits, electron, and water supplies?
Really??
You Assume I'm a dumbazz...
Theory is ONLY a Guess, covered in wonder, wrapped in agenda!
Just because the agenda sticks "Scientific" in front of it...
Does Not change the Fact... God is real!
Seek Him... If you dare!
Yes and Amen

Winchester, KY

#116456 Nov 6, 2013
PigBenis wrote:
If god exists, then why is the man's g-spot in his ass?
G-spot is where YOU want it to be!
A Quadriplegic Married man made his chin the g-spot, his wife would bite it while making love...
Yes and Amen

Winchester, KY

#116457 Nov 6, 2013
dont know wrote:
I don't know.
Seek Him!
You WILL Know!
Amen!
Yes and Amen

Winchester, KY

#116458 Nov 6, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they were christians.
They had a stronger faith than you did and were positively terrified of their god.
No doubt, in 150 years time, believers will look back at christians today and say "they weren't christians".
"They came with a Bible and their religion- stole our land, crushed our spirit... and now tell us we should be thankful to the 'Lord' for being saved."
Chief Pontiac
I'm sorry... I just cannot speak "Stupid" with you...
We don't have 150 years left... buy a clue!
Yes and Amen

Winchester, KY

#116459 Nov 6, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Murder is murder
A Savior is a Savior!
Get yours today!
Repent!
Or get what YOU choose!
Yes and Amen

Winchester, KY

#116460 Nov 6, 2013
Evilution, and Atheism is like
Jay Carny defending Obama...
Hard to watch when you KNOW the Truth!

Seek the Lord... You will be Glad you did!
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#116461 Nov 6, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
Perhaps you should research the experiments of Miller-Urey. They provide us with plenty
of evidence for the possibility of life emerging from non-life.
There is no rational nor defensible reason for proposing the involvement
of a designer or god in the formation of life. It does nothing to resolve the question of how life began, and it is merely an extraneous assertion proffered by those who are motivated by their
personal faith, not by evidence!
Scientific Evidence that God Created Life
by Thomas F. Heinze
(Go to: Main Heinze Page)
(Go to: www.creationism.org )
Contents
Did God Create Life? Ask a Protein!
A Cell Must Have a Membrane
Where Did the Information in Cells Come from?
Redefining Science to Eliminate the Creator
Did Time Perform the Miracle of Life?
Did Life Come from Space?
Did God Create Life? Ask a Protein!
In 1953 Stanley Miller performed an experiment which rocked the world! He showed that passing a spark through a chosen mixture of gasses will form amino acids, the building blocks of proteins which are the main ingredients of living cells. Given an inch, a mile was taken. We were taught that lightning strikes provided the sparks that formed the amino acids which concentrated in an “organic soup,” and linked together to form proteins. These were claimed to have gotten together with DNA to form the first living cell.
But amino acids will not link together to form proteins! It was a bit like claiming that if bricks formed in nature they would get together to build houses. Proteins are so hard to make that in all of nature, they never form except in already living cells. Never! This scientific fact stands in stark contrast to what was taught.
Which viewpoint is best supported by the evidence? Did life begin without a Creator or did God create it?
Evidence that life never comes from non-living materials is so abundant that it is a basic principle of science called the Principle of Biogenesis (living things come only from living things). Atheists and many agnostics have faith that contrary to this basic principle of science, life did evolve spontaneously from chemicals at least once. They now call their theory “abiogenesis” which comes from roots that mean “not Biogenesis.” They no longer use the term “spontaneous generation.”
Is abiogenesis possible? Not only are proteins never formed in nature outside of living cells, the amino acids from which they are built are of two kinds: Half are called left-handed and half right-handed. Only proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right-handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them. It is a bit like when you take a piece out of a puzzle, turn it upside down and try to put it back in where you took it out. It is the same size and shape, but it won’t fit. In nature, all left handed amino acids are only formed by living cells. Amino acids formed in experiments like Miller’s, are half left, and half right-handed so they will not work in the proteins of living things. This is more scientific evidence that life could not form without a Creator. Add it to the fact that in nature, no proteins at all will form outside of cells.
Cells can make proteins because:
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#116462 Nov 6, 2013
•Think of DNA as the cell’s library, and RNA as a book that can be checked out of the library. A kind of RNA checks out information from the DNA to line up left handed amino acids in the exact order required for each individual protein.
•Next the correctly ordered left-handed amino acids are linked together by a “molecular machine.” This machine is made up of another kind of RNA working together with several specialized proteins. The machine links the properly ordered left-handed amino acids one to another to make proteins.
The molecular machines that make proteins are a good example of the cell’s many complex machines. Because no machine exists that did not have an intelligent inventor, each of the cell’s machines is another evidence for an intelligent Creator.
After having taught for 40 or 50 years that amino acids first concentrated, then linked together to form proteins, atheists are abandoning this claim. Why?

•Amino acids do not concentrate in the ocean; they disperse and break down.

•Amino acids will not link together in nature to form proteins; not even when scientists help them by buying all left-handed amino acids from a chemical supply house to make the perfect “organic soup.”

•If proteins could form, they could not get together with DNA because DNA does not form outside of living cells either. Scientists can’t even make DNA in the laboratory.

The argument that was used to convince two generations that life had come about without a Creator was false in each of these steps. The overwhelming evidence, however, is only one of the reasons that this argument is being abandoned. It is also because atheists now favor another theory: that RNA rather than proteins formed life. Notice the reasons this more recent schoolbook offers:

“Scientists have not been able to cause amino acids dissolved in water to join together to form proteins. The energy-requiring chemical reactions that join amino acids are reversible and do not occur spontaneously in water. However, most scientists no longer argue that the first proteins assembled spontaneously. Instead, they now propose that the initial macromolecules were composed of RNA, and that RNA later catalyzed the formation of proteins.”{George B. Johnson, Peter H. Raven, Biology, Principles & Explorations, Holt, Rinhehart and Winston, 1996 p. 235}.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#116463 Nov 6, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think that killing children for your creator is not obscene?
Your morality has been warped and twisted.
He's a proudly outspoken member of the party that thinks killing >unborn< children is obscene and that rape pregnancies are gifts from God. After babies leave the womb they can starve and die, and they damn well better not get sick on HIS dime - especially if they are those lazy criminal pro-union welfare sucking brown babies.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#116464 Nov 6, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
Perhaps you should research the experiments of Miller-Urey. They provide us with plenty
of evidence for the possibility of life emerging from non-life.
There is no rational nor defensible reason for proposing the involvement
of a designer or god in the formation of life. It does nothing to resolve the question of how life began, and it is merely an extraneous assertion proffered by those who are motivated by their
personal faith, not by evidence!
Origin-of-Life Experiment: Going from Bad to Worse
July 8, 2013By Dr. Fazale Rana

Stanley L. Miller's legendary spark-discharge experiments, conducted in the 1950s, were considered the first experimental validation of chemical evolutionary scenarios for the origin of life. But since that time a number of scientists have raised concerns that question the relevance of the Miller-Urey experiment. Things have now gone from bad to worse. New work by scientists from Japan identifies yet another problem for the Miller-Urey experiment as an explanation for life's origin.

Truth be told, I love The Three Stooges. While living in Cincinnati, I would get together with my friend John D. and watch episode after episode. Without fail, I found myself laughing as things invariably went from bad to worse whenever Larry, Moe, and Curly were on the job.

Though not a laughing matter, things continue to go wrong when it comes to the famous Miller-Urey experiment and its significance for the origin-of-life question. A recent study by researchers from Japan raises the concern that efforts to revitalize the Miller-Urey experiment have produced misleading results,1 thus dealing yet another “poke in the eyes” at attempts to construct a naturalistic origin-of-life scenario.

A Promising Start

Textbook origin-of-life scenarios claim that chemical reactions in early Earth’s atmosphere produced small organic molecules (prebiotic compounds) that accumulated in oceans to form the so-called “primordial soup.” The prebiotic compounds within the soup reacted to generate life’s building blocks—key steps in the origin-of-life pathway. Stanley L. Miller’s famous spark-discharge experiments, first conducted in the 1950s, provided the impetus for this idea.

The 22-year-old graduate student ostensibly showed that energy discharges passing through early Earth’s atmosphere could have sparked the formation of building blocks such as amino acids and other organic compounds. Miller’s work launched countless prebiotic simulation experiments, and they all seemed to indicate that life’s building blocks could form in a primordial soup, sans Creator.

At the time, scientists believed early Earth’s atmosphere had been composed of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water vapor; and as Miller demonstrated, this gas mixture readily yields amino acids. But further insights into our planet’s primordial atmosphere spelled the end of the experiment’s importance.

Going from Bad to Worse

Most origin-of-life researchers now consider Miller’s experiments irrelevant because the consensus view of early Earth’s atmospheric constituents has changed since the 1950s. Scientists now believe the initial atmosphere was composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water. This gas mixture does not readily produce organic compounds in prebiotic simulation experiments
SistaNoneYa

Lexington, KY

#116465 Nov 6, 2013
Two steps forward...fifty years Backasswards.

The partays of bigotray and dark ages.

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
Voting 8 min Lost 2
Danny Jordan 13 min Lost 8
John Ferguson or Doyle Gibson ? 1 hr Tugboat 12
Jason smith magistrate 4 only wanting a county... 1 hr Neighbor 5
{keep a word drop a word} (Oct '11) 2 hr Princess Hey 4,319
Word game (Dec '10) 2 hr Princess Hey 181
Frederick Laughing Stock 2 hr Sara 7
Teachers for Franklin 14 hr Billybob 93
How many would like 2 c mike corey get beat ? 20 hr bubba 54

Barbourville Jobs

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages