Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 157998 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: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#116483 Nov 6, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
For a Scientist to state that there is no rational or defensible reason for proposing the involvement of a designer or God in the formation of life clearly indicates a closed mind that has no interest in finding the truth ,but is only interested in blindly justifying his Atheistic beliefs by any means possible.
His unscientific approach "the ends justify the means" is not what science is all about.
And yes , my reasons foor wanting to know are motivated by my faith.
You Atheists are always asking for the reasons for my faith.
One of the principal reasons for my faith are based on who or what do I owe for being here.
If Science can provide the sequence of natural events that can prove how life came into being, then , there would be good reasons for me to question my faith..Fact is that Science is quite unable to do so and therefore no reason for me to question the basis for my beliefs.
If Science were to design an experiment whereby they could create life , then my faith would still hold for the following reasons;
Science claims that life does not need a creator ,Science also claims that only life can create life . Seems contradictory.
,If life does not need a creator and Science someday,is able to create life , that would totally destroy their theory.
In their efforts to disprove God's existence and that he is not needed , they would merely be proving what I and many others already believe....Life arose as a result of intelligent design and not by natural means.....
I know that you and the other Atheists will not be able to grasp that which is obvious ,But,it does not hurt to try
In a roudabout way, I am giving you the opportunity to disprove your ignorance...Probably to no avail.
We don't have to disprove something that doesn't exist anyway.

You're the one who claims your god exists and in that respect, you're no different from all those other believers who have faith in different gods to yours.

Guess what? Just like you, they can't prove their gods exist either.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#116484 Nov 6, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
The cloak of ignorane that you so proudly wear ,must be tailormade ,fits you like a glove.
You resort to nonsense ,lame excuses and gibberish in order to avoid responding to what I have written.
You are quite unable to intelligently perform that task , therby confirming the axiom " Atheist Intelligence is an oxymoron"
Why shouldn't everything have a naturalistic explanation? Science has been dispelling superstitious mumbo jumbo like yours for centuries - it won't stop now.

In any event, there is no evidence of anything supernatural in our universe so the natural explanation is far more likely in any observation of phenomena we make.

Science provides the single explanation. Your ideas provide two assumptions: One, that something is supernatural and two, that it just happens to be your god and not Shiva, Odin, Allah, Zoroaster, etc.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#116485 Nov 6, 2013
My point of yet, those questions cannot be answered. It is a 'work in progress'

When Thomas Edison was asked how do you feel about the thousands of failed attempts of inventing light bulb, he said,'I don't view them as failures, I now know 10,000 ways not to make a light bulb.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#116486 Nov 6, 2013
curious wrote:
That is why I do not look to Science for my answers.
Scientist: " the current through a conductor between two points is directly proportional to the potential difference across the two points."

curious: "WTF do you know? You're just a scientist. Let's see what the bible says about this".

Barbourville, KY

#116487 Nov 6, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry but I think I need to correct ur mistake I think u meant to call ur self an idiot seeing as how u just can't open u fricken eyes and see that this country needs a lil god in it. It used to say on the quarter in god we trust in bold letters now look u can barley read it now explain at y it is that the one person that have u life is so bad they just can't teach them no more. I'd be careful if I was u cause god can kill u and damn u to hell. Fear not the man that can kill but fear the man that can kill and damn u to hell

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#116488 Nov 6, 2013
The 1953 Miller-Urey experiment was one of the first attempts to synthesize amino acids from a model of the earth's early atmosphere.
Combining water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in a closed system of tubes and flasks connected in a loop, liquid water was heated to produce vapor, while electrodes simulated lightning. After a week of continuous cycles, the experiment yielded several amino acids and organic compounds
[2]. Since its publication, many creationists have challenged the significance of Miller-Urey, with most objections centering around the
simulation of Earth's early atmosphere, and the fact that the experiment produced racemic amino acids, which are not common in nature.

A racemic mixture has equal amounts of left-handed (denoted with an L) and right-handed (denoted with a D) enantiomers. Because L-enantiomers are dominant among amino acids in nature, some contest that Miller-Urey produced results that are unnatural. However, subsequent findings have demonstrated that a racemic mixture could be put off balance by the crystallization of certain racemic amino acids that leads to a more
natural enantiomeric excess [3], or by the bombardment of meteorites that can introduce this excess [4]. Other experiments also support the
early atmosphere proposed by Miller-Urey [5], suffice it to say that those who downplay the importance of this landmark experiment have
raised objections that are already answered by additional discoveries.

Yet none of this really need be said, because even the creation of racemic amino acids definitively disproves the claim that life cannot come from non-life. All amino acids, racemic or not, are organic
compounds, and thus *we have inorganic chemical compounds like methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water, producing organic compounds - the building
blocks of life*- in the Miller-Urey experiment. We need not mix around some chemicals in a vat and pull out a mouse to show that life can come
from non-life, we only need to show that the formation of the building blocks of life is possible. It is certainly a fallacy to say that unless one can demonstrate the exact process by which life formed, it could not have occurred naturally. Who knows how many various ways life could have arisen, unknown to us? It is an argument from ignorance to conclude that
'because I see no way that life could have come from non-life, it did not happen'. There may not yet be a full step-by-step explanation of how
the first single-celled organism developed from non-living matter, but this does not make abiogenesis impossible or even unlikely: it only
means that further study is needed.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12


#116489 Nov 6, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry but I think I need to correct ur mistake I think u meant to call ur self an idiot seeing as how u just can't open u fricken eyes and see that this country needs a lil god in it. It used to say on the quarter in god we trust in bold letters now look u can barley read it now explain at y it is that the one person that have u life is so bad they just can't teach them no more. I'd be careful if I was u cause god can kill u and damn u to hell. Fear not the man that can kill but fear the man that can kill and damn u to hell
ROFL! You wrote that just as a knuckleheaded religie would. Kudos!

Winter Garden, FL

#116490 Nov 6, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
About Thomas Heinze
Thomas Heinze served for 34 years as an evangelical missionary in Italy with WorldVenture, first in evangelism and then directing the publishing house, Edizioni Centro Biblico. Since retiring in Portland, OR, he has written five books and two minibooks published by Chick Publications. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Oregon State University and a Masters in Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary.
I hate to break it to you but if you want a scientific view then speak to a scientist and not a theologist. That's a scientist; you know, someone like Stephen Hawking. Got it?
No doubt you ring a plumber when you want your house rewired.
If I want a Scientific view on God ,Science by it's own admission ,is unable to provide one. It has eunuchized itself by it's own design.
If I want a Scientific view on the origins of life i get contradictory responses .
On the one hand Science claims that only life can create life.
On the other hand , Science claims that Life does not need a creator , therefore , no need to invoke God as creator.
However , in order to prove their theory that ID is not needed , they constantly spend countless hours using their intelligence by devising experiments trying to create life.
Having no evidenced to support the theory that life arose by natural means , they attempt to create life by using intelligent means , which they claim are not needed to create life.
That contradiction is rather difficult to explain.
So , calling on Science to explain what it is unable to explain
seems to be an exercise in futility ,somewhat akin to asking the village idiot to intelligently address that issue.
That is the same results I get , when the Atheists respond to what I post. Excuses ,nonsense and gibberish because they are unable to discern between that which is natural and the supernatural.
However ,what you choose to believe is your business ,why you choose to believe as you do ,is your business.
You keep looking To Science to provide you with an answer that Science itself says it is unable and incapable of providing.
If Science claims it can not provide the answer , then only a fool would continue looking for an answer where none can be found.
I looked elsewhere and found my answer.
That you refuse to accept the amswer that I have arrived at as valid in no way takes away from it's validity.
I do not base my faith on your opinions AND none of you have provided any evidence that would cause me to question my faith.
My faith is based partly on criteria that reasonably explains who created life and the other part being criteria that I have tested
and found to be completely reliable.
It is not based on "I don't know ,I can't explain it or in waiting for Science to explain what it states it is unable to do.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#116491 Nov 6, 2013
Darwin killed the bible god.

We put him on our money.

In Darwin we trust.

Winter Garden, FL

#116492 Nov 6, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientist: " the current through a conductor between two points is directly proportional to the potential difference across the two points."
curious: "WTF do you know? You're just a scientist. Let's see what the bible says about this".
More nonsense and gibberish from the Village Fool

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#116493 Nov 6, 2013
You are asking for explanations of a theological nature by means through scientific arena.

Abiogenesis, on the other hand -- life
from non-life -- is backed by experimental evidence, numerous logical theories on life formation, a probability that fits well within the
parameters of evolution in an old universe, rational consistency, and much more: with no dogma and no faith necessary. As science continues to
advance, we will only see the idea of life from non-life gain more and more of a solid foundation.

Winter Garden, FL

#116494 Nov 6, 2013
Is evolutionism correct? Could time, chance and natural chemical processes have created life in the beginning?

Many modern scientists are materialists. That is, they believe physical matter is the only ultimate reality. They suppose that everything in the cosmos, including life, can be explained in terms of interacting matter. Materialists do not accept the existence of spiritual or supernatural forces.

Biologists who believe in materialism are particularly concerned with:(a) proving a purely materialistic origin of life, and (b) proving that life can be created in the laboratory.

Most scientists are not strict materialists. Biochemist Dr. ArthurWilder-Smith:

“Life rides upon matter, and matter has to be highly organized to carry life. The materialists say that life, since it's made up of atoms, molecules, and chemical reactions, is just simply chemistry and nothing else and that life originated by chance chemical reactions.
Now, if life consists merely of chemistry, and nothing but chemistry, the best way to understand its real potentialities is to look at some of the chemical substances of life. And we shall see that it is NOT merely a matter of chemistry.”[115]

It was the famous French scientist and Creationist, Pasteur, who provided the first scientific evidence that living things are not produced from non-living matter.[116] During the Middle Ages, some people thought non-living matter often gave birth to living things (spontaneous generation). Worms, insects, mice, and other creatures were thought to be created by materials in their environment.

spontaneous generation: the idea that living creatures can be produced naturally from non-living substances.[117] It is important to note that science has never observed such an occurrence.[118]

Winter Garden, FL

#116495 Nov 6, 2013
No one has ever found an organism that never had a parent of some sort. Today, this is one of the most accepted facts in biology. All living things are produced from one or more parents. Surprisingly, however, many modern people still faithfully believe in a form of “spontaneous generation.”

Materialists assume life arose spontaneously somewhere in ancient Earth's water supply water which contained absolutely no life, just minerals and chemical substances used by living things.[119]

Because oxygen in the atmosphere would destroy all possibility of life arising by natural processes, materialists wrongly assumed the atmosphere had no oxygen.[120] They also assumed it contained certain necessary ingredients, including ammonia, nitrogen, hydrogen, water vapor and methane.[121] However, it is well known that mixing these ingredients does not create life. Therefore, materialists theorized something else must be needed perhaps a bolt of energy.[122]

Winter Garden, FL

#116496 Nov 6, 2013
Scientists Try to Create Life
Dr. Miller with his famous apparatus. Scientists have utterly failed at producing life in a test tube. To date, all attempts to prove that life could have evolved on Earth by any natural means have also failed.(Photo fromORIGINS video series.)Dr. Stanley Miller and Dr. Sidney Fox were two of the first scientists to attempt laboratory experiments aimed at trying to prove that life could arise spontaneously. They designed a Pyrex apparatus containing methane, ammonia, and water vapor, but no oxygen. Through this mixture they passed electric sparks to simulate lightning strikes.[123]

What was the result? No life was produced, of course, but the electricity did combine some atoms to form amino acids.

amino acids: compounds that are the simplest units out of which proteins can be assembled.[124]
Did the Miller/Fox experiment prove that life could eventually have arisen in some ancient sea struck by lightning? No, their results actually weakened the case. The mixture of amino acids and other simple chemicals produced is not correct for producing life. All known life uses amino acids which are exclusively of the “left-handed” form.[125]

left-handed molecules: a term used to refer to the “stereochemistry” of a molecule's construction; An amino acid can be chemically “left-handed” or “right-handed” in its orientation. These two forms are identical in their atoms, but opposite in their 3-dimensional arrangement. They are mirror images of each other.[126]
No known life can use any combination of both “right-handed” and “left-handed” amino acids. Adding even one “right-handed” amino acid to a chain of “left-handed” amino acids can destroy the entire chain![127] When amino acids are synthesized in the laboratory, there is always a 50% mixture of the two forms. Only through highly advanced, intelligently controlled processes can these two forms be separated.

Even if this overwhelming obstacle did not exist, far greater problems remain for the production of life. There are numerous reasons why the amino acids would disintegrate or never form in the first place.[128]Furthermore, life requires much more than amino acids. One necessity is proteins; another is a DNA code.

proteins: extremely complex chemicals (molecules) constructed of amino acids; found in all animals and plants.

Winter Garden, FL

#116498 Nov 6, 2013
Amazingly, this enormous set of instructions fits with ease within a single cell and routinely directs the formation of entire adult humans, starting with just a single fertilized egg. Even the DNA of a bacterium is highly complex, containing at least 3 million units [137], all aligned in avery precise, meaningful sequence.

DNA and the molecules that surround it form a truly superb mechanism a miniaturized marvel. The information is so compactly stored that the amount of DNA necessary to code all the people living on our planet might fit into a space no larger than an aspirin tablet![138]

Many scientists are convinced that cells containing such a complex code and such intricate chemistry could never have come into being by pure, undirected chemistry.[139] No matter how chemicals are mixed, they do not create DNA spirals or any intelligent code whatsoever. Only DNA reproduces DNA.

Two well known scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 1040,000that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000th is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it![140]

How can one gain some conception of the size of such a huge number? According to most Evolutionists, the universe is less than 30 billion years old [141], and there are fewer than 10 to the 18th (1018) seconds in 30 billion years. So, even if nature could somehow have produced trillions of genetic code combinations every second for 30 billion years, the probabilities against producing the simplest one-celled animal by trial and error would still be inconceivably immense![142]

In other words, probabilities enormously favor the idea that an intelligent designer was responsible for even the simplest DNA molecules.

Chemist Dr. Grebe:

Winter Garden, FL

#116499 Nov 6, 2013
Chemist Dr. Grebe:

“That organic evolution could account for the complex forms of life in the past and the present has long since been abandoned by men who grasp the importance of the DNA genetic code.”[143]
Researcher and mathematician I.L. Cohen:

“At that moment, when the the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt.…the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear. Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution was the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today.”[144]
Evolutionist Michael Denton:

“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”[145]

Famed researcher Sir Fred Hoyle is in agreement with Creationists on this point.[146] He has reportedly said that supposing the first cell originated by chance is like believing “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”[147]

The notion that… the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.[140]
—Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle
Many, if not most, origin-of-life researchers now agree with Hoyle: Life could not have originated by chance or by any known natural processes.[148] Many Evolutionists are now searching for some theoretical force within matter which might push matter toward the assembly of greater complexity. Most Creationists believe this is doomed to failure, since it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

It is important to note that the information written on DNA molecules is not produced by any known natural interaction of matter. Matter and molecules have no innate intelligence, allowing self organization into codes. There are no known physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures.[149]

Like a computer disk, DNA has no intelligence. The complex, purposeful codes of this “master program” could only have originated outside itself. In the case of a computer program, the original codes were put there by an intelligent being, a programmer. Likewise, for DNA, it seems clear that intelligence must have come first, before the existence of DNA. Statistically, the odds are enormously in favor of that theory. DNA bears the marks of intelligent manufacture.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#116500 Nov 6, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
you are right , Science is quite unable to answer those questions.
So looking to Science to answer questions that it is unable to answer is an exercise in futility.
That is why I do not look to Science for my answers.
If one makes an a$$ of oneself ,that can be remedied.
Pity the fool who is an a$$ by birth . For you,there is no remedy
You are right, I pity you.

You ARE looking to Science to answer your theological questions which is indeed an exercise in futility.

You are right, I pity you.
You don't have the intelligence or ability to recognize when you are contradicting yourself!
You are right, I pity you, as does everyone on this thread.

Winter Garden, FL

#116501 Nov 6, 2013
Dr. Wilder-Smith was an honored scientist with three earned doctorate degrees. He was well-informed on modern biology and biochemistry. What, in his considered opinion, was the source of the DNA codes found in each wondrous plant and animal?

“… an attempt to explain the formation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA… is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from any external source of information.”[150]
"As a scientist, I am convinced that the pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the workings of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of the cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules of that cell.

There is an author which transcends the material and the matter of which these strands are made. The author first of all conceived the information necessary to make a cell, then wrote it down, and then fixed in it a mechanism of reading it and realizing it in practice so that the cell builds itself from the information…" [151]

on the origin of life
During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing.

As yet, Evolutionism has not produced a scientifically credible explanation for the origin of such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain, and many other complex elements of the cosmos.

It is highly premature for materialists to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes.

There is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#116502 Nov 6, 2013
Again, We don't need to mix around some chemicals in a vat and pull out a mouse to show that life can come from non-life, we only need to show that the formation of the building blocks of life is possible.

What part of this do you not understand?

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#116503 Nov 6, 2013
Might I ask a question to you?

Your whole argument is based on the assumption that life cannot come from non life, you say things like ... show me the emergence of life sprouting from a 'rock' I find that quite ironic, Jews, Muslims, and Christians all believe God created life from non-life (humans come from dust according to Jews and Christians, clay for Muslims), so they do not actually object to
life coming from non-living matter, they only object to it happening without the intervention of a deity. While the objection is rooted in
special pleading, it does raise a question worth considering. Are scientists and atheists really at a loss here, or is there evidence that life can arise from non-life?

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
Martha and randy 2 min Nope 17
Premiere parties 1 hr Shirley 20
Amy 3 hr Yea 2
Sheila Lynn Garrison Troutman Edwards 3 hr silly face 1
Knox st Liquor Going Broke ! 3 hr Anotherbizowner 22
Angie 4 hr Lol 1
Are you people really Adults? 5 hr Just saying 4
How to make homemade ice melt for steps, sidewa... (Jan '13) 7 hr Betty Makelin 111
Bullock Busted Tue Reality 3

Barbourville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages