Bible study rules for public schools proposed

Feb 10, 2010 Full story: The Courier-Journal 132,257

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.

Full Story
curious

Ocoee, 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]
curious

Ocoee, 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]
curious

Ocoee, 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.
curious

Ocoee, 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:
curious

Ocoee, 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.
curious

Ocoee, 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]

THE BOTTOM LINE
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?

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#116504 Nov 6, 2013
Can you at least reply without attempting to contradict yourself yet again?
But alas, that attempt would be futile!
curious

Ocoee, FL

#116505 Nov 6, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
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?
I undestand it all.
I also understand that the fact that I might have some steel .aluminum and rubber does not mean I can build a jet fighter plane.
What part of that do you not undestand?
Truth

Flatgap, KY

#116506 Nov 6, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFL! You wrote that just as a knuckleheaded religie would. Kudos!
If I wasn't trying to stick up for an almighty person than I would be cussing u like crazy right. But I'm done fighting with rejects by by

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#116507 Nov 6, 2013
In post# 116470 you state that Scientists claim that only life can create life, That is Wrong!

That is what Creationist and Religionist claim, or someone like you.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#116508 Nov 6, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Not me. I think he belongs in a home (if he isn't in one already) and I'd pity his nurse.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#116509 Nov 6, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
If I wasn't trying to stick up for an almighty person than I would be cussing u like crazy right. But I'm done fighting with rejects by by
Reject the snake handler crowd and buy buy some grade school English texts.
Bye-bye, now.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#116510 Nov 6, 2013
So let me get this str8..... you dare question a Deity {unproven to exist} when he spontaneously creates life from dust/dirt or clay, But will question all other possibilities when no Deity is involved?

lol

Alright y then!

Since: Feb 12

Roseville, CA

#116511 Nov 6, 2013
Proof there is no God.

The Boy With Butterfly Skin



The religies believe God has given children this disease because he knows they are strong enough to handle it.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#116512 Nov 6, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Not me. I think he belongs in a home (if he isn't in one already) and I'd pity his nurse.
Ha ha!

I can just imagine his nurse hurling chunks when her eyes rest on the vision of those old shriveled up nuggets hanging down to his knees when he flashes them, because in his delusional mind he thinks he's a stud
curious

Ocoee, FL

#116513 Nov 6, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
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?
No foolish one ,my whole argument is based on the belief that life can not come from nonlifeof it's own volition or by natural means.
I haave posted on several occasions that I beliece that GOD created mankind from the dust of the ground.
When he created us he provided us with intelligence ,life and consciousness.
In order to accept that we were not created by intelligent design , I would have to accept as valid , the incredibly unreal belief that we attained these properties by natural means.
Consciousness itself can hardly be explained by the most intelligent . It is not material , can not be seen ,can not be measured and is subject to no laws.
One single cell is more complicated than the most advanced machine created by man.
Scientist Seth Grant states that we came by our intelligence as the result of (a simple invertebrate animal living in the sea 500 million years ago experienced a 'genetic accident')
There is no evidence that life,intelligence or consciousness can be attained by natural means . If it could, then Scientists would have no need to try and create life and them try to endow it with consciousness and intelligence.
How many hours will they spend designing different experiments trying to create life.? Who knows
How many times will they fail in their efforts? who knows
Will they ever ctreate a recipe that will succeed? who Knows
But , if they ever do,it will only prove what billions already believe. Life can only be created by Intelligent design
curious

Ocoee, FL

#116514 Nov 6, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Not me. I think he belongs in a home (if he isn't in one already) and I'd pity his nurse.
LOL There is nothing better than reading the postings of the inhouse village fools attempt at comedy.
You 2 sound like the comedy writers for Hogans Goat

Don't give up your day jobs or you will wind up working with Witchetty ,,, You know decorating Christmas trees for that Christian lady that gave her a job

No Mas Pantalones por favor

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
Brittany Spencer (Jan '14) 1 hr ROB 29
Barbourville utilities 2 hr Yep 4
Bltch be cool................... (May '14) 3 hr The Specialist 10
Jessica Napier (Sep '10) 3 hr Upward56 121
Messers 3 hr David 3
Is Jesus a Zombie? 3 hr Kickingwolf 3
Proud of heather carnes 3 hr justhere 2
How to make homemade ice melt for steps, sidewa... (Jan '13) 4 hr Will 53
Who is Winston tye seeing now....... 5 hr The real truth 21
Barbourville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Barbourville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Barbourville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Barbourville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:08 pm PST

ESPN 8:08PM
Steelers RB Bell (knee) doubtful to return
Yahoo! Sports 8:42 PM
After winning AFC North, Mike Tomlin argues with Cincinnati's Reggie Nelson
Bleacher Report 8:55 PM
Tomlin, Nelson Get Heated After Game
ESPN 9:09 PM
Steelers best Bengals to win AFC North title
Yahoo! Sports 9:27 PM
Steelers clinch AFC North with win over Bengals