Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 142309 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.

curious

Ocoee, FL

#117082 Nov 14, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no plausible creation model. It is based solely on primitive mythology and has no association with reality.
I take it you are alluding to your mental condition.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#117083 Nov 14, 2013
SistaNoneYa wrote:
<quoted text>
Just admit it Dukey, you made a duhm comment.
(and I don't see any need to provide further evidence of just how duhm it was, because anyone with any common sense realizes better).
Moving along past stupid now-
See this one? Just in case you hand't..another one of those scientific type mistakes-(Well holy cow...whatdya know...Science is NOT perfect either!!)
Ming the clam was the oldest animal ever. Then scientists killed it
Guys, scientists found out a clam they discovered a few years ago was the OLDEST LIVING ANIMAL EVER hurray! But they've also confessed that they accidentally killed it when they opened it up to see how old it was oh. Ming the clam was thought to be around 405 years old when it was found by researchers in Iceland in 2006, but more recent dating methods have determined that Ming was actually 507 years old. That means the mollusk made its way into the world around 1499, which explains how it got its posthumous name (Ming was the Chinese dynasty in power when the clam was born).
Unfortunately, Ming's life came to an unglamorous end when it was opened up for scrutiny the first time around a move researchers wouldn't have made if they had suspected how old it really was. "We got [the age] wrong the first time, and maybe we were a bit hasty publishing our findings back then," ocean scientist Paul Butler told ScienceNordic. We don't think the newly discovered discrepancy makes a difference to Ming now, but thanks for coming clean.(MSNNOW.Dashboard. 11/14/2011)
Hopefully , Khartu will not read what you posted ,as that may well destroy his faith in his Science Religion.
He may well attempt suicide by strapping a parachute to his back and jumping out his basement window.
Then again ,he may not.
Last time he contemplated suicide ,he changed his mind.
He was afraid it would kill him.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#117084 Nov 14, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
You are misrepresenting what I have stated on many occasions.
I Have never stated that I KNOW. I BELIEVE God exists and have given my reasons for doing so.
As I see it ,the problem that Science and Atheists encounter ,is that because they do not believe in a Superior Intelligence"GOD"
as creator , they have limited themselves to explaining creation by natural means " Natural Laws" or what is reffered to as EXNIHILO.
As you know , laws of nature have no power to design or create.
They can only give us the mechanics of how an event can occur, and are unable to identify the creating agent for such.
If one does not address the issue of a creating agent,then we are left with the absurd theory of Exnihilo, Nothing created something from nothing. That is an impossibility for which there is no explanation .
I can not ,for logical reasons place my faith on that opinion ,as you seem to have.
I say that because you believe that Science provides the best explanation for our reality.That is the basis for your faith.
Science has had successes and failures , as you know.
But,because Science believes in materialism , and believes that creation does not need a creator, they are left with one alternative. They have to try and explain how it is possble that Nothing has the ability to create something from nothing.
In their attemps to do so, Scientists spend countless hours using the latest technology and their intelligence in order to create some type of life ,therby contradicting their belief that life does not need Intelligence design as a creator.
And they do that,due to the fact that there is no evidence to support the belief and faith that life has been or can be created by natural means.
My beliefs are PARTLY due to not being able to accept the view that life arose as a result of an unknown accident that may have occured sometime in the past and for which there is no explanation.
The other and most importanr part that forms my beliefs is based on my Personal experiences with my God.
Those Personal experiences are something that I know did occur and no one can disprove.
Atheists will call it a delusion on the basis that they cannot understand the Supernatural and will try to explain those events as having occured by natural means.
That view is nonsencical and their opinions are based on events that they have not experienced , but neverthe less,attempt to explain , in effect ,they try to explain that which they know nothing about.
Now ,do I believe that Something can be created from nothing ,the answer is a resounding yes.
For that to occur ,it would take a miracle.
Who is it that can perform miracles ,certainly not the laws of nature ,certainly not by accidental means , certainly have not been created in a laboratory.
No , the only one with the ability to perform miracles is GOD
OK, I accept what you say about your beliefs and how believing your god is real doesn't make him real.

You talk about science and atheism as if they were synonymous with each other - they're not. Furthermore, scientists will always go with their findings, no matter how disquieting those findings may be. I'd wager any scientist would love to be the one who demonstrated that a god(s) really does exist - their name would go down in history.

You say nothing can't create something but how do you account for your god coming into existence? You can't, anymore than I can the universe.

You also assume that nothing is the default and that it has to come first. You can't say that with certainty. For all you know, nothingness may be the exception to the normal rule of existence.

How do you know that the universe hasn't always existed? Sure, we have the Big Bang Theory but we don't know whether there are endless big bangs and big contractions linked together for eternity.

The possibility of a universe always existing cannot be ruled out and that certainly eliminates the need for a creator(s).





Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#117085 Nov 14, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Let us look at the facts. Atheist Scientists claim there is no need to invoke God as the creator of life and the Universe.
They claim these events occured by natural means and caused by natural laws.
The fact is that they can provide no evidence to support their views.
Instead they cite unwitnessed occurences and unprovable events that may have occured billions of years ago.
Further , they claim that Creation occured as the result of Nothing being able to create something out of nothing.
I assume they reached those conclusions based on reason/logic and science...with a heavy dose of improbability ,impossibility.
Yes ,facts are facts and NONSENSE IS NONSENSE , even if you believe it to be true without having any reason or plausible explanation for so doing
The scientific method doesn't involve invoking something that's non-existent/supernatural as an explanation for observable phenomena in our reality.

Again, you assume that *nothing* is the default position. It could just as easily be *something* as the default and that something could be our universe/multiverse/quantum fluctuation/etc.

Furthermore, the laws we have now may not have been the laws that existed then.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#117086 Nov 14, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Hopefully , Khartu will not read what you posted ,as that may well destroy his faith in his Science Religion.
He may well attempt suicide by strapping a parachute to his back and jumping out his basement window.
Then again ,he may not.
Last time he contemplated suicide ,he changed his mind.
He was afraid it would kill him.
I read it alright.

Sad that she highlights a lame exception rather than focusing on the spectacular success that is the rule for science.

In any event. It looks like your god likes molluscs better than humans seeing as he allows them to live for so long.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117087 Nov 14, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>

Says I,,,I provided more than enough material thatshows exactly where he states" MY own view etal"
You messed up ,face up to it.
Really??? YOU provided more than enough material???? Really???

YOU provided nothing but a quote taken out of text!

MD asked you specifically to show the content surrounding that quote, you didn't ... because you Couldn't! You are a Joke!

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117088 Nov 14, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Like many other apologists, his information is primarily gleaned from favored apologist sites. He >should< automatically assume that he is only getting half of the story (at best) from their blogs and links, but that would involve recognizing the inherent dishonesty of those sites and authors. Instead, he must assume that Christians do not lie by deception and omission in an illusion of preserving his own facade. The facts are not so easily obfuscated, and to those who are not blinded by faith, clearly attest to apologists' wiles and corruptions.
I completely agree
curious

Ocoee, FL

#117089 Nov 14, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I accept what you say about your beliefs and how believing your god is real doesn't make him real.
You talk about science and atheism as if they were synonymous with each other - they're not. Furthermore, scientists will always go with their findings, no matter how disquieting those findings may be. I'd wager any scientist would love to be the one who demonstrated that a god(s) really does exist - their name would go down in history.
You say nothing can't create something but how do you account for your god coming into existence? You can't, anymore than I can the universe.
You also assume that nothing is the default and that it has to come first. You can't say that with certainty. For all you know, nothingness may be the exception to the normal rule of existence.
How do you know that the universe hasn't always existed? Sure, we have the Big Bang Theory but we don't know whether there are endless big bangs and big contractions linked together for eternity.
The possibility of a universe always existing cannot be ruled out and that certainly eliminates the need for a creator(s).
My beliefs and my personal experiences with my GOD ,make him real TO ME , and no one has provided me with any evidence that would lead me to question my beliefs.
Your assertion that Scientists will always go with their findings, no matter how those disquieting those findings may be , is not true.
In a debate between proffesors John Lennox and Peter Atkins , Atkins, a Scientist and an Atheist, clearly debunks that theory.
Look it up for yourself ,"Duelling Professors (Peter Atkins vs John Lennox)"
The idea of an Eternal Universe is not really accepted in the Scientific Community as I am sure you are well aware.
The Bible claims that God always existed . I believe that to be true, God is the Uncaused Cause.
If I were to believe that there was a point in time where NOTHING ever existed , then I would be confronted with the dilema we have been discussing.
How is it possible that Nothing can of itself , create Something from nothing ?
We've been there and done that.
So , I accept that some entity has to always have existed.
The question is, Does that entity posses the properties of life,consciousness and intelligence and is therefor able to pass those properties on to nonliving,nonconscious ,nonintelligent matter?
If that entity does not posses those properties , then how can they be accounted for , and how is that entity able to create those properties which it does not posses nor is aware of?
So we end up with ,Life can only be created from life.
Unconsciousness can not create consciousness and non intelligence can not create intelligence.
Therefore everything points toward intelligent design as the most plausible explanation.
Science and Evolution provide the mechanisms as to how events may have occured , but are totally unable to provide the Agent that caused them to occur
Neither laws or natural events are capable of CREATING or designing , they only serve as mechanisms in an attempt to explain.
Laws and natural means are not the Creating agent.
sandman365

Crossville, TN

#117090 Nov 14, 2013
what wrote:
This would be in direct conflict to the 1st Amendment to the Constitution - Separation of Church and State - and everyone's right to their own religious belief (or non-belief).
there is nothing in the first amendment that remotely indicates separation of church and state.
sandman365

Crossville, TN

#117091 Nov 14, 2013
theres not one thing in the first amendment that remotely indicates separation of church and state. you know how to read moron,

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#117092 Nov 14, 2013
sandman365 wrote:
theres not one thing in the first amendment that remotely indicates separation of church and state. you know how to read moron,
Apparently, Jefferson thought otherwise when he wrote to the Danbury Baptists - but what would he know about it?
Yes, I've had quite a bit of experience reading moron. If you're looking for their club I can provide some names.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117093 Nov 14, 2013
Known Fact wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha, but God doesn't put you there, you put yourself there. When God made hell he didn't know that it would house billions of his creations. He just made it for Satan and his demons and all us sinners chose to go there. Gotta love free will. Do what he says or burn in hell.
"When god made hell"....Yes, you believe god invented a torture chamber for humans that did not have blind faith.
In America, torturing someone for not believing in a specific god, or any god is illegal, mostly because it is highly immoral and irrational. Reason enough for me to conclude the god you worship cannot be a moral god. Seems more likely the god is not a god at all.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117094 Nov 14, 2013
Known Fact wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha, but God doesn't put you there, you put yourself there. When God made hell he didn't know that it would house billions of his creations. He just made it for Satan and his demons and all us sinners chose to go there. Gotta love free will. Do what he says or burn in hell.
I just noted it is not your god. Oops. Hard to keep track of those who do not register.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117095 Nov 14, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Evasive much ? Smokebombs many.?
What you posted has no relevance whatsoever to the topic in question and can be seen as a futile effort to change topics.
If you , or anyone else , disagrees with what I have posted , then, why don't you provide your versions of how those events may have occured.
To simply state that you disagree with my views and then not state your own views shows a complete lack of faith in what you believe and are afraid to let those beliefs be known.
So now he lacks faith? Make up your mind. Do you simply argue for the sake of argument?
curious

Ocoee, FL

#117096 Nov 14, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
The scientific method doesn't involve invoking something that's non-existent/supernatural as an explanation for observable phenomena in our reality.
Again, you assume that *nothing* is the default position. It could just as easily be *something* as the default and that something could be our universe/multiverse/quantum fluctuation/etc.
Furthermore, the laws we have now may not have been the laws that existed then.
Atheist Scientists and Atheists hace painted themselves into a corner and have left themselves with no way of getting out ,paintless , brushless and surrounded by the mess they have created for themselves.
They claim that Intelligent Design "God"is not the creator. They insist that life was created by natural means.
Unfortunately for them, there is no evidence to support that theory.
They freely admit that they don't know how life was created , but they are certain life does not need an Intelligent Creator.
In order to prove their theory as being correct , THEY spend long
hours in their labs , using the latest technology and their intelligence in order create that which they say does not need a creator.
To make the claim that the laws we have now , may not be the same laws that existed then is at best , a lame excuse in a futile attempt to get out of the horrible mess they have created.
Assuming that the laws are not the same now as they were then,
what or who is the agent that caused that change?
It matteres not how you spin it ,slice and dice it or inject absurd theories into the equation....All evidence points to Intelligent design as being the MOST Plausible explanation.
Nothing you or anyone else has posted as an alternative explanation can compare.
As a matter of fact , no alternative explanation has been posted.
Smokescreens and opinions intended to evade the topic being discussed ,abound.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117097 Nov 14, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
My model gives a plausuble explanation for Intelligent Design ,as opposed to a NON Intelligent series of accidents which nmo one can account for , as being resposible for creation.
Which one is more credible depends on one's beliefs.
Materialists have no other choice but to believe the incomprehensible view that nonintelligence can somehow design and create that which is not logical or possible for nonintelligence to accomplish.
Those of us who belive in God have the choice between the 2 alternatives.
I believe in 1 God,not many.
Based on my experiences ,I believe that the God I worship is the creator as he has claimed.
Simple as that.
Do you have a different view as to who or what is responsible for creation? Or ,do you have no view on the subject at all?
Magic is not a plausible answer.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117098 Nov 14, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
When someone clearly states,as Hitchens did that
"My own view is that this planet is used as a penal colony, lunatic asylum and dumping ground by a superior civilization, to get rid of the undesirable and unfit. I can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either. It happens to be my view, but it doesn't challenge any of the findings of Darwin or Huxley or Einstein or Hawking."
Seems to me,that was the only point he was making.
He is stating that as his Belief , that is what can be discerned from that statement.
If there was a different intent,he would not have stated it as his own personal view.
As far as not having the ability to understand people, you are the least qualified to opine on that subject.
It is your lack of comprehension that led you to believe that anyone would lend any credibility to your self righteous statement about yourself
"I have never done ANYTHING for which I need feel ashamed"
How many people do you believe fell for that illconceived statement?
So you feel Hitchens was making no point? He just wished to explain what he believes for no purpose in the very book he wished to show it was not reasonable to have firm faith in such an unfalsifiable idea?
That is some poor deductions you have their Watson.
Anymore low probable ideas you wish to discuss?
preacher

London, KY

#117100 Nov 14, 2013
what wrote:
This would be in direct conflict to the 1st Amendment to the Constitution - Separation of Church and State - and everyone's right to their own religious belief (or non-belief).
there's no such thing as separation of church an state.... we need the church in the state, but not the state in the church....

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117101 Nov 14, 2013
Look here wrote:
School is a place to learn, young kids should be taught the fundamentals of our forefathers believes there's all kinds of stories in our schools systems so let me break it down simple for you know it alls--there are the three little pigs, little red ridding hood, frosty the snowman, Santa clause and the flying rain deer, why not tell young children all the great stories in the bible? It's up to the individual to make their choice of who they believe in, there are more evidence that there are a greater power than ever before, just go outside and look up, day or night the sun is set in just the right place or we would burn up if it was any closer and if it was to far away we could not survive, the stars are all aligned for us to see and guide us and the solar system, just think of what we can not see, so far away that it's not humanly possible. So you also believe what you learned in your history class that Christopher Columbus discovered America, yeah right, so how did he discover something that the Indians had been there for 100's -1000's of years. This country world isn't what it appears to be,? Don't let the government tell you what you believe in, some of you need to stand up and not let others influence you logic in life, don't fall into the trap of the government, grow a set of balls,period
So many superstitions, so little time to tell the kids all of them. So the government sees it is better to let some be taught by churches.
Maybe they need to stop leading kids to believe Santa might be real also. No need to perpetuate false beliefs.

Out of trillions of stars, it is not unreasonable to think one planet might be in a good spot for life.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117102 Nov 14, 2013
SistaNoneYa wrote:
<quoted text>
Just admit it Dukey, you made a duhm comment.
(and I don't see any need to provide further evidence of just how duhm it was, because anyone with any common sense realizes better).
Moving along past stupid now-
See this one? Just in case you hand't..another one of those scientific type mistakes-(Well holy cow...whatdya know...Science is NOT perfect either!!)
Ming the clam was the oldest animal ever. Then scientists killed it
Guys, scientists found out a clam they discovered a few years ago was the OLDEST LIVING ANIMAL EVER hurray! But they've also confessed that they accidentally killed it when they opened it up to see how old it was oh. Ming the clam was thought to be around 405 years old when it was found by researchers in Iceland in 2006, but more recent dating methods have determined that Ming was actually 507 years old. That means the mollusk made its way into the world around 1499, which explains how it got its posthumous name (Ming was the Chinese dynasty in power when the clam was born).
Unfortunately, Ming's life came to an unglamorous end when it was opened up for scrutiny the first time around a move researchers wouldn't have made if they had suspected how old it really was. "We got [the age] wrong the first time, and maybe we were a bit hasty publishing our findings back then," ocean scientist Paul Butler told ScienceNordic. We don't think the newly discovered discrepancy makes a difference to Ming now, but thanks for coming clean.(MSNNOW.Dashboard. 11/14/2011)
You never showed any evidence my statement was false.
I stand by my statement. I will gladly concede if you can show evidence I was wrong. I see you are unable to concede fault.

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
Stephen Trace Signs 3 min Sick 18
~~Keep A Word~~Drop A Word Game. (Jun '10) 15 min want to know 818
{keep a word drop a word} (Oct '11) 16 min want to know 3,796
Tony Mills and his women 36 min goodforher 12
Yard Sale 39 min Coalport53 7
megan rogers 2 hr Megan 2
howard davis (Aug '12) 4 hr Anonymous 33
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages