Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 173009 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

#117229 Nov 16, 2013
It's 10:50 p.m. I'm not working tonight, although I have pulled night shifts in the past. I was lucky to get this Saturday off.

Nice diversion btw
forgot witch # that tactic that was when you were getting pummeled in a debate, perhaps you can refresh my memory.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117230 Nov 16, 2013
I'm just saying if your god is the Intelligent Designer here.... he wasn't too intelligent. IDest like to claim that the beginning of Cambrian period lends credence to the idea of intelligent agency, the subsequent extinction of Cambrian organisms poses yet another problem for ID. If the universe is intelligently created, how does one account for the fact that over 99% of all species that have ever existed are no more? That's some design. Rather than deal a blow to evolutionary theory, the implicit lesson of the Cambrian "explosion" seems to confirm one of its fundamental maxims -- that only the fittest shall survive. Thankfully, this principle also applies to scientific theories, and hopefully in due time the American public will realize that Intelligent Design is so insufferably weak that it should no longer be allowed to live.
Known Fact of Florida

Orlando, FL

#117231 Nov 16, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text>
Same as You Don't Know either.....Your Belief is based on Faith, not facts....
To assert that the universe (or even just certain objects or animals) are intelligently designed, is not only to assert an understanding of what intelligent design looks like and entails, but is to claim an understanding of what non-design and/or unintelligent design looks like, and also to be able to tell the difference between them using what will undoubtedly be arbitrary criteria. Therefore, ID is not a legitimate scientific theory, but the exact opposite: a purely speculative hypothesis whose breathtaking ambiguity serves not to advance understanding, but to stifle it by suggesting the unknowable and the untestable as an explanation for natural phenomena.In other words "god did it'
I'm curious---If you Atheists could succeed in convincing ever human being alive that there is no god---How would that benefit you? Maybe further Satan's ambition but I fail to see how that could possibly benefit you. Please enlighten me.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117232 Nov 16, 2013
One more thing....why would an Intelligent Designer create anything and every thing including life forms, when the end results are going to be destroyed anyway??

What was the purpose? Did he do this just to see if he could?

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117233 Nov 16, 2013
Of course the above being your belief that destruction is inevitable.....
Known Fact of Florida

Orlando, FL

#117234 Nov 16, 2013
I'm curious---If you Atheists could succeed in convincing ever human being alive that there is no god---How would that benefit you? Maybe further Satan's ambition but I fail to see how that could possibly benefit you. Please enlighten me.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117235 Nov 16, 2013
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.
I'm merely stating my opinion. Whether you agree or not is up to you.
I don't believe in satan either.
Known Fact of Florida

Orlando, FL

#117236 Nov 16, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.
I'm merely stating my opinion. Whether you agree or not is up to you.
I don't believe in satan either.
By the same reasoning why not decide there are no thieves either and because of your opinion you leave all of your belongings open so anyone can take what they want. Would your opinion serve as a protection for you. I am sure Satan is delighted because you choose not to believe in him! 2 Corinthians 4:4

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#117237 Nov 16, 2013
Let's describe/define god. If we don't there can't be any real debate. God is all knowing/powerful, and has a set of rules he wants us to know. Now, here's a fact, we don't all know those rules. So, either god doesn't have the ability to tell us the rules, which would make him not all knowing/powerful, and thus not god. Or he wouldn't have rules he wants us to know, and then he wouldn't be god.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#117238 Nov 16, 2013
Known Fact of Florida wrote:
<quoted text>
By the same reasoning why not decide there are no thieves either and because of your opinion you leave all of your belongings open so anyone can take what they want. Would your opinion serve as a protection for you. I am sure Satan is delighted because you choose not to believe in him! 2 Corinthians 4:4
Provide ANY evidence Satan exists. ANY at all. Free clue: Buy bull quotes don't count.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#117239 Nov 16, 2013
Known Fact of Florida wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm curious---If you Atheists could succeed in convincing ever human being alive that there is no god---How would that benefit you? Maybe further Satan's ambition but I fail to see how that could possibly benefit you. Please enlighten me.
It would free people. The battle for the right to marry someone of another race was a battle against "god", just like the battle for gay marriage is. Belief in god holds people back. It has impeded science. Think of how many people have been killed because people believed god wanted them to kill. 9/11 is an example.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117240 Nov 16, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
You are describing the mechanics involved ,nowhere is there an explanation as to how creation may have been caused by any of these mechanisms.
If it were so, then Atheist Scientists would be able to employ these natural methods and create life ,or consciousness or intelligence.
Instead , since the mechanisms are not creators , Atheist Scientists are working feverishly in their labs ,under controlled conditions trying to design a formula that will permit them to create the simplest form of life...Which they have failed to accomplish.
Then again , they are trying to create that which they claim DOES NOT NEED A CREATOR,,,the irony of it all.
BTW, quote your sources , to not do so will earn you a trip to the HERSHEY FACTORY...a LITTLE HUMOR, DON'T GET UPSET
Sources:
[1] http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php .

[2] Ernst Mayr. "The Objects of Selection". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Vol. 94, No. 6. March 18, 1997. Available at http://www.pnas.org/content/94/6/2091.full .

[3] Christopher J. Schneider. "Natural Selection and Speciation". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Vol 97, No. 23. November 7, 2000. Available at http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12398.full .

[4] "What Causes DNA Mutations?" at http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/archive/slooze... .

[5] Michael Behe. Darwin's Black Box. Free Press. New York, NY. 1996.

[6] Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin. New York, NY, 2006.

[7] Michael Land and Dan-Eric Nilsson. Animal Eyes, Oxford University Press. USA, 2004.

[8] Richard A. Fortey, E.G. Briggs, and Matthew A. Wills. "The Cambrian evolutionary 'explosion' recalibrated". BioEssays, Vol. 19, No. 5. May 1997

[9] For an excellent overview of the evolution of the eye, see W.J. Gehring. "New Perspectives on Eye Development and the Evolution of Eyes and Photoreceptors". Journal of Heredity, Vol. 96, No. 3. 2005. Available at http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/... .

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117241 Nov 16, 2013
curious wrote:
Seems that your faith has led you into the mental state of idiotism and noncomprehension.
You try to imply that the criteria for my beliefs are the same criteria you have for your beliefs.
At no time have I mentioned magic as the basis for my beliefs.
You believe that the sun stopped moving in the sky and went backwards. You believe in talking animals, demons, giants, unicorns and dragons. You believe that someone's shadow or handkerchief can heal you. You believe that a flood could cover the earth and where a man could walk on water, turn water into wine, calm a stormy sea, be swallowed by a big fish and live to tell about it.

It's a world where a god lives in the sky and he gets intimidated when his creation build a tall building. You believe in a god who hates his creation and is pleased by human and animal sacrifices.

You don't have to mention "magic" for us to know what your beliefs are in very much the same way as you don't have to mention "gullible" when it comes to your state of mind.
curious wrote:
If I were to believe , as Atheist Scientists do , that natural laws are able to create life,intelligence and consciousness where none existed previously,then I would be using magic as the basis for my faith.
Actually, you'd be using science but you've abandoned that in favour of magic.
curious wrote:
WE KNOW THAT LAWS ARE INCAPABLE of creating or designing anything.
The laws of nature are merely a series of words which we use in explaining how things may or do occur.
You don't use science in your worldview. Remember? You like magic and demons.

Your world is full of visions, inspired dreams, prophetic utterances, miracle workers, magicians, diviners, etc. Man is not in control of his life. Evil spirits may possess him or Satan may inspire him with evil thoughts.

It is all, of course, complete and utter nonsense. It's absolutely amazing that people in this day and age really do believe such rubbish. Like I said, you're gullible.
curious wrote:
Abracadabra is a "magical" word and is quite uncapable of creating all the abovementioned properties which humans posses.
So your god is unable to say abracadbra and create humans? Why do you people say he can do anything when he clearly can't? More lies for Jesus, eh?
curious wrote:
That is the formula that you base your faith on and Atheist Scientists subscribe to;
"That which has no previous existence and has no way of knowing that it has never existed is somehow capable of self creating properties that are so complex and pass them on to nonliving,nonconscious and nonintelligent matter."
That puts paid to your god then.
curious wrote:
And Atheist Scientists , determined to prove that life does not need a creator and determined to prove their point , are doing so by attempting to create life in their laboratories.
Just think that if they do manage it in the next hundred years they will have done it billions of years faster than it took your god.

Why don't you show me the evidence for your god?

It's because you have no evidence. If you had real, tangible evidence you wouldn't have to keep using the f-word.

I know that you'd dearly love to have proper empirical evidence that can be measured and tested. I bet you ache to be able to prove all us doubters wrong. Such a shame that none of the world's religions are able to do this.

Also, the science you hate so much would provide the evidence if it could. However it can't provide evidence of no gods. Mind you, it can't provide evidence of no leprechauns, tooth fairy, elves, etc.

So your absent god is in good company with all the other absent deities and magical beings.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117242 Nov 16, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Foolish one , I am as calm as the eye of a storm.
It is you and the legion of fools that inhabit this website that need be worried
Soon,all of you will be the main Ingredient for HERSHEYS NEWEST CANDY BAR.
As soon as consumers find out that the main ingredient is composed of Atheist Nuts ,they will refuse to buy and you will sit on the shelves for years on end and become stale , much like your Atheist Faith.
I see that you also posted as Parent ,agreeing with this post.
What a Klutz.......
Paranoid? Not much, eh?

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117243 Nov 16, 2013
Known Fact of Florida wrote:
<quoted text>
By the same reasoning why not decide there are no thieves either and because of your opinion you leave all of your belongings open so anyone can take what they want. Would your opinion serve as a protection for you. I am sure Satan is delighted because you choose not to believe in him! 2 Corinthians 4:4
You're the one who believes in Satan.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117244 Nov 16, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Let's describe/define god. If we don't there can't be any real debate. God is all knowing/powerful, and has a set of rules he wants us to know. Now, here's a fact, we don't all know those rules. So, either god doesn't have the ability to tell us the rules, which would make him not all knowing/powerful, and thus not god. Or he wouldn't have rules he wants us to know, and then he wouldn't be god.
I very much doubt they can do that.

Of course that means they've lost.
Such joke much laugh

Whitley City, KY

#117245 Nov 16, 2013
concerned wrote:
The danger in teaching the Bible is that this book has the power to create faith even in an atheist. If it is allowed to be taught there is a strong possibility someone could be converted to Jesus Christ. Under the current world views is it possible to allow such a powerful tool for good to be taught in public schools and that before the young minds of the future?
Good? The bible is going to teach good? Haha, yes of course. Let's by all means subdue my fellow students and I to such a 'good' and 'powerful' tool. They can teach us all about how females need to cover up and shut up, or be stoned to death. Fantastic! Sorry but I refuse to be brainwashed by a religion that claims to be 'good' with nothing but evil intentions of controlling everything that a person does. Isn't weird how god killed 2.4 MILLION people in the bible, yet Satan the 'DEVIL WHO IS BAD AN EVIL', only killed 10? Life is so funny wow. Religion is a joke, and I would really rather learn about things that will help me excel in my future, not made up stories about the magical man in the sky. Stop trying to shove your beliefs down everyone's throat! Separation of church and state, school is included in state. So if you want to teach your child the wonders of jesus christ and his holy torture, pay for a private Christian Academy. Because after all Christianity isn't free, no, you have to pay for such 'good'. You're welcome!

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117246 Nov 16, 2013
I came across this while doing some reading, interestingly enough it's Author at the time this was prepared was a second-year internal medicine resident at Hershey Medical Center in Hershey, PA
-Burt Humburg
Science is fundamentally a system of discovery. When scientists see something they cannot explain, they formulate a hypothesis that explains what they saw and then they test that hypothesis. If it survives those tests, it could explain and predict other hypotheses, forming a theory from which to build other hypotheses. The danger of IDC is that it can substitute supernatural explanations that can never be tested and do not predict other findings in the place of natural hypotheses that can be tested and do predict other findings.(A direct intervention by God may possibly "explain" but it does not predict other interventions, nor is it testable. One cannot put God in a test tube, nor can one keep him out.)

As a fanciful example, take two scientists who travel to St. Louis, neither of whom knows much about construction and one of whom uses IDC thinking instead of science. As these two scientists gaze upon the arch, both are astonished and they both attempt to explain how the arch was constructed. As neither of our two scientists knows about the use of scaffolding to support an eventually self-supporting structure while it is being created, our scientists are left without natural explanations for how the arch came to be. The scientist who falls prey to IDC thinking might conclude that, since humans cannot create such structures as a whole and since the arch is clearly the product of design, God must have built the St. Louis arch.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117247 Nov 16, 2013
cont.
Of course, this conclusion would seem silly to most readers and possibly insulting to IDC advocates, since most readers would know about scaffolding and all would know humans created the arch. But to understand the example, one must enter into the mindset of a person investigating a problem for which there is no current scientific understanding. IDC advocates have appealed to the actions of an Intelligent Designer to explain the Cambrian Explosion, the ascent of whales evolving, and the origin of life. The reader is asked to substitute any "challenge to evolution" the proponents of "Teach the Controversy" wish to advance in place of the arch.(The only difference will be, in the examples of "controversy" creationists today will advance, a scientific explanation for the phenomenon in question probably will not yet be known.)

Clearly, the scientist who suffers from IDC thinking reached an inappropriate conclusion. Easily, one danger of IDC thinking is that it can support bad explanations for phenomena with untestable "evidence." However, incorrect hypotheses are advanced and corrected often in science, so this is not a prominent danger. The real threat is that the question of the arch's construction has now been answered (God did it) in a way that sabotages further inquiry. Why investigate further if the question has been answered? Why investigate further if to do so might be considered to detract from God?

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117248 Nov 16, 2013
cont.
Obviously, explaining the creation of the arch by a one-time act of an undefined and unknown omnipotent agent (God) does not predict other natural findings and has no application to other natural problems. We might imagine our IDC-thinking scientist will remain yet ignorant of the secret of the arch's construction since he has no reason to investigate or innovate it.

The scientist who does not fall prey to IDC thinking would attack his problem differently. He might consult literature on construction, learn about scaffolds and their use, and go on to apply scaffolding technology to other problems he might encounter in the future. If there were no previous work on scaffolding, he might attempt to construct a model of the arch and, in trying to build it, innovate scaffolding technology and advance the state of the art of construction for everyone. But if the technologies to even think of scaffolding were not yet invented -- say, the ladders to build the scaffolds were not invented -- and if the scientist had honestly reached the limits of his creativity in trying to explain the arch's construction, our heroic scientist would simply say, "I don't know how it was built."

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
John Barger thread removed 7 min Parent 30
Mary Hammons crew dirty political tactics 7 min Mcdonalds 1
Dee Dole Screws Over Knox County Children ! 12 min Taxpayer money 29
Bob Frederick for Judge Ex. Has To Be A Joke LO... 1 hr Just saying 12
Let's Play Word Association (Nov '08) 1 hr Princess Hey 4,136
~~Keep A Word~~Drop A Word Game. (Jun '10) 1 hr Princess Hey 1,741
{keep a word drop a word} (Oct '11) 1 hr Princess Hey 4,038
Barbourville homewreckers. 1 hr Britt 17
who's everyone voting for judge exe ? 3 hr Voter 50

Barbourville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages