Bible study rules for public schools proposed

Feb 10, 2010 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Courier-Journal

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.

Comments
111,741 - 111,760 of 128,892 Comments Last updated 13 min ago

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117207
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I've never stated you were a scientist, if I or anyone did, you then would have a legitimate reason to call me foolish,{laughing my azz off} but you basically agree with the definition that was given for Intelligent Design.

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature.
In other words.....you only allow data or evidence that supports your predetermined conclusion -- that being that an intelligent agent created everything.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117208
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Is god of life? If so, then life must have created it, unless you change the rules you just laid out.
Fact is, you have double standards for your version of life starting, so this game is fixed.
At the end of the post that you are responding to , I asked the following;
"Since I know you disagree with my beliefs ,don't just say that they are based on Magic. that is nonsense.
Give me an alternative scenario as to how these events may have occured."
That is the topic and if you care to provide the alternative scenario,you are welcome to do so.
Once you do that , then we can change topics and I will adrress your question.
Your attempt to muddy the waters by changing topics is not going to work.
STICK to the topic at hand....
curious

Winter Garden, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117209
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text>
What I did say was..... If you continue to act like a child and go on these childish rants I will have no choice but to stop communications, I said that in response to 'Your" behavior-not mine. You're the foolish one.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with the smokescreen comment, I've not contacted anyone. Are you paranoid by nature, or is it something you've learned?
You had asked my views on ID and I gave them to you
"I am not a Scientist.
My belief of ID is based on my belief that " that which does not posses nor is aware of certain properties " natural laws" is somehow able to create those properties , not for itself , but in order to pass them on to what we know as matter.
If you can explain to me , how all that can be made possible , then I will have to rethink my position."

I do not see where you responded to my request ,instead YOU THREW up another smokescreen by answering that which is totally irrelevant to what you asked me.
Then ,in a futile attempt to cover your(*) you claim not to know anything about smokescreens.
Are you not the one who once claimed that Atheists were intelligent debaters?
Are you now claiming that you are not an Atheist or that you are not intelligent?
Stick to the subject which you brought up , otherwise refrain?
Stop getting your instructions from Duquette ,he uses the same tactics....

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117210
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

curious wrote:
<quoted text>
I've suggested that if you disagreed with what I posted,you or anyone else, that you provide an alternatice explanation as to how those events might have occured.
You ,nor Chroe , Duquetee ,Witchetty,or Lodi ,have been able to do so.
You have limited yourselves to submitting excuses, because, as Atheists , you have no other choice.
You do not have an alternative view to propose, other than to deny by any means and attempt to attribute creation to an accident which you are totally unable and incapable of explaining.
You can only appeal to laws , known and unknown,that may have caused these events.
But we all know that laws are not creators , so that excuse falls into the realm of deaperation , not reality.
Such is the case with the debate held by John lennox and the Atheist Scientist , Peter Atkins , where Atkins , unable to give an explanation for creation by natural means , went as far as to say that, if Science proved unable to demonstrate that creation was caused by natural means, he would still insist that creation does not need an intelligent designer.
Hitchens,as I remember correctly in a debate with William Lane Craig , was given 7 minutes to explain his views on creation by natural means , he forfeited his 7 minutes and did not address the question.
You ,in your foolishness, without any knowledge of the facts , are ignorant enough to claim that my personal experiences with God are a hallucination.
Let me remind you that, it is you Atheists who have claimed to be intelligent and superior debaters,certainly not evidenced by anything any of you have posted.
The bottom line is that you have no explanation as to how nonconsciousness can attain unto consciousness by it's own power,how nonlife can attain life of it's own power and nonintelligence can attain intelligence of it's own power.
Neither can you explain how these events can occur by natural means " natural laws"
Now, one can believe what he wants and can base their beliefs on excuses , wishful thinking and that which is impossible,
I do not have the Faith to base my beliefs on that type of foundation....
God did it, is not anymore an answer than saying it was natural means. You do not supply a god, nor how a god did it.
Did Craig spend seven minutes telling us how god did it? Nope. Did Craig tell us how god came to life?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117211
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

curious wrote:
<quoted text>
At the end of the post that you are responding to , I asked the following;
"Since I know you disagree with my beliefs ,don't just say that they are based on Magic. that is nonsense.
Give me an alternative scenario as to how these events may have occured."
That is the topic and if you care to provide the alternative scenario,you are welcome to do so.
Once you do that , then we can change topics and I will adrress your question.
Your attempt to muddy the waters by changing topics is not going to work.
STICK to the topic at hand....
I have no alternative to what is not known. You settle for inserting a myth into that gap, I am honest enough to admit I do not know. Only one of these answers is honest.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117212
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Let's assume Intelligent Design created everything...

To presuppose automatically the existence of a (perhaps supernatural) designer is to preclude real, thoughtful, scientific research in accordance with the scientific method, since science deals only with observable, measurable, phenomena.
Let's talk about the second part of the definition {The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence.}

How does one come to the conclusion that 'natural selection' is an undirected process??
Selection is not guided by a Designer....it is guided by a fundamental logic inherent in the way the populations of species develop through time. Specifically, organisms with the highest likelihood of passing on their genes are those best-adapted to their environments due to their having particular characteristics which are conducive to survival and procreation.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117213
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

stuck in a lodi wrote:
I've never stated you were a scientist, if I or anyone did, you then would have a legitimate reason to call me foolish,{laughing my azz off} but you basically agree with the definition that was given for Intelligent Design.
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature.
In other words.....you only allow data or evidence that supports your predetermined conclusion -- that being that an intelligent agent created everything.
You are wrong again,Bobolon.
I asked you to provide any evidence that would contradict my beliefs and that if you did so , I would have to reasses my beliefs.
So far , you or anyone else ,has provided nothing more than smokescreens and excuses.
If you got it,give it up and let mee see it for myself.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117214
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text>that was to curious, and I do not think you are in a position to try to psychoanalyze him based on his posts. Furthermore, why would you want to talk sense into such an awful person? I want nice people on my side, not nasty ones. I even mildly chide the brilliant ones with whom I agree when they make excessive mistakes of incivility toward the rightwing nutcases. Why would you want such a person to come around to your way of thinking? To have a disgusting person agree with you should be worrisome, not a success story!
Seems it is you who is psychoanalyzing.
Lets continue this psychoanalysis. I think Curious is not really disgusting, I think he has just been brainwashed to believe some disgusting things about god are good things. So if he were to actually realize the god was not real, I would think he would not be in that delusion anymore.
But realistically, I do not see Curious coming around to my side. I debate him for other reasons. According to Curious, those reasons are for my inner wishes to be near god. More realistically it is to reach others reading the conversation. Some is just for fun, some for practice writing. At the least, it gives me something to do while I hang out at the coffee shop. Otherwise, I would probably mindlessly stare at people and look like a freak.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117215
Nov 16, 2013
 
I know, as well as everyone on this thread, that when you refer to Intelligent Design, you are saying "god did it" meaning Judeo-Christian God.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117216
Nov 16, 2013
 
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me your definition of Intelligent Design {in detail} in your own words
God spoke, and it was so.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117217
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

curious wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
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.
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.
Abracadabra is a "magical" word and is quite uncapable of creating all the abovementioned properties which humans posses.
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."
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.
That is the type of logic that one expects to find among imbecilic ,idiotic and raving lunatics.
Of course , you choose to defend that faith by claiming you don't believe in Magic.....
And you may be right ,you don't believe in Magic.
Your faith is based on less than magic , it is based on lunacy.
BTW Hersheys is looking for some Atheist nuts to put into their new candy bar. The wrapper will carry an emblem of the moon and will be named LUNATIC in honor of it's primary ingredient
3 And God said,“Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

"let there be light" is the equivalent of abracadabra.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117218
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I have no alternative to what is not known. You settle for inserting a myth into that gap, I am honest enough to admit I do not know. Only one of these answers is honest.
Well , you claim that you don't know what or who created life because it is not known.
And I have never said that I know ,I've said that I Believe.
And one of the reasons why I believe as I do , is that in my view only a Supernatural being , who has ALWAYS existed and needs no creator , who posseses a Supernatural life ,supernatural consciousness and Supernatural intelligence is equipped to provide
life,consciousness and intelligence to inferior beings whom he creates.
You want to call that a MYTH, do so.But,you do so based on the fact that you don't know
Therefore it can be said that your faith is based on "you don't know"
My faith is based on my beliefs , which you may call myths.
That does not matter to me , I know and fully understand the basis for my beliefs and they are not based on myths. That is your opinion , based on ignorance ,due to the fact that you are ignorant of the basis for my beliefs.
You pass judgement on something you know nothing about and are totally unfamiliar with.
You have the makings of an Atheist Scientist

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117219
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

curious wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
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.
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.
Abracadabra is a "magical" word and is quite uncapable of creating all the abovementioned properties which humans posses.
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."
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.
That is the type of logic that one expects to find among imbecilic ,idiotic and raving lunatics.
Of course , you choose to defend that faith by claiming you don't believe in Magic.....
And you may be right ,you don't believe in Magic.
Your faith is based on less than magic , it is based on lunacy.
BTW Hersheys is looking for some Atheist nuts to put into their new candy bar. The wrapper will carry an emblem of the moon and will be named LUNATIC in honor of it's primary ingredient
6 And God said,“Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

"let there be a vault between the waters to separate the water" is the equivalent of "abracadabra".

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117220
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Foolish one , You finally went and did for yourself what you wanted me to do for you...
Moreover , your temper tantrum which led you to say you were going to put me on "IGNORE" was exactly that , a temper tantrum.
Seems you went to the vet and got a distemper shot.
I am not a Scientist.
My belief of ID is based on my belief that " that which does not posses nor is aware of certain properties " natural laws" is somehow able to create those properties , not for itself , but in order to pass them on to what we know as matter.
If you can explain to me , how all that can be made possible , then I will have to rethink my position.
In case you forgot,the properties in question are Lifr, intelligence and consciousness.
BTW If you are going to contact Khatru , MD , CHroe or any of the others in order to bombard me with smokescreens and stinkbombs
Fugedaboutit... I have become immune to them
9 And God said,“Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

Magic.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117221
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Well , you claim that you don't know what or who created life because it is not known.
And I have never said that I know ,I've said that I Believe.
And one of the reasons why I believe as I do , is that in my view only a Supernatural being , who has ALWAYS existed and needs no creator , who posseses a Supernatural life ,supernatural consciousness and Supernatural intelligence is equipped to provide
life,consciousness and intelligence to inferior beings whom he creates.
You want to call that a MYTH, do so.But,you do so based on the fact that you don't know
Therefore it can be said that your faith is based on "you don't know"
My faith is based on my beliefs , which you may call myths.
That does not matter to me , I know and fully understand the basis for my beliefs and they are not based on myths. That is your opinion , based on ignorance ,due to the fact that you are ignorant of the basis for my beliefs.
You pass judgement on something you know nothing about and are totally unfamiliar with.
You have the makings of an Atist Scientist
The god of the bible is clearly a myth, and you claim this is the intelligent designer that needs no rules to exist that you have for all other life and intelligence.

If you wish to believe in this god/ creation story, fine, but you have insisted we are irrational for not believing the story. It has absolutely zero evidence of fact.
Do not expect it to be put in science books, as it is not science. It is religion. It is inserting a god of religion into a gap of knowledge. It is your religious belief. Keep it where religion belongs.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117222
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Your argument is that we can see Intelligent Design everywhere and therefore automatically attributes the existence and nature of things -- stars, animals, proteins, etc.-- to design.
It does not necessarily follow, however, that only one designer is responsible for all that is designed. By recognizing the existence of design, we invite -- even beg -- the possibility that there are as many intelligent designers as there are things designed, since after all, the existence of multiple designs need not imply a single designer. IDest like to point to paintings as evidence of painters and buildings as evidence of builders, but we of course know these things to be designed because we designed them. If we apply this same exact logic to the natural world, we would have to conclude that the sun is evidence of a sun designer, a tree evidence of a tree designer, a human evidence of a human designer, and so on, because they are separate things just like paintings and buildings are separate things and have separate designers. To assume a single designer is to conceptually unify an abundance of phenomena (meaning all the objects that are designed) without any real or sufficient justification for doing so. Positing that a designer or designers are responsible for those phenomena which we do not believe can be explained by "natural" causes, is to provide an explanation which raises a series of unanswerable questions about this hypothetical designer(s)(e.g. who designed the designer(s) and where did it/they come from?) and discourages further scientific inquiry into those matters which have been explained away by the invocation of intelligent agency. Such an explanation, of course, is no explanation at all.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117223
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

stuck in a lodi wrote:
Let's assume Intelligent Design created everything...
To presuppose automatically the existence of a (perhaps supernatural) designer is to preclude real, thoughtful, scientific research in accordance with the scientific method, since science deals only with observable, measurable, phenomena.
Let's talk about the second part of the definition {The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence.}
How does one come to the conclusion that 'natural selection' is an undirected process??
Selection is not guided by a Designer....it is guided by a fundamental logic inherent in the way the populations of species develop through time. Specifically, organisms with the highest likelihood of passing on their genes are those best-adapted to their environments due to their having particular characteristics which are conducive to survival and procreation.
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

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117224
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

You cannot prove your god created or even existed. Your entire statements are based on faith.
How could you possibly determine whether the universe is intelligently designed when you have no other universe with which to compare it? Indeed, what would a non-designed universe look like? Or, what would an unintelligently designed universe look like?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117225
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
So Lennox is curious' hero of quote mining and bias confirmation, while Craig is his champion of circular logic. Anything that is not inside his circle of self-deceit must be a free range herring swimming in the smoke. <shrug>
Hitchens always nails Craig with the simple question, who created god? Of course Craig does just as all fundies do, he says god needed no creator, and expects that to somehow answer the question. The audience gets a good laugh in, unless it is at Liberty University.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117226
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Seems it is you who is psychoanalyzing.
Lets continue this psychoanalysis. I think Curious is not really disgusting, I think he has just been brainwashed to believe some disgusting things about god are good things. So if he were to actually realize the god was not real, I would think he would not be in that delusion anymore.
But realistically, I do not see Curious coming around to my side. I debate him for other reasons. According to Curious, those reasons are for my inner wishes to be near god. More realistically it is to reach others reading the conversation. Some is just for fun, some for practice writing. At the least, it gives me something to do while I hang out at the coffee shop. Otherwise, I would probably mindlessly stare at people and look like a freak.
You disappoint me Mikey, as you and Lodi have always claimed you are posting from your jobsites,all the while you are stuffing your face with coffee and donuts at the local Starbucks in Mt. Dora.
That must be the place where Witchetty works full time.
I was there once and the old crone tried to stick me with a bill for an empty cup of coffe and the whole from a donut.
When I was there ,next to my booth was a bedraggled guy drinking his lunch out of a brown paper bag , Had a pet 3 eyed alligator with him. Any idea who that guy might be? He stole my wallett

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

94 Users are viewing the Barbourville Forum right now

Search the Barbourville Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
KY 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 12 min positronium 146,761
KY Can You Pass an 8th Grade Test from 1912? (Aug '13) 1 hr Sisterlovenpoofy 1,023
Chris fisher 1 hr Toby 2
Elmer at Creek mart 1 hr Lol 9
KY Woman's head stepped on by Rand Paul supporters (Oct '10) 1 hr YAS 26,205
KY Paul vs Conway: The Nastiest Debate Of 2010 | T... (Oct '10) 2 hr pissypoofer 16,124
KY Hundreds of birds die in western Ky. (Jan '11) 2 hr poofylover 81,560
Marlena cox 3 hr Right 41
patrick baker arrested for donald mills murder Sun sheila 420
•••
•••
•••
Barbourville Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Barbourville Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••