Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 141346 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

#117384 Nov 18, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Your statement is as nonsencical as your other posting on Bart from Hershey .
I do not hide behing "it is not known" that is the claim made by Atheists .
Although there are some who may claim they don't know or ,because of their inbelief , can not bring themselves to believe , I DO NOT suffer from that malady . I BELIEVE GOD is the creator and with good reason.
The fact that you are unable to grasp my reasons in no way invalidates my beliefs.
Hershey Chocolate anxiously awaits your arrival, as Atheist Nuts
are becoming scarce.
Many are now claiming that there is a possibility that life was created by some intelligent civilization , as opposed to life having come into being as a result of lightning hitting some mudhole way back when.
That never made sense to me.
From what I understand about getting hit by lightning , far from creating life and consciousness , it does the exact opposite ,in monumental fashion.
lol really?

Then prove it....Answer the question >without any bible references< how your god is the creator of the universe .

The fact that you are unable to grasp Reason, logic, and critical thinking is a clear indicator of why you cling to your beliefs!

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117385 Nov 18, 2013
curious wrote:
cont
HABERMAS: So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?[teleology is the philosophical study of design in nature]
FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that... the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.
Dawkins condemned his old friend's volte-face as the "senile" thinking of an old man. Nevertheless, deep down and away from the public eye, perhaps Dawkins is beginning to believe that Anthony Flew and other critics have a strong case. Indeed what else can he have meant by: "I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that [Intelligent Design] if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer".
What Dawkins means by the "signature of some sort of designer" in the "details of molecular biology" is the idea that microbiologists might find, or have found, a level of complexity in the basic cellular unit underlying all life on Earth which is completely incompatible with Genetic Algorithms. If an intelligent alien came across a human satellite floating through space he would immediately recognise it as a machine not a living thing. But imagine humanity designing a satellite so complex it could reproduce itself. Imagine an intelligent alien coming across a satellite which had been 'born' in space, which had never been touched by human hand. Even in this hypothetical case, the alien could see that an intelligent designer had made the satellite possible if he noticed in the details of its construction certain types of structure, such as the bridge mentioned earlier, which can not evolve under the monotonically improving random mutations of Darwinian theory. Does Dawkins believe that elite scientists are now beginning to reach the same conclusion concerning the life on Earth? Is is not clear how speculative Dawkin's sentence "you might find evidence for that if you look at the details" is, but clearly he does not really think Flew's design point is at all "senile".
The lack of a fingerprint or signature is not evidence if design.
Eliminating algorithms is not a signature.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117386 Nov 18, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not consider Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens as celebrities , they are self confessed Atheists.
It is their blatherings and hokum that clearly demonstrate ther degree of foolishness.
Hitchens stated his VIEWS " Beliefs" that Earth is a dumping ground used by Superior beings , who created the human race ,found
them to be unfit to live in their world and dumped them here.
That is what he said,which he never disputed.
His fans have tried to explain what they believe he meant and have been unsuccessful in doing so , since they are merely guessing in order to explain the absurdity of that statement.
Dawkins now states that there is a probability that Mankind was "CREATED by a superior race also and that they brought us here.
Needless to say ,as an Atheist, which you claim you are not ,but your postings clearly indicate otherwise,what has been stated by 2 of the 4 self proclaimed horsemen of Atheism ,is blasphemy to those who share theirs AND YOUR FAITH.
Don't get upset with me for posting their views , If you have an issue with their views , take it up with them....
Well ,don't take it up with Hitchens , as he is not available, but if he were ,I amsure he would gladly admit the errors of his arrogance
I would agree, their is a probability. Now just how low or high is this probability? I think Dawkins said it was low. But don't let that stop you from making this sound like it is his belief.
Deception is something you cling to.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#117387 Nov 18, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>To answer the first question here, why not talk about it? Does talking hurt your brain? As you already noted, he does not believe it is likely.
Scientists try to stay open to other ideas, but when it involves magic, it just gets a bit silly. God spoke........abracadabra.
Where did I note , that dawkins does not believe it is likely?

Read part of the interview with Ben Stein and in cas you are interested ,i have also posted it in it's entirety.

Ben Stein: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution?
Prof Dawkins: Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that, eh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Ehm, now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose

IT'S POSSIBLE that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

You can search for excuses and attempt to misrepresent what I post, matters not ,might make you feel good for a very brief moment,but it does not change the facts nor the outcome.
They are starting to jump overboard and leave a slowly sinking ship , the ckinks in that defective armor is starting to crack.
Much to your chagrin and dismay
curious

Ocoee, FL

#117388 Nov 18, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I would agree, their is a probability. Now just how low or high is this probability? I think Dawkins said it was low. But don't let that stop you from making this sound like it is his belief.
Deception is something you cling to.
Dawkins didnot assign a high or low probability and I didnot state that those were his beliefs. He would probably shoot himself before making such an admission.
His assigning or not assignig a possibility is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that THE evidence is begining to indicate to many Scientists that ID is the more likely explanation for creation of life, that it was not by accidental means.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#117389 Nov 18, 2013
aWitchintheWoods wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an idiot, which nobody can deny.
Refer to previous post.
You are a male,pretending to be a female ,which you will deny and I won't believe.
That is the reason I rejected your overtures , I don't play that game with men
You may find nothing wrong with that but,it is against my moral code

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117390 Nov 18, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
I have absolutely no problem with ID, as you well know.
It is you Atheists that ardently deny it.
Your foundation is starting to wobble , based on the evidence.
Wait till the sunami comes and washes your foundation out to sea.
Then their will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Your predictions of horrors do not scare me.
Btw, I never denied ID, I just do not believe it is likely. You cannot even produce evidence of a designer, but have so much confidence it is your specific god. This leads me to think your biases have gotten the best of you.

I just do not believe in magic. Now when you have evidence, much less a sunami of evidence, come talk smack. Until then, you got zip.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117391 Nov 18, 2013
curious wrote:
Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design.

Once again you search out something and post before actually getting to the truth of the matter...My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment — however implausible — was designed to illustrate intelligent design’s closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphatically NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don’t think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.

Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won’t get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this.“What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN.”“Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE.”
curious

Ocoee, FL

#117392 Nov 18, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text>
lol really?
Then prove it....Answer the question >without any bible references< how your god is the creator of the universe .
The fact that you are unable to grasp Reason, logic, and critical thinking is a clear indicator of why you cling to your beliefs!
When is none better than half ,when it comes to wit.
I ca not prove God created anything and you know it and keep asking the same assinine question.
What I do know and can prove is that lightning striking matter does not vcreate life , it creates mayhem ,you obviously ,do not believe that.
Next time you are out chopping logs and lightning starts flashing , go stand under the tallest tree with chainsaw in hand.

Let us see if your intelligence is diminished or destroyed , and how it may affect your life...
BTW I like you and I am kidding ,Don't do that , as you will end up as burnt toast... Take my word for it and don't rely on the nonknowledge of some lame brained Atheist

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

London, KY

#117393 Nov 18, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically (and because she's a wiseass), she didn't ask about the Big Bang, she asked about the >theory<. Since it was proposed in 1931, that makes it 82+ years and counting.
Opps...My Bad... thought she was alluding to the BB directly .. As for the theory it's like Every theory.. a work in progress...

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117394 Nov 18, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did I note , that dawkins does not believe it is likely?
Read part of the interview with Ben Stein and in cas you are interested ,i have also posted it in it's entirety.
Ben Stein: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution?
Prof Dawkins: Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that, eh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Ehm, now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose
IT'S POSSIBLE that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
You can search for excuses and attempt to misrepresent what I post, matters not ,might make you feel good for a very brief moment,but it does not change the facts nor the outcome.
They are starting to jump overboard and leave a slowly sinking ship , the ckinks in that defective armor is starting to crack.
Much to your chagrin and dismay
what about the part where Stein visits Dachau and, when informed by the guide that lots of Jews had been killed there, he buries his face in his hands as though this is the first time he has heard of it. Obviously it was not his intention, but I thought his rotten acting was an insult to the memory of the victims.
Indeed. I seriously can’t think of anything more sickening about this film than the flogging of Holocaust victims just to help beat the drum of Stein’s historically inept ideology. Real historians all snort in derision, at best, at the ludicrously simplistic and grossly selective connections Stein and Co. draw between Darwin and the Nazi gas chambers. But because Expelled! cannot seriously debate scientists on the evolutionary evidence for any length of time, little is left to do but to grab Godwin and run with it.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117395 Nov 18, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
When is none better than half ,when it comes to wit.
I ca not prove God created anything and you know it and keep asking the same assinine question.
What I do know and can prove is that lightning striking matter does not vcreate life , it creates mayhem ,you obviously ,do not believe that.
Next time you are out chopping logs and lightning starts flashing , go stand under the tallest tree with chainsaw in hand.
Let us see if your intelligence is diminished or destroyed , and how it may affect your life...
BTW I like you and I am kidding ,Don't do that , as you will end up as burnt toast... Take my word for it and don't rely on the nonknowledge of some lame brained Atheist
Yes I do know that....What's sad is you don't know that...because you keep insisting that God did it "believing" that somehow that is all it takes to make it true.
Wake up Alice!

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117396 Nov 18, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
When one judges oneself by his or her own standards ,self serving as they are,one will conclude that one is good and need not be ashamed.
I have yet to hear where some vile corrupt person has judged himself to be other than good.
Jeff Dhalmer ,Pol Pot Tim Mc Veigh Al Capone and the list can go on and on.
I have some good qualities , but I dare not judge myself to be GOOD... I am no longer into self deception.
What Witchetty claimed is that" She had never done anything for which she need feel ashamed" and that , based on her moral code or lack thereof.
And are you saying that you have never done anything from which you would derive pleasure or benefit because you knew it was wrong?
If so , you and Wichetty need to be cannonaded.
A fool is wise and can do no wrong ,in his own eyes
Being ashamed and doing wrong are two different things stupid. Maybe she feels her wrongdoings were not so horrible as to feel shame now. Maybe she earned forgiveness from those she trespassed against, thus alleviating shame and guilt.
But you have never asked, you just leaped to conclusions.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#117397 Nov 18, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
What I consider them is not the issue.
It is what they have confessed openly about themselves that is important.
They have both confessed to being devout Atheists and that ID had absolutely no role in creating mankind.
Darwin's Theory on Evolution,to which they both subscribe, is coming under increasing attack. A few very eminent and very serious scientists, including Nobel Prize Winners, are arguing that Darwin's Theory just doesn't work (eg Roger Penrose, probably the world's top scientific mind today). These scientists are not saying that this proves the existence of God, they are just saying scientists have absolutely no idea what caused life on Earth to originate and evolve.
Since the discovery of DNA Biologists have been gradually learning that the basic cellular unit underlying all known life on Earth is enormously complex. Far more complex than the latest Intel CPU for example. It's so highly mechanised with concepts such as hardware and software that many at the forefront of microbiology believe a genetic algorithm could not possibly have produced it. Time does not help, its technical structure, they say, simply exceeds what genetic algorithms are capable of ever producing.
Now Atheists are very concerned that ,if ID is the only alternative , it would totally annihilate and destroy their baseless faith.
And it does not matter if it's 1 God or many that are responsible.
So your ignorant statement that an Alien race is responsible for creating life is a better option than it being Magicked by God is stupid and shows your desperation in order to hang on to your mythical faith
BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?
DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Las cabras , para el corral
When Dawkins talks about the possibility of ID he is still advocating Darwin and discounting gods and magic.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117398 Nov 18, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Dawkins didnot assign a high or low probability and I didnot state that those were his beliefs. He would probably shoot himself before making such an admission.
His assigning or not assignig a possibility is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that THE evidence is begining to indicate to many Scientists that ID is the more likely explanation for creation of life, that it was not by accidental means.
"more likely"? No, most scientists do not. Not sure what you consider "many"? Five?

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117399 Nov 18, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Dawkins didnot assign a high or low probability and I didnot state that those were his beliefs. He would probably shoot himself before making such an admission.
His assigning or not assignig a possibility is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that THE evidence is begining to indicate to many Scientists that ID is the more likely explanation for creation of life, that it was not by accidental means.
you have a habit of making flagrant wild accusations without any proof.

First of all.....What evidence ??
Second......Which Scientists??
Stop spouting complete nonsense and expect people to take your statements at face value when you've been proven to distort most everything you post.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117400 Nov 18, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Dawkins didnot assign a high or low probability and I didnot state that those were his beliefs. He would probably shoot himself before making such an admission.
His assigning or not assignig a possibility is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that THE evidence is begining to indicate to many Scientists that ID is the more likely explanation for creation of life, that it was not by accidental means.
Looks like Dawkins did assign the level of probability. See lodi's post above.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117401 Nov 18, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text>what about the part where Stein visits Dachau and, when informed by the guide that lots of Jews had been killed there, he buries his face in his hands as though this is the first time he has heard of it. Obviously it was not his intention, but I thought his rotten acting was an insult to the memory of the victims.
Indeed. I seriously can’t think of anything more sickening about this film than the flogging of Holocaust victims just to help beat the drum of Stein’s historically inept ideology. Real historians all snort in derision, at best, at the ludicrously simplistic and grossly selective connections Stein and Co. draw between Darwin and the Nazi gas chambers. But because Expelled! cannot seriously debate scientists on the evolutionary evidence for any length of time, little is left to do but to grab Godwin and run with it.
Yes, the movie was an example of propaganda targeted to idiots who are so guilible it makes my head spin.
Cut to nazi tanks......
Many if his claims have been shown to have been taken out of context, if not outright lies.

How many people who get fired have scapegoats?

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#117402 Nov 18, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
What I consider them is not the issue.
It is what they have confessed openly about themselves that is important.
They have both confessed to being devout Atheists and that ID had absolutely no role in creating mankind.
Darwin's Theory on Evolution,to which they both subscribe, is coming under increasing attack. A few very eminent and very serious scientists, including Nobel Prize Winners, are arguing that Darwin's Theory just doesn't work (eg Roger Penrose, probably the world's top scientific mind today). These scientists are not saying that this proves the existence of God, they are just saying scientists have absolutely no idea what caused life on Earth to originate and evolve.
Since the discovery of DNA Biologists have been gradually learning that the basic cellular unit underlying all known life on Earth is enormously complex. Far more complex than the latest Intel CPU for example. It's so highly mechanised with concepts such as hardware and software that many at the forefront of microbiology believe a genetic algorithm could not possibly have produced it. Time does not help, its technical structure, they say, simply exceeds what genetic algorithms are capable of ever producing.
Now Atheists are very concerned that ,if ID is the only alternative , it would totally annihilate and destroy their baseless faith.
And it does not matter if it's 1 God or many that are responsible.
So your ignorant statement that an Alien race is responsible for creating life is a better option than it being Magicked by God is stupid and shows your desperation in order to hang on to your mythical faith
BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?
DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Las cabras , para el corral
I nearly forgot.

Arguing that a theory doesn't work isn't the same as falsifying it. Theories can be falsified because they can't be a theory unless it is possible to do just that. To date, Darwin's theory has not been falsified.

Roger Penrose?

Ah yes, he was awarded the Wolf Prize jointly with Stephen Hawking for their work in increasing our understanding of the universe. He must be good to share the stage with the great Stephen Hawking.

I know he has things to say about physics but I've not seen him claim that Darwin got it wrong.

I'm more than happy to see your link to this.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117403 Nov 18, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text> you have a habit of making flagrant wild accusations without any proof.
First of all.....What evidence ??
Second......Which Scientists??
Stop spouting complete nonsense and expect people to take your statements at face value when you've been proven to distort most everything you post.
Curious uses the same propaganda techniques as the movie he quotes. Just make vague claims and the fundies will never research to know the better. "Many scientists", could mean five.

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
Best place to get your car fixed? 12 min creeker 14
Is the Knox co courthouse still performing marr... 1 hr Right 8
is someone missing a phone from waterpark lastweek 1 hr U moron 2
Yard Sale 1 hr I no 2
support unite (Sep '08) 1 hr Neighbor 78
Things to do in Barbourville 2 hr Johnny mills 20
parkway pharmacy 2 hr wandering 1
Jason Marsee shot Ford Collett 4 hr TJust Saying 35
More from around the web

Barbourville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages