Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 170593 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.

Anonymous

Elizabeth, WV

#120621 Jan 6, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, even with the unbelievably poor writing, I understood your point.
You feel government money should be spent on teaching your religion, seeing as how they failed to teach you how to write properly.
You want a weekly bible study class? I know a great place made just for these things. It is called a church. Ever heard of it?
my writing is just fine and needs to be in ours and our homes not just church I wonder if u ever heard of church looks like you need ed to go when you were a child it might have helped you to understand gods words god bless you
Anonymous

Elizabeth, WV

#120622 Jan 6, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>It is my opinion, and I never claimed otherwise. In fact I thought we went through all this already.
Their is zero evidence of a god. What the religious claim about god is textbook delusion.
Again, should I lie like you?
oh please don't lie god doesn't like that and they are evidence read it in your bible the only book to read is the word of god
Anonymous

Elizabeth, WV

#120624 Jan 6, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Every fossil ever found confirms evolution. DNA evidence confirms evolution.
Now what do you have for evidence of a god?
im alive so are you in his image

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#120625 Jan 6, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I see you failed to understand what I said. I do not claim my views are the absolute stark truth. I was commenting on my feelings and discussing them in an absolute stark and truthful manner. Not sure how you twisted that as it is the topic we are discussing silly.
Therein lies the difference.

I think it's safe to say that you and I have no qualms whatsoever in saying that we may be wrong in our views and it's possible that there could be one or more creator beings out there.

However, we've not yet seen any evidence of this and thus it's highly unlikely that there is/are any god(s).

It's even less likely that any supreme being is the mysoginistic, paranoid, xenophobic, tyrant that stalks the pages of the Bible.

People like curious, Y&A, SevenT, etc, will brand anything that doesn't fit their delusions as evil.
By doing this they demonstrate for all to see that they themselves have become evil.
Knwn Fact

Orlando, FL

#120626 Jan 6, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Sure, but their are mountains of evidence evolution occurs.
Now to believe in a god when zero evidence exists....
Produce just a 3084 little hill of that mountain of evidence. You make dogmatic statements but you never post any evidence to support your claims.
Knwn Fact

Orlando, FL

#120627 Jan 6, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:

<quoted text>Sure, but their are mountains of evidence evolution occurs.
Now to believe in a god when zero evidence exists....

I beg to differ you have it backwards!
Produce just a little hill of that mountain of evidence. You make dogmatic statements but you never post any evidence to support your claims.
Knwn Fact

Orlando, FL

#120628 Jan 6, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Every fossil ever found confirms evolution. DNA evidence confirms evolution.
Now what do you have for evidence of a god?
Letting the Fossil Record Speak
FOSSILS are the remains of ancient forms of life preserved in the earth’s crust. These may be skeletons or parts of them such as bones, teeth or shells. A fossil also may be some trace of the activity of what was once alive, such as an imprint or trail. Many fossils no longer contain their original material but are made up of mineral deposits that have infiltrated them and have taken on their shape.
Why are fossils important to evolution? Geneticist G. L. Stebbins noted a major reason:“No biologist has actually seen the origin by evolution of a major group of organisms.”1 So, living things on earth today are not seen to be evolving into something else. Instead, they are all complete in form and distinct from other types. As geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky observed:“The living world is not a single array . . . connected by unbroken series of intergrades.”2 And Charles Darwin conceded that “the distinctness of specific [living] forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.”3
Thus, the distinct varieties of things now alive offer no support to the theory of evolution. That is why the fossil record became so important. It was felt that at least fossils would provide the confirmation that the theory of evolution needed.
Knwn Fact

Orlando, FL

#120629 Jan 6, 2014
What to Look For
If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the “punctuated equilibrium” theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking fossils.
Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.
In this regard the British journal New Scientist says of the theory:“It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” As Darwin himself asserted:“The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed,[must] be truly enormous.”
On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life turning into another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that each different type of living thing would reproduce only “according to its kind.”(Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came into being by an act of creation, there would be no partial, unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be complete and highly complex, as living things are today.
In addition, if living things were created, they would be expected to appear suddenly in the fossil record, unconnected to anything before them. And if this was found to be true, what then? Darwin frankly admitted:“If numerous species have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.”
Knwn Fact

Orlando, FL

#120630 Jan 6, 2014
How Complete Is the Record?
However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was “wrong” with the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the transitional links required to support his theory. This situation caused him to say:“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”
The fossil record in Darwin’s day proved disappointing to him in another way. He explained:“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.” He added:“There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.”
Darwin attempted to explain these huge problems by attacking the fossil record. He said:“I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept,imperfect to an extreme degree.” It was assumed by him and others that as time passed the missing fossil links surely would be found.
Now, after well over a century of extensive digging, vast numbers of fossils have been unearthed. Is the record still so “imperfect”? The book Processes of Organic Evolution comments:“The record of past forms of life is now extensive and is constantly increasing in richness as paleontologists find, describe, and compare new fossils.” And Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier adds:“There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.” Hence, A Guide to Earth History declares:“By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”
After all this time, and the assembling of millions of fossils, what does the record now say? Evolutionist Steven Stanley states that these fossils “reveal new and surprising things about our biological origins.” The book A View of Life, written by three evolutionists, adds:“The fossil record is full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explain.” What is it that these evolutionary scientists have found to be so “surprising” and are “unable to explain”?
What has confounded such scientists is the fact that the massive fossil evidence now available reveals the very same thing that it did in Darwin’s day: Basic kinds of living things appeared suddenly and did not change appreciably for long periods of time. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found. So what the fossil record says is just the opposite of what was expected.
Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation this way, after 40 years of his own research:“It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”
Knwn Fact

Orlando, FL

#120631 Jan 6, 2014
Life Appears Suddenly
Let us take a closer look at the evidence. In his book Red Giants and White Dwarfs Robert Jastrow states:“Sometime in the first billion years, life appeared on the earth’s surface. Slowly, the fossil record indicates, living organisms climbed the ladder from simple to more advanced forms.” From this description, one would expect that the fossil record has verified a slow evolution from the first “simple” life forms to complex ones. Yet, the same book says:“The critical first billion years, during which life began, are blank pages in the earth’s history.”
Also, can those first types of life truly be described as “simple”?“Going back in time to the age of the oldest rocks,” says Evolution From Space,“fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. Although we may care to think of fossil bacteria and fossil algae and microfungi as being simple compared to a dog or horse, the information standard remains enormously high. Most of the biochemical complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest surface rocks of the Earth were formed.”
From this beginning, can any evidence at all be found to verify that one-celled organisms evolved into many-celled ones?“The fossil record contains no trace of these preliminary stages in the development of many-celled organisms,” says Jastrow. Instead, he states:“The record of the rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants until, about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures appeared on earth.”
Thus, at the start of what is called the Cambrian period, the fossil record takes an unexplained dramatic turn. A great variety of fully developed, complex sea creatures, many with hard outer shells, appear so suddenly that this time is often called an “explosion” of living things. A View of Life describes it:“Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.” Snails, sponges, starfish, lobsterlike animals called trilobites, and many other complex sea creatures appeared. Interestingly, the same book observes:“Some extinct trilobites, in fact, developed more complex and efficient eyes than any living arthropod possesses.”
Are there fossil links between this outburst of life and what went before it? In Darwin’s time such links did not exist. He admitted:“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” Today, has the situation changed? Paleontologist Alfred S. Romer noted Darwin’s statement about “the abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear” and wrote:“Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.‘To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system,’ said Darwin,‘I can give no satisfactory answer.’ Nor can we today,” said Romer.
Knwn Fact

Orlando, FL

#120632 Jan 6, 2014
Some argue that Precambrian rocks were too altered by heat and pressure to retain fossil links, or that no rocks were deposited in shallow seas for fossils to be retained.“Neither of these arguments has held up,” say evolutionists Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould and Sam Singer. They add:“Geologists have discovered many unaltered Precambrian sediments, and they contain no fossils of complex organisms.”
These facts prompted biochemist D. B. Gower to comment, as related in England’s Kentish Times:“The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils.”
Zoologist Harold Coffin concluded:“If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”
Known Fact

Orlando, FL

#120633 Jan 6, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Sure, but their are mountains of evidence evolution occurs.
Now to believe in a god when zero evidence exists....
\

Examine the facts posted that prove that revolution is a farce and no evidence to support it!
Known Fact

Orlando, FL

#120634 Jan 6, 2014
Correction: Not revolution correct is evolution. Sorry for the mistake.
Known Fact

Orlando, FL

#120635 Jan 6, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Sure, but their are mountains of evidence evolution occurs.
Now to believe in a god when zero evidence exists....
As it turns out there are mountains of evidence to support creation and zero evidence in the fossil record to support evolution. Now what?
Known Fact

Orlando, FL

#120636 Jan 6, 2014
Continued Sudden Appearances, Little Change
In the layers above that Cambrian outburst of life, the testimony of the fossil record is repeatedly the same: New kinds of animals and new kinds of plants appear suddenly, with no connection to anything that went before them. And once on the scene, they continue with little change. The New Evolutionary Timetable states:“The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very much.. . . After their origins, most species undergo little evolution before becoming extinct.”
For example, insects appeared in the fossil record suddenly and plentifully, without any evolutionary ancestors. Nor have they changed much even down to this day. Regarding the finding of a fossil fly that was labeled “ million years old,” Dr. George Poinar, Jr., said:“The internal anatomy of these creatures is remarkably similar to what you find in flies today. The wings and legs and head, and even the cells inside, are very modern-looking.” And a report in The Globe and Mail of Toronto commented:“In 40 million years of struggling up the evolutionary ladder, they have made almost no discernible progress.”
A similar picture exists for plants. Found in the rocks are fossil leaves of many trees and shrubs that show very little difference from the leaves of such plants today: oak, walnut, hickory, grape, magnolia, palm and many others. Animal kinds follow the same pattern. The ancestors of those alive today appear in the fossil record suddenly and were much like their living counterparts. There are many variations, but all are easily identified as the same “kind.” Discover magazine notes one such example:“The horseshoe crab has existed on earth virtually unchanged for 200 million years.” Those that became extinct also followed the same pattern. Dinosaurs, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record, with no links to any ancestors before them. They multiplied greatly, then became extinct.
On this point the Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History states:“Species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. And it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find.”
Known Fact

Orlando, FL

#120637 Jan 6, 2014
No Transitional Features
Another difficulty for evolution is the fact that nowhere in the fossil record are found partially formed bones or organs that could be taken for the beginning of a new feature. For instance, there are fossils of various types of flying creatures—birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According to evolutionary theory, they must have evolved from transitional ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have been found. There is not a hint of them. Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks two thirds or three quarters as long as at present? Are there any fossils of birds evolving a beak from a reptile jaw? Is there any fossil evidence of fish developing an amphibian pelvis, or of fish fins turning into amphibian legs, feet and toes? The fact is, looking for such developing features in the fossil record has proved to be a fruitless quest.
New Scientist noted that evolution “predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” But it admitted:“Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by known intermediate forms known fossil species do indeed appear not to evolve even over millions of years.” And geneticist Stebbins writes:“No transitional forms are known between any of the major phyla of animals or plants.” He speaks of “the large gaps which exist between many major categories of organisms.” "In fact,” The New Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges,“the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.”
This agrees with the extensive study made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Professor of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results:“Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record.Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.” Moore added:“No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred.”
Thus, what was true in Darwin’s day is just as true today. The evidence of the fossil record is still as zoologist D’Arcy Thompson said some years ago in his book On Growth and Form:“Darwinian evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals from earlier quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock to seek for stepping-stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever.”
Known Fact

Orlando, FL

#120638 Jan 6, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Sure, but their are mountains of evidence evolution occurs.
Now to believe in a god when zero evidence exists....
Have I posted enough information refute your statement or do you want more? I can produce more but I fail to see the need.
Known Fact

Orlando, FL

#120639 Jan 6, 2014
What the Fossil Record Really Says
When we let the fossil record speak, its testimony is not evolution-oriented. Instead, the testimony of the fossil record is creation-oriented. It shows that many different kinds of living things suddenly appeared. While there was great variety within each kind, these had no links to evolutionary ancestors before them. Nor did they have any evolutionary links to different kinds of living things that came after them. Various kinds of living things persisted with little change for long periods of time before some of them became extinct, while others survive down to this day.
“The concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explanation for the presence of the diverse forms of life,” concludes evolutionist Edmund Samuel in his book Order: In Life. Why not? He adds:“No fine analysis of biogeographic distribution or of the fossil record can directly support evolution.”
Clearly, the impartial inquirer would be led to conclude that fossils do not support the theory of evolution. On the other hand, fossil evidence does lend strong weight to the arguments for creation. As zoologist Coffin stated:“To secular scientists, the fossils, evidences of the life of the past, constitute the ultimate and final court of appeal, because the fossil record is the only authentic history of life available to science. If this fossil history does not agree with evolutionary theory—and we have seen that it does not—what does it teach? It tells us that plants and animals were created in their basic forms. The basic facts of the fossil record support creation, not evolution.” Astronomer Carl Sagan candidly acknowledged in his book Cosmos:“The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”
Known Fact

Orlando, FL

#120640 Jan 6, 2014
Dear Mr. "Mike Douquette"

As it turns out there are mountains of evidence to support creation and zero evidence in the fossil record to support evolution. Now what?

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.pixoto.com/quantumm

#120641 Jan 7, 2014
Known Fact wrote:
Dear Mr. "Mike Douquette"
As it turns out there are mountains of evidence to support creation and zero evidence in the fossil record to support evolution. Now what?
All you have succeeded in doing with all your copy and paste is to provide evidence you have no idea what constitutes evidence....

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
News Police make arrest in Bingham Tire investigation (Aug '13) 1 hr Right 7
Warren to receive Knox schools JOB ! ! ! 6 hr just wondering 24
Judge Exec 6 hr good luck jm 4
Warren drop out for school board job ? 6 hr Panty sniffer 2
Amanda Couch VS Christy Barns and Amanda Couch ... 6 hr Creamin 21
My Cat is on Fire !!!!! 6 hr Just saying 8
Let's start a House of Worship for Athiest 6 hr tom dee 5

Barbourville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages