Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 169022 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.

defender

London, KY

#105008 May 28, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>Where, in the theory does it explain (or attempt to explain) how reproduction originated?

defender wrote, "<quoted text>
Once again that is not a origin of life question... You simply cannot answer it so why resort to dodging and just admit you don't know... It's ok..
"

Oh but, it is. The fact that you can't seem to grasp that is getting tiresome. Replication, and how it originated, is part of the origin of life question. And that is outside the scope of what evolution explains. I'm sorry that bothers you so much, but I can't help it. It is what it is.

I, unlike you, am not dodging anything. I don't know how life originated. I don't know how reproduction originated. And these things have absolutely no effect on the validity of the theory of evolution.

defender wrote, "<quoted text>
Evolution claims change over time and I'm asking where the information for benefit of species comes from?
Capisce?"

No, I really don't understand what you're asking here.

You still have not answered (or even attempted to answer) my question to you. How does any of your argument supply evidence for Intelligent Design?
This question is only a starting point.. And thank you for finally admitting that you don't know... I'm trying to show you that reproduction is a working system and pattern of design that cannot work by means of random mechanics as it is far to complex... Once again it's self evident ...

“There is no god.”

Since: Jan 12

USA

#105009 May 28, 2013
Great, another I'er has shown up, double your pleasure double your fun.
defender

London, KY

#105010 May 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Who ever said a species would be a mixture of two variations? That would be the creationists. The coelacanth is an intermediate species, the fins are more substantiated than other species, that is why they are intermediate between sea and land animals.
Honey let the men debate if you can't do any better than that... Pshh..

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#105011 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask him...
YaA might say "Great answer!" But then, it's the crazies and religious freaks who claim the voices in their heads are "God."
Any rational parent should be a little more cautious about leaving their daughter alone with a guy whose excuse might be "It's in the Bible. Here's 52 sheckles, keep the change." or "God told me to."

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#105012 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
This question is only a starting point.. And thank you for finally admitting that you don't know... I'm trying to show you that reproduction is a working system and pattern of design that cannot work by means of random mechanics as it is far to complex... Once again it's self evident ...
What is self evident? It's too complicated to have happened on it's own so a god must have designed it? That's your scientific evidence? I remind you that you started this exchange by making the statement that science is now pointing to Intelligent Design and not Evolution. So this is your first piece of evidence?

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#105013 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
This question is only a starting point.. And thank you for finally admitting that you don't know... I'm trying to show you that reproduction is a working system and pattern of design that cannot work by means of random mechanics as it is far to complex... Once again it's self evident ...
"Self evident?"
In other words, this is just ONE MORE thing you have no clue about how, what, when, why or where, so there is no reason for you or anyone else to think about it, much less seek and provide real answers because "It's complicated, so God did it."

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

#105014 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again we get the angry rant... Ya know for a theory with so much evidence it sure it hard to get to see any of it... Lol... No need to get so pissed...
That's not "pissed", you stupid monkey. I don't get pissed on here because all of you are insignificant, and though you certainly make the world a worse place, there are others with far more influence doing the same.
The thing you quoted was simply showing exactly why nobody takes you seriously. I don't think anyone feels like arguing against long disproven stupid garbage that you regurgitate from fundie websites. If you want to debate, first demonstrate that you have a scientific theory to enter into the discussion (as I've requested multiple times thus far). And learn not to put 3000 elipses in your posts. Otherwise, we will all assume that you don't have one, that you are a stupid with stupid opinions, and that we are perfectly objective in continuing to have views consistent with reality without bothering to consider yours.
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Outside the scope of what evolution explains? Horse hokey!!! Reproduction us the very heart ToE... Once again that is not a origin of life question... You simply cannot answer it so why resort to dodging and just admit you don't know... It's ok..
Evolution claims change over time and I'm asking where the information for benefit of species comes from?
Capisce?
Your question is invalid, and your lack of knowledge on the subject would be removed if you'd simply learn about evolution. Nobody is going to respond to your stupidity until you can prove that your views were generated by science and not religion.
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
No they take partial fossils and paint what they wish with no way of knowing... Nebraska Man was a prime example of this ( pigs tooth )
But hey if it makes you sleep better than fine...
It's actually a fine example of how science always works. Almost a century ago, it was not generally accepted by the community, it was retracted after like 5 years once further evidence was found, and we now know what animal the fossil came from. Science worked flawlessly in the end. And despite you cherry picking an insignificant handful of times when it reached wrong conclusions for some short period when performed incorrectly, there are millions upon millions of times that it is right and the results still stand. You're stupid.

Show me how intelligent design is a product of science, moron. You keep saying it. Show me. And further, if you're going to ask stupid questions about evolution, show the part of the theory of evolution that you are attempting to refute. 90% of your arguments are against strawmen thus far.
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
This question is only a starting point.. And thank you for finally admitting that you don't know... I'm trying to show you that reproduction is a working system and pattern of design that cannot work by means of random mechanics as it is far to complex... Once again it's self evident ...
Evolution does not address starting points and never has, you dunce. Nobody has NOT "admitted" such a thing, it's just not a part of the discussion and is irrelevant. Your argument is one from incredulity (as "cannot work" and "far to (sic) complex" are NOT fact, just a representation of what you don't understand). That's a fallacy. A completely invalid argument. A perversion of logic. And, as always "since I don't understand evolution, this other thing seems obvious to me" is NOT the same as "self evident".
defender

London, KY

#105015 May 28, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>YaA might say "Great answer!" But then, it's the crazies and religious freaks who claim the voices in their heads are "God."
Any rational parent should be a little more cautious about leaving their daughter alone with a guy whose excuse might be "It's in the Bible. Here's 52 sheckles, keep the change." or "God told me to."
Good grief...

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#105016 May 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Not entirely, deists do not consider a god to be a tangible concept, but simply something "more" than the universe. They make no assumptions on the nature of this "god," and thus it is not the same as theism. They give this "god" no traits other than being "more" than, and thus there are no superstitions either. The way I would describe it is that deists simply state "something started it all in motion, we don't know what that was, so we'll just call it a god." This is often why deists are almost always agnostic, eventually, they cannot say what it was so they do not assert it's fact.
Fair enough. For a brief period I flirted with the concept of Pantheism. I felt like I needed to be more "spritual" and I, like most people, am overcome with awe by nature at times. But then I reverted back to my typical skeptical self. I'm feeling much better now ;-)

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#105017 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey let the men debate if you can't do any better than that... Pshh..
Wow.
defender

London, KY

#105018 May 28, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>"Self evident?"
In other words, this is just ONE MORE thing you have no clue about how, what, when, why or where, so there is no reason for you or anyone else to think about it, much less seek and provide real answers because "It's complicated, so God did it."
I'm not the one claiming to know for a fact anything... It's the evolutionist that makes this arrogant statement!! Mountains of overwhelming evidence!!!
But as I've clearly shown (and anyone can go back and read the posts) I can't get one solid answer or one evolutionary line... Feeling a little exposed are we?
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#105019 May 28, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>
I realize that your question was not directed to me, but I'm curious.
Why do you consider yourself an atheist (of an variety)?
I think that the term generally means not a believer in a God. I am not a believer in any God that I ever heard of. I do not claim to know that there is no God, and that explains the agnostic element. Agnostic means not to claim knowledge. Agnosticism often has the additional implication that one does not believe that such matters are knowable - and that is my belief, but I do not claim to know that for sure either.

So I am an agnostic atheist. It is really a very modest view, and does not insist one knows. It does not imply any nasty attitude toward a believer either. Some believers have ethical views that I like, and others do not. Ethics matter more to me than theology. An atheist with ethical views I disapprove of is someone I like less than a believer with ethical views I approve of. I generally call my ethics one of favoring informed, intelligent, effective kindness. or informed kindness for short.

The other reason why I am an atheist and agnostic - I read hundreds even thousands of pages of philosophy when I was l7, and I was brought up as an agnostic with an open mind. I found the philosophers and views I liked. Just as I did with poets. It was a matter of preference. I liked Santayana, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Bertrand Russell, Hume, John Stuart Mill. I liked the Kant ethic of categorical imperative, but it had to be made very specific - It is wrong to lie in some circumstances and not others, for example.
defender

London, KY

#105020 May 28, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>What is self evident? It's too complicated to have happened on it's own so a god must have designed it? That's your scientific evidence? I remind you that you started this exchange by making the statement that science is now pointing to Intelligent Design and not Evolution. So this is your first piece of evidence?
Design is self evident and the fact you can't accept one simple point is self evident as well...
defender

London, KY

#105021 May 28, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>Wow.
Just having some fun chill out...
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#105022 May 28, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>
I realize that your question was not directed to me, but I'm curious.
Why do you consider yourself an atheist (of an variety)?
my own definition of a god that must exist is just a clever word trick. I use the assumption that a god must be about the biggest thing in the world, and that is everything that is. That means that no other definition of God is big enough. And to define the all that exists as all that exists, and then call it God, is just to play with words. I like heading off all lesser definitions of God, at least. A God by this definition is called pantheism, and someone once wisely said that "pantheism is a subterfuge for atheism." forgot who.

you have to admit that it implies a very nice ethic. We are a part of the God that is the all that is. We know we have intentions and can do things we think about doing, and we are not sure whether other things in the universe can. So we have a big responsibility to do good, to be kind. Other living things are a part of God, as we are, so we mustn't hurt them unless we have to.
defender

London, KY

#105023 May 28, 2013
_Ummm_ wrote:
That's not "pissed", you stupid monkey. I don't get pissed on here because all of you are insignificant, and though you certainly make the world a worse place, there are others with far more influence doing the same.
The thing you quoted was simply showing exactly why nobody takes you seriously. I don't think anyone feels like arguing against long disproven stupid garbage that you regurgitate from fundie websites. If you want to debate, first demonstrate that you have a scientific theory to enter into the discussion (as I've requested multiple times thus far). And learn not to put 3000 elipses in your posts. Otherwise, we will all assume that you don't have one, that you are a stupid with stupid opinions, and that we are perfectly objective in continuing to have views consistent with reality without bothering to consider yours.defender wrote, "<quoted text>
Outside the scope of what evolution explains? Horse hokey!!! Reproduction us the very heart ToE... Once again that is not a origin of life question... You simply cannot answer it so why resort to dodging and just admit you don't know... It's ok..
Evolution claims change over time and I'm asking where the information for benefit of species comes from?
Capisce?"

Your question is invalid, and your lack of knowledge on the subject would be removed if you'd simply learn about evolution. Nobody is going to respond to your stupidity until you can prove that your views were generated by science and not religion. defender wrote, "<quoted text>
No they take partial fossils and paint what they wish with no way of knowing... Nebraska Man was a prime example of this ( pigs tooth )
But hey if it makes you sleep better than fine... "

It's actually a fine example of how science always works. Almost a century ago, it was not generally accepted by the community, it was retracted after like 5 years once further evidence was found, and we now know what animal the fossil came from. Science worked flawlessly in the end. And despite you cherry picking an insignificant handful of times when it reached wrong conclusions for some short period when performed incorrectly, there are millions upon millions of times that it is right and the results still stand. You're stupid.

Show me how intelligent design is a product of science, moron. You keep saying it. Show me. And further, if you're going to ask stupid questions about evolution, show the part of the theory of evolution that you are attempting to refute. 90% of your arguments are against strawmen thus far.
defender wrote, "<quoted text>
This question is only a starting point.. And thank you for finally admitting that you don't know... I'm trying to show you that reproduction is a working system and pattern of design that cannot work by means of random mechanics as it is far to complex... Once again it's self evident ..."

Evolution does not address starting points and never has, you dunce. Nobody has NOT "admitted" such a thing, it's just not a part of the discussion and is irrelevant. Your argument is one from incredulity (as "cannot work" and "far to (sic) complex" are NOT fact, just a representation of what you don't understand). That's a fallacy. A completely invalid argument. A perversion of logic. And, as always "since I don't understand evolution, this other thing seems obvious to me" is NOT the same as "self evident".
Wow... And your not pissed?... Get a grip...
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#105024 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Design is self evident and the fact you can't accept one simple point is self evident as well...
If you accept that design by an outside creator of this universe is self-evident, you have got yourself a very nasty designer-creator. or not a very powerful one. maybe it was limited by existing rules and regulations, or by an opponent that messed things up, or by lots of co-designers with differing projects.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#105026 May 28, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't aware that Smith was trying to institute a theocracy. Where did you read that?
For one thing he wanted to be President. For another thing, when he and his followers dominated in one part of the country, they became so unpopular that they were run out, because they were so bossy and local people felt threatened.

A very gentle - comparatively - varient of that religion prevailed as dominant church in my hometown, and some people in the church were annoyingly bossy and sure that only they were saved (a few still are). A great deal of reform has resulted in a more ecumenical version, more open and tolerant, and a much better college and community, than it used to be. Now called Community of Christ church.

On the other extreme, the FLDS is even more totalitarian and dominating. and dangerous to its members and maybe others.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#105027 May 28, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>And how does any of this have anything to do with gay marriage? Is gay marriage degrading society? If so, how? You do quite the dance as you avoid this question.
I believe that marriage is a divine institution. I also believe that one of the main purposes of marriage is to increase the likelihood that children will be raised by a father and mother (because it is ideal to development that they have both examples)
defender

London, KY

#105028 May 28, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text>If you accept that design by an outside creator of this universe is self-evident, you have got yourself a very nasty designer-creator. or not a very powerful one. maybe it was limited by existing rules and regulations, or by an opponent that messed things up, or by lots of co-designers with differing projects.
Thanks for the insight!! Perhaps one as wise as you can help me out? Can you please explain how complex living systems dependent on other complex living systems to survive can come about AND sustain themselves without any designed intelligence? Perhaps the evolutionist Wiccan god Natural Selection?... Random chance?... Please weigh in and let us know... Thanks in advance!!

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.

Manchester Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why does a jailer have a county vehicle? 1 hr Woundering 9
Judy fur Jailer 3 hr AG Commish 1
defamation 4 hr Nuttall 2
Poor old GEORGE HEALTH DECLINE 5 hr Stolen Valor 71
George dezarn NEEDLE use could have 5 hr REALLY 26
PROSTITUTION ring in EAST Manchester 5 hr REALLY 14
George axl and Barbara napier 5 hr REALLY 12

Manchester Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Manchester Mortgages