Bible study rules for public schools proposed

Feb 10, 2010 Full story: The Courier-Journal 131,417

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.

Full Story
Yes and Amen

Richmond, KY

#113666 Sep 26, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>The Obama fog I see here is one that thinks Obama is an idiot doing nothing. I see the right wing propaganda has worked in your gullible mind.
I might add...
The fact that you think he's just Swell...
Says way to much about you...
And the sad state of America today!
Yes and Amen

Richmond, KY

#113667 Sep 26, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Do you think the Pope is a Christian?
Hell NO!
Wait for it!
SistaNoneYa

Somerset, KY

#113668 Sep 26, 2013
Yes and Amen wrote:
<quoted text>Hell NO!
Wait for it!
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus
Cardinal Bergoglio became known for personal humility, doctrinal conservatism and a commitment to social justice.[70] A simple lifestyle contributed to his reputation for humility. He lived in a small apartment, rather than in the elegant bishop's residence in the suburb of Olivos. He took public transportation and cooked his own meals.[71] He limited his time in Rome to "lightning visits"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis
I will say YaA, I always have to chuckle at the ones who think there's only "one" specific "religious institution" that is exclusively the "right one".
Never did believe that type bull hockey doodoo for a minute.
Twelve tribes-One religion?
Nope....not buying that kind of junk.:-).

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113669 Sep 26, 2013
Yes and Amen wrote:
<quoted text>Clueless!
It was your guys... that gave bad people loans, that they couldn't pay for!
6 Trillion $$$$ More than EVERY PRESIDENT BEFORE HIM!
Sit down!
It would be helpful if you had any clue what you are talking about - but then you'd realize that your heroes like Limbaugh and O'Reilly are just rabid slimeball hatemongers who will say anything to please an air-headed audience and garner sponsors.

How did the CRA red line loans rate in solvency versus refi's and move-ups? What is the history and catalyst(s) for the CRA Act?
What was the impetus for the passing of the Glass-Steagall Act? What did it's repeal accomplish? Which POTUS ignored warnings from watchdog groups (and even the Fannie and Freddie helmsmen) that the housing and mortgage market was an impending crisis? Was that crisis caused by industry practices or by government regulation? Were the security guidelines for mortgages higher or lower for GSE's than private labels? Which ones would better qualify as "predatory"?
What industry pushed for the passing of the G-L-B Act and why? Did that industry and its leaders profit and is that industry primarily considered liberal or conservative?(Hint: Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.(R, Virginia) were the co-sponsors of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act) Where did those profits end up? How was this "redistribution of wealth" (an oft-touted phrase by Faux News) good for America? What year and month most clearly indicated the onset of the economic turndown? Who was the POTUS at that time? Do you know of any human being besides Jesus Himself who could budget government services while paying for 2 wars during an economic slump without raising the federal debt?

If you can't answer any of these questions without coaching from Redstate or Brietbart AND/or lying through your teeth, shaddup and siddown.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#113670 Sep 26, 2013
idk wrote:
<quoted text>
im just tellin the results from an experiment that give religious and atheist ppl the same tests and the outcome proved that the more religious u were the lower your overall educational lvl would average so on the flip side the highest scores came from ppl of less religous value so to speak.
Belief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study

Humans are naturally predisposed to believe in gods and life after death, according to a major three-year international study.

Human beings are naturally predisposed to believe in God, according to an Oxford University study.
By Tim Ross, Religious Affairs Editor
8:17PM BST 12 May 2011

Led by two academics at Oxford University, the £1.9 million study found that human thought processes were “rooted” to religious concepts.

But people living in cities in highly developed countries were less likely to hold religious beliefs than those living a more rural way of life, the researchers found.

The project involved 57 academics in 20 countries around the world, and spanned disciplines including anthropology, psychology, and philosophy.

It set out to establish whether belief in divine beings and an afterlife were ideas simply learned from society or integral to human nature.

One of the studies, from Oxford, concluded that children below the age of five found it easier to believe in some “superhuman” properties than to understand human limitations.

Related Articles
ONS: A quarter of Britons have 'no religion at all'
28 Sep 2011
Being 'forgiven' makes people more generous, psychologists find
06 Dec 2012

Children were asked whether their mother would know the contents of a closed box. Three-year-olds believed that their mother and God would always know the contents, but by the age of four, children start to understand that their mothers were not omniscient.

Separate research from China suggested that people across different cultures instinctively believed that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lived on after death.

The co-director of the project, Professor Roger Trigg, from the University of Oxford, said the research showed that religion was “not just something for a peculiar few to do on Sundays instead of playing golf”.

“We have gathered a body of evidence that suggests that religion is a common fact of human nature across different societies,” he said.

“This suggests that attempts to suppress religion are likely to be short-lived as human thought seems to be rooted to religious concepts, such as the existence of supernatural agents or gods, and the possibility of an afterlife or pre-life.”

Dr Justin Barrett, from the University of Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind, who directed the project, said faith may persist in diverse cultures across the world because people who share the bonds of religion “might be more likely to cooperate as societies”.

“Interestingly, we found that religion is less likely to thrive in populations living in cities in developed nations where there is already a strong social support network.”
idk

Pikeville, KY

#113671 Sep 26, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess I would question the intelligence of anyone who believes that nonintelligent nothing created an intelligent something out of nonintelligeent nothing which ultimately was able to create the Universe and life.
Intelligent life which has been unable to determine how this unintelligent nothing was able to create all things which we are able to observe and all out of NOTHING.
I suggest that if the brain of one who holds those beliefs was transpanted into a bird , the bird would only know to fly backwards.
If you or any of the atheists on Topix are willing to donate your brain to test my theory , I will be more than glad to carry out the experiment.
And who knows ... By transplanting a birdbrain into an unbeliever
could greatly increase their IQ.
Let me know so i can make the necessary arrangements.
your super intelligent being that u call god had to come from nothing if he started it all so u are the one that is pushing the envelope. something like us dont come from nothing but something so much more powerful and smarter can? plz tell us how your god came from nothing and if all u got is he always was then get a life. that answer is a non answer...so plz explain how something more greater than what we know created itself from nothing so that it could great this something. basic sense would show that things get better with time and your logic is it went from the super sky daddy intelligence and then dropped back to cave man intelligence on earth.
idk

Pikeville, KY

#113672 Sep 26, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Belief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study
Humans are naturally predisposed to believe in gods and life after death, according to a major three-year international study.
Human beings are naturally predisposed to believe in God, according to an Oxford University study.
By Tim Ross, Religious Affairs Editor
8:17PM BST 12 May 2011
Led by two academics at Oxford University, the £1.9 million study found that human thought processes were “rooted” to religious concepts.
But people living in cities in highly developed countries were less likely to hold religious beliefs than those living a more rural way of life, the researchers found.
The project involved 57 academics in 20 countries around the world, and spanned disciplines including anthropology, psychology, and philosophy.
It set out to establish whether belief in divine beings and an afterlife were ideas simply learned from society or integral to human nature.
One of the studies, from Oxford, concluded that children below the age of five found it easier to believe in some “superhuman” properties than to understand human limitations.
Related Articles
ONS: A quarter of Britons have 'no religion at all'
28 Sep 2011
Being 'forgiven' makes people more generous, psychologists find
06 Dec 2012
Children were asked whether their mother would know the contents of a closed box. Three-year-olds believed that their mother and God would always know the contents, but by the age of four, children start to understand that their mothers were not omniscient.
Separate research from China suggested that people across different cultures instinctively believed that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lived on after death.
The co-director of the project, Professor Roger Trigg, from the University of Oxford, said the research showed that religion was “not just something for a peculiar few to do on Sundays instead of playing golf”.
“We have gathered a body of evidence that suggests that religion is a common fact of human nature across different societies,” he said.
“This suggests that attempts to suppress religion are likely to be short-lived as human thought seems to be rooted to religious concepts, such as the existence of supernatural agents or gods, and the possibility of an afterlife or pre-life.”
Dr Justin Barrett, from the University of Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind, who directed the project, said faith may persist in diverse cultures across the world because people who share the bonds of religion “might be more likely to cooperate as societies”.
“Interestingly, we found that religion is less likely to thrive in populations living in cities in developed nations where there is already a strong social support network.”
just what i been sayin....god is a childrens story and when u become an adult u put god with santa and the easter bunny becuz they are all the same type of being. a made up one for the kids. and notice that when u get around more educated ppl u quit believing in god, its the country folk that just need to know enuf to survive that are the truly religious.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#113673 Sep 26, 2013
idk wrote:
<quoted text>
just what i been sayin....god is a childrens story and when u become an adult u put god with santa and the easter bunny becuz they are all the same type of being. a made up one for the kids. and notice that when u get around more educated ppl u quit believing in god, its the country folk that just need to know enuf to survive that are the truly religious.
What you have been spouting is nonsense and gibberish in monumental
amounts.
What studies show is that we are mentally wired to believe in God and do so even as children.
Our beliefs in God are not based on Freud's theories , brainwashing or superstitions, they are an inherent part of our personalities.
That behaviour is normal as opposed to the abnormal behaviour of Atheists.

"It seems religion is not a neurotic accretion on human nature"

The idea that human religiosity delivers a distinct evolutionary advantage is gloriously consonant with most religious views

Nick Spencer


The direction of travel has clearly been towards seeing religiosity as something intrinsic to human nature rather than something forced upon it by adverse social, political, familial, or personal circumstances. Such deep roots in human nature, coupled with the fact that demographic data repeatedly show that the religious outbreed the irreligious more or less anywhere you go in the world do rather seem to suggest that religion is unlikely to disappear in the near future.

Such a view – that the ubiquitous phenomenon of human religiosity is not only in the blood but also delivers a distinct evolutionary advantage – is gloriously consonant with (most) religious views. Not only does God tilt creation towards life, and life towards sentience, and sentience towards intelligence, and intelligence towards morality and wonder, but he tilts that package of intelligence, morality and wonder that we call human nature towards himself. Creation delivers us to God's doorstep and bids us only knock at his door.

But it is also, of course, compatible with atheism, albeit atheism of the nothing-buttery variety. Our belief in God may be a product of evolution, but so is the human coccyx and male nipples. Once the survival value of such adaptations has been exhausted (they have no truth value, by definition), they merely hang about the human person, totally redundant and a little bit embarrassing.

The interesting thing about this debate is that the atheists are clearly on the back foot. No longer able to find refuge in the idea that belief in God is an unnatural or neurotic accretion on human nature (save the rather clumsy virus metaphor that is still doing the rounds in some quarters), the atheist finds himself saying: "Yes, OK, religion may well be an inherent part of human nature, but that doesn't mean it is good or true."

Perhaps not, but few serious religious believers would claim that any scientific discipline is competent to adjudicate on the goodness or truth of religious claims.

Most would countersign the words of the influential social psychologist, Michael Argyle, who spent much of his time at Oxford studying religion and admitted that "psychological research can tell us nothing about the truth, validity or usefulness of religious phenomena: these are questions which must be settled in other ways." What the current status of scientific research into religion does seem to indicate is that not only is there a God instinct, but that it is religiosity that is the human norm and atheism the exception. Perhaps we might profit from following HC Rümke's lead and spend a little more time exploring the psychology of the historically anomalous phenomenon that is unbelief.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#113674 Sep 26, 2013
idk wrote:
<quoted text>
your super intelligent being that u call god had to come from nothing if he started it all so u are the one that is pushing the envelope. something like us dont come from nothing but something so much more powerful and smarter can? plz tell us how your god came from nothing and if all u got is he always was then get a life. that answer is a non answer...so plz explain how something more greater than what we know created itself from nothing so that it could great this something. basic sense would show that things get better with time and your logic is it went from the super sky daddy intelligence and then dropped back to cave man intelligence on earth.
Your lack of understanding has led you astray as has your attempts to hide your identity as LODI.
I never said that there was nothing.
God has always existed . He is the uncausable cause ,Iam that I am , the Alpha and OMEGA ,from everlasting to everlasting.
It is he , the source of life , that gave us life , through Jesus Christ.
It is he who created the Universe and created and designed the fabulous machine we call human beings.
It is he who instilled in our minds the need for God.
Science is attempting to create and design life and has failed to do so. Some claim that given time Science will accomplish that goal.
If it does ,it will simply prove that life does not happen by accident , that nonliving nonintelligent matter does not have the ability to transdorm itself into living intelligent matter without an intelligent being designing it and creating it.
In effect , if Science were able to create life , they would be disproving their own theory that life does not need a creator.
No Jesus No Peace

Know Jesus Know Peace
idk

Pikeville, KY

#113675 Sep 26, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Your lack of understanding has led you astray as has your attempts to hide your identity as LODI.
I never said that there was nothing.
God has always existed . He is the uncausable cause ,Iam that I am , the Alpha and OMEGA ,from everlasting to everlasting.
It is he , the source of life , that gave us life , through Jesus Christ.
It is he who created the Universe and created and designed the fabulous machine we call human beings.
It is he who instilled in our minds the need for God.
Science is attempting to create and design life and has failed to do so. Some claim that given time Science will accomplish that goal.
If it does ,it will simply prove that life does not happen by accident , that nonliving nonintelligent matter does not have the ability to transdorm itself into living intelligent matter without an intelligent being designing it and creating it.
In effect , if Science were able to create life , they would be disproving their own theory that life does not need a creator.
No Jesus No Peace
Know Jesus Know Peace
im not hidin any identity and im not LODI, my name is actually george if u must know and i dont have any idea who LODI is. u are more than welcome to meet me face to face to debate this if u want, i dont hide behind screen names and all that, ill stand up for what i believe any where at any time. if it wasnt for the religious makin stem cell research and all that taboo and in turn gettin laws passed to stop scientist from researching it is why u havent seen science make life yet in my opinion. of course it wont be poof there it is but i have no doubt that life could be created from just elements and the right conditions but in order to get that life to what we are would take the millions of yrs of evolution just as it did for us to evolve to this. and im glad u can copy and paste someone elses work but that dont change anything just becuz a religious person wrote an article like that. there are many religious ppl that work in the science field but they tend to lead the evidence to the outcome instead of lettin the evidence lead them to the outcome.
SistaNoneYa

Somerset, KY

#113676 Sep 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be helpful if you had any clue what you are talking about - but then you'd realize that your heroes like Limbaugh and O'Reilly are just rabid slimeball hatemongers who will say anything to please an air-headed audience and garner sponsors.
How did the CRA red line loans rate in solvency versus refi's and move-ups? What is the history and catalyst(s) for the CRA Act?
What was the impetus for the passing of the Glass-Steagall Act? What did it's repeal accomplish? Which POTUS ignored warnings from watchdog groups (and even the Fannie and Freddie helmsmen) that the housing and mortgage market was an impending crisis? Was that crisis caused by industry practices or by government regulation? Were the security guidelines for mortgages higher or lower for GSE's than private labels? Which ones would better qualify as "predatory"?
What industry pushed for the passing of the G-L-B Act and why? Did that industry and its leaders profit and is that industry primarily considered liberal or conservative?(Hint: Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.(R, Virginia) were the co-sponsors of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act) Where did those profits end up? How was this "redistribution of wealth" (an oft-touted phrase by Faux News) good for America? What year and month most clearly indicated the onset of the economic turndown? Who was the POTUS at that time? Do you know of any human being besides Jesus Himself who could budget government services while paying for 2 wars during an economic slump without raising the federal debt?
If you can't answer any of these questions without coaching from Redstate or Brietbart AND/or lying through your teeth, shaddup and siddown.
O'Rielly's fun to watch--REAL, and Independent voters are cool like that, so there.
SistaNoneYa

Somerset, KY

#113677 Sep 26, 2013
idk wrote:
<quoted text>
im not hidin any identity and im not LODI, my name is actually george if u must know and i dont have any idea who LODI is. u are more than welcome to meet me face to face to debate this if u want, i dont hide behind screen names and all that, ill stand up for what i believe any where at any time. if it wasnt for the religious makin stem cell research and all that taboo and in turn gettin laws passed to stop scientist from researching it is why u havent seen science make life yet in my opinion. of course it wont be poof there it is but i have no doubt that life could be created from just elements and the right conditions but in order to get that life to what we are would take the millions of yrs of evolution just as it did for us to evolve to this. and im glad u can copy and paste someone elses work but that dont change anything just becuz a religious person wrote an article like that. there are many religious ppl that work in the science field but they tend to lead the evidence to the outcome instead of lettin the evidence lead them to the outcome.
THAT is where ETHICS come into play.

Science is not, nor should it ever be, excluded from having certain standards applicable in what they do.
And that is the case with stem cell-it is LIMITED, as it should be.

Or else we'd have psychoTic, lunaTic Hitlers, creating mutantant whatevers everywhere, because theoretically by applying logic in it's simplest and most basic form-
Science CANNOT recreate anything exactly as "is" just because of the simple LOGICAL fact-anything already existing, already IS, thus the logical Difference(!) being, anything created thereafter is already one second in existence MORE than anything that could EVER be created from it.

And that does Not take a rocket scientist to figure out.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#113678 Sep 26, 2013
Haven't contributed to this never-ending argument in a while, so here we go.

I will support a person's right to worship, or not to worship, whatever deity they choose to, so long as they aren't trying to force other people to conform to it through legislation, and they aren't trying to get special treatment because of it. However, I don't think religion has any place in publicly funded schools. Regardless of your political leaning, the concept of "separation of church and state" is one idea that I think makes this nation great. If you want your kids to attend a school that teaches around a religious philosophy, there are plenty of private schools that do just that. However, in publicly funded schools, I feel like religion has no business being taught. In my opinion, one religious ideology is just as plausible as the next. 2,000 years ago, Zeus was just as real as the Christian God is now, and people would kill you for blaspheming against him. Whether you believe in talking snakes and virgin births or in following a path to enlightenment, they were all invented by human beings to explain things that couldn't be explained at the time. Some of them may be loosely based on historical fact, but I think teaching religion to young people teaches them not to question reality. As an adult, you can make the executive decision to keep your faith and still seek out answers, but I think it's a bad idea to start indoctrinating children from the day they're born. If they don't understand something, and they've been raised in a religious environment, they are far more likely to be satisfied with saying "God did it" then actually expanding their horizon and seeking out an answer. In an institution of learning, especially one funded by the tax dollars of everybody from Hindus to Christians to Atheists, I believe introducing one religious belief or another, no matter what you think of how right or wrong that particular faith is, would do a disservice to the primary function of that institution by teaching children that it's OK not to ask the hard questions about things we don't yet understand, and it would offend a lot more people than it would help.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#113679 Sep 26, 2013
idk wrote:
<quoted text>
im not hidin any identity and im not LODI, my name is actually george if u must know and i dont have any idea who LODI is. u are more than welcome to meet me face to face to debate this if u want, i dont hide behind screen names and all that, ill stand up for what i believe any where at any time. if it wasnt for the religious makin stem cell research and all that taboo and in turn gettin laws passed to stop scientist from researching it is why u havent seen science make life yet in my opinion. of course it wont be poof there it is but i have no doubt that life could be created from just elements and the right conditions but in order to get that life to what we are would take the millions of yrs of evolution just as it did for us to evolve to this. and im glad u can copy and paste someone elses work but that dont change anything just becuz a religious person wrote an article like that. there are many religious ppl that work in the science field but they tend to lead the evidence to the outcome instead of lettin the evidence lead them to the outcome.
Sista very aptly dealt with the ethical issue of stem cell research.
And you are missing the point.
Science and atheists claim that a God is not needed to create life.
In essence , life sprung spontaneously from the nonliving to the living. Although that is the claim that is made by some , Science is unable to explain as to how that occured.
Now , they are attempting to create life by experimenting with different theories .
To date ,all attempts have failed. Will they ever succeed ,no one knows.
But ,if they do , they will have to take what has already been created and by using their intelligence , develop a formula that will create life.
In essence ,invalidating their theory , that life does not need a creator .
They deny intelligent design , while using their intelligence in order to design and try to create some form of life.
Hope that clears it up for ya.

BTW somehow i was under the impression that Hiding in a Lodi lived in Pikeville up until the time he chose to hide his location.

I find it odd that you don't know him and never heard of him.
After all he posts a lot of nonsense here.

You wrote "my name is Actually George"Kinda of an odd name.
Any relation to Boy George,,,Just curious.
BTW My name is Sue ,how do you do.
annab

London, KY

#113680 Sep 26, 2013
What religion? Whos bible? What dress codes? What undress codes? A cross? A penticle?

I am very spiritual.
Leave religion out of public education. Just simply because America is multi-racial, multi relions, diverse sexual ethics.
If you want a child to study Christianity, then send them to a private school.
If you want them to study the muslim religions, then send them to a private school.

I myself did say the Pledge. Being 46 now, nothing is always the same. Thank goodness.
Known Fact

Kissimmee, FL

#113681 Sep 26, 2013
Objective Onlooker wrote:
Haven't contributed to this never-ending argument in a while, so here we go.
I will support a person's right to worship, or not to worship, whatever deity they choose to, so long as they aren't trying to force other people to conform to it through legislation, and they aren't trying to get special treatment because of it. However, I don't think religion has any place in publicly funded schools. Regardless of your political leaning, the concept of "separation of church and state" is one idea that I think makes this nation great. If you want your kids to attend a school that teaches around a religious philosophy, there are plenty of private schools that do just that. However, in publicly funded schools, I feel like religion has no business being taught. In my opinion, one religious ideology is just as plausible as the next. 2,000 years ago, Zeus was just as real as the Christian God is now, and people would kill you for blaspheming against him. Whether you believe in talking snakes and virgin births or in following a path to enlightenment, they were all invented by human beings to explain things that couldn't be explained at the time. Some of them may be loosely based on historical fact, but I think teaching religion to young people teaches them not to question reality. As an adult, you can make the executive decision to keep your faith and still seek out answers, but I think it's a bad idea to start indoctrinating children from the day they're born. If they don't understand something, and they've been raised in a religious environment, they are far more likely to be satisfied with saying "God did it" then actually expanding their horizon and seeking out an answer. In an institution of learning, especially one funded by the tax dollars of everybody from Hindus to Christians to Atheists, I believe introducing one religious belief or another, no matter what you think of how right or wrong that particular faith is, would do a disservice to the primary function of that institution by teaching children that it's OK not to ask the hard questions about things we don't yet understand, and it would offend a lot more people than it would help.
I agree with you. Can you explain how the RELIGION of EVOLUTION crept unnoticed into the tax funded public school system?
Known Fact

Kissimmee, FL

#113682 Sep 26, 2013
idk wrote:
<quoted text>
im not hidin any identity and im not LODI, my name is actually george if u must know and i dont have any idea who LODI is. u are more than welcome to meet me face to face to debate this if u want, i dont hide behind screen names and all that, ill stand up for what i believe any where at any time. if it wasnt for the religious makin stem cell research and all that taboo and in turn gettin laws passed to stop scientist from researching it is why u havent seen science make life yet in my opinion. of course it wont be poof there it is but i have no doubt that life could be created from just elements and the right conditions but in order to get that life to what we are would take the millions of yrs of evolution just as it did for us to evolve to this. and im glad u can copy and paste someone elses work but that dont change anything just becuz a religious person wrote an article like that. there are many religious ppl that work in the science field but they tend to lead the evidence to the outcome instead of lettin the evidence lead them to the outcome.
Life—How Did It Start?
LIFE is everywhere around us. It is evident in the humming of insects, the singing of birds, the rustlings of small animals in the underbrush. It exists in the icy polar regions and in parched deserts. It is present from the sea’s sunlit surface to its darkest depths. High in the atmosphere tiny creatures float about. Beneath our feet untold trillions of microorganisms are at work in the soil, making it fertile for the growing of green plants, which sustain other forms of life.
Earth is packed with life so abundant and varied as to stagger the imagination. How did it all start? This planet of ours and all its inhabitants—how did they come to be here? More particularly, how did humankind get started? Did we evolve from apelike animals? Or were we created? Just how did we get here? And what does the answer imply for the future? Questions like these have been around for a long time and they are still unanswered in the minds of many.
Perhaps you feel that these questions do not really affect you. You may think:‘It doesn’t matter how I got here—I’m here. And I’ll probably live for 60, 70 or maybe 80 years—who knows? But whether we were created or we evolved, it changes nothing for me now.’ On the contrary, it could change a great deal—how long you live, the way you live, the conditions under which you live. How so? Because our entire attitude toward life and the future is influenced by our viewpoint on the origin of life. And how life came to be here will definitely affect the future course of history and our place in it.
Known Fact

Kissimmee, FL

#113683 Sep 26, 2013
Differing Viewpoints
In the view of many who accept the theory of evolution, life will always be made up of intense competition, with strife, hatred, wars and death. Some even feel that man may destroy himself in the near future. A prominent scientist stated:“We may have only another few decades until Doomsday.. . . the development of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems will, sooner or later, lead to global disaster.” Even if this did not happen soon, many believe that when a person’s life span runs out in death he is then nonexistent forever. Others feel that, in the future, all life on earth will end. They theorize that the sun will expand into a red giant star, and as it does,“the oceans will boil, the atmosphere will evaporate away to space and a catastrophe of the most immense proportions imaginable will overtake our planet.”
Recoiling from these conclusions are the “scientific creationists.” But their interpretation of the Genesis creation account has led them to claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that the six “days” allowed in Genesis for creation were each only 24 hours long. But does such an idea accurately represent what the Bible is saying? Was the earth, and all its life forms, created in just six literal days? Or is there a reasonable alternative?
In considering questions related to the origin of life, popular opinion or emotion sway many. To avoid this and to reach accurate conclusions, we need to consider the evidence with an open mind. It is interesting to note, too, that even evolution’s best-known advocate, Charles Darwin, indicated an awareness of his theory’s limitations. In his conclusion to The Origin of Species, he wrote of the grandeur of the “view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one,” thus making it evident that the subject of origins was open to further examination.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#113684 Sep 26, 2013
Known Fact wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you. Can you explain how the RELIGION of EVOLUTION crept unnoticed into the tax funded public school system?
Evolution is a scientific theory. I wouldn't really call it a religion since it doesn't aspire to certain principles, center around a deity, prescribe a way of life or provide for consequences or punishment dependent on your performance while alive. It just attempts to explain the gradual mutation of species on this planet as they continually reproduce and adjust to changing environments. Google can show you thousands of recorded examples of it happening, actual observations with recorded results, so it's not like Charles Darwin just invented a church of evolution and told everybody we evolved from apes, and if we're all good people we'll go to monkey heaven. He actually traveled the world and observed the world and its animals before he realized what was happening to cause gradual changes over time to become permanent changes to how species look and behave.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#113685 Sep 26, 2013
That's not to say that "Evolution" is the gospel truth and is all that should be taught, but it is an imporant scientific theory that can be observed in nature. As such, I think it's important kids at least be taught about it, just like they should be taught about the affect religion has had on human history, good and bad. I just don't think science class should turn into sunday school.

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.

Richmond Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Swiftys in Richmond 23 min JJC 1
who is Amber Webb (Amy Webb) 40 min wandering 21
Who will be the next Madison County Sheriff in ... (Mar '14) 41 min Cosy 1,074
Steve Weaver 43 min hmm 56
enersys (Apr '10) 46 min jsmith 136
Word Association (Jul '10) 1 hr Jennifer Renee 19,260
Mayor Barnes has helped Richmond Ky. Vote for B... 1 hr Voter 20
Police car chase in Richmond? 6 hr Winger 379
Laura Durham King (May '13) 18 hr voter 119
Richmond Dating
Find my Match

Richmond Jobs

Richmond People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Richmond News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Richmond

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]