Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 163721 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.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.pixoto.com/quantumm

#135921 Aug 14, 2014
Sad wrote:
<quoted text>
I feel very sorry for your children to grow up in a Godless home. I couldn't imagine raising my kids with nothing but faith in this horrible hopeless world, and of all things-science. God help em.
I would feel more sorry for your children growing up in a stupid home....

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.pixoto.com/quantumm

#135922 Aug 14, 2014
AAA wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called the law of gravity, not the THEORY of gravity. People who are less scientifically inclined, and have a lot of FAITH in their RELIGION of evolution would like to call it the "law of evolution", but it is not self-evident. It is a THEORY according to serious scientists.
Speaking of less scientifically inclined ..You just gave evidence you have no idea of science... It is absolutely the Theory of Gravity... Within the Theory there are Laws... Laws are specific to a single aspect of a Theory that have Mathematical Proofs ... But the General concept of Gravity is a Theory and there are actually competing Theory's of Gravity... There is the Graviton based Theory, There is the Scalar-tensor theories, Vector-tensor theories, General vector-tensor theory, Hellings–Nordtvedt theory....
Odin

San Mateo, CA

#135923 Aug 14, 2014
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
I would feel more sorry for your children growing up in a stupid home....
Growing up in a home of a worthless cynical atheist is child abuse of it's own. Christmas is a magical time for children and MOST people. Why rob them of it because of brain dead idiocy?
Yes and Amen

Richmond, KY

#135924 Aug 14, 2014
Crystal wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I can say elective - classes that you can choose to take or not. There are problems with that still though. First of all elementary schools do not offer elective courses as most middle schools dont either, and most science is learned in early education. Second, are you proposing that we make elective courses for all religion? That tax payers should have to pay for the extra teachers and time should be taken out of a students day to learn about religion. I have a great idea - why dont they learn science, math, reading, and writing at school and they learn about religion at church. Isnt that what its there for? And then I dont have to pay for my kids to be taught that the Earth is 6,000 years old and an 800 year old man built a big boat and put millions of animals on it because of a flood that there is no historical or archeological evidence of.
Besides the ridiculous stories, what about the ones that are scientifically incorrect? WHy should my kids learn that?
You cannot prove evilution is true, but I can prove in History (a subject in school)
that our once Great nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values,
how it formed the USA, and the garbage that is happening to it now
as Satan is taking it over!
You can teach your children that the astronomical odds against 28 proteins coming
together to form DNA over billions of un-observed years is truth all you want...
I on the other hand KNOW that the Creator of the Universe, the God
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is real... He saved me!
Without Him... I would have been worse than Robin Williams, and
many other atheists that end their hopeless lives...
God is real, and I want all children to KNOW the truth... even you!
SNYB

Elyria, OH

#135925 Aug 14, 2014
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution can be taught as theory.
The same as gravity, gasses, atomic structure, planetary motion, etc.
The Bible fails to come near the giddy heights of theory. In fact, it doesn't even belong on the same shelf.
The Bible belongs next to the Koran, Gitas and other myth books..
Pardone' moi et excuse pour uno momento, but that's NOT the correct classification for the Bible or the Koran. Now don't make me come over there on you too.

o_O
SNYB

Elyria, OH

#135926 Aug 14, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Hey ignorant one, evolution has nothing to do with how the universe was created.
Ummm...gee (contrary) Duquette, don't you find that statement you posted above, to be rather debatable, scientifically speaking anyway?
SNYB

Elyria, OH

#135927 Aug 14, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>
Twisting like a pretzel again to make dogma seem less false?
Please elaborate on what you feel exactly, to have been "twisted" about the statement " if there was no Earth, how on Earth in heavens' name would there be any such thing as heavens of earth"... and be precise.

(CLUE for yew: Dogma had Nothing to do with my statement-except for the statement that your butty Chrumolio had instigated on to start with. Or is that what you were referencing?)
AAA

United States

#135928 Aug 14, 2014
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of less scientifically inclined ..You just gave evidence you have no idea of science... It is absolutely the Theory of Gravity... Within the Theory there are Laws... Laws are specific to a single aspect of a Theory that have Mathematical Proofs ... But the General concept of Gravity is a Theory and there are actually competing Theory's of Gravity... There is the Graviton based Theory, There is the Scalar-tensor theories, Vector-tensor theories, General vector-tensor theory, Hellings–Nordtvedt theory....
Well you've just added to the list something else real scientist and the self proclaimed evolutional topix science geniuses disagree on!!
SNYB

Elyria, OH

#135929 Aug 14, 2014
AAA wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called the law of gravity, not the THEORY of gravity. People who are less scientifically inclined, and have a lot of FAITH in their RELIGION of evolution would like to call it the "law of evolution", but it is not self-evident. It is a THEORY according to serious scientists.
The theory of Relativity is a whole other shelf classification of itself, and is not exactly the same thing as Newtons theory on gravity and neither belong on the same shelves with books such as the Bible or the Koran, OR Aesops fables either.

(some of you people sometimes...WTHeck...o0)

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#135930 Aug 14, 2014
Yes and Amen wrote:
<quoted text>Mary or not... not my point...
Name ONE stone I've thrown!
You have a stockpile of stones labelled for every ideology you despise. You throw stones wherever Fox tells you to. You even have a special basket of rocks to throw at people who tell the truth.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#135931 Aug 14, 2014
Curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did the first reptile egg come from? or,did the reptile come first?
Curious wrote:
So, these 100 ton dinosaurs evolved into little birds? Yikessssssssssss
The larger dinosaurs died out. It would have been smaller dinosaurs that evolved into birds.
Curious wrote:
I know that you can make a large omelette by using many eggs,why not use just one?
I know it's hard for you, but don't act dumb. No one would buy one large egg at the store rather than 12 small ones.
Curious wrote:
Your inane excuse about farmers starting with chickens because it was supposedly advantageous is pure nonsense.
farmers keep cattle and horse and do not complain
They didn't have a choice. They had to domesticate what was available.
Curious wrote:
I never said you said chicken eggs were larger than dinosaurs That is your meds talking or could be your inability to read
You implied it by saying I was "wrong" because dinosaur eggs were bigger.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#135932 Aug 14, 2014
AAA wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Mike and a few other of the evolutional topix geniuses on here must be "way smarter" than those scientist because they say they have evidence, even though it is not fact they've gathered enough non factual evidence that it evolved into fact, therefore it is fact, and they have factual/proof evolution of species is fact! LOL!!
So should we listen to renown scientist, or self proclaimed topix scientist who have evolved their non-factual evidence into fact?
,,,,,,and what about their doubt? How does their doubt fit into their non-factual evolved factual facts? Mike says we're too ignorant to understand the way his non-factual evidence evolved into fact,,, or wait a minute,,, was it we're too ignorant to understand that non-factual evidence turns into fact as long as enough people theorize that those non-factual evidence turns into fact?? LOL!!
Quoting from a cherry picked quote cited in a blog from the Institute for Creation Research doesn't help your case. It just shows you to be in denial so deeply that you are either unwilling or incapable of being honest.
Do you even wonder what the fruit fly reference is about? I can take a guess. An american species of fruit fly which feeds on hawthorn fruit switched to eating European apples. Those flies no longer associate with the original strain and this is in line with evolution and speciation - it is in fact one of your "long lost" transitional species. ToE predicts that accumulated mutations over a number of generations will alter the two sets of fruit flies to the point that they will no longer be genetically capable of producing viable offspring. That is inevitable - and fruit flies never read the Origin of Species. Even If fruit flies were the only example you would be proven wrong but unfortunately for you, it is not.

“I'll think about it.”

Since: Nov 07

central Florida

#135933 Aug 14, 2014
Yes and Amen wrote:
We do have something... a Relationship with our God!
Repent... you can have one too!
No thanks.

I prefer the relationship I have with Reality.

You can keep your imaginary, invisible friend all to yourself.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#135934 Aug 14, 2014
AAA wrote:
<quoted text>You have evidence that an evolutionist has researched and then theorized about it, and not all evolutionist come up with the same THEORY!
Creationist also have the same evidence that they have researched and theorized, coming up with several different theories.
Yet,, you want evolution of species taught as fact in classrooms when there is NO fact/proof to back it up!
That would be hypocritical for you to be against the religion of Christianity to be taught in schools, and be for the religion of evolution.
I myself, am against both. I do not think any religion should be taught in schools,, however I am for the Bible Study classes that are taking place in public school systems in my area. I'm not even against the THEORY of evolution being taught as a THEORY, just against it being taught as fact, like several school books portray it!
In my opinion the THEORY of evolution turns more students to the Bible searching for answers, because no matter how you spin it,, the lack of evidence and the THEORY of nothing+nothing = everything in the universe today is just crazy!!
Evolutionists that come up with different conclusions to evidence do not have what is known as a scientific theory. It would be called a hypothesis. You see, even when Darwin came up with the concept of evolution, it was called a hypothesis until enough evidence could be gathered to show it was fact. At that point it could earn the title, scientific theory. You keep using the word theory in a layman way. A theory for laymen are not scientific theories. The two are dramatically different. For some reason creationist cannot comprehend this concept. Probably why most people think you guys are just ignorant hicks now a days.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#135935 Aug 14, 2014
Hammer wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said. I agree wholeheartedly.
I Vote Me, pusherman
For President

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#135936 Aug 14, 2014
great minds wrote:
Where is the proof that apes turned into humans?
Despite the evidence being pathetic, even if you claim the title of World's Biggest Optimist, evolutionists still tell the story that once upon a time humans evolved from ape-like creatures.
Many years ago this argument seemed credible to a lot of people because there was so little hominid fossil evidence that it was easy to imagine evolutionary links everywhere.
But things have changed. Thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found — and they don't show a steady progression from apes to humans at all. Fossils have been found in the wrong time-frames, put into the wrong categories before all the evidence was in, and what was once thought to be the ape-human family tree now actually has no trunk — just unconnected branches.
Because evolutionists can't change their theory, they are stuck with the evidence looking more confusing for them with each new hominid/homin/hominine fossil discovery. Instead of clarifying the alleged link between apes and humans, new fossil discoveries are making it harder to show which type of ape or ape-like creature evolved into a human.
For more information on ape fossils making monkeys out of humans, see the article Humans are not descended from apes.
Sorry, but you are wrong. All hominid fossils point to an ape ancestor. If you wish to try and show they are ancestors of another sort of animal, or of no animal, be my guest.

Can I ask, just how do the other hominids fall into the biblical narrative? I do not recall the bible even mentioning Neanderthals.
Clearly some higher intelligent animals made things like hand axe tools to butcher animals as far back as 3.4 million years ago. That dates back to the days of "Lucy". Normal humans deduce the connection.
Now just what does the bible say about these creatures?

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#135937 Aug 14, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolutionists that come up with different conclusions to evidence do not have what is known as a scientific theory. It would be called a hypothesis. You see, even when Darwin came up with the concept of evolution, it was called a hypothesis until enough evidence could be gathered to show it was fact. At that point it could earn the title, scientific theory. You keep using the word theory in a layman way. A theory for laymen are not scientific theories. The two are dramatically different. For some reason creationist cannot comprehend this concept. Probably why most people think you guys are just ignorant hicks now a days.
They're relying on Abiogenesis ( life from non life ), which is Not a fact!
Do you really think that life from non life can create such awareness, such Intelligence to even begin comprehending about the creator ? If you do then you need to rethink your thinking IMO!
physics and mathematical understanding can only go so far back, they have never reach the point of BANG! which doesn't mean they want some day, but they might discover something they wished they hadn't! They have NEVER ruled out a creator, as it is now, they never will simply because the Intelligence of man doesn't have the understanding of that Instant yet, it's still o/side of physics and mathematical understanding.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#135938 Aug 14, 2014
great minds wrote:
One thing that I find Very interesting is the arrogance of the people that are arguing for evolution. Those who are arguing for Creationism are asking a very simple question, and that is how do you explain the beginning? Nothing wrong with that, but instead of trying to explain it, all you guys are doing is getting defensive and goin "oh, well you guys are just as dumb!"
.
If you could only show the creationist are simply asking a question instead of insisting they are right and science is wrong, your argument might be valid. But that is not the case at all, and if you think it is, then you are ignorant of a clear fact.
The big problem I see from creationists is, they do not ask questions. If they do, they do not listen to the answer, or just knee jerk reject it without any even showing an understanding of the answer.
No creationists on this thread even understand what a scientific theory or hypothesis is.

A question is not what is to be taught in schools as science. At least not at the basic levels of public school. There are enough facts to present to the students to fill the time. If they have questions about them, fine. But that does not mean government should propose a question of creationism that is born of religious dogma. For one, it has no facts to back it up, and two, it is religion. The courts have determined this in the case to teach intelligent design in public schools.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#135939 Aug 14, 2014
pusherman_ wrote:
<quoted text>
They're relying on Abiogenesis ( life from non life ), which is Not a fact!
Do you really think that life from non life can create such awareness, such Intelligence to even begin comprehending about the creator ? If you do then you need to rethink your thinking IMO!
physics and mathematical understanding can only go so far back, they have never reach the point of BANG! which doesn't mean they want some day, but they might discover something they wished they hadn't! They have NEVER ruled out a creator, as it is now, they never will simply because the Intelligence of man doesn't have the understanding of that Instant yet, it's still o/side of physics and mathematical understanding.
Evolution has no reliance on how life came to be. In fact, many who believe in evolution believe god planted the seed of life on earth. That idea is also devoid of evidence, but it changes nothing about the facts of evolution.

By your reasoning, science should not be able to determine anything of nature unless it knows all the answers to the beginning of everything. And that is just silly. But it does explain a bit about why you accept religions answers.
spaceship

Rancho Cordova, CA

#135940 Aug 14, 2014
How a name for a deity may have been chosen.

The Cargo Cult had a name for the diety in heaven. He was called John Fromm.

It is not certain how this name arose but quite possibly it was from American soldiers identifying themselves by their place of origin: i.e., I am John from Indiana or I am John from Minneapolis.

Some clever business began marketing products under the name John Fromm. For example, soap bars were labeled John Fromm Soap. When it was a choice between ordinary soap and God's soap, it was no contest. It was clear which one would get you heavenly clean.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cargocult...

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
Almost Amused R U Out There? 9 min Money 16
Kenny guerrant 52 min mistaken 8
Song Title Game (Aug '09) 6 hr texas pete 41,219
I Don't Know What The Future Holds, but 7 hr Cornell Woolrich ... 118
next to walgreens. 9 hr Watching 4
Austin @ the blue moon 17 hr WTFE 10
blue moon (Mar '11) 17 hr The Real Yeti 8

Richmond Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Richmond Mortgages