Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 142409 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.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105066 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm... I'd like to see the evolutionary line for the woodpecker or maybe the humming bird...
That does not answer my question:

What would be a transitional form to you?
defender

London, KY

#105067 May 28, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>How is design self evident? Because it's complicated? Look, I'll gladly give you credit for a point...when you make one. Just because something is complex is no reason to assume a supernatural designer was behind it. What you're saying is "I don't understand how this works, neither do you, so god did it".
That's silly. It's lazy, and silly.
Yet you can drop a pen and say that's the theory of gravity... When you get the flames put out on dat arse and ready to move on then let me know...
defender

London, KY

#105068 May 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Museums are not run by the scientific method, so .... what? The scientific method is what discovered that the claim was fallacious, and the actual scientists discarded it, it is not their fault that the museums want to milk something for a profit, and it's not the museums' fault that they have to use bad science to make that profit, that's your fault for perpetuating anti-scientific nonsense.
Umm.. Yeah ok..(shrug)
ProvenScience

Somerset, KY

#105069 May 28, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Ironic that so many of your posts show a massive amount of disrespect.
Is it mandatory that believers be hypocritical?
I don't know, that's not in my catalogue books of descriptors :-).

I am just being "honest" in that I think it's possible for people to behave ethically, decently etc etc, with out having some stupid label attached (because I think collectively labeling people like that is disrespectful, and often oozes nothing but ignorance).
That, and I think the Sciences are GOOD things to teach in school, as well as literature, history, math etal. Absolutely.
defender

London, KY

#105070 May 28, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text>that was to defender. do you suppose that women in their current stage are the transition between savage and barbaric men and civilized persons?(sort of kidding, though I think more women are likely to have humane values and act on them, because of the survival value of some of the better qualities of women, and the - unfortunate- survival value of some of the inferior qualities of some men. genetic heritage of men who impregnate more women, and group survival of men who are more effectively warlike, for example. yuk! wonder if people could have been nicer if the nicer ones who couldn't fight well had prevailed?
Ahhh that's so sweet!!! Perhaps women will soon evolve penises!!! Lol...

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105071 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm.. Yeah ok..(shrug)
Alright, show any such fraudulent claim that was not only discovered, but proven fraudulent by any religious leader.
ProvenScience

Somerset, KY

#105072 May 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Stoning people who disagree with you is decency? Stoning children for "bad mouthing" you is decency? You are an unethical person if you think that.
My opinion on that istThat's why many DISlike the OT, much preferring the "kinder, gentler" ways as found more in the NT.

Not much that OT kind of stuff personally. Never was, never will be.

So you'll have to excuse some of us if we remove ourselves as targets, from THAT judgeMental game. Not into that sandbox level stuff either.
ProvenScience

Somerset, KY

#105073 May 28, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Different law for a more carnal people. The NT applies to us more today. Jesus brought the higher law
Thank goodness!!!!!
defender

London, KY

#105074 May 28, 2013
GWB wrote:
<quoted text>I see, you cannot be a watchman of God and yet claim to be a Christian? Are you simply just pestering atheists for fun, can you teach anything about the bible? It is obvious you cannot, so sad. Look how well the Mormon defends his faith. Maybe you can learn something from him. You have been soundly defeated in the debate with atheists, why do you persist?

You have faith that God will talk to me and little you know what the bible has to say about that, fledgling.
Defeated? That's a joke... If you want to learn about the bible then find a preacher... I stand behind everything I've said and I didn't need a bible... All I've gotten in return is insults and angry rants... If that's getting soundly defeated than yep I give up!!!

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105075 May 28, 2013
ProvenScience wrote:
<quoted text>
My opinion on that istThat's why many DISlike the OT, much preferring the "kinder, gentler" ways as found more in the NT.
Not much that OT kind of stuff personally. Never was, never will be.
So you'll have to excuse some of us if we remove ourselves as targets, from THAT judgeMental game. Not into that sandbox level stuff either.
So you pick and choose .... and you hate science why?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105076 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Defeated? That's a joke... If you want to learn about the bible then find a preacher... I stand behind everything I've said and I didn't need a bible... All I've gotten in return is insults and angry rants... If that's getting soundly defeated than yep I give up!!!
Really, so you accept the scientific method?
defender

London, KY

#105077 May 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>That does not answer my question:

What would be a transitional form to you?
Umm.. The fossil line of humming birds!!! Not sketch artists wishful thinking from Talkorigins ... The fossil line... How's that?

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

#105078 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps if you could offer something with substance other than hateful rants more people would be apt to listen...
No. You lie. I have dropped ten times more substance than insult, and infinitely more substance than you. You ignore it. You would ignore it if every insult contained in every post I've ever typed was gone.

You aren't remotely objective, you aren't interested in fact or truth or logic, you aren't interested in actually learning about the things you are foolishly trying to fight. All you're interested in is propagating your cult of stupidity, and I'll have none of it.

Respond to what I've requested five times so far (and others have, as well). If you can't do it, then stop lying and associating intelligent design with science. It's insulting. Until you've demonstrated the very simple thing that has been requested, there is not a single person on the planet that would have any reason to think that your "theory" is anything other than the sad product of a brainwashed simpleton.
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you can drop a pen and say that's the theory of gravity... When you get the flames put out on dat arse and ready to move on then let me know...
Are you 10-12? I'd really like to know. Your sentence composition, ability to comprehend fairly simple theories, and method of interaction are all at or below that level. If you are not, you REALLY should do better.
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhh that's so sweet!!! Perhaps women will soon evolve penises!!! Lol...
WTF? Refer to my last, you child.
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Defeated? That's a joke... If you want to learn about the bible then find a preacher... I stand behind everything I've said and I didn't need a bible... All I've gotten in return is insults and angry rants... If that's getting soundly defeated than yep I give up!!!
The sad joke is that there is the possibility that you honestly believe what you just typed and aren't puffing up to save face.

Your "argument" has been obliterated. Every single "clever" question you've asked in order to disprove evolution is right off of the "crazy fundie disproof of evolution list" and was utterly destroyed before you even showed up here. You've done nothing but ignore my simple request of proof your assertion that intelligent design is a product of science. You've literally brought nothing to this discussion, other than wasted bits and screen space, and you've been fodder to many of your superiors here.

It's honestly pathetic. I'd feel sorry for you if your very existence wasn't bad for humanity.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105079 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm.. The fossil line of humming birds!!! Not sketch artists wishful thinking from Talkorigins ... The fossil line... How's that?
That's not a "transitional form," that is a collection of questions, one that they are probably looking for, but one incomplete line does not make a difference. There, I responded to your red herring, now again, what would you consider to be a transitional form?
ProvenScience

Somerset, KY

#105080 May 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you pick and choose .... and you hate science why?
Yes I have my own epsonal opinions of likes and dislikes.

For example, I strongly dislike people who try and twist things into manipulated distortions, just to suit themselves.

You couldn't be more wrong about my personal outlook on many of the Sciences--as they have Always been some of my personal favorite subject areas to ponder, and actually, that rather tells on your own LACK of reading comprehension quite blatantly.
Some I prefer more than others-again-that boils down personal dislikes and likes. But some of them, most every person in the US has had to endure, whether they liked it or not, if they graduated high school anyway. That's life in the Real world---it's not always going to suit our personal preferences.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#105081 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you can drop a pen and say that's the theory of gravity...
And yet another comment that makes little to no sense. What exactly is your point?
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
When you get the flames put out on dat arse and ready to move on then let me know...
I'm not sure why you would think my arse is on fire, but OK. To recap question 1:
Explain what cause and effect you are referring to.

Your response:
Reproduction is too complex to have started without a creator. This is evidence of Intelligent Design.

Fair enough? If so, question 2:
Explain how Entropy points to Intelligent Design and away from Evolution as you claim.
defender

London, KY

#105082 May 28, 2013
_Ummm_ wrote:
No. You lie. I have dropped ten times more substance than insult, and infinitely more substance than you. You ignore it. You would ignore it if every insult contained in every post I've ever typed was gone.

You aren't remotely objective, you aren't interested in fact or truth or logic, you aren't interested in actually learning about the things you are foolishly trying to fight. All you're interested in is propagating your cult of stupidity, and I'll have none of it.

Respond to what I've requested five times so far (and others have, as well). If you can't do it, then stop lying and associating intelligent design with science. It's insulting. Until you've demonstrated the very simple thing that has been requested, there is not a single person on the planet that would have any reason to think that your "theory" is anything other than the sad product of a brainwashed simpleton.
defender wrote, "<quoted text>
Yet you can drop a pen and say that's the theory of gravity... When you get the flames put out on dat arse and ready to move on then let me know..."

Are you 10-12? I'd really like to know. Your sentence composition, ability to comprehend fairly simple theories, and method of interaction are all at or below that level. If you are not, you REALLY should do better.
defender wrote, "<quoted text>
Ahhh that's so sweet!!! Perhaps women will soon evolve penises!!! Lol..."

WTF? Refer to my last, you child.
defender wrote, "<quoted text>
Defeated? That's a joke... If you want to learn about the bible then find a preacher... I stand behind everything I've said and I didn't need a bible... All I've gotten in return is insults and angry rants... If that's getting soundly defeated than yep I give up!!! "

The sad joke is that there is the possibility that you honestly believe what you just typed and aren't puffing up to save face.

Your "argument" has been obliterated. Every single "clever" question you've asked in order to disprove evolution is right off of the "crazy fundie disproof of evolution list" and was utterly destroyed before you even showed up here. You've done nothing but ignore my simple request of proof your assertion that intelligent design is a product of science. You've literally brought nothing to this discussion, other than wasted bits and screen space, and you've been fodder to many of your superiors here.

It's honestly pathetic. I'd feel sorry for you if your very existence wasn't bad for humanity.
And wind keeps blowing...

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105083 May 28, 2013
ProvenScience wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I have my own epsonal opinions of likes and dislikes.
For example, I strongly dislike people who try and twist things into manipulated distortions, just to suit themselves.
You couldn't be more wrong about my personal outlook on many of the Sciences--as they have Always been some of my personal favorite subject areas to ponder, and actually, that rather tells on your own LACK of reading comprehension quite blatantly.
Some I prefer more than others-again-that boils down personal dislikes and likes. But some of them, most every person in the US has had to endure, whether they liked it or not, if they graduated high school anyway. That's life in the Real world---it's not always going to suit our personal preferences.
If you accept one science, you have to, by definition, accept all that results from the scientific method, that includes evolution ... now the "big bang" still needs a lot of work to be as viable as evolution so meh. But denying evolution is simply denying reality and the scientific method.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#105084 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Again, if you are going to call yourself a Christian, you could AT LEAST TRY to abide the 9th commandment.

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

#105085 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
And wind keeps blowing...
OK, keep being a baby. That's your prerogative.

Intelligent design is nothing but religion. Period.

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.

Kentucky Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 25 min Le Jimbo 190,188
News Huckabee earned nearly $4M from speeches, publi... 4 hr goonsquad 5
News Abdullah White Indictment (Jan '12) Thu horses mouth 17
News Kentucky's 2012 prescription drug abuse legisla... Jul 28 goforitky 1
News Clean air worth the costs? Jul 28 cancerlost 8
Summer Events at Ashland, the Henry Clay Estate Jul 28 mvarner 1
News Don't let videos vilify Planned Parenthood Jul 26 Timothy Turnstone 1
More from around the web