Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by BusaDave9

  1. What is with people today? Some people discount hundreds of years of scientific research and data. They think the greatest minds in science have flaws in their reasoning. We have morons like this woman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32mxZxv3dYM I get aggravated just watching this woman. She says she doesn't want to hear scientific theories. She only wants to be shown fossils and let her make up her own opinion of what the fossils mean. She constantly says "how do they know this?" "Did they have a video camera?" "This is all guessing" I really think the problem is education. As an American I am ashamed to show this graph but the problem is worse in the U.S. Here's where I got this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html
  2. I agree. It's kinda hard to wipe that from your memory.
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnyHMSz7JDE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnyHMSz7JDE
  4. Yes, I have children and believe we are very much overpopulated. Why do you ask? Because we shouldn't have kids if we believe we are overpopulated? Or are you thinking that kids bring such joy that having kids shouldn't be denied to anyone?
  5. ^ ^ ^ I didn't understand that picture until I saw the image was titled "Genetics.jpg"
  6. What? ? So my weed wacker is as powerful as a horse?? My car is more powerful than 200 horses???????? I know a gasoline engine can maintain power without getting tired but seriously. 200 horses can be pretty powerful. Or imagine not being able to pull a riding lawn mower unless you have 20 horses. Is this some kind of joke? Oh yes I guess I didn't pay attention to the thread.
  7. Come on EdEarl, this is ridiculous. No thinking adult believes babies are brought by storks. On the other hand, if the Bible were to say we were brought here by storks, then a large percentage of the public would believe that beyond all logic. To believe otherwise would mean eternal damnation for doubting the Bible.
  8. Two scientists walk into a bar. The first scientist says ‘I’ll have a glass of H2O” The second scientist says ‘I’ll have a glass of H2O Too" The second scientist dies of Hydrogen Peroxide poisoning.
  9. A cop with a drug sniffing dog said to me "This dog tells me you're on drugs." I said "I'm on drugs? Your the one talking to dogs." The rest of the day didn't go very well.
  10. A farmer named Malcom had a car accident. In court, the trucking company's fancy lawyer was questioning Malcom. "Didn't you say, at the scene of the accident, 'I'm fine?" asked the lawyer. Malcom responded, "Well, I'll tell you what happened. I had just loaded my favorite mule, Bessie..." "I didn't ask for any details", the lawyer interrupted. "Just answer the question. Did you not say, at the scene of the accident, 'I'm fine!'?" Malcom said, "Well, I had just got Bessie into the trailer and I was driving down the road....." The lawyer interrupted again and said, "Judge, I am trying to establish the fact that, at the scene of the accident, this man told the Highway Patrolman on the scene that he was just fine. Now several weeks after the accident he is trying to sue my client. I believe he is a fraud. Please tell him to simply answer the question." By this time, the Judge was fairly interested in Malcom's answer and said to the lawyer, "I'd like to hear what he has to say about his favorite mule, Bessie". Malcom thanked the Judge and proceeded. "Well as I was saying, I had just loaded Bessie, my favorite mule, into the trailer and was driving her down the highway when this huge semi-truck and trailer ran the stop sign and smacked my truck right in the side. I was thrown into one ditch and Bessie was thrown into the other. I was hurting, real bad and didn't want to move. However, I could hear ole Bessie moaning and groaning. I knew she was in terrible shape just by her groans. Shortly after the accident a Highway Patrolman came on the scene. He could hear Bessie moaning and groaning so he went over to her. After he looked at her, and saw her fatal condition, he took out his gun and shot her between the eyes. Then the Patrolman came across the road, gun still in hand, looked at me and said, "How are you feeling?" "Now what would you say?"
  11. I thought I was responging to what you were saying and not to what you seemed to be saying. I'm not sure I understand but please clarify. Emotional? Revenge? No I would think Charles Ng's life should be snuffed out with as much emotion as stepping on a cockroach. No revenge, just the though that "we don't need this life. Done. Gone. No more Charles Ng." How? I stand by my position because I truly believe that not all human life is worth as much as every other human life. It seems to me that the central point behind your position is that all human life is worth the same. You seem to be saying we can't kill one human because he killed another human. That stance makes sense if and only if you consider all human life worth the same! I do not. Let me ask you again, just to clarify your position. Do you think Charles Ng's life is worth anywhere near as much as any one of his victims. If you think his life is worth that much your stance would make sense (although I would strongly disagree). I truly think my stance makes sense and yours is illogical. Yes, I realize this is a common stance. The high and mighty position is believed to be that all human life is worth the same and we should even cherish the life of killers. I don't believe a lot of thought goes into coming up with that position. I don't think it's logical.
  12. You say my position is illogical?? You seem to be assuming all human life is worth the same. You seem to be saying Charles Ng's life is worth as much as his victims. Now I say THAT is illogical. A cockroaches life is worth far more than Charles Ng's. Look up some of these that I call the worst of the worst. They are worth less than a cockroach! Deter crime? That's not my point. My point is Charles Ng's life is not worth a piece of toast. To feed him a single piece of toast is an outrageous waste of toast (let alone feeding him meals for the rest of his life)
  13. Yes, it's cheaper because of the appeals. They automatically get an appeal. That's understandable. But then these appeals go on and on even when the one on trial doesn't want an appeal. Here's one example: http://www.registerguard.com/rg/news/local/30975952-75/death-brumwell-court-eugene-murder.html.csp Groups apposed to the death penalty fight to keep these appeals going for the most despicable of our species. It's these groups that complain that the death penalty is too expensive but they are the ones making it more expensive. They fight even for people they know are guilty but they say they value human life. I say the lives they fight for are not worth the life of a cockroach. They make sure those on death row don't have access to anything they could kill themselves with. WTF?? Many of these killers don't even want to live any more. I say let them all die. Every cell on death row should have a hangman's noose and a stool. Want to talk about the cost of an execution, how much does a piece of rope cost? Hey, they're even reusable. What upsets me is the fact that these scum gets meals in prison. They are not worth it. That food could go to someone homeless. I am talking about the worst of the worst. I am talking about people like Charles Ng who was convicted of 11 murders, believed to have commited 25 murders. He even filmed them. He tortured his victims, even the infants. The above quote is from http://listverse.com/2010/08/01/10-crimes-of-men-on-death-row/ Do your own Googleing and you'll find lots of killers that have incontrovertible proof against them. I am talking about the worst of the worst. These guys have a light bulb in their cell that is worth far more than their life. That light bulb could do some good elsewhere. A light bulb could never cause such pain. These killers cause such fear in communities that I say just get rid of them. Give them a noose and let them make the decision. The morbid fact is that a lot of the worst killers film themselves torturing their victims. They try to inflict unimaginable pain on their victims before they die and they then watch these videos for their own enjoyment. The worst of the worst. Here's what Joseph Edward Duncan did to a 8 and 9 year old (the other family members got a quick death):
  14. Yes, modern technology such as DNA testing has freed people that have been imprisoned. But these modern technologies also are the reason we can now be more sure than ever that we have the guilty person.
  15. Once a killer is put to death it's impossible for him to kill again. If he is imprisoned he can kill other inmates. It happens.
  16. There's a big difference between not expecting to get caught and betting your life you will never get caught. I very much support the death penalty. In this overpopulated world I think we need to get rid of the worst of the worst. Putting them in prison for free room and board is too good for them. And what's with this debate abut the drugs used to put someone to death? We have drug addicts dieing from overdose and we can't seem to find a drug that puts someone to death without pain. I say who cares if there is a little pain. I am not advocating death should be painful. If a killer goes to prison for life he gets free dental care. If he experiences pain at the dentists where's all the outrage? People expect a a little pain at the dentist office but if a killer experiences the same amount of pain during execution everyone screams “cruel and unusual punishment”. Why does everyone think pain at the time of death is so much worst than pain at other times of life? So then we put murderers in prison because it's “more humane”. But how do we know these killers won't kill other criminals in prison? One thing about the death penalty: it sure cuts down on repeat offenders.
  17. The first life was simply molecules that, when broken apart, can allow atoms to rejoin the molecule and create 2 molecules like the original molecule. Scientists can recreate this in a lab but then skeptics say "that molecule isn't life". They expect a scientist to throw mud and water into a test tube and have an amoeba crawl out where there was no live before. People need to realize it took almost a billion years for life to evolve to a cell. The biggest reason there are skeptics to the theory of evolution is they don't comprehend the time frames. Large gaps? There will always be gaps. So there is a large gap between this species and that so now lets throw out the whole theory of evolution? ? ? ? ? ? I think the bones are one of the best arguments for evolution. All animals are variations on a theme. The more closely the species are related the more similar their structure. Once you start talking about the reptiles, birds and mammals. Species all have 4 appendages. The rear legs are attached to a hip that is attached to the back bone. The forelegs are never attached to the backbone but instead there is a clavicle and scapula that allow the shoulder joint to float more so than the rear legs. But the species are not always as I described. They are variations on a theme based on how closely related they are. The hips of mammals are not like the hips of reptiles or birds. But if you go back to the time of the dinosaurs the hips of the birds and the replies are much more alike. Look at an x-ray of your forearm. There are 2 bones there to allow you to twist your wrist. Those 2 bones are also in the wings of birds. Some joints use a ball and socket to allow rotation. For example your hip. This is similar to other animals. Look at the bones of a bat wing. You see the bones of your hand. It's all variations on a theme. If you find a gap don't through out the baby with the bath water.
  18. Hydrogen can't spontaneously generate Life. Earth has many heavy elements. Hydrogen and helium are the only elements that created on thier own in the universe. All the elements heavier than that were created in neuclear fusion in stars. Our solar system was created from what came out of a large star exploding. Once you have heavier elements some can naturally create molecules. Some of these molecules may split. When they split some of them may attract elements of the atoms that broke off. This results in 2 molecules similar to the one that split. This is much like DNA but much simpler. Are you still with me? Agree this is possible? I think the reason some people don't believe in evolution is they have a hard time comprehending the time frame. It took almost a billion years until the first cell developed. So to say that mud, wool, or hydrogen would spontaneously generate frogs, mice or a powerful intelligence is so far from the truth that their has to be a more complete understanding of the process and the science behind this process. And more importantly an understanding of the time frame we are taking about. Even now with modern life forms it still takes a million years for a new species to develop.
  19. I actually love hamburgers. Ops, I mean I love pulverized dead cow muscles on a bun. Yes, yummy, yummy pulverized dead cow muscles on a bun. I never realized meat was a made up word but I don't care what it's called I love meat.
  20. My opinion is that these do not show that we humans disrespect nature. We disrespect nature in many other ways. But we are part of the food chain. We are omnivores. We eat meat (of course also plants). And it is also true that animals may also eat us but that is rare. We really have no natural predators after us. The food chain IS nature and we are part of it.
  21. Darwin's theory of evolution is over 150 years old. Scientists are constantly finding evidence and even changing their theories. But these changes are details such as how the ear developed in reptiles. No one is saying "maybe birds didn't evolve from reptiles". The fact that birds evolved from reptiles is undisputed (to be more specific birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs) Although scientists are constantly debating the findings and theories, no one has put forth any evidence that may have us saying "wow, it looks like evolution is wrong". The only ones saying such things are lay people that haven't even taken the time to understand the evidence and theory. So tell us what do you believe? The bible says the universe was created a few thousand years ago in 7 days. Science says the earth has been here for about 4.5 billion years and life has been here for about 3.5 billion years. So for someone to say "science is wrong about evolution" it's hard to address that without knowing what your beliefs are. People that doubt evolution have all kinds of beliefs from a literal interpretation of the bible to thinking God was behind evolution. That later belief could be believable. If someone sees all the evidence and says god was behind evolution, it's hard to argue with that. But evolution is incontrovertible. There was a gradual changing of the species. First very simple life forms. Then fish. Later reptiles, birds, mammals. But I really don't know how to debate with someone that won't even look at the facts or tries to bring their own "facts". So what do you believe?
  22. It is sad that there are adults that think ideas like evolution were made up by scientists that then wishfully looked for evidence to support the theory. Science is a constant debate on what the evidence shows. New evidence such as fossils help us form the details of evolution. The strides science has made just in the 20th century are amazing. And all the sciences fit together. To doubt evolution is to doubt entire branches of science such as geology. Evolution is a fact that can't be disputed. But it is disputed by people that say the bible (that was written thousands of years ago) says the universe was created in 7 days. And the Bible was written by God or prophets of god so it therefore proves the existence of god. The beginning of life was nothing like what most of us consider life. The beginning was just a molecule that, if broken up will rejoin with similar atoms. The result is two molecules similar to the original. This is like a dna molecule but far simpler. It was almost a billion years before the first cell appeared. Then with two sexes, evolution sped up but it still takes a million years for a new species to appear.
  23. AnswersInGenesis.org says this: Here's where I got the above http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab3/literal-genesis They are saying to take the Bibil and Genisis literally when they say the Universe was created in 7 days. This defies so many branches of science that it's hard to find a place to start. The rock layers were one example I stated earlier. There is no way reconcile this. ...well, there is one way. The whole world and everything in the universe is an illusion. God made the rock layers, fossils, radioactive decay all to make it appear that the universe is billions of years old instead of a few thousand. God did this as a test for us. He wants to see if we believe the Bible with out doing any thinking at all. He wants to see if we can live by faith without any reasoning at all. Anyone doing any thinking and believes the illusions God has put forth will go strait to hell for thier gullibility.
  24. I don't believe there is any such thing as love. I hate to burst your bubble. Sure everyone wants a good mate. It's exciting when you find someone you think is perfect. But what is love? oh, and no, I am not always this cynical.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.