Debunking creationist myths chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: Debunking creationist myths

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 356 (view)

Debunking creationist myths Posted: 11/26/2009 12:38:46 PM
I just get a little tired of the argumentum ad verecundiam. I think it's high time to demonstrate just how unscientific the creationist position really is. Many religious people are taken in by some "expert's" supposed scientific credentials. Frankly I'm tired of it. Let's see how much science these clowns use as far as justifying their belief. The challenge stands!

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 353 (view)

Debunking creationist myths Posted: 11/26/2009 12:13:20 PM
have accepted the biblical account of creation and can scientifically defend their position: Pick the best scientific defense of the bunch and give us a link to refu...I mean critique it as to its scientific validity.

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 170 (view)

1=1 Is it a fact a theory or both? Posted: 11/26/2009 11:15:16 AM
Your teacher sounds more heartless. Even I know that would take forever. You'd still be doing that now. I was speaking as (though) YOUR teacher. I would've given you only one thing that took forever... not several. (I thought I was being a nice guy in reducing your work for you!)

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 93 (view)

The double slit experiment (the elephant in the room). Posted: 11/26/2009 11:08:32 AM
@ Enrique Search engines are wonderful things. Your questions, though interesting would require too much effort (and a determination of your background knowledge) to answer effectively; I did, however, find a wikipedia page (don't usually like 'em, but for non- political science stuff they aren't usually too bad) that hopefully answers the essence of your questions (without necessarily giving you a direct answer). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction BTW, you don't need a diffraction grating to look at (and fool with diffraction). If you put your fingers togeether , hold them "up" to the light and separate them just a teeny bit, you will see little interference lines parallel to your fingers. Note that they don't simply disappear exactly, but only "wane" to the edges as you separate your fingers further.

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 357 (view)

Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society? Posted: 11/25/2009 9:11:51 PM
You had better be glad your ancestors had a better understanding about the circle of life. I'm NOT a vegan, or even a vegetarian. I'm a hypocrite, but I'm trying to recover some sense of authenticity by at least recognizing that what I do has no moral justification. Frankly, I'd prefer killing my own meat, as painlessly as possible to show at least some reverence and respect for the animal's unwilling sacrifice of its own life that I may live. The tribal societies recognized that honoring the animal's gift was a sacred thing. It is something we have lost in our modern "sanitized" society where even death & suffering is concealed and some people might even think cows really do go to "Bovine University."

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 91 (view)

How can you prove soul exists after death? Posted: 11/25/2009 8:57:45 PM
they would have an objective view of our reality (more than we would) and be in a better place to define our reality in a more complete sense. We are very near (or may have already arrived?) at a point where we could add several more levels to the "nested realities" conjecture. we may soon find ourselves int the position of the extra-dimensional aliens you mention. I confess I find it amusing that we think we exist in some "real" n dimensional space, when we may in fact be no more than dimensionless abstractions with only an illusion of the lives we seem to value so highly. Maybe we are just a fancy game of "life."

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 355 (view)

Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society? Posted: 11/25/2009 8:50:08 PM
it would be absurd for a cow to develop a classical definition of morality and, probably, consciousness. Why should it have to? How do we know how much, or whether or not a cow values its own life? I think too, you'll have to be more explicit in how you define consciousness, before you make an assessment on whether or not a cow has any.

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 13 (view)

If Marijuana were legal today, would opponents be able to make it illegal? Posted: 11/25/2009 8:35:03 PM
some people are incapable of, or, unwilling to think for themselves. What scares me is that they might be a majority! They will probably sit watching the show and eating popcorn while those who still care about their liberty, spend all the blood to win back the freedom the sheeple so casually let slip through their cloven hooves. Such mindless apathy is beneath contempt!

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 31 (view)

The lightyear-long rod problem Posted: 11/25/2009 8:20:16 PM
Still no need to break the speed limit of light! (Assuming an incompressible rod) To apply force equally all along the rod it would also have to be done simultaneosly all along the rod. If the "signal" to push can only propagate at the speed of light, then the entire length of the rod would be broken into many regions of spacetime, each with its own local time and "simultaneity" becomes impossible. If force is to be applied equally and simultaneously all along the rod, it could only be because light would have infinite velocity, thus allowing the entire rod to be in a single region of "time."

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 141 (view)

Public Ignorance on Global Warming (and science in general) Posted: 11/25/2009 4:30:25 PM
find out the difference between Methanol and Ethanol............. BEFORE you start imbibing. find out the difference between Methanol and Ethanol............. BEFORE you start imbibing. That advice comes a tad late, but I've got some of my vision back now. I actually did mean ethanol. Methanol only became "popular" because of prohibition (I suspect). I'm pretty certain the original intent of Henry Ford was to burn either gas, or ethanol (ethyl alcohol - better known as ambrosia, or nectar of the gods)

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 8 (view)

If Marijuana were legal today, would opponents be able to make it illegal? Posted: 11/25/2009 4:21:42 PM
I am actually smoking a turkey... How do you get the rolling papers around it? I think you are a nice person basically, but if you should ever stray south of the border to the lower 48, please understand that the employees of the USA corporation will arrest you for pot... If I turn up in US jurisdiction they'll be able to legally arrest me (if I'm doing something that contravenes a statute, unless I claim diplomatic immunity)(but believe it or not there is a lawful "loophole" on that one). The reality is, I would probably be arbitrarily detained, beaten & clubbed (criminally and in violation of their oaths as peace officers) and maybe shipped off on a rendition flight where I could be tortu..uh....questioned regarding possible terrorist connections. Other than that, I don't see any problems with popping down for a visit under my common law right of liberty to go where I please on the land. I would hate to see you spend your Thanksgiving behind bars. As I mentioned on another post, we've already had our thanksgiving turkey, so the joke is on them if they jail me to keep me from having any. In front of a bar, well, thats a different story.... That's where I spend all my Thanksgivings...and for that I am truly thankful. Have a happy Thanksgiving turkey, and enjoy your Paul.

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 32 (view)

how do you decide what's criminal/wrong/unethical? Posted: 11/25/2009 3:57:37 PM
Before Nixon, pot laws were a matter of state legislation. As usual, the truth is probably between both our views. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics was formed in 1930 and shortly thereafter, Roosevelt signed some international restrictions into force federally. I tend to take wikipedia with a grain of salt, but confess I often find it handy as a jumping off point for deeper investigation (if I feel so inclined). The wiki page actually makes for some interesting reading about some stuff I never knew (and again, it may not all be accurate, but it is fascinating...). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States#Federal_Bureau_of_Narcotics_.281930.29

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 41 (view)

Nassim Haramein Posted: 11/25/2009 3:47:27 PM
the general direction of the message is that the world presents itself to mind as an illusion. Ahh...but which is the illusion, the world or the mind? Both?...Ommmmm...

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 139 (view)

Public Ignorance on Global Warming (and science in general) Posted: 11/25/2009 3:43:05 PM
@ Paul I really don't think that you would want to be drinking the alcohol that was used as a fuel... Au contraire, my adversary extraordinaire...It's 190 proof booze (5% is water)...What could be finer? Frankly, I couldn't imagine a better (or yummier) fuel. Happy thanksgiving... To you too... (We had ours in October)

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 3 (view)

If Marijuana were legal today, would opponents be able to make it illegal? Posted: 11/25/2009 3:36:25 PM
If marijuana were legal today, would you vote to criminalize it? Of course not. Who cares whether or not it's legal...It's lawful. It's only "illegal" to employtees of corporations like Canada or the US. How much does marijuana's classification as a narcotic effect public opinion about legalization? That depends on how much propaganda is being issued to the sheeple.

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 29 (view)

how do you decide what's criminal/wrong/unethical? Posted: 11/25/2009 3:31:47 PM
Now it is illegal...thanks to Richard M.Nixon Just as a correcting aside: Pot was illegal long before Tricky D¡cky showed up. In fact Roosevelt was more to blame. Strangely enough, it was around Nixon's time that they started to lighten up on the penalties (it may have been afterward, I'm not sure).

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 63 (view)

Smoking, who to blame! Posted: 11/25/2009 3:14:09 PM
we need to be protected from ourselves That may apply to you, but by what right and whose authority may it apply to me? I'm a rational adult and have been for a long time. What do I need "Mommy" for? I don't need a law telling me wear my mitties or else get fined. If they ever pass one, it will only apply to people like you, people who need Mommy to tell them what to do...or else.

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 136 (view)

Public Ignorance on Global Warming (and science in general) Posted: 11/25/2009 3:03:10 PM
@ Paul you really should quit while you are ahead when it comes to high performance/internal combustion/fuels/ smog... I had an extra two cents on me, so I thought I'd throw it in. Using corn or other foods as a fuel source is just plain wrong. Agreed. If the politicians would extract their collective heads out of each others A$$ES That'll never happen; they were born that way. Where they put their heads doesn't concern me much 'cause it's none of my business; I wish they had the same consideration for me, 'cause they keep trying to slip their hands into my pocket as if my money belonged to them! there is so much land that could be culitivated with hemp that would produce enough alcohol for all to run cars on. BUT, tht will never happen. Hemp is about the most versatile plant there is; it makes better clothes than cotton, better rope than nylon, better oil than canola, and we haven't even approached all its medical uses (for glaucoma, as an aid in chemotherapy and for pain control, etc.) and (my favorite) it's recreational potential as a cheap and mellow high. It grows like a weed (imagine that!), so the yield will be phenomenal even without the use of pesticides (better for the land & environment). Needless to say, such a naturally occurring, near-panacea could not be allowed to remain legal, especially with DuPont coming out with nylon rope & all (which of course needs petroleum to manufacture), so for the sake of keeping the Duponts & Rockefellers out of the breadlines something drastic had to be done to keep this natural killer of our youth and addictive source of all crime out of the hands of the innocent. It was therefore made horribly illegal, so that a kid caught with a joint in his mouth could be raped & beaten over a period of years at a rehabilitation facility called "the Big House." (Good thing we caught the poor kid in time....weed might have ruined his life!) So quit knocking our wonderful politicians; you know they only have our best interests at heart! A motors stroke has nothing whatsoever to do with the compression ratio it has. No, but the bore/stroke RATIO does. By long stroke, I meant a very undersquare ratio (which is very torquey and a lot of fun, to spite the higher piston speeds at a given rpm for an equivalent displacement). The trick is to burn the fuel comletely. With alcohol, due to certain properties it has, burns and leaves very little effluviants... ...which was my point regarding the model T (as well as using some of the "unburned fuel" to unwind after a long drive.) Should I send you my paypal so you can pay off our bet? I already TOLD you I threw in my two cents! What do you want...blood??

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 61 (view)

Smoking, who to blame! Posted: 11/25/2009 2:10:15 PM
"Wrong" is in the eye of the beholder, therefore "wrong" can not apply in such a general sense. As a beholder and customer who was harmed by such a policy, I have the right to sue for damages. I recognize a controversy may exist as to how "wrong" or "harmful" their actions may have been, but that's what judicial systems are for...to settle just such differences of subjective opinion.

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 130 (view)

Public Ignorance on Global Warming (and science in general) Posted: 11/25/2009 12:53:19 PM
what are you referring to when you say "stroker"? A long stroke ( as engine with a naturally high compression ratio as in the old oval track bikes. unless it is in very specialized motors that run turbos that create very high internal pressures. Yeah, as in the alcohol burning dragsters. OK, OK...So the Model T isn't exactly a high-tech, turbocharged motor, tuned for optimum performance, and I'm sure you're right that it doesn't effectively compete with modern engines in terms of clean emissions (I didn't consider the nitrogen compounds originally), but my essential point was that maybe we haven't come quite as far as we like to give ourselves credit for, especially in terms of product longevity (now considered "bad" from a marketing standpoint) and somewhat in terms of emissions (alcohol, IS a naturally cleaner burning fuel that probably naturally combusts more completely than gasoline). In all honesty, I don't think alcohol (to spite its clean burning properties) is a fuel we should go with, because it will only detract from what will soon be a critically limited food supply. What is the reference to "ol Rocky"? Is that as in "Rocky and Bullwinkle"? Geeze...I go to all the trouble of composing cute & entertaining posts just for you and you don't even bother to read them? I'm insulted! I was referring to J.D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, Standard Oil and prohibition. Read the post. You shouldn't call me nutty till you at least read my insane ramblings!

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 51 (view)

Smoking, who to blame! Posted: 11/25/2009 11:59:33 AM
It is not "wrong" for a company to sell cigarettes No, but it IS wrong to deliberately (and secretly) engineer a product to to be more harmful just to increase sales & profit at the expense of the health of the customer.

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 46 (view)

Smoking, who to blame! Posted: 11/25/2009 11:12:27 AM
why would somebody purposely poison themselves? Because it's less filling and tastes great?...or maybe they find it relaxing and enjoy the activity enough that it offsets the risk.

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 126 (view)

Public Ignorance on Global Warming (and science in general) Posted: 11/25/2009 11:07:09 AM
it was found out that gasoline makes much better power... Even at 20:1 compression in a stroker? I think the real reason was sneaky ol' Rocky . So how much do you want to bet? You wouldn't want me to cover my cute little dukky smile with something so base and germ-laden as money, would you? I thought you were a gentleman!

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 125 (view)

Public Ignorance on Global Warming (and science in general) Posted: 11/25/2009 11:00:40 AM
they are creating a gas that is then trapping heat... ...that promotes plant growth and therefore uptake of the gas, which (to some extent perhaps, and maybe completely) offsets the creation of the "excess". Both carbon monoxide and (especially carbon dioxide) are not inclined to rise in the atmosphere (to create a "greenhouse window") as they are heavier than air gases, that tend to remain in the lower troposphere (IMHO).

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 39 (view)

Nassim Haramein Posted: 11/25/2009 10:23:13 AM
what does this have to do with the nature of the message? That it is obviously an interpretation and interpreted information is almost always (to a greater or lesser degree) misinterpreted, even (and also) by the reader's mind as it interprets yet again. Attention to detail and precision are often as important (or perhaps more important) than the "gist" of a message, especially in determination of the accuracy and intent of the message itself.

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 27 (view)

how do you decide what's criminal/wrong/unethical? Posted: 11/25/2009 10:04:47 AM
Slavery, genocide, racism, torture, etc.... Those things are (immorally) inflicted on beings OUTSIDE of a society (on non-members).

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 116 (view)

Public Ignorance on Global Warming (and science in general) Posted: 11/25/2009 5:16:18 AM
Oh well; at least I can still drink the fuel. Can't do that (much) with gasoline.

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 37 (view)

Nassim Haramein Posted: 11/25/2009 5:14:09 AM
Yes, he's questionable. What do you suppose might have been a more appropriate translation than "galaxies"?

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 35 (view)

Nassim Haramein Posted: 11/24/2009 11:36:05 PM
it's some guy by the name of Alex Johnson Very good Grasshopper! The next question to ask should be a question of Johnson's qualifications as a translator, but I don't think you'll have to look any father than the quote to find evidence that his expertise in that regard is "questionable."

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 28 (view)

The Angel of Death... Posted: 11/24/2009 11:17:01 PM
that ol feller was a carrying on' somethin like that soccer player, after he got, ah, disconnected .... I know from personal experience that there's a strong urge to disconnect! Good thing I always carry a flask of "anaesthetic!"

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 33 (view)

Nassim Haramein Posted: 11/24/2009 10:58:53 PM
I have a light acquaintance with the diamond sutra. A relatively profound lesson lies in the words you quoted if you look at it critically. The Buddha said you should question everything, even him, even the questioning. I suggest you look closely at your quote to see if it is really an accurate translation from what is acknowledged to be the earliest complete printed book.

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 31 (view)

Nassim Haramein Posted: 11/24/2009 10:10:27 PM
@ nothinglefttoburn That doesn't sound like something the Buddha would have said; are you SURE he said it?

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 114 (view)

Public Ignorance on Global Warming (and science in general) Posted: 11/24/2009 10:06:16 PM
don't forget Nitrogen is part of the mix. In ethanol?? Check your chemistry. Pure ethanol produces two compounds, carbon dioxide and water, though I imagine incomplete combustion probably results in some small quantities of ammonia & carbon monoxide. There is no nitrogen in it however, unless as an additive. Of course atmospheric nitrogen is part of the combustion mix (which didn't dawn on me earlier), but wouldn't that simply produce mostly nitrous oxide? Oh boy! Not only can I drink the fuel, I can sniff the exhaust!...It's win-win! You are right about it being a cool car though. I know a guy who restored a few classic show cars (hundred pointers, or damn close), who sold them because he didn't see the point in owning a car he was afraid to drive or park anywhere. He got himself an old "Tin Lizzie" and left it looking ratty. He drives the damn thing everywhere and it thrills him to have little kids run up to the car and "maul" it & jump all over it etc. That kinda stuff used to terrify him with the showpieces & he had to stand guard over them whenever he took one out. The "Lizzie" is now his only car and he couldn't be happier.

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 88 (view)

How can you prove soul exists after death? Posted: 11/24/2009 9:44:20 PM
In other words, objectivity is an illusion, and only a shared subjectivty. There then is no need for a 'matrix' simply because reality is formed through our perception. It can get a LOT wierder than that... We have NO IDEA what "being alive" means. For all we know, we live as virtual software, running in the nth level of a series of nested virtual realities, each one being even less similar to "actual" reality than the next higher one up. Instead of asking ourselves what might not reflect the "real reality" we should be asking ourselves what does (if anything at all). If it is disconcerting to find that your entire illusion of life is just a series of sequentially executed instructions not unlike the apparent flow of marquee lights at a theatre, that have the (optical) illusion of movement, then welcome to the club. I have never been able to create an argument with sufficient force of reason to suggest the situation might be otherwise. The BEST I could ever do was "Nah...Can't be!"

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 3 (view)

meteor showers? Posted: 11/24/2009 9:14:25 PM
@ stargazer She does ask an interesting question (and I confess I don't know the answer myself, preferring to watch the fireworks rather than analyze them). It would stand to reason that the colours in the tails probably reveal something of the composition...What does a given colour reveal?

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 86 (view)

How can you prove soul exists after death? Posted: 11/24/2009 9:08:45 PM
assuming as you did that life does exist after death That isn't what he assumed. His proof was how one could prove life after death IF there was any. It wasn't a proof that there was. It was a bit "loosey goosey" for a class in logic, but then he didn't get an A+ for it either, probably because of that.

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 13 (view)

The meaning of the meaningless - A perhaps meaningless theorem Posted: 11/24/2009 8:14:31 PM
How many of the posts in here are meaningful? How many are intended to be? I find it incredibly ironic and somewhat paradoxical that one of the most meaningful threads in here is about meaninglessness. The apparent fallacy of the proof lies in the subjectivity of the assessment of meaningfulness, the value of which can change in a moment. Still, the wonder of it all astonishes me. I am not impressed by the fact that intentionally meaningful posts might be found meaningless (that happens all the time, as anyone who has read some of my rants can attest), but incredibly impressed that even intentionally meaningless posts may hold the most profound of meanings. Can we now honestly say that such posts are a waste of our time to read?

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 368 (view)

God's existence Posted: 11/24/2009 7:53:47 PM
Now, you believe all these books because someone who claims to have a Phd wrote the book. False. The only books I "believe" are the ones whose facts can be checked by me, myself & I. Between the three of us, we can usually come to an agreement on what is and isn't true in any given book. A book whose facts can't be checked is a book of fiction as far as I'm concerned. Such a book is (as Donovan said in a song) "one man's opinion of moonlight."

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 112 (view)

Public Ignorance on Global Warming (and science in general) Posted: 11/24/2009 7:46:17 PM
@ Paul First you have to understand just exactly what "polution" is created by an internal combustion motor. In the case of an ethanol powered Model T, that would be carbon dioxide and steam. I doubt the steam will kill us anytime soon (and might even contribute to the formation of rain clouds). The carbon dioxide is arguable, but I would submit that even if it IS a greenhouse gas, it is one readily absorbed by foliage (which would get "lusher" with more of it in the atmosphere, and hence absorb even more carbon dioxide in a "feedback effect" that may even now be ameliorating the effect of the "excess" carbon dioxide. Not only that, a model T didn't need a battery...it had a hand crank. Granted it broke a lot of wrists, but the car didn't have to have a battery to run. It was easily repaired by anyone with some decent tools & a bit of mechanical savvy and the damn things are STILL fun to drive, even after about a hundred years. Talk about longevity! What's that...You can't live without a GPS and power steering?...Sissy! How far have we really come?

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 29 (view)

Nassim Haramein Posted: 11/24/2009 7:25:32 PM
I truly believe she is somewhat delusional. She is... That's because she never got to the "criticize your own thoughts " part of the process. Imagination is a wonderfully spirited horse that's fun to ride, but if you let go of the reins of reason, it will run away on you, which takes away all the fun of riding it. Nassim's failure to criticize himself doesn't seem to hurt him. I suspect it might even cost him money to look too closely at his own ideas. Thanks for the compliment. I consider myself extremely flattered. Have some positive reinforce.., I mean a beer....

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 366 (view)

God's existence Posted: 11/24/2009 6:40:14 PM
@ Scorp I can talk a lot. We noticed. We also noticed a rare talent for understatement.

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 105 (view)

Public Ignorance on Global Warming (and science in general) Posted: 11/24/2009 5:06:21 PM
If the use of electric cars goes way up, where is that electricity coming from? In the case where I live, the answer is "hydroelectric power". Granted it's bad for the environment to build dams & dynamos in what was once pristine wilderness, but the damage is already done and the renewable power is plentiful. we'd be the perfect candidates for plug-in electric vehicles (though our range between charges would likely be quite limited in the winter, owing to the power required for heaters), so it pisses me off that our Prime Dunce threw Canadians' money at GM canada to keep it afloat, when there are Canadian outfits like Bombardier and Zenn who could have bought much of the GM tooling for a song and ramped up production of things like the all-electric Zenn (which would be perfect for driving in "rush traffic" & to grocery stores & such). If the dolt was gonna throw money at anything, why couldn't it at least be an innovative, competitive industry of his own bloody country? The man's a traitor in my books! (and I won't even begin to tell you about some of his other treasonous crap!)

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 102 (view)

Public Ignorance on Global Warming (and science in general) Posted: 11/24/2009 4:48:36 PM
just take care of your vehicle and keep it for at least 6 years... I'd like to see an emissions test on something like an old Model T. I'll giive you 10 to 1 It it's less polluting than most of the cars on the road today! (and I dare say it was hardy & durable) Ol' Henry designed it to run on gas or on alcohol (the rationale being that farmers could brew their own fuel & drive it for basically nothing). Unfortunately, that was gonna cut into old man Rockefeller's Standard Oil profits, so he generously endowed the old ladies in the temperance movement with about seven million bucks, so they could use it to bri...I mean lobby the politicians in Washington. Result? The old ladies were happy, a bunch of politicians were a bit richer, Rockefeller cleaned up as oil became the sole source of fuel for cars and a bunch of other hoods made millions on illegal booze. The only people hurt by the Volstead act were poor old Henry Ford (whose wonderful idea would now be relegated to interesting historical factoids) and of course millions of people like you or me, who liked a good belt every now & then. But of course we don't count in the grand scheme of things...the only thing we're good for is giving guys like Old Rockefeller our money...one way or the other. They say Old Rocky was a teatotler...Gee, I wonder why?

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 22 (view)

how do you decide what's criminal/wrong/unethical? Posted: 11/24/2009 4:22:35 PM
the law tells me I don't get the right to make that decision because it's bad for me. So "the law" is your Mommy?... I thought you were an adult, capable of making your own decisions.

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 97 (view)

Public Ignorance on Global Warming (and science in general) Posted: 11/24/2009 4:15:03 PM
If the car companies want to do the right thing, they would make cars that last 500,000 miles. That way, they would build less cars, and that alone would be a ton better than scrapping a perfectly good car to get a small improvement in gas mileage. Are you kidding me?...It took us about twenty years to get them to quit building in the corrosion under the factory paint! Well, maybe I'm kidding just a bit, but detroit built itself on planned obsolescence. The reasoning was: Make a car that doesn't last and we'll sell a lot more cars, & boost profits and make the shareholders happy. The only thing that got them to clean up their act was the arrival of cheap, reliable Japanese imports that cut into their market in a major way. That's corporate capitalism for you!... Think & act like a Dinosaur until competition you never should have had (if the board had ever looked beyond the next quarter) eats all your food and starves you almost to death, then use some of the pennies you you haven't lost yet to bribe some politicians into making you "too big to fail", at which point they'll get all the little mammals to work like the d¡ckens to feed you & keep you alive. Hey, it's only fair; those damn little mammals quit buying our wonderful cars! Now we'll MAKE them pay...TWICE!

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 20 (view)

how do you decide what's criminal/wrong/unethical? Posted: 11/24/2009 3:48:57 PM
If it breaks the law, it's criminal If it hurts another person, it's wrong If it does both, it's unethical Which means that (for instance) our compulsary helmet legislation is all three. It breaks the law because it infringes on your liberty. It could be a causal factor in an accident (and therefore cause harm to others) for any of several reasons. (inability to properly shoulder-check, heat/sweat distraction, reduced field of view, etc.) It is therefore unethical too.

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 168 (view)

1=1 Is it a fact a theory or both? Posted: 11/24/2009 2:57:56 PM
It relates to everything else. Why do you suppose that is?

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 357 (view)

God's existence Posted: 11/24/2009 2:53:53 PM
Why I get so much attention, I don't know. Mostly, we just marvel at your posts.

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 166 (view)

1=1 Is it a fact a theory or both? Posted: 11/24/2009 2:52:29 PM
I would have been told to write out the square roots of every number from 1 to 200. Gee...That's pretty heartless. I only would've told you to write the square root of two to the last decimal place.

JustDukky

Joined: 7/8/2004

Msg: 89 (view)

Public Ignorance on Global Warming (and science in general) Posted: 11/24/2009 2:34:54 PM
@ Paul I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, I would call it FRAUD.... How about conspiracy to commit fraud? (If I recall correctly, conspiracy is MUCH worse than fraud and carries a harsher sentence.) you are hereby promoted back to JustDukky... Gee... Thanks Sarge!...Am I off latrine duty yet? ...take it on a case by case basis. I love you too Sweetiekins! Please be advised though, that I draw the line at wet kisses, and nothing more than heavy petting on the first date.

Show ALL Forums