stevestojan Posted February 5, 2005 Author Share Posted February 5, 2005 From Dictionary.com day n. 1. The period of light between dawn and nightfall; the interval from sunrise to sunset. 2. 1. The 24-hour period during which the earth completes one rotation on its axis. 2. The period during which a celestial body makes a similar rotation. 3. Abbr. D One of the numbered 24-hour periods into which a week, month, or year is divided. It doesn't seem like the definition was really changed all that much. 229405[/snapback] Hey, knock yourself out with the religion thing. I choose to believe in things that i can actually see, touch, hear. You choose to believe in a book written by men, full of some nice little fables. To each their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 Hey, knock yourself out with the religion thing. I choose to believe in things that i can actually see, touch, hear. You choose to believe in a book written by men, full of some nice little fables. To each their own. 229411[/snapback] I wasn't trying to debate about religion, I was simply wondering why you said he changed the definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njsue Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 Eye for and Eye Tooth for a tooth. I say fry the parasites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB2004 Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 I honestly would have no problem flipping the switch on these two. Actually, that is way too easy an out for these monsters... god, this is sick: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/04/family.torture/index.html 229287[/snapback] I'm suprised the police weren't contacted sooner. Those two are truly evil, to the fullest extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 This is pretty sh-------, but I still dont' support the death penalty. The question is a misleading question. Would I support the death penalty for these two? !@#$ yeah. Do I think that frying these guys and frying an innocent is worth it where as the innocent could at least be released later even if he was in prison? No. Therefore I still don't support the death penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB2004 Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 This is pretty sh-------, but I still dont' support the death penalty. The question is a misleading question. Would I support the death penalty for these two? !@#$ yeah. Do I think that frying these guys and frying an innocent is worth it where as the innocent could at least be released later even if he was in prison? No. Therefore I still don't support the death penalty. 229448[/snapback] I'm not a fan of it either, but after reading this story I think I might be convinced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarthur31 Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 I like your avatar. I'm a Netscape man myself, though I'm considering the switch to Mozilla. 229385[/snapback] Netscape was built on the same engine that created Mozilla and Firefox. The latter two are not bloated with stupid crap that you don't need and runs alot better! P.S., to reply to this thread: it makes you wonder how these people were allowed to adopt these kids. Don't they have to abide by stringent rules? Rosie O'Donnell pales in comparison; at least she loves her kids. Not starting a political rant here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjeff215 Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 Hey, knock yourself out with the religion thing. I choose to believe in things that i can actually see, touch, hear. You choose to believe in a book written by men, full of some nice little fables. To each their own. 229411[/snapback] I'm not a religious person myself. For the life of me, though, I can't understand why the split between the believers and the non-believers is so large. Each side has so much unnecessary animosity towards the other. If religion and belief in God makes life that much easier for someone, well then I'd argue it's a good thing. If the notion of heaven comforts you and the notion of a master plan lets you enjoy your life, that's a good thing. Extremists on either side drive me nutty, though. We can talk about these types all day long... change "the pledge", Cobb County Georgia "evolution" warning stickers.... As for the topic - I don't know the numbers, but I would assume life in prison is actually CHEAPER than 25 years on death row, 100 appeals, and a staged execution. I'm for whichever costs the taxpayers less. -Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 I think that you people are over reacting. For one thing, there was no evidence of sexual abuse. Second, they might have been trying to keep the kids from being obese, and were doing a good job of it. Also, they let them sleep in the closet in the master bedroom, which was probably a nicer closet than in one of the smaller bedrooms. They also were providing relaxing music with the wind chimes hooked up to the closet door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerJ Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 The worst these two bowls of pond scum can get is 30 years to life. Presumably they can eventually qualify for probation, but as has been stated, prison justice may take care of them before that day ever comes. While human beings are capable of amazing acts of cruelty, I don't see that as disproving God. Human beings are also capable of incredible acts of selfless giving. I might not be in exactly the same place as Kurt Godel theologically, but I've never found science to be the enemy of my faith. I agree with stevestojan that only one religion can be right though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 My question has always been: of all of the religions in the world, AT MOST one can be "right". What makes you believe yours is that one. 229398[/snapback] One can be right or many can be right about some things. Any philosophy can be wrong whether it be religious or otherwise. Religious people don't have a monopoly on taking something on faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 Speaking of sick, twisted individuals.... http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/05/alabama.killings/index.html Can't think of a much worse way to go... CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thamus Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 Speaking of sick, twisted individuals.... http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/05/alabama.killings/index.html Can't think of a much worse way to go... CW 229536[/snapback] Sad, sad. Neighbors that don't give a phuck, family that won't go the extra mile, Dept. of Human Services that say "Oh well." Try them all. Try them for being "apathetic." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 Sad, sad. Neighbors that don't give a phuck, family that won't go the extra mile, Dept. of Human Services that say "Oh well." Try them all. Try them for being "apathetic." 229538[/snapback] The neighbors were probably afraid of being sued for scaring the bad guys.... http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=17532 CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thamus Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 The neighbors were probably afraid of being sued for scaring the bad guys.... http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=17532 CW 229539[/snapback] That's no excuse, period! Scared of being sued? Live your life, don't hesitate to get innvolved and sort the rest out later! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 It must be nice knowing there is One answer to every single question. 229396[/snapback] First people complained because they thought religion couldn't explain what happened with the Dollars. Now they're complaining because it can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP-era Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 I honestly would have no problem flipping the switch on these two. Actually, that is way too easy an out for these monsters... god, this is sick: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/04/family.torture/index.html 229287[/snapback] Abso-FRIKKIN-lutely! Theres a reason people dont steal in Turkey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 Wow - you religious types must have been pretty excited when a scientist actually helped you out by completely changing the definition of the word day to fit. 229398[/snapback] You are aware that the original version of Genesis wasn't written in English, right? Now, maybe you're a Hebrew scholar who has strong opinions about whether the Hebrew word for day can be used to mean a period of 24 hours. But even if you are; Schroeder addressed your concerns by pointing out that old writings interpreting the Genesis text stated that the 6 days of Creation were different from other days. Schroeder was careful to find old writings to support this, so that he could not be accused of reinventing Biblical interpretation to suit the needs of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 Gerald Schroeder is a former MIT physics professor, and currently teaches at the Hebrew University. He wrote a book called The Science of God, in which he reconciles the Book of Genesis with established science. Based on the Big Bang theory and on measurements of things like red shift, the universe is 15 billion years old. According to the Book of Genesis, God used six days to create everything. Schroeder pointed out that the word "day" cannot refer to the length of time it takes for the Earth to rotate once on its axis; because the Earth didn't exist at the beginning of Creation. So he interpreted the word "day" to mean "a period of time 24 hours long." Schroeder explained that the universe is explanding at nearly the speed of light. As Einstein's relativity theory points out, time is relative. If you are in a space ship traveling at nearly the speed of light, a clock on board the ship might indicate your journey has lasted just 20 minutes. A clock back on Earth might indicate the journey took 20 million years. Because time is relative, neither clock is more correct than the other--they are both right in the relative sense. From the perspective of someone on Earth looking back into the past, the universe has been around for 15 billion years. But because of the relativistic time effects of the universe's expansion, the perspective of someone physically present at the Big Bang would be somewhat different. According to Schroeder's calculations, from the perspective of an observer physically present at the Big Bang, the universe has been around for about six periods of twenty-four hours each. 229378[/snapback] Nice to see you know as much about relativistic physics, cosmology, and theology as you do about everything else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawnboy1977 Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 As far as the problem of evil: God could have given us free will, or he could have given us a perfect world. He started by giving us both. But because of Adam and Eve's sin, the world itself became a messed-up place, and human nature became deeply flawed. We still have free will though; and in the case of the Dollars they chose to use their free will to make the world a much worse place for the children under their care. 229380[/snapback] fairy tales sure are fun arent they!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts