Batwoman is a lesbian!

[socal_rob]

You know after reviewing this thread, I've realized a few things. How desperate people can be when trying shove a belief system down your throat. When out of one side of the matter we hear "it's my private life and what happens in my bedroom is my business" then in the next breath. "It's normal and your should just accept my lifestyle without saying one word or expressing your opinon"

The only people trying to shove a belief system down anyone's throat are the right wing. It's Jesus or bust. Being gay isn't a lifestyle. It's how one is born. You can point to the Bible (or whatever religious text) all you want, but that doesn't change the truth. This isn't about accepting a lifestyle. It's about showing respect and not belittling, degrading, or devaluing another person or his/her relationship. And until the right wing shows some respect, I certainly won't show any towards them.

Now more than ever it is vital for people of principal to stand up to the outright lies being foisted upon society by the left wing. The liberal left wing seems to believe that if they tell the lie (whatever it is) enough, it will become truth. Science isn't important. Evidence isn't important. Fact isn't important. Just keep repeating the same thing over and over again - and somehow it will become truth.

This is just silly. The only people who ignore scientific truth are the right wing because it causes a moral quandry for them. How can science prove X, but the Bible state Y? Oh no. Better believe the Bible. No evidence, but we'll believe it anyway. Give me a break.

This debate has really discouraged me. Just because I don't think the way you do and have a biblical outlook on these matters, I am called a bigot and accused of ridicule and discrimination. Where is the "tolorance" you scream about Rob for my views? Am I the only one who is supposed to stand around and listen to some of this garbage and keep my mouth shut. Are my rights to an opinion second hand to yours?

I have no tolerance for views that suggest a group of people aren't equal, normal, and deserving of the same rights and privileges as all other members of society. If you tell me you believe in creationism and accept all people, regardless of sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, whatever, I have no problem with that. If you tell me that the creator/designer made them all and they all deserve to be treated equally and with respect, I will say bravo! I still won't believe in a creator. But I will respect your beliefs. However, if you suggest that any group of people - in this thread's case, gay people - are somehow not equal, I have no tolerance for that viewpoint. Anyone who uses myth, dogma, even science to degrade another human being, to somehow suggest (stated or otherwise) that such a person is lesser doesn't deserve tolerance. It is such thinking that gave us the crusades, witch burning, slavery, the holocaust, and countless other crimes against humanity. And what do all of these events have in common? Religious - Christian - justification. I don't see the Buddhists or the Hindus or the Native Americans or the Australian Aborigines or... committing genocide. It's largely a western/Christian phenomenon. Sorry, can't get around it.

I won't accept bullsh*t like the Marriage Amendment writing discrimination into our constitution. I won't accept religious psuedo-science such as conversion therapy ruining lives. And I won't show tolerance towards any person who approaches the issue from this perspective. I will simply stand up to him or her and debate the issue on facts, something dogmatic thinkers can't handle because they have no facts in their arsenal, just "faith."

Just because I don't agree with someones lifestyle or religous training, does not mean that when I meet that person in a store or on the street that they do not get a handshake and hello from me. One of my best friends is of a totally diferent faith. You paint people who disagree with your as anti-social, anti-mainstream, and non-enlightened. You should not use such broad strokes when you paint my friend.

Anyone who says gay people make a choice is not enlightened. I'm sorry. There are some absolutes. I have a great disdain for organized religion and the Christian faith in particular. More people have been murdered in Christ's name than any other, yet Christians talk endlessly about love and tolerance. Where is it? What of the kids who are routinely molested by clergy, only to have said clergy shipped off to some "rehabilitation" center and not stand trial? And what of the gay people who are taught every day to feel shame for being what they are. What of the repeated genocide committed in the name of God (Christian or otherwise)? Where is the love? Where is the tolerance? What purpose does religion serve other than to drive a wedge between people?

The truth is the world is not headed in the right direction. Turn on the news and after an hour of CNN you'll likey be disgusted. The world and society is a wreck. Some societys in Europe are already there, like in someplaces where the Netherlands where pedofiles are free to roam without fear of proscecution.

Drugs, gambling, selfishness, greed, murder, abortion by the millions, the things that can ruin a people.
America and her people are hurting.

I am disgusted when I turn on the news. I see the US destabilizing an entire region of the world. I see the US maintaining a gulag in another nation, depriving individuals of due process. I see the US colluding with other nations to run secret prisons. I see millions of people dying of AIDS because the Catholic Church won't support the use of birth control. I see more and more people starving while US oil companies reap record profits. I see drug company profits soar while 3rd World countries suffer horrible pandemics. I see American kids graduating from high school unable to read and write while trillions of dollars get pumped into stupid ideas like a missle shield. And I could go on and on.

I also see other countries being able to debate these issues while we stick our heads in the sand.

Yes, America and her people are hurting. But they aren't hurting because of a lack of God. They are hurting because the same righteous right wing that preaches intolerance towards gay people is all about corporate profits at the expense of the public. Every American alive today is in debt over $30K. That's how HUGE our deficit is. And who's going to be saddled with that burden? Our kids. Our kids' kids. And who holds most of our debt? China. They don't even have to fire a single shot to win the war. They'll own us pretty soon.

Have you even been to Europe? Let's see....every country has a far lower murder rate, crime rate, abortion rate, etc. than the US. They also have far better health care for EVERY member of their society and a better education system. Do they have problems? Absolutely. But they are hardly the wreck we are.

And abortion? Why do you suppose that happens? American kids aren't taught about sex. They aren't given the resources to prevent pregnancy. Instead, they are fed some inane abstinence mumbo-jumbo. So they get pregnant. I'd also like to know why all the good Christians who hope to deprive a woman of her right to choose aren't lining up to adopt the babies. So long as the baby is born, that's all the matters? Who cares if it lives a miserable life from that point on? And, for the record, I am ethically opposed to abortion. However, I'm far more opposed to the idea of a society that forces women to bring unwanted kids into the world, only to have those kids neglected - or worse.

But no, none of this matters. Instead, let's worry about gay marriage (or something equally non-consequential). Let's be guided by "faith", not reason. Let's preach abstinence and then marvel at the high abortion rate. Let's spend our tax money making giant corporations rich while the public is thrown crumbs.

Am I intolerant towards this way of thinking? Absolutely. And I make no apologies for that.

And, yes, I know we're on a huge tangent now. I also want to make it clear that I'm not directing the latter part of my post towards you personally. I'm merely giving my opinion on why this country is "hurting" and some of the forces I perceive to be at work. What side of these arguments you fall upon, I do not know.

 

[socal_rob]

You're the one who said that the planets age and that evolution can be proved.... your the one now that must bring evidence. Why did you turn that around spin dr. Rob?

Carbon dating, among other scientific techniques, has given us a very good idea of the planet's age. Any kid who went to a decent school knows this.

Type "How old is the earth?" into Google and see what you find. Here's the first hit:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#howold

Of course you'll find plenty of creationist psuedo-science too. So I guess it all depends on which methods you feel are strongest. And, of course, the creationist psuedo-science is usually associated with, as one website put it, a "mission to bring people to Jesus." With such a strong bias, I can't take their "evidence" seriously. Find me one impartial study that supports creationism, one study that isn't linked to a religious agenda. Such a study's findings I would consider in earnest.

Ultimately I see the debate between creationism and evolution in the following terms. Creationism has already determined its conclusion. The "evidence" gathered is only gathered to support that conclusion. This is not very scientific in my mind. The theory of evolution has evolved (no pun intended) over the years. It wasn't like Darwin set out with the goal of proving some absolute idea. Instead, he observed and his observations led him to establish a theory, which has been tested again and again and again. With each test, we move closer to the answer, but we still don't have ALL of the answers.

That said, we do have evidence of evolution, just as we have evidence of the earth's age. On the other hand, creationists already have the answer. They are simply trying to fill in the holes to suit their belief system. Anything that contradicts it must be false. This isn't science.

So...There's no spin here. I'm just waiting for you to prove something - ANYTHING - to me. But, instead, you avoid the questions and repeat the dogma.

 

[socal_rob]

The left and the right are essentially the same, entirely consumed with making others conform to their notions and values. Different notions and values, same goal, to restrict the liberty of certian groups of people for transient reasons through legislation.

I'm not sure I agree here. I don't see the left introducing legislation like the Marriage Amendment. Nor do I see the left trying to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies. Nor do I see the left trying to make public (PUBLIC) school systems force prayer upon the students.

While I will agree that the left has its own questionable motives on many issues, it is the right who seeks conformity and left who generally seeks less social restrictions. Of course this is very ironic considering the right is supposed to be about personal liberty and conservative thinking. But conservative these days has nothing to do with small government and allowing individuals to make determinations about their own lives. Conservative = God Fearing.

Liberty is more than being free, its being able to ignore others being free when their expression of freedom annoys/offends you.

I agree 100%.

 

[OutOfStep]

They both suck, anyone who subscribes in majority to any one party's dogma is nothing more than a sheeple on hoof.

Here's the breakdown:

-The right wants strong freedom of religion and by religion I mean Christianity; the left wants freedom to be spiritual (get out your red string) and thinks Christians are ignorant bigots and should be removed from the Earth.

-The right is pro self defense until it gets in the way of the government; the left is pro depend on the government for your all your defense needs much like a serf (don't worry, they'll take real good care of you)

-The right is pro capitalism and will use public funds to prop up their buddies business; the left is anti-capitalism (that is when they're not making money selling Che T-Shirts or raping family farms) and will use public funds to prop up their buddies business

-The right doesn’t care too much about foreign policy (its the "we'll do what we want even if it makes everyone hate us and wastes astronomical amounts of money" technique); the left wants to kowtow to every dictator and surrender our rights to the United Nations

-The right wants to keep our healthcare system in the hands of private insurers so that we can all die before our healthcare is approved by them; the left wants to create a socialist healthcare system so that we can all die waiting in line or during our procedure provided by a third rate doctor on third rate equipment because there's no money in medicine in the US

-The right wants to censor everything they find offensive (including your thoughts); the left wants to censor everything they find offensive (plus they believe that subliminal messages on Judas Priest albums can make you kill yourself).

-The right wants to throw some change at the feet of the middle class while the rich get richer; the left want to squash all the rich people that haven’t contributed heavily to the party

-The right wants our borders perforated because of the cheap labor and right learning immigrants; the left wants our borders perforated because of the cheap labor and the hope that they can switch the political tide by with fiery political rhetoric and an eventual migration of the communism in central and south American countries.

-The right wants to privatize your social security so you can screw it up yourself and die penniless after the stock market crash while greeting people at Wal-Mart, the left wants to make it a communist program so that you can die a ward of the state.

-The right wants to cut taxes with the left hand and raise them with the right; the left wants to raise taxes with the left hand and increase spending for public programs with the right.


I'd bring up voting record but I'm feeling lazy, however, I will tell you that Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Robert Byrd, and Diane Feinstein are no friends of liberty.

 

[socal_rob]

They both suck, anyone who subscribes in majority to any one party's dogma is nothing more than a sheeple on hoof.

Here's the breakdown:

-The right wants strong freedom of religion and by religion I mean Christianity; the left wants freedom to be spiritual (get out your red string) and thinks Christians are ignorant bigots and should be removed from the Earth.

-The right is pro self defense until it gets in the way of the government; the left is pro depend on the government for your all your defense needs much like a serf (don't worry, they'll take real good care of you)

-The right is pro capitalism and will use public funds to prop up their buddies business; the left is anti-capitalism (that is when they're not making money selling Che T-Shirts or raping family farms) and will use public funds to prop up their buddies business

-The right doesn’t care too much about foreign policy (its the "we'll do what we want even if it makes everyone hate us and wastes astronomical amounts of money" technique); the left wants to kowtow to every dictator and surrender our rights to the United Nations

-The right wants to keep our healthcare system in the hands of private insurers so that we can all die before our healthcare is approved by them; the left wants to create a socialist healthcare system so that we can all die waiting in line or during our procedure provided by a third rate doctor on third rate equipment because there's no money in medicine in the US

-The right wants to censor everything they find offensive (including your thoughts); the left wants to censor everything they find offensive (plus they believe that subliminal messages on Judas Priest albums can make you kill yourself).

-The right wants to throw some change at the feet of the middle class while the rich get richer; the left want to squash all the rich people that haven’t contributed heavily to the party

-The right wants our borders perforated because of the cheap labor and right learning immigrants; the left wants our borders perforated because of the cheap labor and the hope that they can switch the political tide by with fiery political rhetoric and an eventual migration of the communism in central and south American countries.

-The right wants to privatize your social security so you can screw it up yourself and die penniless after the stock market crash while greeting people at Wal-Mart, the left wants to make it a communist program so that you can die a ward of the state.

-The right wants to cut taxes with the left hand and raise them with the right; the left wants to raise taxes with the left hand and increase spending for public programs with the right.


I'd bring up voting record but I'm feeling lazy, however, I will tell you that Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Robert Byrd, and Diane Feinstein are no friends of liberty.

Extreme, but I generally agree.

The only point I'd take issue with is the idea that the right wants freedom of religion. Not in the least. They want government-sactioned Christianity. They want to ignore our country's history, the whole reason we broke away from England in the first place, the whole concept of freedom of/from religion, and force prayer upon school kids and post the ten commandments in goverment buildings. This is not freedom of religion. This is (mild) theocracy.

I also don't believe that the left thinks Christians are ignorant bigots. Some Christians, perhaps, but not all. Plenty of people on the left consider themselves Christian. However, they also respect (a few of) the ideals upon which this country was founded and value a strong separation of church and state - because they understand the dark path of state-sanctioned (or, worse, mandated) religion.

So, what's the solution? Or are we simply screwed?

 

[90Xjay]

.....

I have no tolerance..... .......I have no tolerance for that viewpoint....
......
I won't accept...... I won't accept religious psuedo-science.... .....And I won't show tolerance towards any person who approaches the issue from this perspective.......

Anyone who says gay people make a choice is not enlightened.... I have a great disdain for organized religion and the Christian faith in particular......


Am I intolerant towards this way of thinking? Absolutely. And I make no apologies for that.

Dude, you have issues..........

 

[90Xjay]

Carbon dating, among other scientific techniques, has given us a very good idea of the planet's age. Any kid who went to a decent school knows this.

Type "How old is the earth?" into Google and see what you find. Here's the first hit:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#howold

Of course you'll find plenty of creationist psuedo-science too. So I guess it all depends on which methods you feel are strongest. And, of course, the creationist psuedo-science is usually associated with, as one website put it, a "mission to bring people to Jesus." With such a strong bias, I can't take their "evidence" seriously. Find me one impartial study that supports creationism, one study that isn't linked to a religious agenda. Such a study's findings I would consider in earnest.

Ultimately I see the debate between creationism and evolution in the following terms. Creationism has already determined its conclusion. The "evidence" gathered is only gathered to support that conclusion. This is not very scientific in my mind. The theory of evolution has evolved (no pun intended) over the years. It wasn't like Darwin set out with the goal of proving some absolute idea. Instead, he observed and his observations led him to establish a theory, which has been tested again and again and again. With each test, we move closer to the answer, but we still don't have ALL of the answers.

That said, we do have evidence of evolution, just as we have evidence of the earth's age. On the other hand, creationists already have the answer. They are simply trying to fill in the holes to suit their belief system. Anything that contradicts it must be false. This isn't science.

So...There's no spin here. I'm just waiting for you to prove something - ANYTHING - to me. But, instead, you avoid the questions and repeat the dogma.

Nobody can proove anything to you... you have a closed mind.:-|
You will only accept the "scientific" data that supports your belief system.
You are no different than a conservative christian creationist, you just "believe" the opposite viewpoint. No matter what I will bring up, you will "google" until you find something to use to disprove it in your mind so you can sleep better.

 

[socal_rob]

Nobody can proove anything to you... you have a closed mind.:-|

Not true. Science led me away from religion. It's not like I was raised this way. I spent my entire high school and college career in parochial schools. My mind is extremely open. It's just not open to dogma.

You will only accept the "scientific" data that supports your belief system.

No, I will accept objective scientific study. I will not accept "science" with a religious agenda. Show me a shred of evidence from an objective, non-religious perspective that evolution is bunk, that the world is only a few thousand years old, or that gay people choose their sexuality and I will gladly consider it. Yet, no matter how many times I ask, you still haven't offered anything. Instead now it has become about my having a closed mind. Well, perhaps you see it that way, but that's because I've actually put demands on the process, demands you cannot meet.

You are no different than a conservative christian creationist, you just "believe" the opposite viewpoint. No matter what I will bring up, you will "google" until you find something to use to disprove it in your mind so you can sleep better.

Here's the rub. You still haven't offered anything. So how do you know what I will and won't accept?

So, once again, I'll tell you...

I won't accept an argument coming from a religious perspective. That's nothing more than already having one's answer and trying to find data that supports it. Any data collected, or conclusion reached, under such circumstances is extremely biased and, in my eyes, faulty. On the other hand, I will accept any argument that objectively evaluates data from an impartial and scientific viewpoint.

Not hard to understand.

I won't ask you to offer any sort of evidence again - for creationism, against evolution, on why gay is a choice, or whatever else. You are clearly incapable of doing so. The perils of being trapped by dogma...

 

[socal_rob]

Dude, you have issues..........

No, actually, I've freed myself of the issues.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

Nobody can proove anything to you... you have a closed mind.:-|

Pot: "Hi, Kettle!"

Kettle: "Hi, Pot."

Pot: "You're black."

 

[Sparky-Watts]

Dude, you have issues..........

See previous post......

 

[TwistedCU]

I think I waited too long to jump in, as this discussion has gone all over the map.

The only thing I would like to note is that Social Rob continues to use examples of a few to stereotype the many when dicussing Christians. You are the one with hatred inside you Rob. Your posts reek of it.

Also, your futile attempt to back up your statement that homosexuality is a genetic, bological, or simply anything other than choice was based on the Swedish study examining the reaction of a brain. Well this does not show anything of the sort. It is comparable to Pavlov's dog salivating when the dinner bell rings. Learned behavior.

As for Mingez's reply saying there is no proof that it is not, well he was the one who made the claim that I asked him to back up. He cannot.

YOu see, what you have is a theory. an unproven theory. You can't call it fact, nor claim it to be true if it is not proven. My proof is that it has not been proven. I do not need to prove it untrue as all I am saying is it is not something that be claimed to be scientific fact.

My problem is I am tired of people claiming that it is scientific fact that homosexuality is a genetic or biological condition. It is not scientific fact. That's all I am saying, that's why I asked for proof, and once again, it cannot be proven.

So, if it can not be proven, regardless if or not it can be disproved...
YOU CAN'T ACCURATELY CALL IT FACT

Social Rob, you assume because I am unwilling to believe the fruitless claims of your community that I am some sort of gay-hater. I am not. I am a BS hater. You all have the right to do whatever you like, just don't distort the truth to make yourselves sound like poor victims of nature in order to justify it. If you are gay, and you like being gay, then be gay - without an explanation. It is pitiful to cower behind lies just because so many look down upon it. If you are comfortable with it then you shouldn't need to get anyone's consent.

For example. I am a Christian. I know there are people out there who's skin crawls when I say that. I know that in many countries I would be killed for merely announcing it. This does not stop me from saying cleanly that I made the decision to accept and follow Christ.

Why it is so important for homosexuals to somehow justify their actions by trying to instill false beliefs unto society? Why would it be so difficult to admit that you just prefer things that way? I'll tell you why - it's because you seek acceptance from those who would normally or naturally be repulsed by it, so you appeal to them as victims. It is cowardly. A very effective tactic, yes, but very cowardly.

Lastly, as for the one example of the guy in DC and the "therapy" you mentioned (again one example to try to describe the norm)...
I mentioned no therapy, you did. I am speaking of men and women that CHOSE to turn from that "lifestyle". They exist and I have personally met and discussed these very topics with them. They only strengthen my viewpoint.

I've had enough of this topic. There's my $.02. Enjoy cutting and pasting and replying because you have the last word. I'm going to join my wife in bed as we are starting our Vacation early tomorrow.

 

[TwistedCU]

The only thing I would like to note...

okay so there were a few things.


by the way folks, many of you are getting kind of personal here. Keeping the tone a friendly debate is the only way a thread like this won't get locked

Carry on

 

[Laph]

:agree: nicley put.
wow, you spanked him hard :spank:
enjoy your vacation:driving-g
and haver your self a very good time :beer:

 

[OutOfStep]

So, what's the solution? Or are we simply screwed?

Agreed, and most likely screwed :lol:

If you look at the history of the world governments go through typical stages from inception to collapse. It begins with the country galvanized by patriotism but poor, as time passes the country develops and accumulates wealth, eventually such a level of wealth is accumulated that the inhabitants begin to live very decadent lives, before long they are so decadent that they cannot even be bothered with affairs of government, slowly the government begins to usurp power from the people (for the good of the people of course), eventually the decadence collapses (typically due to corruption) and the people realize that they are trapped by a despotic government, which leads to rebellion and starts the whole process all over again. The typical timeframe for this cycle in the classical world was approximately 10 generations (or 200 years).

I read a very interesting writing on the subject, but unfortunately I cannot remember what it was titled

 

[mud4feet]

After just getting off the road for 13 hrs. (755 mi. in a day).................

#1: as to the original post, batwoman is not real.......I could care less about "her" sexual orientation. I think children should first be taught the differnce between "real" and "not real" (ie: video games, movies, comics). They learn a whole lot on their own, but seem to need direction with this.

#2: SoCal......science does lie, although they don't know it at the time (re: the earth is flat, man can't fly, etc., etc.) Heck, we might actually discover that E DOESN'T equal MC squared.......who knows? As mudwoman has pointed out to me, ART doesn't lie....it's from the heart of the artist. Science seeks the truth, but along the way, they are very often wrong.

#3: I am a Christian, but I wear it in my heart and not on my sleeve. It's sad to see that so many are unbelieving, but, alas, it just shows that the Holy Spirit's work is not yet done. So the world goes on.....yes it sucks, it always has (in my lifetime, anyway), and so we go our faulty ways and try to improve it. Intolerance is not the way, in my humble opinion.

#4: SoCal, I appreciate the fact that, although you don't seem to be a believer, you do at least show the respect of capitalization (Jesus, Christ, God, etc.)

#5: OutOfStep....you crack me up!! I like your outlook. Politics sucks, in my humble opinion. If you want to label me anything, label me "left handed"........you will be absolutely correct. Other than that, all this "left", "right", "liberal", "conservative", "Republican", "Democrat", etc. is just a bunch of BS!!!! Think for yourselves.

#6: So people being born homosexual shows God is faulty?????? I don't believe so. Perhaps he's testing our tolerance???.......I don't question God's plan for us..........He is the only one that knows. I believe His message is love one another......very, very hard thing to do, but I'm trying. Just another faulty human being, but I'm trying.

#7: I'm very tired and going to bed.


mud

 

[90Xjay]

You still haven't offered anything. So how do you know what I will and won't accept?

You are clearly incapable of doing so. The perils of being trapped by dogma...

Firstly - Micro-evolution, or changes within a species does exist. This is evident in dog breeding and the like. There are varitations within the types of animals. Macro-evolution, or changes from one species to another have never been observed and is unproven.


Evidence #1. Lack of transitional fossils. where is all of the evidence for 4.6 Billion years of earth evolution and 2 million years of human evolution.
The total amount of fossil evidence for transitional forms in humans will fit in the trunk of a good sized car. Should there not be an abundnce of "lucy" type fossils? Heidelberg Man is now widely accepted to be quite human, Nebraska Man was built entirely out of one tooth and some plaster of paris, the tooth was later discoved to have came from a pig. Piltdown Man was exposed in 1953 as a hoax. Steven Gould admitted in The Return of Hopeful Monsters, Natural History, Vol LXXXVI June 1997 " All Paleontologist know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermeditate forms, transitons between major groups are characteristally abrupt"

Evidence #2 Something from Nothing. The Big Bang is the accepted theory of evolution. Everything we know came from a small dense cloud of particles which exploded forming hydrogen and helium. Where did the matter and energy come from? Is is reasonable to assume that it came from nothing? Explosions are destructive and cause dis-order. How can you assume that a big bang explosion produced an oposite effect?

Evidence#3 Complex DNA and RNA. The reproduction and existence of cells require both DNA(the building plan) and RNA (the copy mechanism) How reasonable is it to assume that the two co-dependent systems came into existence by chance, at the same time?

Evidence #4 World population. If man has been on earth for even only1 million years, there would not be enough room for all of the dead bodies. A much more relative calculation of world population is several thousand years.

In this formula Pn is the population after n generations beginning with one man and one woman; n is the number of generations---found by dividing the total time period by the number of years per generation.

The variable x can be thought of as the number of generations that are alive when P is evaluated. Therefore, if x is 2, the generations that are alive are generations n and n-1. This means that only a generation and its parents are alive. It seems reasonable to choose x = 3 most of the time. Taking x = 3 means that when P is evaluated generations n, n-1, and n-2 are all alive.

C is half the number of children in the family. If each family has only two children, the population growth rate is zero, but a reasonable and conservative number of children per family is 2.1 to 2.5 as far as historical records are concerned.

The above formula readily shows the absurdity of evolutionary time scales for mankind. In one million years, if n = 23,256 generations, C = 1.25, and x = 3, the present population of the world would be

P = 3.7 x 10 to the 2091 power of persons. That is 10 with twothousand and 91 zeros!!

In contrast the total number of electrons in the universe is only 10 to the 90th power

Assuming that man has been on the earth for a million years or so, as the evolutionist adamantly insists, we calculate that the entire universe would now be filled full of dead bodies!

Evidence #5 Physicist Thomas Barnes wrote that the earths magnetic field has been measured since about the 1830s and has been on a steady decline. If you take the same rate of decline and reverse the strength, when you aproach about 10,000 years the magnetic field would be so strong as to not promote cell growth or support life.

Evidence#6 Polystrate fossils. Why is it that in the middle of your geoligical column that singe trees are found standing straight through the middle of what is dated at thousands and thousands of years of sediment. Did the tree have a force field around it protecting it from decay, while the earth around it went through the process of laying down thousands of years of sedimentary layers?

Evidence # 7 In Glen Rose, Texas in 1983, in the bed of the Paluxy River, why was fossil human footprints found near a dinosaur trackway in the same layer?

Evidence # 8 The Sun is Shrinking! The news came out on the wires March 23rd, 1980. "The suns diamter appears to have been decreasing by about one tenth percent per century" It has been observed for over 100 years and the evidence is not refuted. Every hour the sun shrinks about 5 feet.
Of course not be be alarmed because the sun in nearly a million miles in diameter. If the sun existed 100,000 years ago it would be double its present size and only 20 million years ago the sun would be touching the surface of the earth. Explain that.

Evidence # 9. Why is it that the oldest living thing on earth, the bristlecone pine trees in the white mountains are only 5000 years old. Why have we not found another stand of trees anywhere even 8000 or 10000? If trees like this could live for 5000 then why not 8000 or 10000?

Evidence #10 Why have man-made objects like tools and also human skulls been found all over the world in coal seams?



Now, have all the fun you want refuting the points above, like I predicted you would.

My time is too valuable to waste any more of it on your responses.

Have the last word, have all the last words, write a book if it tickles your too too.

I'm out.

 

[OutOfStep]

#5: OutOfStep....you crack me up!! I like your outlook. Politics sucks, in my humble opinion. If you want to label me anything, label me "left handed"........you will be absolutely correct.

Yeah, the problem with politics is politicians; it's a rarity to meet one that works as a servant of the people for the good of the state or nation. Always the alterior motive lurks beneath.

Naah no label needed

Confucious say:
Labels only apply to individuals too lazy to attempt to define and better themselves. If the self is always evolving then no label could ever be correct.

 

[JeepMonkey]

I'm sorry I got this thread started. Can we please shut it down?

 

[Laph]

this is not proof for any which way, i just thought i would post the link thought it was neat. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5080298.stm