May 29, 2012
Still redundantly pathetic. You have to rely on a challenge you know no one would address. Tell ya what. Post your real name, address, email and phone number. When I contact you and confirm the information's validity, I will post the information you request. (Jan 3, 2014 | post #597)
I see. So someone that makes a decision before education is a bad reflection on education? Interesting. Interesting view. Homosexuality and pedophilia are pretty much on equal ground, yet homosexuality is good and pedophilia is sick, right? That's barring the "bordering on" part of the discussion. (Jan 3, 2014 | post #596)
Sure it was. Just as there have been holy men, medicine men... There have been "scientists ". I'm not denying that those tests have been run. The fact remains, it can not duplicate an environment no one knows anything about. That's fine. I have pointed out the other testing is still based on modern challenges that are assptiins of what may have happened prehistorically. The fact remains, no one knows for sure if those challenges duplicate prehistoric effects. They use radio metric dating because of the constant degradation of radioactive isotopes according to what has been learned in the last century or so. It is the best guess, assumption, or theory available. That does not mean it is absolute based on thousands, millions, or billions of years. (Jan 3, 2014 | post #595)
It was considered so at the time. So what? It is still based on modern concepts that may or may not have been constant throughout time. You are not grasping my point about not having the ability to calibrate carbon dating with an object or substance of known age over say 30,000 years old. Any object or substance thought to be that old is based on testing of objects from much more recent history. Therefore dating of objects or substances from before historical record is theoretical. I'm aware you are mocking my mentality. That's what people without a legitimate answer do. (Jan 3, 2014 | post #589)
Yes, it's very apparent when you get shut down, you aren't discussing the subject, and you move on to your limited talking points. Most of which are not even relevant, but implied to be. Phil and Ted were married before finding God. Phil and Kay were high school sweethearts, and had her parents' blessing to get married when she was 16 in 1966. So what? (Jan 3, 2014 | post #588)
Your frustration and inability to prove your case is showing. When you resort to this kind of pathetic, immature babble, your hand has been played. (Jan 3, 2014 | post #581)
Lmao!!! Of course you were. Louisiana doesn't allow homosexual marriage. You conveniently left out a reply to your being proven wrong once again. Again, Phil was referring to a BOY marrying 15 or 16 year old girls, which you conveniently avoid addressing. Phil doesn't want to marry a young girl, he has been happily married to Kay for decades. He married her when she was 16 btw. Hmmmm. He's been married to her for decades when the US has a greater than 50% divorce rate. Imagine that, he must know something that others should consider. (Jan 2, 2014 | post #575)
And again you post opinion as fact. Redundancy doesn't eventually yield truth, contrary to Democrat belief. (Jan 2, 2014 | post #574)
Xstain Mullah Fricassee, you are out manned here. But, I guess you can always fall back on not being the man in your relationships. (Jan 2, 2014 | post #570)
Your research skills are lacking. Or, you once again want to mislead with partial truths. Marriage requirements in Louisiana includes: Applicants must be 18 years of age to obtain a marriage license without parental consent. If an applicant is 16 or 17 years of age, consent of both parents is required. If younger than 16, applicant must have both parents' consent and permission from a Judge in the form of a court order. Maybe you were hoping for a homosexual judge. You were saying? (Jan 2, 2014 | post #569)
You did not acknowledge it in your reply to me. Where was that video filmed? That's funny that you consider 15 year olds marrying sick, making a monogomus committment to eachother before GOD, but think coitus and cunulingis with another man is not. It's obvious that you are grasping and out of ammo when you resort to criticizing typos and autocorrect. Lmao!!!! You are flaunting your pathetic case. (Jan 2, 2014 | post #568)
And I asked for the same backing for the other evidence you claim to prove your point. Deflection is not proof either. There you go again referring to or referencing others. Respond to me. Respond to what I have said, not what others have said, not what you want to respond to. I am asking you to back your claim on a scientific basis, which is what you have referenced. I'm playing on your field. Now, back your claims with solid scientific backing. Two of my three degrees are in science. I know how research, studies, and journal papers work. Prove that you do as well. (Jan 2, 2014 | post #567)
That's a long consultation with the puppet masters. (Jan 2, 2014 | post #562)
I notice you left out a response to the rest of my post. Why is that? The one aspect you did address, you are wrong on. In the State of Louisiana, where Phil lives, under age marriage is permitted with parental concent. (Jan 2, 2014 | post #561)
I asked for proof of accuracy via calibration of carbon dating. You simply reply that the evidence is overwhelming. That is not proof Einstein. (Jan 2, 2014 | post #560)
Q & A with Prep-for-Dep
Lake Charles, LA
I Belong To:
C.P.R. (Constituents for Political Reform)
When I'm Not on Topix:
I'm working. More people should try it.
Read My Forum Posts Because:
I know how to solve America's issues.
I'm Listening To:
Read This Book:
Camping, Shooting, Fishing, Hunting, Prepping
On My Mind:
Preparing for hard times and celebrating good ones.
I Believe In:
The US Constitution and it's legally ratified amendments.