Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
i think any skepticism i had regarding the outcome of gay-marriage children was squashed when i heard that little boy speak. He is more articulate and intelligent than just about every other straight-marriage kid put together. No fussing over the little things...
I would love to be able to sit down and talk to Alex. He seems like me in many ways though his connection to the LGBT community is less direct than mine since I am bisexual. I have been teased by people about it but I don't care. I'm sure he was talking about Stephen Harper there and now he has a majority government.
That brought a lot if tears to my eyes. Especially since I know what he is going through. I mean he takes it way better than I do. And yes I get way scared of bullies and all that crap. Only specific people know. Which I know I should not be scared and stuff. I just try to avoid the subject, like in school. It's hard.
he seems like an incredibly sweet kid, and I guess it became very apparent to me that most of the problems people associate with having gay parents actually come from the intolerant society surrounding the parents. Its sad that anyone should feel shame for being loved by anyone just because it's not traditional. def an interesting documentary.
To those that fight with Peter,the white madhi(Peter Gabriel Games Without Frontiers"if looks could kill they probably will")born 12/22/1979,the 12the Imam aka Zarathustra=153(John+21+11=79=Gold),go the spoils of war.Get your guns,bombs,and ammunition and converge on the Bay Area.Do not hesitate to kill.All done for Allah is permitted,even torture and rape.Remember Abu Graib.The Sun rises in the west.God is real and we are going to let them know.kill the homosexuals
such a smart kid. so glad family structures that are unconventional in the media are coming to the forefront of society. the world needs to be educated!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"A lot of the kids at the school were homophobic" - what percentage? 90%? 80%?
Don't worry - a few weeks of 'sensitivity training' and THREATS should probably sort them out.
His mother shouldn't have had him since she knew she was a lesbian, as simple as that. Since two lesbians can't make a baby together, and they intended to stay together, why ruin a child's life like this?
(Don't tell me, they're 'wonderful', yadda yadda yadda. Even HE isn't convinced...)
@packoftwenty oh my god what are you saying? That the parent's should've just "turned" straight or denied themself the wonderful oppurtunity of raising a child? Don't act like you care about him, everybody knows that there are a lot more worse situations to be raised in and much worse parents to have then having loving parents that you're teased for. Kids are cruel, that's not his parent's fault. And it's hard, but there's some people who need to absorb some of the hate for the sake of
Just listen to how this kid talks. "I just felt blessed". Really. So having a non-biological 'parent' is better than having your own father looking after you every day, with your own mother?
How do you work that out? If it's so wonderful, why haven't societies been doing this for thousands of years?
Could it possibly be anything to do with the 'gay agenda'? Is this video supposed to make us think that 'gay parents' are somehow wonderful?
@packoftwenty so who are you blaming? the parents? the people who are being ignorant are the ones to blame. not the child or the parents who are just trying to live their lives.
@packoftwenty No one's saying it's better, or even ideal. It's different, but equal in the respect that they are good loving parents as far as I can tell. And it's widely known that Greece normalized same-sex relationships in ancient times. The reason why that went under and hasn't resurfaced for awhile was because of the spread of catholicism and christianity, which stamped that down. And what gay agenda? I didn't even know what that meant until I went and looked it up and I was like OMG, this
@packoftwenty is what people think we're trying to do? I just recently realized that I had attractions to my sex, and since then I've realized that's the only thing that's changed about me. Not my clothes, not my hair, and most defenitely do I NOT want to change anybody's orientation because I am proof to MYSELF that this is not possible. Gay people know better than anyone that you cannot be what you are not, so they are the last people who would try to convert anyone. Helping someone come to
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
1:15 - that picture says it all. Look at the terrifying queer on the left. And the women are UGLY - now what a surprise!
Too ugly to get a man? Become a 'lesbian'! Then USE A MAN to have a baby!
Way to go!
You sad sickos need to stop using children as part of your insane social experiments. No normal society condones this sort of insanity. No 'parent' has a right to deny their child their OTHER parent, even before they are born.
I cried when I saw this, I see so much of myself in this young man... I was raised by two moms. And it hurts my heart knowing that he had to deal with all the b.s. that I had to.. It seems like his family loves him very much though and thats what counts most. With as articulate as this boy is... he's going be one of the movers and shakers of the future.
@carmeljuan "He and his moms give me much hope for the future of this world."
Why is that? Because 'gays' are just so much better than NORMAL people? Or because the poor 'gays' have such 'hard' lives, because the majority of people can't stand them?
God help that poor little kid, growing up in such a fucked up environment. Gee... I wonder if he's a brainwashed Libtard, perchance!
great, great, great.....not much more that i can say other that i hope my sons can think like this when they are older....your mothers and fathers should be proud to have raised such a respectful son x
What a fantastically intelligent young man. It's a shame he was teased so much in school, but it seems like he comes from a very loving home. I can only hope my partner and I raise our future children to be just as open-minded, articulate and grateful as this boy. Nice work.
As part of PBS' POV Adoption Stories, we want to hear real stories about your family from you. Send us your videos, and you might receive an iPad or an iTouch!
Visit us at pbs dot org/pov/adoption/myfamily
You can even link to already existing videos on YouTube! Spread the word.
I'm not gay. However, whatever work's the best. ....And afterall, what counts is who Ur yourself and what you going to do about with it. It's not who raised you... but loving family support can not be overvalued. So, I'm peronally open to all and just respect to those who bare you in their minds.
I think you really put things together nicely. I'm happy for you and your family. Sorry about one of your dad's though. I hope this video shows others how wonderful a child can be...having gay parents and all. Your a great example to the world. Congrats on the awards.
LGBT parents and families we want you!! Please submit home videos for an LGBT documentary on parenting by September 1, 2010. Website: Gaybyboomfilm (dot) com
I have so much respect for this kid. My "normal" family fell apart when I was 11 when my mum came out as lesbian. Man that was hard, but it wouldn't have been if it wasn't for homophobic crazies. I'm so glad it happened, now I have mum, dad, and two step mums (thanks to Australia's same sex marriage laws!), but I live with my bio-mum and her partner. The ONLY thing bad about being raised by gay people is the prejudice in todays society, and who's fault is that! Everything else about it is great.
@BelieveIt1051 what in the heck is child abuse about this? Don't you think the child abuse is the politicians who say things that make him feel "worried and upset", all he says is how happy he is that his parents were able to marry. Stop putting words in this child's mouth. He wants his two moms to be together and married. He only suffers when others say that its not right and that he will be unhappy. He is unhappy because people are homophobic.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The ones making him feel worried and upset are the lesbians. Politicians are doing want the majority of voters want, and they are upholding what is normal and moral. The fact that this kid is worried and upset by what is normal and good for society shows that he was raised to be against society and against what is normal.
It doesn't matter what the kid wants. What matters is what he needs. What he needs is a father and a mother, but because of the homosexual deathstyle, he gets neither one.
@BelieveIt1051 well quite frankly we can't get drunk one night and adopt. every one of our kids is a wanted child, an anticipated child, a planned for child, and prepared for child. Can you say the same thing? And just who do you think raise more gay kids. That's right heterosexuals raise them. My parents were straight how come I'm not? Evolution in itself is an intelligent design, who are you to question evolution? Not everything in evolution has to make sense just know everything is connected
Yeah but there's a reason for that. Its because children can't be created between two people of the same sex. You believe in the myth of evolution right? Isn't that a pretty good evolutionary indicator that same-sex couples shouldnt raise children?
And wait a minute; I thought you said homosexuality was an inborn trait. So who cares if heterosexuals raise more homosexuals? It wouldn't be their fault, would it?
So evolution doesn't have to make sense, except when you think it backs you up?
He even admitted that he felt afraid that his "moms" would not stay together, and that "marriage" gave some solidarity and filled a gap in his life. Why? Because he knows that two women being together is not right and that it's not normal. It bound to fail. The only reason he thinks "marriage" will keep them together is because the lesbians drilled it into his head that "marriage" helps people stay together. Guess no told him that 50% of marriages end in divorce.
@BelieveIt1051 Dont you think most people who want to get married do it to stay together with their partner? You could use this argument for any couple really.
I think most have that intention, sure. But many fail when they find out they aren't of strong character and commitment... as is the case with most homosexuals. Plus, their relationship type is bound to fail because a sex is not compatible with the same sex.
would you mind explaining why a homosexual relationship is bound to fail and a heterosexual is not. an could you explain how you know a homosexual relationships do not have strong character or commitment. Where are you getting you information from?
How are the selfish perverts? And how are they committing child abuse?? They seem to be very loving parents and a very loving family. That's what matters.
Child abuse is the physical or psychological/emotional mistreatment of children. He seems to be very adjusted and as he says, he's happy with having his parents. He loves them, and they love him very much. That is what matters. Keep your homophobic comments to your close minded self.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Because they used natural means to have him, that is the 1 man 1 woman union, and then to satisfy their own selfish lusts, they split up into their own immoral deathstyles, that is homosexuality, and they subjected that child to them. If they wanted to be homosexuals, then why did they have to bring a child into it? Why did they have to subject him to that mixed up situation?
Love is important, but it isn't all that matters. A kid needs guidance and discipline just as much as love.
would you mind explaining why a homosexual relationship is not capable of providing guidance and discipline? would you also explain why people want to be homosexual?
It's not capable of providing guidance because it lacks a father or mother. Both have different roles and different effects on their children. Both are needed for the best situation possible for child development.
It's not capable of discipline because homosexuality is at its core a rejection of order and normalcy. It promotes experimentation with that which is unnatural or abnormal. It encourages rebellion against the norm and what is expected of a good person.
Why do some people want to be homosexual? Same reason people make any choice. Because they perceive the benefits to outweigh the consequences. What they consider benefits or consequences depend on the individual. Most simply enjoy a sexual act that is immoral. They delight in doing that which is seen as disgusting or perverted.
Some people come to the realization that homosexuality is greatly harming them, and so they choose to leave the deathstyle, and become heterosexual.
@BelieveIt1051 Do you even know what you are saying? Who would chose to be gay? Who would chose to go thru life constantly harassed, ridiculed, and in fear of their lives everyday. I don't chose to be gay. I wish I wasn't but I am who I am. I can not an will not deny who I am. I don't like girls sorry it's as simple as that.
Who would choose to be homosexual? Most homosexuals would, and do. You're choosing it right now. Some may be homosexual based on mental illness, but as for those who are of sound mind, they all choose to be homosexual.
Christians are harassed, ridiculed, and in fear of their lives everyday in many parts of the world today, like The Sudan. Don't you think their faith is a choice?
I don't think homosexuality is a part of who you are. You can reject it at any time and choose to live right.
@BelieveIt1051 I agree the ideal situation for a child is with it birth parents. However that not the way the world work like it or not. Gay Adoptions is far better than those kids being stuck in foster care. Do you have any idea what happens in foster care. Besides we do damn good jobs of raising children. Why? Because everyone of children is a wanted child, a prepared for child. I mean as hand as we try we can get drunk one night and have a accidental unwanted child Stop listening to Fox News
That may be true of most foster centers, but not all. It certainly doesn't mean we should allow children to go to same-sex couples, which will hurt the child's development anyway. What we should do is focus on making the foster care system the best it can be.
Actually no you don't do a good job raising children. Studies show that kids raised by same-sex couples are 4 to 10 times more likely to be homosexual, among other problems. FoxNews wouldn't dare report a fact like that, mores the pity.
@BelieveIt1051 the face of the matter is your born gay. you do not get to chose. homosexual activity is seen in countless animal species what make us so different?
besides what is wrong with a kid turning out gay anyways?
That may seem like a quaint thought, that you are born to have a certain thought process and behavior and there's nothing you can do about it. Seems like it would remove a lot of responsibility from you, but it doesn't. In fact it will only make you feel worse. Instead of believing that you can decide your own path in life, you are stuck in a mindset of hopelessness. Moreover, you're conditioned to think of yourself in those terms.
Combine this with the fact that your conscience still tells you that it's wrong, and what you get is an individual who blames him or her self and feels like there's only one way out. If life dictates you must be a certain way, the only way out is death. That is why many homosexuals kill themselves, because those in the homosexual movement have made them think that they cannot change no matter how hard they try. But thats wrong. Change is possible, and its success depends on your perseverance.
Homosexuality is not seen in animals as it is in humans, because animals have much lower brain function. Most of those who show homosexual behavior in reality are displaying confusion. They are simply trying to mate with anything.
Besides, humans are not animals. Even if we were, there are plenty of immoral behaviors animals exhibit that civilized humans reject.
What is wrong with it is a higher HIV risk, lower life expectancy, and no chance of reproduction. Just to name a few.
@BelieveIt1051 there are six billion people on this planet. Just how much more reproduction do thin is needed? We don't have enough food to feed everyone. Secondly humans are just as much animals as animals. But go ahead if you wanna believe all that neoconservative brainwashing christian bull-crap go right ahead. I believe in science and you believe in a magic invisible man in the sky.
Well, 29% of the Earth is land, and only 1% is occupied by humans. Food can be grown. In fact, the U.S. alone produces enough food to feed the entire world. Humans arent animals. We have the most complex physical structure of any life form and we have a superior brain which is capable of holding our consciousnesses.
The term "neoconservative" essentially means "fake conservative", or a liberal who pretends to be conservative.
Also, science states that sexuality is not an inborn trait.
@BelieveIt1051 actually you are science states sexuality is a genetic condition. Perhaps if you read a book other than the bible you would know. If the US produces enough food to feed the world than why is the world not being fed? and how can a liberal pretend to be conservative they are two mutually exclusive ideology's. Secondly again humans are animals. True Humans are a bit farther on the evolutionary scale but none the less we share the same origins as animals
No, I'm not a neoconservative, I'm a conservative. A neocon is a liberal who moves to the right. McCain is a decent example. He is a social liberal with some fiscally conservative values. Or Bush, who says he was for free market capitalism and yet used government power and taxpayer funds to influence the market.
Prove it. Prove that sexuality is a genetic condition.
The world isn't being fed because the U.S. government and governments of other countries have trade restrictions on food.
But as for having two mutually exclusive ideologies, I must say I am a bit puzzled at your beliefs. On the one hand you believe in the myth of Darwinian evolution, which states unproductive genes will die out through natural selection, and on the other you believe homosexuality is an inborn trait caused by a gene.
Assuming Darwinian evolution were true, shouldn't a gene that causes behavior that results in no reproduction have died out millions of years ago?
@BelieveIt1051 Actually, this isn't the only gene that would have died out. For people who lived in colder climates, male-pattern baldness would have been a killer. However, due to human ingenuity, we invented hats, and were able to survive such things. Just adding this information. This particular statement is not intended to bolster either side of this argument, however.
@BelieveIt1051 Well perhaps the evolutionary reason for homosexuality to limit population growth and to provide parents to orphans. It is beneficial to the tribe to have adults with no offspring to take care of orphaned offspring.
So then "evolution" has a consciousness and can determine how many people are on the planet and what an orphan is, then based on that it knows how many homosexuals to create out of thin air? Wow! That's interesting. So then why was homosexuality more prevalent thousands of years ago when there was a much lower population?
Also, why are adults with no offspring better at raising and caring for them than adults who do have offspring? I would think those with offspring would be more experienced.
@BelieveIt1051 Plus heterosexuality is just as prevalent today as it was back than. Could you call a tow truck to pull your head out of your ass and get you facts right.
But you made the claim that homosexuality is evolution's way of keeping the population in check. So why was it more prevalent in the past when the population was much lower? Today the population is huge! Yet homosexuality is less prevalent. What happened to evolution keeping the population in check?
So here's the truth. Darwinian evolution is a myth that has been debunked. Homosexuality is a learned behavior, not an inborn trait. People who were once homo have chosen to leave that deathstyle and become hetero. Opposite-sex couples do raise kids who turn out homo because of bad parenting or some traumatic experience. However, children raised by same-sex couples are 4 to 10 times more likely to be homosexual. Children should be raised by loving opposite-sex couples. Thats it.
@BelieveIt1051 I'm done arguing with you. There no point in arguing with a person that fails to acknowledge that they may be wrong, thats refuse to see the truth when it stares them in the face, that refuse to listen to all reasoning and logic.
Your arguments do not make any logical sense. Your facts are fables and fairytale floating around in your head. You sir a true believer and everyone knows there is no debating with a true believer. I pity you sir,
It's not up to me to acknowledge I may be wrong, it's up to you to prove it. You should probably learn the basics of debating before you try it yourself.
Yeah and will your homosexual community be as tolerant as you? I doubt it. You say we should be tolerant of your sick behaviors, yet you can't handle it when someone merely disagrees with you. You're the bigots and you're homophobes.
@BelieveIt1051 Your life must be completely empty for you to waste your time persecuting a little boy and his parents. So what if he grows up gay who cares no sweat off your sack so shut the fuck up. If you feel so strongly against gays why don't you go in the next gay bar you see and preach a little bit. I'm sure my gay brothers and sisters will be happy to hear you message.
@BelieveIt1051 "Darwinian evolution is a myth that has been debunked" Whaaaaat? Haha when did this happen? Why did my biology lecturers not inform me of this!!
They didn't inform you because they aren't about informing students. They are about indoctrinating them.
It was debunked when Darwin first presented it. Since then it has changed forms, but it has been refuted each time by others in the scientific community.
And no, your broken home is the result of your mom's choices.
They're other scientists who do not blindly accept the hypothesis of evolution as fact. They question it and are skeptical of it, like all true scientists are of unproven ideas.
But know this. What you're learning in that university about evolution is not what was originally believed when the hypthesis was first presented, and it's very likely that it will also be discarded as false just as other parts of the hypothesis have been in the past.
Though I believe creation science is correct, no I do not propose it be taught in schools. While it is true, it is also religious, and many people would have a problem with religion being taught in school. Obviously the only correct solution is to teach neither one. Instead, kids should learn about factual subjects, like micro, macro, and home economics, agriculture, first aid, etc. We should also put more time into subjects like American history and Constitutional law.
The cited material isn't peer-reviewed. Also, the people only seem to say that since life is so complex, then it must've been designed. Life is the result of random mutation, and billions of years of trial and error. I put more stock in Dr. Fox's work then this. Thank you, though
Yes it is clearly peer-reviewed. Check the "Peer-Reviewed" section.
Also, in the scientific realm, pointing out that the a hypothesis does not account for certain facts is considered evidence against the hypothesis. However there are plenty of other studies listed there which prove Creation. Such as:
People that agree, reviewing other people that agree a peer-review does not make. Also, you can't just state a hypothesis, say a few things, and not really back it up. Where are the studies done in nature? How do you account for natural selection and genetic inheritance?
So what would you have me do? Present those studies to those who disagree? They'll reject it out of bias, and then what would you say? You'd say it's been discredited.
To account for NS and GI you have to understand what they are first. GI is not evolution. The hypothesis of evolution relies on it, but it does not support it. This is because genetics can carry over good genes and bad genes. So the organism can go either way. Natural selection is just an event that may or may not occur...
There's typically no such thing as a good gene, or a bad gene. Whether a gene is positive, or not, depends on if it's helpful to the creature's survival, in the specific setting and state the creature is in. Also, I never said they all had to agree. It just didn't seem your guys put enough thought in being critical.
There is such a thing as a good and bad gene. Humans define it. A gene that increases risk of diabetes for example will be considered a bad gene. One that bestows above average height will be considered a good gene. But you are correct that nature does not define it. The hypothetical process of Darwinian Evolution wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Therefore species would not necessarily evolve. More than likely they would all die out within 500 years due to defects and other things.
This is why Darwin commented at the end of his book that evolution must be driven by God in order to be possible.
Also, whether a gene is passed on or not is random. Nothing says a beneficial gene will even be passed on in the first place. Nevermind that life has only existed for about 15,000 years, even millions of years is not enough time for present day life to have evolved from inorganic material.
That's funny. Last tme I checked, life has existed for 4.5 billion years. Where on Earth did you get the idea that life has existed for only 15,000 years? We have carbon, and boron dating to prove that to be a lie. And I never said genes are randomly distributed. You're putting words in my mouth.
0_0 4.5 billion?!?!?! Dude, you're waaaaaay off if you really think that. That's almost the entire age of the Earth. Life could not have existed in a time when the Earth was still forming.
Carbon dating on fossils dates back to between 6,000 and 15,000 years.
I didn't say you said that. I said it's random whether a gene is passed on or not. There is no force guiding it.
The Earth is a little over 13 billion years old. Also, boron dating goes way farther than that. I'd like to pose a question to you. If the world is only 15,000 years old, explain dinosaurs.
No, I'm correct. gate(dot)net/~rwms/AgeEarth(dot)html
The Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. So your date for the origin of life cannot fit that time scale. Life is only 15,000 years old at most. Dinosaurs are no exception, however recent carbon dating and archeological discoveries indicate dinosaurs are only about 4,000 to 6,000 years old. So they're anywhere between 4,000 and 15,000 years old.
LOL. Wow man. Your data is just totally out of wack. I'm not sure whether or not you're being serious, or you're just trolling me. Are you saying humans existed with dinosaurs?
No, history says humans existed with dinosaurs. Aside from numerous historical writings about dinosaurs, there are also cave paintings as well as sculptures and inscriptions in the walls of ancient civilizations. s8int(dot)com/phile/page66(dot)html
I think I'm going to stick with the vast majority of the scientific community on this one, thank you very much. The vast majority of dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago, due to the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction, and that the only clade of dinosaura left being the Aves, i.e. birds. I have no idea how you can tell me that life has only existed for 15,000 years.
You should know that consensus isn't how scientific law is established. Do you even know how the 65 million number came about for the dinosaurs? From archeologists, not biologists, who age tested the rock in which the fossils were buried. In other words if I eat some chicken from KFC and bury the bones in 65 million year old dirt and then some archeologist finds it, he'll date the bones as 65 million years old. Biologists test the fossil directly. Tests show them as being thousands of years old.
They use radiometric dating to determine the age of fossils. They take the layers of rock around the fossil, date them, and use that to determine the time-range for the respective dinosaur's life.
You can't fake an element's half life. Also, the Law of Superposition is still in effect to determine time periods. Your chicken bone idea doesn't hold water.
Yeah, and carbon dating uses the half-life of C14 (Carbon 14). If dinosaur fossils were 65 million years old, there would be no measurable C14 left in them, yet tests show that there is. Furthermore, the amounts detected project an age anywhere from 4,000 to 15,000 years.
The chicken bone argument is solid. You can't tell the age of something based on what surrounds it. A simple matter of logic really.
LOL. First off, other elements are used to date dinosaur fossils; uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40. Second, the atoms don't all decay at once. They all decay on their own time. No one can determine when an atom will decay, only how long it will take to decay. That's where the half lives come in. Scientists use a mass spectrometer to determine the ratio of of parent atoms to daughters. The more parent atoms, the younger the fossil and vice-versa.
The half life of uranium is about 4.46 billion years. So unless the fossils you speak of have enough uranium particles to kill any who dare go near them, they can't possible be a mere 65 million years old.
So the only way this method could be used is based on assumption. Assumption that the dinosaurs were killed by a slight dusting of aged uranium. Well, you know what happens when you assume. Suffice it to say, going by the half life of uranium in the dirt is no way to date a fossil either.
The uranium comes from igneous rock; cooled magma. The igneous rock layers, surrounding the sedimentary rock layers which fossils are formed in, are used as markers, marking the beginnings and the ends to the period of time when the sedimentary rock formed. Radiometric dating of the igenous rock layers, surround the sedimentary rock layers, gives scientists an accurate age of the sedimentary rock layers, and the fossils found inside the sedimentary rock layers.
Not so, because nothing indicates that the creature was buried in that rock layer when that layer first formed. That layer may have been there for millions of years before the creature came along and died on it to later be buried in other layers. Plus, if it were swept up in the lava it would have been incinerated. It must have been buried in the layer some time after it cooled, which you can't determine.
I'm not ignoring it. It's a lame argument to begin with. It's not true in all circumstances. The principal states that top layers will be younger and lower layers will be older, but they've found land where this principal is turned upside-down with younger layers on the bottom. Younger layers may be lower if they were created by tectonic overthrust, where the younger molten layer is raised up above sea level. Inversion is another cause of exception to this principal, as is simultaneous layering.
If the Law of Superposition is bunk, then why is it still considered natural law, and still used by the mainsteam of the scinetific community? Layering is the norm in nature. Also, you forgot about radionmetric dating. The law of superposition is one part of the system.
Because it's not bunk in all cases, just in some cases. Or rather, it's true in certain cases, but not all. Just like how natural selection is true in certain cases but not in all cases.
I didn't forget radiometric dating, I said that only applies to the rock, not the fossil. I'm very certain that I addressed that already.
But what I think you're forgetting, and in fact you are, is that carbon dating of C14 in dinosaur bones indicates that dinosaurs died out on an average of 5,700 years ago.
There's no reason to go against something that works. To believe all of these creatures, including man, existed together in only 15,000 time is asinine. The dating works, when the conditions are right.
But you said it yourself, it works only when the conditions are right. The fact of the matter is that all tests done on dinosaur fossils DIRECTLY show that they are no older than 15,000 years, with most being around 5,000 years. Add to this the fact that we have cave paintings, artworks, sculptures, and writings of dinosaurs dated long before 1676 when the first discovered fossil was recorded.
You can only carbon date that far. It doesn't make it that specific age. And no, there are no cave painting with dinosaurs. Mammoth and saber tooth cats, but no dinosaurs.
That is correct sir. We can only carbon-date as far back as about 150,000 years because that is the shelf life of C14. However, if the dinosaur bones had been in the ground for 65 million years as you speculate, then carbon dating wouldn't work on those bones at all. There would be no C14 left in them to carbon-date. And yet there is a generous amount. Why? Because they are only about 5,000 years old. And yes there are paintings and sculptures of dinosaurs.
Well fine, use it to date the surrounding rock then. Don't use it to date the dinosaur fossil. Testing something unrelated to the fossil doesn't make sense.
Actually no it doesn't, since the age of the rock is unrelated to the fossil. And actually we can and have. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's incorrect.
The fossil's are in between two layers of igenous rock. The layers weigh 100s and 100s of tons. The lower layer is compossed of rock that is almost the same age. That goes for the top layer as well. They date these layers, and come about which era the creature came from.
That's the wrong way to do it. If you want to know how old something is, date that thing, not the stuff around it. The fact still remains that there are high concentrations of C14 in dinosaur fossils. This is only possible if they are younger than 15,000 years. Game, set, match.
Again you are neglecting the fatc that carbon dating only goes that far. It doesn't show how hold a creature is. You still hadn't answered me how one could fake the conditions in which a dinosaur bone is found.
I'm not neglecting anything. Yes carbon dating only goes back so far, but the point is that the dinosaur fossils fall well within the carbon dating range. If the fossils were 65 million years then carbon dating wouldn't work at all.
I'm not saying anyone faked the fossil discoveries in those layers of rock. I'm just saying that rock layering is not proof of a fossil's age because the age of the layer is unrelated to the fossil.
It's buried under two , different layers of igneous rock. Each rock is from a different era. They date both, and use that to determine which era the creature was from.
It's impossible to tell when a rock layer formed. It all depends on the environment. Instead they sample the layer and test the rock's individual age. However, that rock may have been old already when it formed the layer. In other words, the million year old rock formed a new layer over the 20 year old dinosaur, and 5,000 years later it was discovered.
No. I doubt you'd be able to fossilize a chicken bone, stick it deep inside many tons of sedimentary rock, place that layer in between at least two layers of cooled magma, each weighing many tons, and get the right amount of daughter atoms, throughout the igneous rock layers, to make it believable. It can't be done. Such a fraud would be found out.
But that doesn't mean it can't happen naturally. Those layers all may have formed 15,000 years ago over a creature that lived at that time. That's assuming the dinosaur bones were found in such conditions in the first place. The most probable place to find these is under a few layers of dirt and clay, or in caves (which are known to defy the principal of superposition).
NS doesn't support Darwinian Evolution either. NS is just a situation where members of a species adapt in a way that makes them so much more suitable to their environment that it causes them to outlast the members of the species which did not adapt. It does not in any way state that new species arise from this process, nor that the adapted members of the species cannot regress back to their previous state. Furthermore, nothing says the unadapted memebers will die off or the adapted will survive.
You're negleting how new species start to form in the first place, through gene mutation, or isolation. These things lead to micro evoluton; a shift of certain allele concentrations, in the gene pool. Whether these new mutations, or bottlenecking of genes prove to be either positive, negative, or neutral depend on how they affect the population's abilty to compete and reproduce. That's natual selection in play. Darwinian theory and natural selecto go hand in hand.
I'm not neglecting that. It's just that you referred to other things in your post and I responded to those things. Gene mutation has always resulted in a defect, causing the organism to die without reproducing. Isolation only serves to preserve the gene pool of a particular species.
Microevolution doesn't exist. Adaptation does. In order for any form of Darwinian evolution to exist, an organism must be able to increase the information in its genetic code. No increase has ever been observed.
that would be a more important project for the nation for marriage: go to schools and try to teach those little hyenas aka kids some tolerance and compassion. oh but no, it probably is their kids that make life hell for a child with gay parents.
Well done boy! You are a proud of your parents.
armeniausa 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
What an amazingly intelligent young man.
TheBlondeOneisEpic 4 months ago
i think any skepticism i had regarding the outcome of gay-marriage children was squashed when i heard that little boy speak. He is more articulate and intelligent than just about every other straight-marriage kid put together. No fussing over the little things...
HardcoreSpotFan 6 months ago
I would love to be able to sit down and talk to Alex. He seems like me in many ways though his connection to the LGBT community is less direct than mine since I am bisexual. I have been teased by people about it but I don't care. I'm sure he was talking about Stephen Harper there and now he has a majority government.
TheKaitybugs 9 months ago
oh my god im the same age as alex and have the exact same story.. except i dont get teased or anything.
11Kray 9 months ago
This has to be the cutiest video, what a sweet, genuinely awesome kid, this has made my day :')
Deadmau5Strobe 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lol the guy died because of aids
phantom1000A 9 months ago
That brought a lot if tears to my eyes. Especially since I know what he is going through. I mean he takes it way better than I do. And yes I get way scared of bullies and all that crap. Only specific people know. Which I know I should not be scared and stuff. I just try to avoid the subject, like in school. It's hard.
awesome4evr2778 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes, God loves you people, check this book, A Queer thing Happened to America, on amazon. It is for you.
amzn(dot)com/0615406092
WhitePearl19 10 months ago
Interesting video. Check out my for some interesting videos. (Sub, channel comment / sub you back)
CheatersAdvocacy 10 months ago
he seems like an incredibly sweet kid, and I guess it became very apparent to me that most of the problems people associate with having gay parents actually come from the intolerant society surrounding the parents. Its sad that anyone should feel shame for being loved by anyone just because it's not traditional. def an interesting documentary.
thejfactors 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Got to Love it! You might love my channel too! (Sub channel comment / sub you back)
catchacheater11 11 months ago
brought tears to my eyes...amazing...just amazing...obviously a smart kid
TheRoxie08 1 year ago 11
To those that fight with Peter,the white madhi(Peter Gabriel Games Without Frontiers"if looks could kill they probably will")born 12/22/1979,the 12the Imam aka Zarathustra=153(John+21+11=79=Gold),go the spoils of war.Get your guns,bombs,and ammunition and converge on the Bay Area.Do not hesitate to kill.All done for Allah is permitted,even torture and rape.Remember Abu Graib.The Sun rises in the west.God is real and we are going to let them know.kill the homosexuals
153goldlion79z555 1 year ago
such a smart kid. so glad family structures that are unconventional in the media are coming to the forefront of society. the world needs to be educated!
meghamillie 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"A lot of the kids at the school were homophobic" - what percentage? 90%? 80%?
Don't worry - a few weeks of 'sensitivity training' and THREATS should probably sort them out.
His mother shouldn't have had him since she knew she was a lesbian, as simple as that. Since two lesbians can't make a baby together, and they intended to stay together, why ruin a child's life like this?
(Don't tell me, they're 'wonderful', yadda yadda yadda. Even HE isn't convinced...)
packoftwenty 1 year ago
@packoftwenty oh my god what are you saying? That the parent's should've just "turned" straight or denied themself the wonderful oppurtunity of raising a child? Don't act like you care about him, everybody knows that there are a lot more worse situations to be raised in and much worse parents to have then having loving parents that you're teased for. Kids are cruel, that's not his parent's fault. And it's hard, but there's some people who need to absorb some of the hate for the sake of
Izlandzadi14 10 months ago
@packoftwenty understanding
Izlandzadi14 10 months ago
Just listen to how this kid talks. "I just felt blessed". Really. So having a non-biological 'parent' is better than having your own father looking after you every day, with your own mother?
How do you work that out? If it's so wonderful, why haven't societies been doing this for thousands of years?
Could it possibly be anything to do with the 'gay agenda'? Is this video supposed to make us think that 'gay parents' are somehow wonderful?
He says "It's not my fault" - how sadly true.
packoftwenty 1 year ago
@packoftwenty so who are you blaming? the parents? the people who are being ignorant are the ones to blame. not the child or the parents who are just trying to live their lives.
raycheebones 11 months ago
@packoftwenty No one's saying it's better, or even ideal. It's different, but equal in the respect that they are good loving parents as far as I can tell. And it's widely known that Greece normalized same-sex relationships in ancient times. The reason why that went under and hasn't resurfaced for awhile was because of the spread of catholicism and christianity, which stamped that down. And what gay agenda? I didn't even know what that meant until I went and looked it up and I was like OMG, this
Izlandzadi14 10 months ago
@packoftwenty is what people think we're trying to do? I just recently realized that I had attractions to my sex, and since then I've realized that's the only thing that's changed about me. Not my clothes, not my hair, and most defenitely do I NOT want to change anybody's orientation because I am proof to MYSELF that this is not possible. Gay people know better than anyone that you cannot be what you are not, so they are the last people who would try to convert anyone. Helping someone come to
Izlandzadi14 10 months ago
@packoftwenty terms with who they are or helping them come out of the closet, for that matter, is completely different.
Izlandzadi14 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
1:15 - that picture says it all. Look at the terrifying queer on the left. And the women are UGLY - now what a surprise!
Too ugly to get a man? Become a 'lesbian'! Then USE A MAN to have a baby!
Way to go!
You sad sickos need to stop using children as part of your insane social experiments. No normal society condones this sort of insanity. No 'parent' has a right to deny their child their OTHER parent, even before they are born.
packoftwenty 1 year ago
What a good boy! Although I want to call him young man, he's so poised. Where the heck does he live? It looks so remote.
ana1sninja 1 year ago
I love this video, thank you for uploading it.
KorruptedDragon982 1 year ago
I cried when I saw this, I see so much of myself in this young man... I was raised by two moms. And it hurts my heart knowing that he had to deal with all the b.s. that I had to.. It seems like his family loves him very much though and thats what counts most. With as articulate as this boy is... he's going be one of the movers and shakers of the future.
Bbopjonez 1 year ago
What an amazing young man. Brought tears to my eyes. He and his moms give me much hope for the future of this world.
carmeljuan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@carmeljuan "He and his moms give me much hope for the future of this world."
Why is that? Because 'gays' are just so much better than NORMAL people? Or because the poor 'gays' have such 'hard' lives, because the majority of people can't stand them?
God help that poor little kid, growing up in such a fucked up environment. Gee... I wonder if he's a brainwashed Libtard, perchance!
packoftwenty 1 year ago
great, great, great.....not much more that i can say other that i hope my sons can think like this when they are older....your mothers and fathers should be proud to have raised such a respectful son x
silverlady1984 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do not sleep naughty women here benaughtyman.info
scdgfdfhgfj 1 year ago
What a fantastically intelligent young man. It's a shame he was teased so much in school, but it seems like he comes from a very loving home. I can only hope my partner and I raise our future children to be just as open-minded, articulate and grateful as this boy. Nice work.
igotz2travel87 1 year ago 32
This has been flagged as spam show
Thank you for this video.
Submit your story to POV’s This is My Family!
As part of PBS' POV Adoption Stories, we want to hear real stories about your family from you. Send us your videos, and you might receive an iPad or an iTouch!
Visit us at pbs dot org/pov/adoption/myfamily
You can even link to already existing videos on YouTube! Spread the word.
povborders 1 year ago
wow this is just amazing!
unexpectedexplosion 1 year ago
I'm not gay. However, whatever work's the best. ....And afterall, what counts is who Ur yourself and what you going to do about with it. It's not who raised you... but loving family support can not be overvalued. So, I'm peronally open to all and just respect to those who bare you in their minds.
PleijeriZz 1 year ago
I think you really put things together nicely. I'm happy for you and your family. Sorry about one of your dad's though. I hope this video shows others how wonderful a child can be...having gay parents and all. Your a great example to the world. Congrats on the awards.
imbutchsowat1 1 year ago
that kid is really smart:)
dudeboobs15 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LGBT parents and families we want you!! Please submit home videos for an LGBT documentary on parenting by September 1, 2010. Website: Gaybyboomfilm (dot) com
gaybyboomfilm 1 year ago
Good video....Nice to see how he looks at it all
MITsolar 1 year ago
Comment removed
martincasaus 1 year ago
nicelly said Alex, well done.
lovenpeace4world 1 year ago
Believelt1051 is a total dick. Just putting it out there.
gabbb432 1 year ago
thats sooooooo cooooooool! i wish i had gay parents! really i do ;D
CABJ3193 1 year ago
I have so much respect for this kid. My "normal" family fell apart when I was 11 when my mum came out as lesbian. Man that was hard, but it wouldn't have been if it wasn't for homophobic crazies. I'm so glad it happened, now I have mum, dad, and two step mums (thanks to Australia's same sex marriage laws!), but I live with my bio-mum and her partner. The ONLY thing bad about being raised by gay people is the prejudice in todays society, and who's fault is that! Everything else about it is great.
gabbb432 1 year ago
o my god this is like, the most intelligent kid i've ever seen!
Calebmoyer 1 year ago
OMG This kid is amazing. <3
rideapolarbear 1 year ago
this kid is a brain! 5 stars kid!
rextrek 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That poor kid. He's a victim of selfish perverts and what they're doing to him is child abuse.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 what in the heck is child abuse about this? Don't you think the child abuse is the politicians who say things that make him feel "worried and upset", all he says is how happy he is that his parents were able to marry. Stop putting words in this child's mouth. He wants his two moms to be together and married. He only suffers when others say that its not right and that he will be unhappy. He is unhappy because people are homophobic.
vanillasm 1 year ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The ones making him feel worried and upset are the lesbians. Politicians are doing want the majority of voters want, and they are upholding what is normal and moral. The fact that this kid is worried and upset by what is normal and good for society shows that he was raised to be against society and against what is normal.
It doesn't matter what the kid wants. What matters is what he needs. What he needs is a father and a mother, but because of the homosexual deathstyle, he gets neither one.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 well quite frankly we can't get drunk one night and adopt. every one of our kids is a wanted child, an anticipated child, a planned for child, and prepared for child. Can you say the same thing? And just who do you think raise more gay kids. That's right heterosexuals raise them. My parents were straight how come I'm not? Evolution in itself is an intelligent design, who are you to question evolution? Not everything in evolution has to make sense just know everything is connected
QueerDerk 1 year ago
Yeah but there's a reason for that. Its because children can't be created between two people of the same sex. You believe in the myth of evolution right? Isn't that a pretty good evolutionary indicator that same-sex couples shouldnt raise children?
And wait a minute; I thought you said homosexuality was an inborn trait. So who cares if heterosexuals raise more homosexuals? It wouldn't be their fault, would it?
So evolution doesn't have to make sense, except when you think it backs you up?
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
He even admitted that he felt afraid that his "moms" would not stay together, and that "marriage" gave some solidarity and filled a gap in his life. Why? Because he knows that two women being together is not right and that it's not normal. It bound to fail. The only reason he thinks "marriage" will keep them together is because the lesbians drilled it into his head that "marriage" helps people stay together. Guess no told him that 50% of marriages end in divorce.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Dont you think most people who want to get married do it to stay together with their partner? You could use this argument for any couple really.
kickitdean 1 year ago
I think most have that intention, sure. But many fail when they find out they aren't of strong character and commitment... as is the case with most homosexuals. Plus, their relationship type is bound to fail because a sex is not compatible with the same sex.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
would you mind explaining why a homosexual relationship is bound to fail and a heterosexual is not. an could you explain how you know a homosexual relationships do not have strong character or commitment. Where are you getting you information from?
QueerDerk 1 year ago
Because no living organism on Earth that has two sexes, including humans, are compatible with the same sex mentally, physically, or emotionally.
I get my info from various studies, such as this one: shakinandshinin(dot)org/HomosexualParenting-PartII(dot)html
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051:
How are the selfish perverts? And how are they committing child abuse?? They seem to be very loving parents and a very loving family. That's what matters.
Child abuse is the physical or psychological/emotional mistreatment of children. He seems to be very adjusted and as he says, he's happy with having his parents. He loves them, and they love him very much. That is what matters. Keep your homophobic comments to your close minded self.
chiyokokai 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Because they used natural means to have him, that is the 1 man 1 woman union, and then to satisfy their own selfish lusts, they split up into their own immoral deathstyles, that is homosexuality, and they subjected that child to them. If they wanted to be homosexuals, then why did they have to bring a child into it? Why did they have to subject him to that mixed up situation?
Love is important, but it isn't all that matters. A kid needs guidance and discipline just as much as love.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
would you mind explaining why a homosexual relationship is not capable of providing guidance and discipline? would you also explain why people want to be homosexual?
QueerDerk 1 year ago
It's not capable of providing guidance because it lacks a father or mother. Both have different roles and different effects on their children. Both are needed for the best situation possible for child development.
It's not capable of discipline because homosexuality is at its core a rejection of order and normalcy. It promotes experimentation with that which is unnatural or abnormal. It encourages rebellion against the norm and what is expected of a good person.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
Why do some people want to be homosexual? Same reason people make any choice. Because they perceive the benefits to outweigh the consequences. What they consider benefits or consequences depend on the individual. Most simply enjoy a sexual act that is immoral. They delight in doing that which is seen as disgusting or perverted.
Some people come to the realization that homosexuality is greatly harming them, and so they choose to leave the deathstyle, and become heterosexual.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 agreed !
stonerj0e 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Your a fucking dumass
QueerDerk 1 year ago
Hmm, what a tolerant thing to say.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Do you even know what you are saying? Who would chose to be gay? Who would chose to go thru life constantly harassed, ridiculed, and in fear of their lives everyday. I don't chose to be gay. I wish I wasn't but I am who I am. I can not an will not deny who I am. I don't like girls sorry it's as simple as that.
QueerDerk 1 year ago
Who would choose to be homosexual? Most homosexuals would, and do. You're choosing it right now. Some may be homosexual based on mental illness, but as for those who are of sound mind, they all choose to be homosexual.
Christians are harassed, ridiculed, and in fear of their lives everyday in many parts of the world today, like The Sudan. Don't you think their faith is a choice?
I don't think homosexuality is a part of who you are. You can reject it at any time and choose to live right.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 I agree the ideal situation for a child is with it birth parents. However that not the way the world work like it or not. Gay Adoptions is far better than those kids being stuck in foster care. Do you have any idea what happens in foster care. Besides we do damn good jobs of raising children. Why? Because everyone of children is a wanted child, a prepared for child. I mean as hand as we try we can get drunk one night and have a accidental unwanted child Stop listening to Fox News
QueerDerk 1 year ago
That may be true of most foster centers, but not all. It certainly doesn't mean we should allow children to go to same-sex couples, which will hurt the child's development anyway. What we should do is focus on making the foster care system the best it can be.
Actually no you don't do a good job raising children. Studies show that kids raised by same-sex couples are 4 to 10 times more likely to be homosexual, among other problems. FoxNews wouldn't dare report a fact like that, mores the pity.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 the face of the matter is your born gay. you do not get to chose. homosexual activity is seen in countless animal species what make us so different?
besides what is wrong with a kid turning out gay anyways?
QueerDerk 1 year ago
That may seem like a quaint thought, that you are born to have a certain thought process and behavior and there's nothing you can do about it. Seems like it would remove a lot of responsibility from you, but it doesn't. In fact it will only make you feel worse. Instead of believing that you can decide your own path in life, you are stuck in a mindset of hopelessness. Moreover, you're conditioned to think of yourself in those terms.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
Combine this with the fact that your conscience still tells you that it's wrong, and what you get is an individual who blames him or her self and feels like there's only one way out. If life dictates you must be a certain way, the only way out is death. That is why many homosexuals kill themselves, because those in the homosexual movement have made them think that they cannot change no matter how hard they try. But thats wrong. Change is possible, and its success depends on your perseverance.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
Homosexuality is not seen in animals as it is in humans, because animals have much lower brain function. Most of those who show homosexual behavior in reality are displaying confusion. They are simply trying to mate with anything.
Besides, humans are not animals. Even if we were, there are plenty of immoral behaviors animals exhibit that civilized humans reject.
What is wrong with it is a higher HIV risk, lower life expectancy, and no chance of reproduction. Just to name a few.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 there are six billion people on this planet. Just how much more reproduction do thin is needed? We don't have enough food to feed everyone. Secondly humans are just as much animals as animals. But go ahead if you wanna believe all that neoconservative brainwashing christian bull-crap go right ahead. I believe in science and you believe in a magic invisible man in the sky.
QueerDerk 1 year ago
Well, 29% of the Earth is land, and only 1% is occupied by humans. Food can be grown. In fact, the U.S. alone produces enough food to feed the entire world. Humans arent animals. We have the most complex physical structure of any life form and we have a superior brain which is capable of holding our consciousnesses.
The term "neoconservative" essentially means "fake conservative", or a liberal who pretends to be conservative.
Also, science states that sexuality is not an inborn trait.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 actually you are science states sexuality is a genetic condition. Perhaps if you read a book other than the bible you would know. If the US produces enough food to feed the world than why is the world not being fed? and how can a liberal pretend to be conservative they are two mutually exclusive ideology's. Secondly again humans are animals. True Humans are a bit farther on the evolutionary scale but none the less we share the same origins as animals
QueerDerk 1 year ago
No, I'm not a neoconservative, I'm a conservative. A neocon is a liberal who moves to the right. McCain is a decent example. He is a social liberal with some fiscally conservative values. Or Bush, who says he was for free market capitalism and yet used government power and taxpayer funds to influence the market.
Prove it. Prove that sexuality is a genetic condition.
The world isn't being fed because the U.S. government and governments of other countries have trade restrictions on food.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 are you an asshole by choice or does just came naturally?
QueerDerk 1 year ago
I'm not an asshole either.
But as for having two mutually exclusive ideologies, I must say I am a bit puzzled at your beliefs. On the one hand you believe in the myth of Darwinian evolution, which states unproductive genes will die out through natural selection, and on the other you believe homosexuality is an inborn trait caused by a gene.
Assuming Darwinian evolution were true, shouldn't a gene that causes behavior that results in no reproduction have died out millions of years ago?
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Actually, this isn't the only gene that would have died out. For people who lived in colder climates, male-pattern baldness would have been a killer. However, due to human ingenuity, we invented hats, and were able to survive such things. Just adding this information. This particular statement is not intended to bolster either side of this argument, however.
Grrxmaster 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Well perhaps the evolutionary reason for homosexuality to limit population growth and to provide parents to orphans. It is beneficial to the tribe to have adults with no offspring to take care of orphaned offspring.
QueerDerk 1 year ago
So then "evolution" has a consciousness and can determine how many people are on the planet and what an orphan is, then based on that it knows how many homosexuals to create out of thin air? Wow! That's interesting. So then why was homosexuality more prevalent thousands of years ago when there was a much lower population?
Also, why are adults with no offspring better at raising and caring for them than adults who do have offspring? I would think those with offspring would be more experienced.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Plus heterosexuality is just as prevalent today as it was back than. Could you call a tow truck to pull your head out of your ass and get you facts right.
QueerDerk 1 year ago
But you made the claim that homosexuality is evolution's way of keeping the population in check. So why was it more prevalent in the past when the population was much lower? Today the population is huge! Yet homosexuality is less prevalent. What happened to evolution keeping the population in check?
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
So here's the truth. Darwinian evolution is a myth that has been debunked. Homosexuality is a learned behavior, not an inborn trait. People who were once homo have chosen to leave that deathstyle and become hetero. Opposite-sex couples do raise kids who turn out homo because of bad parenting or some traumatic experience. However, children raised by same-sex couples are 4 to 10 times more likely to be homosexual. Children should be raised by loving opposite-sex couples. Thats it.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 I'm done arguing with you. There no point in arguing with a person that fails to acknowledge that they may be wrong, thats refuse to see the truth when it stares them in the face, that refuse to listen to all reasoning and logic.
Your arguments do not make any logical sense. Your facts are fables and fairytale floating around in your head. You sir a true believer and everyone knows there is no debating with a true believer. I pity you sir,
QueerDerk 1 year ago
It's not up to me to acknowledge I may be wrong, it's up to you to prove it. You should probably learn the basics of debating before you try it yourself.
Yeah and will your homosexual community be as tolerant as you? I doubt it. You say we should be tolerant of your sick behaviors, yet you can't handle it when someone merely disagrees with you. You're the bigots and you're homophobes.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
Comment removed
QueerDerk 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Your life must be completely empty for you to waste your time persecuting a little boy and his parents. So what if he grows up gay who cares no sweat off your sack so shut the fuck up. If you feel so strongly against gays why don't you go in the next gay bar you see and preach a little bit. I'm sure my gay brothers and sisters will be happy to hear you message.
QueerDerk 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 "Darwinian evolution is a myth that has been debunked" Whaaaaat? Haha when did this happen? Why did my biology lecturers not inform me of this!!
gabbb432 1 year ago
They didn't inform you because they aren't about informing students. They are about indoctrinating them.
It was debunked when Darwin first presented it. Since then it has changed forms, but it has been refuted each time by others in the scientific community.
And no, your broken home is the result of your mom's choices.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
I wonder who are these "others" you speak of. Evolution is taught in my university. LOL
lulz666f 1 year ago
They're other scientists who do not blindly accept the hypothesis of evolution as fact. They question it and are skeptical of it, like all true scientists are of unproven ideas.
But know this. What you're learning in that university about evolution is not what was originally believed when the hypthesis was first presented, and it's very likely that it will also be discarded as false just as other parts of the hypothesis have been in the past.
Basically, you're wasting your time and money.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
So what do yo propose? Creation science? LOL
lulz666f 1 year ago
Though I believe creation science is correct, no I do not propose it be taught in schools. While it is true, it is also religious, and many people would have a problem with religion being taught in school. Obviously the only correct solution is to teach neither one. Instead, kids should learn about factual subjects, like micro, macro, and home economics, agriculture, first aid, etc. We should also put more time into subjects like American history and Constitutional law.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
Cite me peer-reviewed papers, showing that creation science has some sunstance to it. Do it. Now.
lulz666f 1 year ago
Well... you asked for it. Hope you like reading.
discovery(dot)org/a/2640
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
The cited material isn't peer-reviewed. Also, the people only seem to say that since life is so complex, then it must've been designed. Life is the result of random mutation, and billions of years of trial and error. I put more stock in Dr. Fox's work then this. Thank you, though
lulz666f 1 year ago
Yes it is clearly peer-reviewed. Check the "Peer-Reviewed" section.
Also, in the scientific realm, pointing out that the a hypothesis does not account for certain facts is considered evidence against the hypothesis. However there are plenty of other studies listed there which prove Creation. Such as:
"The logical underpinnings of intelligent design"
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
People that agree, reviewing other people that agree a peer-review does not make. Also, you can't just state a hypothesis, say a few things, and not really back it up. Where are the studies done in nature? How do you account for natural selection and genetic inheritance?
lulz666f 1 year ago
So what would you have me do? Present those studies to those who disagree? They'll reject it out of bias, and then what would you say? You'd say it's been discredited.
To account for NS and GI you have to understand what they are first. GI is not evolution. The hypothesis of evolution relies on it, but it does not support it. This is because genetics can carry over good genes and bad genes. So the organism can go either way. Natural selection is just an event that may or may not occur...
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
There's typically no such thing as a good gene, or a bad gene. Whether a gene is positive, or not, depends on if it's helpful to the creature's survival, in the specific setting and state the creature is in. Also, I never said they all had to agree. It just didn't seem your guys put enough thought in being critical.
lulz666f 1 year ago
There is such a thing as a good and bad gene. Humans define it. A gene that increases risk of diabetes for example will be considered a bad gene. One that bestows above average height will be considered a good gene. But you are correct that nature does not define it. The hypothetical process of Darwinian Evolution wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Therefore species would not necessarily evolve. More than likely they would all die out within 500 years due to defects and other things.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
This is why Darwin commented at the end of his book that evolution must be driven by God in order to be possible.
Also, whether a gene is passed on or not is random. Nothing says a beneficial gene will even be passed on in the first place. Nevermind that life has only existed for about 15,000 years, even millions of years is not enough time for present day life to have evolved from inorganic material.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
That's funny. Last tme I checked, life has existed for 4.5 billion years. Where on Earth did you get the idea that life has existed for only 15,000 years? We have carbon, and boron dating to prove that to be a lie. And I never said genes are randomly distributed. You're putting words in my mouth.
lulz666f 1 year ago
0_0 4.5 billion?!?!?! Dude, you're waaaaaay off if you really think that. That's almost the entire age of the Earth. Life could not have existed in a time when the Earth was still forming.
Carbon dating on fossils dates back to between 6,000 and 15,000 years.
I didn't say you said that. I said it's random whether a gene is passed on or not. There is no force guiding it.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
The Earth is a little over 13 billion years old. Also, boron dating goes way farther than that. I'd like to pose a question to you. If the world is only 15,000 years old, explain dinosaurs.
lulz666f 1 year ago
Comment removed
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
No, I'm correct. gate(dot)net/~rwms/AgeEarth(dot)html
The Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. So your date for the origin of life cannot fit that time scale. Life is only 15,000 years old at most. Dinosaurs are no exception, however recent carbon dating and archeological discoveries indicate dinosaurs are only about 4,000 to 6,000 years old. So they're anywhere between 4,000 and 15,000 years old.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
LOL. Wow man. Your data is just totally out of wack. I'm not sure whether or not you're being serious, or you're just trolling me. Are you saying humans existed with dinosaurs?
lulz666f 1 year ago
No, history says humans existed with dinosaurs. Aside from numerous historical writings about dinosaurs, there are also cave paintings as well as sculptures and inscriptions in the walls of ancient civilizations. s8int(dot)com/phile/page66(dot)html
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
Human existed with dinosaurs huh? Wow. That's cute. Real cute.
lulz666f 1 year ago
Why don't you try going to the source I cited and see if the proof there can convince you of the truth?
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
I think I'm going to stick with the vast majority of the scientific community on this one, thank you very much. The vast majority of dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago, due to the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction, and that the only clade of dinosaura left being the Aves, i.e. birds. I have no idea how you can tell me that life has only existed for 15,000 years.
lulz666f 1 year ago
You should know that consensus isn't how scientific law is established. Do you even know how the 65 million number came about for the dinosaurs? From archeologists, not biologists, who age tested the rock in which the fossils were buried. In other words if I eat some chicken from KFC and bury the bones in 65 million year old dirt and then some archeologist finds it, he'll date the bones as 65 million years old. Biologists test the fossil directly. Tests show them as being thousands of years old.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
They use radiometric dating to determine the age of fossils. They take the layers of rock around the fossil, date them, and use that to determine the time-range for the respective dinosaur's life.
lulz666f 1 year ago
And you don't see any problems with that method? I thought we wanted to know when the dinosaur lived, not how old the rocks around its remains are.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
You can't fake an element's half life. Also, the Law of Superposition is still in effect to determine time periods. Your chicken bone idea doesn't hold water.
lulz666f 1 year ago
Yeah, and carbon dating uses the half-life of C14 (Carbon 14). If dinosaur fossils were 65 million years old, there would be no measurable C14 left in them, yet tests show that there is. Furthermore, the amounts detected project an age anywhere from 4,000 to 15,000 years.
The chicken bone argument is solid. You can't tell the age of something based on what surrounds it. A simple matter of logic really.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
LOL. First off, other elements are used to date dinosaur fossils; uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40. Second, the atoms don't all decay at once. They all decay on their own time. No one can determine when an atom will decay, only how long it will take to decay. That's where the half lives come in. Scientists use a mass spectrometer to determine the ratio of of parent atoms to daughters. The more parent atoms, the younger the fossil and vice-versa.
lulz666f 1 year ago
The half life of uranium is about 4.46 billion years. So unless the fossils you speak of have enough uranium particles to kill any who dare go near them, they can't possible be a mere 65 million years old.
So the only way this method could be used is based on assumption. Assumption that the dinosaurs were killed by a slight dusting of aged uranium. Well, you know what happens when you assume. Suffice it to say, going by the half life of uranium in the dirt is no way to date a fossil either.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
The uranium comes from igneous rock; cooled magma. The igneous rock layers, surrounding the sedimentary rock layers which fossils are formed in, are used as markers, marking the beginnings and the ends to the period of time when the sedimentary rock formed. Radiometric dating of the igenous rock layers, surround the sedimentary rock layers, gives scientists an accurate age of the sedimentary rock layers, and the fossils found inside the sedimentary rock layers.
lulz666f 1 year ago
Not so, because nothing indicates that the creature was buried in that rock layer when that layer first formed. That layer may have been there for millions of years before the creature came along and died on it to later be buried in other layers. Plus, if it were swept up in the lava it would have been incinerated. It must have been buried in the layer some time after it cooled, which you can't determine.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
You're ignoring the law of superposition.
lulz666f 1 year ago
I'm not ignoring it. It's a lame argument to begin with. It's not true in all circumstances. The principal states that top layers will be younger and lower layers will be older, but they've found land where this principal is turned upside-down with younger layers on the bottom. Younger layers may be lower if they were created by tectonic overthrust, where the younger molten layer is raised up above sea level. Inversion is another cause of exception to this principal, as is simultaneous layering.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
If the Law of Superposition is bunk, then why is it still considered natural law, and still used by the mainsteam of the scinetific community? Layering is the norm in nature. Also, you forgot about radionmetric dating. The law of superposition is one part of the system.
lulz666f 1 year ago
Because it's not bunk in all cases, just in some cases. Or rather, it's true in certain cases, but not all. Just like how natural selection is true in certain cases but not in all cases.
I didn't forget radiometric dating, I said that only applies to the rock, not the fossil. I'm very certain that I addressed that already.
But what I think you're forgetting, and in fact you are, is that carbon dating of C14 in dinosaur bones indicates that dinosaurs died out on an average of 5,700 years ago.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
There's no reason to go against something that works. To believe all of these creatures, including man, existed together in only 15,000 time is asinine. The dating works, when the conditions are right.
lulz666f 1 year ago
But you said it yourself, it works only when the conditions are right. The fact of the matter is that all tests done on dinosaur fossils DIRECTLY show that they are no older than 15,000 years, with most being around 5,000 years. Add to this the fact that we have cave paintings, artworks, sculptures, and writings of dinosaurs dated long before 1676 when the first discovered fossil was recorded.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
You can only carbon date that far. It doesn't make it that specific age. And no, there are no cave painting with dinosaurs. Mammoth and saber tooth cats, but no dinosaurs.
lulz666f 1 year ago
That is correct sir. We can only carbon-date as far back as about 150,000 years because that is the shelf life of C14. However, if the dinosaur bones had been in the ground for 65 million years as you speculate, then carbon dating wouldn't work on those bones at all. There would be no C14 left in them to carbon-date. And yet there is a generous amount. Why? Because they are only about 5,000 years old. And yes there are paintings and sculptures of dinosaurs.
watch?v=zJAii5n0KIo
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
That's why we have uranium, boron, an dpotassium dating, for the surrounding rock.
lulz666f 1 year ago
Well fine, use it to date the surrounding rock then. Don't use it to date the dinosaur fossil. Testing something unrelated to the fossil doesn't make sense.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
It helps date the fossil, since you can't date the actual fossil correctly.
lulz666f 1 year ago
Actually no it doesn't, since the age of the rock is unrelated to the fossil. And actually we can and have. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's incorrect.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
The fossil's are in between two layers of igenous rock. The layers weigh 100s and 100s of tons. The lower layer is compossed of rock that is almost the same age. That goes for the top layer as well. They date these layers, and come about which era the creature came from.
lulz666f 1 year ago
That's the wrong way to do it. If you want to know how old something is, date that thing, not the stuff around it. The fact still remains that there are high concentrations of C14 in dinosaur fossils. This is only possible if they are younger than 15,000 years. Game, set, match.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
Again you are neglecting the fatc that carbon dating only goes that far. It doesn't show how hold a creature is. You still hadn't answered me how one could fake the conditions in which a dinosaur bone is found.
lulz666f 1 year ago
I'm not neglecting anything. Yes carbon dating only goes back so far, but the point is that the dinosaur fossils fall well within the carbon dating range. If the fossils were 65 million years then carbon dating wouldn't work at all.
I'm not saying anyone faked the fossil discoveries in those layers of rock. I'm just saying that rock layering is not proof of a fossil's age because the age of the layer is unrelated to the fossil.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
You said that you could fake a fossil discovery by throwing in a chicken bone, burying it, and calling it a fossil.
lulz666f 1 year ago
I was saying that as an example to make a point. Just because something gets buried in million year old dirt doesn't make it a million+ years old.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
It's buried under two , different layers of igneous rock. Each rock is from a different era. They date both, and use that to determine which era the creature was from.
lulz666f 1 year ago
It's impossible to tell when a rock layer formed. It all depends on the environment. Instead they sample the layer and test the rock's individual age. However, that rock may have been old already when it formed the layer. In other words, the million year old rock formed a new layer over the 20 year old dinosaur, and 5,000 years later it was discovered.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
No. I doubt you'd be able to fossilize a chicken bone, stick it deep inside many tons of sedimentary rock, place that layer in between at least two layers of cooled magma, each weighing many tons, and get the right amount of daughter atoms, throughout the igneous rock layers, to make it believable. It can't be done. Such a fraud would be found out.
lulz666f 1 year ago
But that doesn't mean it can't happen naturally. Those layers all may have formed 15,000 years ago over a creature that lived at that time. That's assuming the dinosaur bones were found in such conditions in the first place. The most probable place to find these is under a few layers of dirt and clay, or in caves (which are known to defy the principal of superposition).
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
NS doesn't support Darwinian Evolution either. NS is just a situation where members of a species adapt in a way that makes them so much more suitable to their environment that it causes them to outlast the members of the species which did not adapt. It does not in any way state that new species arise from this process, nor that the adapted members of the species cannot regress back to their previous state. Furthermore, nothing says the unadapted memebers will die off or the adapted will survive.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
You're negleting how new species start to form in the first place, through gene mutation, or isolation. These things lead to micro evoluton; a shift of certain allele concentrations, in the gene pool. Whether these new mutations, or bottlenecking of genes prove to be either positive, negative, or neutral depend on how they affect the population's abilty to compete and reproduce. That's natual selection in play. Darwinian theory and natural selecto go hand in hand.
lulz666f 1 year ago
I'm not neglecting that. It's just that you referred to other things in your post and I responded to those things. Gene mutation has always resulted in a defect, causing the organism to die without reproducing. Isolation only serves to preserve the gene pool of a particular species.
Microevolution doesn't exist. Adaptation does. In order for any form of Darwinian evolution to exist, an organism must be able to increase the information in its genetic code. No increase has ever been observed.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
kihoro1 1 year ago
@kihoro1
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 sup wit dis
kihoro1 1 year ago
@kihoro1 You got up-dogg?
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
You can tell they've done a great job raising him ... he seems like such a sweet boy. :)
raynfly 1 year ago 6
that would be a more important project for the nation for marriage: go to schools and try to teach those little hyenas aka kids some tolerance and compassion. oh but no, it probably is their kids that make life hell for a child with gay parents.
MlleRoxie85 1 year ago
anyone know where this is - pretty place!!!
freynekennedy 2 years ago
I think this young lad is something special, you all are obviously doing something right!!!
bzylizzy 2 years ago 3
If only every child could experience so much love.... they have done an amazing job raising this boy!
Genie4sho 2 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what an orgy!
Pathrissia 2 years ago
my mum gay lol but she denies it even tho i caught her in the act :P i dont care i have a bf :O and im a boy lol
lightsflight 2 years ago 7
what an amazing young person! he should be so proud of himself, as im sure his parents are. :)
amillsy87 2 years ago 12
its the same feeling of single parenting.
i didn't live with my mum in my childhood.
but he has two mums. and two dads. Love doubles from a straight-couple family. and for me it times four.
"its their loss if they don't understand it."
eckerXD 2 years ago 9
Wow, what an incredibly bright and eloquent young boy.
SylvanaForrester 2 years ago 6
Agreed. He seems like a wonderful person.
sillylily315 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I doubt a kid with gay parents would be accepting if they met a family where there is a kid, parent, and step parent younger then the kid.
saltheadd 2 years ago
What a lovely family and your boy is wonderful and smart :)
annan222 2 years ago 4
This young man is going to be a stellar citizen in 21st century America. So thoughtful and compassionate!
paolovid 2 years ago 21
Aw, Alex, you're so cute!
2013jjffdd 2 years ago 2
This kid is so down to earth!! Hes got more sence in him in 5 minutes than so many adults who go on and on and on about how theyr so against it!
I hope if I ever have a child they're as loving, honest and selfless as this kid! I hope your parents get the right to marry soon!!
ChasingRainclouds 2 years ago 9
lol these people u are these people
cbrun67176 2 years ago 3