Rush Windbag

I try to see some intrinsic inner good in all people. I believe that deep down inside there are two personalities in most people. There is a good and bad side in everyone. I am beginning to realize I have been wrong. Some people are just wrong and haven't ever possessed the other side of them to turn to in order to see any good side of the street. They don't see suffering and don't seem to care about anyone but themselves. These are the people who wait until they are near death and then try to make peace with the world. By then it is too late. This is what my definition of evil is.
I recently heard an explanation that made more sense to me than anything else. Some people are brought up to believe that they are right about everything and therefor lack the ability to develop critical thinking. I would like to explain how necessary this is. Everything we say, do, or any other action we put out is like a ripple on a pond. It doesn't necessarily come back to us in a form we recognize but it follows the basic laws of nature and physics. The theory that, "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction", is part of everything in life. In Buddhist thought it is called dependent origination or "interbeing".
Being mindful of what we do or say is important. Someone might find something we say or do to be offensive or just plain evil and do something to stop us from doing or saying that one thing ever again. I predict that some day Rush Windbag will be ceased from repeating the same actions. I am only surprised that it hasn't happened before.

WE TOLD YOU SO !

Despite your efforts to cause this, like a self fulfilling prophecy that doesn't fulfill accidently or unconciously, YOU, Mr. Limbaugh, said you wished our president would fail. He didn't fail to bring about change in Health Care despite the tantrums of the Republicans in Congress. He didn't fail to bring about reforms in the entire banking industry, including the part about financial institutions raping customers over credit with deceptive and illegal tactics, he didn't fail to restructure the failing auto industry with courteous dialogue but still got the Empire Builder who had destroyed the Economy of Detroit and for that matter, most of Michigan, repeatedly to step down, he didn't fail to make tax changes that will get the working class to recognize people like you, not the government, not the black people, not the Islamic people, and not the "any other category of people other than the one you belong to", THE GREEDY PEOPLE, as our enemy. You so sorely wanted to see the president fail that you were willing, with all the anger and hate of a suicide bomber to sit and let our nation blow up around all the people who listened to you and counted on your wisdom. I contend this day, as our troops whom you said should stay in Iraq for another "...hundred years if necessary..." are coming home that your propaganda scheme failed. I have living proof in the joy I feel in watching you fail that I was right about you and my mother, who is dead now, didn't live to see you wander away with your head between your legs, trying to prepare for the impact this is going to cause to your listeners while you try to back pedal and restore your dignity in trying to ACT, like all of you Chicken Hawks will be doing (Glen Beck is already rallying the sheep with Sarah Pinhead Palin) trying to act like you are HAPPY that our troups are home after spending seven years moaning that they needed to stay and die so you could make a profit. My final salute to this victory, Mr. Limbaugh, is that I will no longer be writing about you if you keep your head down, don't make outlandish statements, and try to keep your comments limited to your limited audience of Pinheads like you who reflect the lowest of human beings possible in the United States, so this is my signing off on you, Mr. Limbaugh. You simply aren't worth anyone worrying about.

Checking Back In Time

I wanted to discuss my outrage at some blowhole of a radio broadcaster like Rush Limbaugh who cuts people off before they can finish in order to subvert their message and therefore take what they say "Out of Context" since he has no argument for facts. I heard it said again recently that there was a famous quote by Aldous Huxley, "Facts don't cease to exist because they are ignored." Another one that I really like, not sure who said it, "If facts do not fit the theory, then the theory needs to be changed, since you can't change the facts." But that is what we see people trying to do, every day.
Some people kindly refer to it as "history revisionism". Let's call it what it is - LYING! There is no kind way to say it that actually becomes less disgusting, the many lies seen in today's cable news station who is so aptly dubbed by the people I know as FAUX NEWS. You know who I mean. The sad part is that they have really high ratings, along with NASCAR, Professional Wrestling, and the movie business that shows that art doesn't imitate life, it immulates it, it glorifies it, and it substitutes for it, but now matter how close a fictional writer tries to revise our reality on the silver screen, it is still, as the title says on the book it was created from, FICTION. That part of the library gets more attention than any other. We don't go to the Referrence section to find out what the documented evidence is about World War 2, for example but we love to read books like "The Winds of War, War and Remembrances, War Dogs", and the movies like, "The saving of Private Ryan", or "The Thin Red Line" are much more popular than actual documentary footage that shows the bloody, unmitigated, boring truth about battles where the action was spread out over a half mile during a period of over four hours, not just what could fit in a close up with a movie lens in a few minutes.
No One seems to care about the facts anymore. Well this is what I want to see, facts that overshadow the lies. Unfortunately in this day and age we have whole media platforms that are obviously dedicated to lying to the public. I would like this to sound fair and balanced but I can't because it is only a few actors out there who call themselves Journalists while actually portraying a journalist and giving the public what they want to hear. They call it Advocacy Journalism, and it is not, it is LYING. The truth is that truth, honesty, and actually reporting of facts are somewhat boring. The public would rather hear something "with a message" that inspires them to be "internally inspired" and full of "Pride in their country" or someone who is actually a sham if they investigated them and then SEE for themselves that NO ONE can be popular as long as they state the truth.
I have decided today that I am going to write about about truth in journalism and the fact that the United States is based on so many shams that NO ONE can justify it. I will call it "The Boring Truth" the facts that Americans choose to ignore, based on fifty years of the American story. Or maybe like most Americans I just won't bother to look at it and hope it goes away. "YEAH!" (I hate people who type LOL but I will say that even reading the last sentence to myself made me laugh out loud.)

RUSHING TO GET IT BACKWARDS

RUSHING TO GET IT BACKWARDS

I thought some of you would like to hear the latest spew from the same old propaganda minister of talk radio. Rush Limbaugh sends out letters to Republicans and other conservatives that listen to him. I am sad to say, my mother WAS one of those right up until her death a few months ago. I am staying at her house since she passed and get to throw away all the propaganda material these people send out, although at times I can't help but read some of it to see how crazy the lies got this time. Well, today, once again, I received some drivel from them and I would have ignored it and put it in the recycle bin with the rest of the waste paper when the headline on the front of the letter caught my eye. It says, "... Obama: Quit Listening to Rush Limbaugh if You Want to Get Things Done..." And inside (I had to find out what he was up to this time) was more drivel. So, I read on. It starts out as usual, "...Dear Fellow American, I've sent you this letter and "SAY NO TO CENSORSHIP!" petition because Barack Obama and his liberal allies are looking to silence their few remaining critics in the media.
And your "SAY NO TO CENSORSHIP!" petition may be the only way to stop them.
Please take just one moment of your time to sign it and mail it back to me today in the enclosed RAPID REPLY ENVELOPE. ..."
First of all, I can't remember the last time I ever heard of liberals being the ones who were condoning censorship. I will let you know who the real perpetrators of the Fairness Doctrine were. In an attempt to allow free speech for everyone the Fairness Doctrine was as follows:
(Quote from Wikipedia)
"...The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.

The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949. The doctrine remained a matter of general policy and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.

In 1974 the Federal Communications Commission asserted that the United States Congress had delegated it the power to mandate a system of "access, either free or paid, for person or groups wishing to express a viewpoint on a controversial public issue..." but that it had not yet exercised that power because licensed broadcasters had "voluntarily" complied with the "spirit" of the doctrine. It warned that "should future experience indicate that the doctrine of "voluntary compliance" is inadequate, either in its expectations or in its results, the Commission will have the opportunity—and the responsibility—for such further reassessment and action as would be mandated...."

So, not only did the Fairness Doctrine say NOTHING about censorship, it wasn't proposed by liberals. It was proposed by conservatives that hadn't had the chance to be heard on what they called the liberal media. Let me tell you what happened later: 1) A supreme court decision ruled that during a law suit against the act was not considered valid since the act was still considered constitutional. The court statement was: "... Writing for the Court, Justice Byron White declared:

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment that prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

The Court warned that if the doctrine ever restrained speech, then its constitutionality should be reconsidered.

However, in the case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote (for a unanimous court), "Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate." This decision differs from Red Lion v. FCC in that it applies to a newspaper, which, unlike a broadcaster, is unlicensed and can face a theoretically unlimited number of competitors. ..."
Do you see how convoluted the whole situation is by now? It merely stated that freedom of speech must be upheld by The News Media as a whole. Now, later on there were more and more opponents to this act but guess who upheld them and threatened to veto any act of congress that opposed this act? They were, in order:
"In June 1987, Congress had attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the Fairness Doctrine, but the legislation was vetoed by a famous liberal (HA!) named President Ronald Reagan. Another attempt to revive the doctrine in 1991 was stopped when another famous liberal, President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto. Do you see where this is going?

The fairness act was supported by the Republicans to make sure they got the last word on the radio, press, and other media and now Mr. Limbaugh in his attempt to act like he knows something is making an ass of himself by saying this:
"...As you know, there are only a handful of cable news and radio options for those of us who were interested in finding out the facts" (I am laughing here) "...about Barack Obama's political agenda."
I don't have enough time to think up and write them all down, including Hannity, O'Reilly, Both Chris's and the entire Fox News Staff.
He went on to say: "...Meanwhile Barack Obama has the network of "big-wigs at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and all of Hollywood firmly in his back pocket. Unfortunately, it looks like the few unbiased news outlets that are left may soon be gone. You see, Barack Obama's leftist allies in Congress are promising to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine".
If you've heard of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", then you know there's nothing fair about it. Why? Because it gives the federal government the power to decide which radio shows, TV programs and possibly even websites you can and can't read or listen to. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid call it a "legislative fix" for talk radio shows and television programs that are "too conservative". In short, it's a blatant attempt to silence the few voices of dissent in an overwhelmingly liberal news industry. ..." Now, is it just me, or does this guy sound like he is playing the victim of his own B.S.? In fact, upon investigation, we find out the Fairness Doctrine was introduced in 1949 so we know damned well when the Republicans introduced this that they had poor Rush Limbaugh and the other million or so "handful of" conservatives in 2009 in mind to put an end to them a mere 60 years later. (Yeah, yah think?)
I would go on but it goes on for ever. The point is, at the end of all this baloney, he asks for a donation to help save the world and of not less than 25 dollars and not more than one thousand to an "unlimited blank amount" on his supposed petition that he isn't sending to congress. He doesn't even give people the chance to decide how much or what to say (which I guess is good for conservatives) and he has it addressed to someone named Jeff Mazzella, President. Mr. Mazzella is mentioned on the letter to his attention at the Center For Individual Freedom. I picture the millions of dittoheads writing their checks and sending into the center so they can be granted, by Rush Limbaugh and his scam organization, the freedom to be an individual, like so many lemmings running over a cliff. Is anyone as distracted as I am from this deliberate political manipulation for money in the name of individual freedom? I am going mail this copy to the White House and see if they want to donate. I guess you get what you pay for.
Oh, and did I forget to mention? This is the report from Fox News; the news source that the Rightwing conservatives like Limbaugh claim to be so connected with. It states that the White House told them a while back that Barack Obama opposes the revival of the Fairness Doctrine.

Money Matters!

Size does matter when it comes to MY bank account. When my retirement funds disappeared, when everything else these guys at the banks told me seems to be crumbling away and there seems NO WAY to get through the last bailout package without turning over a new set of government money that seems like throwing good money after bad, then, I am just as worried as the next guy. Over the years I have learned that there are very few people who can actually predict what is going to happen with the stock market. So, this is what I have always figured. The stock market is a crap shoot (a gamble) now matter how you slice it. What the hell is wrong with us today? I just read something on Motley Fool, who I never got a bad report from yet. They say that the investment banks (investment banks means they gamble with out money to increase capital rather than wait to earn interest the way we do) have had some rough times. The report is: *"House of cards
And I really mean collapse. Of the big five investment banks, only Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) and Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) are still standing, with Lehman, Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch all either bankrupt or sold."


Same with the biggest retail banks. Citigroup (NYSE: C) fell from over $50 per share to under $5 per share despite huge cash infusions, and Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) looks to be getting there. Wachovia, the fourth-biggest bank, was acquired. Washington Mutual, the sixth-biggest, became the biggest failure in U.S. banking history.

Without government assistance, it seems likely that most of the top-tier banks would have collapsed. As if that weren't enough, the Bank Insurance Fund (BIF) -- which provides deposit insurance -- has less than $100 billion, enough to cover only 1.01% of outstanding deposits. Citigroup alone has over $600 billion in deposits. By itself, Washington Mutual would have drained the BIF if the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. hadn't used sleight of hand to transfer WaMu's operations to JPMorgan (NYSE: JPM).

With widespread bank failures, deposit insurance would falter, and the taxpayers would be footing the bill regardless. That's why we see all these acquisitions -- because the banking system can't handle the failures. It's cheaper for the country to just save the banks.

The domino effect
If we do let the banks go under, there will be huge problems, because our whole economic system runs on credit. How many small companies use lines of credits to handle seasonality in their businesses? How many large companies rely on sales of commercial paper? If that money is unavailable, many completely viable businesses will go under because of liquidity issues.

Any company that uses debt is vulnerable. Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG) is practically invincible in any normal situation. But it has $35 billion in net debt. What happens when its lenders ask for some of that money back, and it has to borrow at 15% to get the cash? Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) has $41 billion in net debt. When nobody wants to lend, how do you borrow $41 billion?

What happens when the farmers, truckers, and other businesses making up the backbone of our infrastructure, fail? Will there still be food on the supermarket shelves? I don't know, but I'm not eager to find out."

I follow the blogs and it doesn't seem to matter to some people whether our economy as a nation dissolves. I guess they don't realise that the day that happens is when we will have to resort to something, then, and only then will we end up having to resort to the exact same things that Republicans say they are afraid of. They don't seem to realise that they are leading to the road of all of their greatest fears. I never agreed that we should live on Credit instead of a Gold Reserve, Richard Millhouse Nixon (that's right, the same guy who helped give us the Watergate scandal) did that for us. So, at that point we live on credit (money lent to us by foreign banks) right now China is our biggest lender. I notice when the news stations talk about us borrowing money from China now they never use the word 'red' in front of it like they used to in order to remind us they were communists. You see, if we get too far into debt instead of working on fixing the national debt and we already owe most of our money to a communist country, what do you think is going to happen when they see us depending on them? What happens when they pull the plug? I am sure they are going to help us one more time as long as we let them dictate to us what kind of economic system we will set up to get enough money to survive. No, but the same people who are screaming about this becoming a socialist/communist society already are going to make that happen.

I just found an article which resoundingly cries the problems we have are deficits of the Clinton administration's insistance that the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lend money to people who couldn't afford to pay back the loans. And so, as usual, they are trying to make excuses for the people who are called (please pay attention to this first word) predatory lenders. Compass Bank and Bank of America actually had commercials in Arizona stating that they were giving home loans and that I.D. and background checks weren't necessary. Who were they telling that? I dare you to tell me that you don't think that was aimed at illegal aliens. Here is how that works. You sell them a house. they make the down payment, the first years monthly payments, then, you see that they have plenty of warning that the A.R.M. is getting ready to become unaffordable. their usual M.O. is to change fake I.D., become someone else, and disappear. You, as the lender, pretend they were renting the house while it was on the market, clean and do the repair work and NOW you resell the house as new again. The banks got in over their heads. Fannie and Freddie were but a portion of the housing crisis. And you people who don't live in places like this don't understand what kind of prices they were charging here for living space. 1.5 million for a condominium with one bedroom and 2.5 million for one with two bedrooms. I was working for the company who was donit the scaffolding for the job. They told us on the first day to be careful not to lean on the wall. It would knock a hole in it, because the wall was mostly styrofoam and really cheap plywood about a half inch too thin.

They built the places really fast, but they didn't worry about how well they did them and as usual, they built them like they were expecting more growth than we have seen here since the auto plants closed down in '81.

I was in Iowa recently and they look at you as if you have genitals growing from your forehead if you mention trying to sell a house for over 150,000 dollars. So, imagine what they would think about farm workers buying a house in Scottsdale. That is a good part of what happened to the housing market. I am a construction worker, so I saw it first hand.

And now there are those of us who were paying on time, had our house or condo/townhouse paid for, and then all of a sudden trying to get a credit card or loan became like asking to be the victim of a loan shark. The only thing I find ironic is that those were the first banks to fail. They invested their money in houses no one wanted. The housing market does this every so often, especially during an election year. No one figured Wall Street to start all these problems that they did. Also, anyone who thinks this was an economic cycle and isn't normal better ask yourself how much money the Arabs had invested here. The Chinese almost own us now, literally. So, keep making waves and insisting to your congressmen that the stimulus isn't a good idea and you have sold us to them completely.

OK, now, let's talk about the "Federal Reserve Banking System". I found a video explaining the problems we always have with them. Please excuse the fact that the guy who is speaking is not Robert Redford. Federal Reserve.



<
* Motley Fool "http://www.fool.com/investing/value/2009/01/30/this-bailout-is-great.aspx" >

Use Logic for God's Sake

OK, here we are. Completely honest. What is the problem with arguing over what politician is wrong? The fact is that most of them at least Lie By Omission. That means they rarely tell the whole truth. The reason is they are usually lawyers to begin with. Let me explain, Lawyer Honesty: Two people check into a motel room. The clerk asks, "Are you two married?" They answer, "Yes." Although what he meant was to each other, although he didn't ask. So, both of them are cheating on their spouse, but... they are married. Alright, the stupid thing is, arguing about the virtue of any specific politician is usually fruitless because they all lie. They have to. NO HUMAN BEING CAN STAND UP TO THE SCRUTINY OF THE MEDIA AND LIVE UP TO THE PERFECT IDEAL WE HAVE SET FOR PEOPLE IN PUBLIC OFFICE. Do I need to repeat that for it to sink in? NO ONE. So, attacking a politician because he lied is like getting mad at ice for being cold or water for being wet. It is in their nature. We the public and the ENTIRE media have created that pedestal they have to stand on and it is impossible for them to rise above the rank of human being. We might as well admit that to ourselves and quit trying to canonize our candidates. But we know the history of George W. Bush, we got to know him somewhat over eight years.

OK, George Bush at least seemed like, a bumbler. He acted like he was suffering from early onset dementia, although people like Tony Blair vouch for him and say, "He isn't stupid. He knows what he wants. He just doesn't know how to express himself well about what he wants." I don't know for myself. All I know is what I see on TV and I can tell you that the comedians are sorry to see him go because of the amount of material he supplied them with. His quotes will always be famous. He was the king of bloopers. He himself said once, “They know my blunt ways of speaking. I get that from Mom. They know I sometimes mangle the English language. I get that from Dad”. Sometimes I think he was putting on an well rehearsed act that his dad taught him in order to keep up the facade of being too stupid to lie. He comes off like a moron. But, then that makes sense. You couldn't sell that many people on something evil and unconstitutional like the patriot act and not be a gifted flake-pretender. It was so long and Congress was so scared and in a tizzy that they hurried up and passed it and didn't bother to read it until afterwards. The House of Representitives gets so many bills that they kind of skim read a few of them and pass almost everything on to the Senate to approve or deny. I guess they figure between the senate and the president, someone will catch any mistakes. Well, what if the president is part of the crew who wrote it? Only a few in the Senate read it, because they were in a state of panic after the 9/11 attack, just like the rest of the country. OK, more logic, think about this. The same people who sold us the Patriot Act are the same ones who told us that Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9/11. Dick Cheney kept saying that Hussein attacked us, despite all the evidence, right up until John Kerry made him correct the statement during a debate. Just think, if someone who looked like Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney (Or can you imagine Dick Nixon in his hayday?) had tried to sell the package it never would have happened. George was their front man. As evil as Dick Cheney looks, standing on the steps of Senate, trying to relate this bill. Well, you know how that worked before, with him ending up telling them, "You know what, f**k you guys!" They never bought his bull***t after that, either. But, someone with an accent like Andy Griffith, and who fumbled around like Jethro Clampett talking to Miss Jane, and who looked kind of like a Texas version of Alfred E. Newman could pull it off. I really don't know if he is aware of how many people that he made mad at him. But, after his speech in Crawford, on returning to his Ranch after losing the election he spoke to the press and told them, "I don't feel like I did anything wrong and can hold my head up high." So, personally, I don't think he ever cared who he hurt. You can tell that his wife and everyone else around him have to give him support, they have to tell him 'he is doing the right thing', and "don't pay any attention to what people say" (which I must say is one of his biggest failings). He seems to think being in public ridicule is part of the job.

Barrack Obama is made fun of. He makes fun of himself. His ears, his slender physique, his middle name even, and he takes it in stride. Bush sure had a campaign of misinformation going constantly the whole time Karl Rove worked for him, earning Rove the nickname "Turd Blossom", a Texas prairie flower that thrives in bullsh*t. People who are trying to limit of discredit Obama's credentials are the same type said that the movie "Farenheit 9/11" was full of lies didn't realise it was a documentary full of film footage because they were told not to even watch it. And they didn't. Who can believe that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld didn't have attacking Iraq on the agenda long before 9/11? I think by now most of us know better. So, if they were so adamantly trying to deceive us to permit themselve the lattitude to institute covert ops that they knew the average American wouldn't approve of, then, that is WHY they lied. We know they all do it, we just don't know to what extent each of them does and his bunch were robust with Blue Sky (the initials are the same) speeches. I have no anger for these men now. I just wish they should be indicted like the law states. Guantanamo Bay was controversial back when the movie "A Few Good Men" came out and little did we know it was going to be a warning of what was to come. How prophetic that movie was, and the attitude is still the same, "You can't handle the truth!" As of the Freedom Of Information act it is stated that by law we can handle the truth and we better get it. But, we had people in our government who thought they could get away with covering up and hiding the fact that they were questioning people who weren't charged with a crime and were using torture techniques to "ask" a question. The fact remains that these people didn't do anything wrong, but, so SOMEONE would serve as an example, they were dragged off to prison in front of their neighbors. When Rumsfeld was interrogated by the nine eleven comission and stated that they were not soldiers, freedom fighters, or terrorists but they were in the area when something happened so they wanted to know if they has seen something, they were due to be released in 4 or 5 days, I realised we had finally gotten to the point where we were dealing with people as spooky, crazy, and evil as "Colonel Flagg" from the "M.A.S.H." series. It takes extreme paranoia to act that nuts. Unfortunately they carried it out to a science and it became like mass hysteria with a certain percent of our country who are paranoid anyway. I serf the web in the blogs and I can tell you, there is a lot of misguided people out there and they are fed misinformation on top of just being self-deluded. It is hard for me to understand but, I have to remember at one time I had no more reason or logic than these people but I was institutionalized 30 years ago for only talking half as crazy as what is now common. It just isn't logical or true. You can't run a country based on information given you by Political Pundits. Especially the right wing crackpots. Even Bill O'Reilly got disillusioned with the Bush administration eventually. But you won't hear him admit that now. And if anyone thinks Shawn Hannity interviewing Rush Limbaugh is fair and balanced and wasn't a staged act then you are more delusional than they are.

What Religious Beliefs Are Sacred?

I find this topic interesting. The same people who believe in the creation theory and Noah's Ark somehow belong to the same group of humans who believe in Republican values? Is that correct? I see some people who state that the world was created in seven days and believe it as if they were there at the time. I think I just want to say, "What about fossils? They were here for thousands of years before man. We only have a record about what happened that is a somewhat interpreted description from ancient (a couple thousand years) old scrolls. And the age of the earth, as far as we can tell, the generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.
The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.
As far as animals go, The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.
Last night on television some guy who want his wife to dress almost as if she were amish and said his (three girls) children were rased to act the same way their mother did. They called it returning to good American family values. He stated once that a woman wearing pants was against his religious convictions. You tell me, what religion says women can't wear pants since it is unlady like? Actually, here is the history according to paleontology. "The oldest human fossil found (named Lucy and found in Ethiopia) has been back dated to between 3 and 3.6 million years ago. Lucy was not a Homo Sapien, but we do know that she was a hominid, she walked upright. Chances are our species are direct desendants of Lucy's species.

If you want to get specific, the first Homo Sapien walked the Earth around 200,000 years ago, but no one is really quite sure about that. The reason being that it is difficult to find fossils. The earliest Homo Sapien found to date is 200,000 years old but that's not to say a Homo Sapien could be found that dates back 400,000 years or longer!

Some will even claim that Homo Sapiens have only been on the Earth for about 100,000 years. If that's the case it is trtuly remarkable how far we have come in such a short time, well I guess if we've been here 200,000 years that's remarkable too. After all Dinosaurs were on the Earth for 250 million years, and what did they get done?"
So when you see a diarama of a man hiding from a dinosaur, remember that people who believe that must think the Flintstones is a documentary. Dinosaurs were extinct well before man. So, if the book says that God created all the animals and man in seven days, that is impossible. These aren't theories, we know this. So, the creation story can't be true. I don't know of hearing of anyone who was there, so, it was one of those wise old men stories that someone from Europe could call an "old wive's tale" because they didn't know so they made something up that sounded good.