I was raised in the Alaskan "bush." This is an old issue.
If wolves are a factual problem to mankind, who cares as to how they are killed. That's not to sanction aircraft in place of a rifle or a trap, relative to "ordinary" hunting and trapping. For one thing, the aircraft accident rate would go through the already sky-high roof, for 'bush' accidents. To do such hunting requires a slow airspeed -add sharp maneuvering - putting an aircraft on top of a stall-spin scenario at too low an altitude, for successful recovery.
Often, herds of thousands of caribou manage to slip into the bush, undetected, for six months, or more. So to blame wolves for over-kill of the herds is often poorly justified. In reality, wolves can kill caribou like delta-force on a rampage, but nature has her magical way of reliably balancing the wildlife populations.
In the background, the State Fish & Game has historically had near gestapo powers to preclude even the 'ordinary' hunting of any wildlife, add fishing. Arial wolfe hunting was once legal, but has historically been one of the worst offences one can commit.
Sarah may be pissing atop a powerful air vent. (Even with her Chutzpah, she can't piss into the wind.)
Often, herds of thousands of caribou manage to slip into the bush, undetected, for six months, or more. So to blame wolves for over-kill of the herds is often poorly justified. In reality, wolves can kill caribou like delta-force on a rampage, but nature has her magical way of reliably balancing the wildlife populations.
Exactly. Nature has done quite well on her own for millions of years, I don't think she needs nor wants Man's help.
Go read your Bible. Add up all the begats and begats. Go back to the original creation and you have your answer. I haven't counted it up but I know its not millions.
Besides if it was millions of years old where are all the bodies?
Which version, the Hebrew or the English? I can't seem to find where in Genesis the exact year was given of Creation, can you find it?
It doesn't matter. The dates are the same. Show me a contradiction in dates if your not just blabbering.
Or just use the good old King James version. God promised his word would be translated into all tongues. Have faith in your creator. He is not a weakling like some seem to think.
You said that earlier. You sound like a broken record player. Anyway Adam is the name of a man. That being so someone probably took his name and used it as the name for mankind. Not that complicated. I'm surprised you didn't figure it out. On second thought no i'm not.
I just defined it. It was the date of creation 0 at creation
Ok, then I say the Earth formed billions of years ago, and life did not all of sudden pop up, it took another billion years or so for sentient creatures to walk the Earth.
In fact, what about all the other worlds being created as we speak? They aren't forming in a day, they are still being formed from gasses. Why doesn't the Bible speak about them, and why THEY aren't forming in a day?
In fact, are you sure you know how long a day is in the eyes of the Creator?
Ok, then I say the Earth formed billions of years ago, and life did not all of sudden pop up, it took another billion years or so for sentient creatures to walk the Earth.
Do you REALLY believe that?
True macro evolution belief is only for die-hard believers who have gone over the edge of reality into the abyss of insanity.
True macro evolution belief is only for die-hard believers who have gone over the edge of reality into the abyss of insanity.
Do you think the Earth is the center of the Universe? Apparently you do, as you believe that all that exists revolves around you and your world.
How small can you think? Creation is an ongoing process, and we can see billions of stars in this galaxy alone, each of which is a sun (in case you didn't know what a star was).
Each of those stars (or suns) may well have their own planetary system, and at least a few of those planets amongst those distant solar systems could have intelligent life on them.
Have you never imagined anything other than what you've been told, or beyond what you were taught to think? If it's not dictated to you by a preacher, must it be a lie or impossible?
You are apparently the sort of person who clings to junk science and superstition, while at the same time throwing stones at those who speak of true science. Were you at the bottom of your class in grade school? Did you ever finish high school?
You are irrational and akin to those who believed the world was supported by elephants traveling around in circles.
You really believe this single little chunk of matter is the center of the Universe.
Before I had access to the Internet I thought people such as you existed in the Middle Ages, but not in the 20th century (and of course the 21st century nowadays). I thought only retards and jungle dwellers were as uneducated and totally clueless on such things.
I've seen many things since I first logged onto the net, but that sort of ignorance still shocks me to this day.
You really believe this single little chunk of matter is the center of the Universe.
That's not what I was commenting on and you know it. You said "creation is an ongoing process", that is what I find so unbelievable. What is it that you think has been created lately without man doing it? Even then man is only using the resources already in existence, no new matter is being created by man. To believe in macro evolution one must believe that in enough time that the computers of today, which are much less complex than humans, could come into existence without anyone ever making them and programs for them that can do meaningful things such as edit an image could happen by pure chance without anyone actually making them. Sorry, but that kind of faith is WAY beyond my level of faith in anything, including God.
To believe in macro evolution one must believe that in enough time that the computers of today, which are much less complex than humans, could come into existence without anyone ever making them and programs for them that can do meaningful things such as edit an image could happen by pure chance without anyone actually making them.
BTW, I never said that God did not create all that exists, I simply said it did not happen the way ancient desert dwellers described it.
Can't you see that Nature IS the process of Creation? Can't you understand that evolution is but a tiny piece of that Creation, and that Creation itself goes well beyond that?
Can't you understand that evolution is but a tiny piece of that Creation, and that Creation itself goes well beyond that?
Let's put it this way. I would not believe in God before I would buy the story of macro evolution. If believing in God required believing in macro evolution then I would be an atheist.
If believing in God required believing in macro evolution then I would be an atheist.
Oh, and why is that?
Macro evolution does not need a God to occur. So why believe in a God when there would be no reason to do so?
My faith in God is not irrational, and is minuscule compared to the faith people who believe in macro evolution have to have in order to believe it. Belief in macro evolution is irrational.
Macro evolution does not need a God to occur. So why believe in a God when there would be no reason to do so?
Wrong. The very fact that DNA is a blueprint for life indicates that an intelligence beyond our understanding created not only the DNA, but the concept of DNA and the mechanisms for it to behave as it does.
That's nothing compared to the nature of matter, energy, time, and space. For it all to behave as it does, and for life to exist, there has to something beyond dumb luck.
OK, if you would have told me you were a troll at the start I could have saved my typing on you. You are taking my words out of context and then implying something I am in no way saying.
Your words to RickyJ - "LOL I could have told you that would happen"
This is why I don't trust you as far as I can spit, as you have a habit of siding with anyone who disparages me here, no matter what the topic might be, and no matter how ludicrous the other poster's comment might be.
In fact, I don't think you have EVER sided with me, except in perhaps a rare case here or there in that opposition to what I said would not bring you any support.
In other words, I STILL think you are nothing but a shill.
Show me how I'm wrong. Demonstrate where I have taken words out of context here, and how you aren't just siding with Ricky in an attempt to make me look bad, where I've done nothing here that you are accusing me of.
This is why I don't trust you as far as I can spit, as you have a habit of siding with anyone who disparages me here, no matter what the topic might be, and no matter how ludicrous the other poster's comment might be.
If I had a dollar for everytime you have taken what I said and twisted it into something it was not, I wouldn't be hurting for money right now. And if you go back and read my post you will see that is the only part I quoted or agreed with.
In fact, I don't think you have EVER sided with me, except in perhaps a rare case here or there in that opposition to what I said would not bring you any support.
I used to think you were a friend so I must have sided with you at some point. Now I pretty much ignore you actually. Rarely do I ever post to you and today I was quite civil to you. We used to agree quite often before you started calling me a shill and suggesting I was untrustworthy, twisting what I say and accusing me of all kinds of crap like posting under another name etc. As for your suggestion that I oppose you just to oppose you, you are just not that important.
I really could't care less if you trust me or not. Couldn't care less if you think I'm a shill. As for people supporting me, I don't base my opinions on whether they will be popular or not and I have been known to rush to the defense of those I completely disagree with simply because I consider them a friend. I regret having ever called you a friend. I felt stabbed in the back when you turned on me without warning. So when you start saying I'm untrustworthy or a shill, I just assume you are projecting.