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.
The world flat. lol. That is what "scientists used to think. If they had only consulted their Bible and read Isiah they would have known better.
There are plenty of artifacts a million years older than the Bible, long before Isiah (sic) roamed the earth.
January 30th, 2009 @ 4:39am By JULIA ZAPPEI Associated Press Writer
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) - Malaysian archeologists have unearthed prehistoric stone axes that they said Friday were the world's oldest at about 1.8 million years old.
Seven axes were found with other tools at an excavation site in Malaysia's northern Perak state in June, and tests by a Tokyo laboratory indicate they were about 1.83 million years old, said Mokhtar Saidin, director of the Center for Archaeological Research at the University of Science Malaysia.
The group released their conclusions Thursday, and other archeologists have not yet examined the results.
"It's really the first time we have such evidence (dating back) 1.83 million years," Mokhtar said, adding that the oldest axes previously discovered were 1.6 million years old in Africa.
However, other chopping tools, as well as human remains, have been found in Africa that are much older, with some dating back 4 million years, he said.
Geochronology Japan Inc., a lab in Tokyo, calculated the age of the tools by analyzing the rock that covered them, Mokhtar said. The result has a margin of error of 610,000 years, he said.
Some previous discoveries have suggested there were humans in Southeast Asia up to 1.9 million years ago, but those have been disputed, said Harry Truman Simanjuntak, a researcher at the National Research Center of Archaeology in Jakarta.
Simanjuntak cautioned that others still need to investigate claims about the axes' age.
The oldest previous evidence of human existence in Malaysia was stone tools dating back about 200,000 years, found at the same excavation site in Perak.
The archeologists are trying to find human bone remains in Perak, Mokhtar said, but stressed that it might be unlikely because of decay due to warm, humid climate conditions. The oldest bones found in Perak so far have only been about 10,000 years old.
(Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.) AP Scraping Prohibition
Anyone can say anything. Tell me how they came up with this number.
Did you read the article or just get your panties in a wad and zip off a quick response? : )
FROM THE ARTICLE: However, other chopping tools, as well as human remains, have been found in Africa that are much older, with some dating back 4 million years, he said. (Did you catch that, Old Friend? 4 MILLION)
Geochronology Japan Inc., a lab in Tokyo, calculated the age of the tools by analyzing the rock that covered them, Mokhtar said. The result has a margin of error of 610,000 years, he said. (note that the axes in question could be 1.2 Million years old OR 2.4 Million years old)
And, no, not just anyone is saying anything. These are scientists and archeologists who are making the statements and deciding the numbers. These are professionals, not a bunch of bloggers stating opinions.
Anyone can say anything. Tell me how they came up with this number.
My statement stands. You don't even know how they came up with these numbers. You take it on faith. Faith in man. Use your head. There can be no scientific method to determine the age of something allegedly a million years old. They weren't there and there is NO WAY IN HELL to scientifically prove any of these supposed ages in millions of years.
You googled an artlcle that you thought would make your point and expect me to take it as a fact when you can't even tell me how they came up with this number. Ridiculous.
My statement stands. You don't even know how they came up with these numbers. You take it on faith. Faith in man. Use your head. There can be no scientific method to determine the age of something allegedly a million years old. They weren't there and there is NO WAY IN HELL to scientifically prove any of these supposed ages in millions of years.
You googled an artlcle that you thought would make your point and expect me to take it as a fact when you can't e
LOL!! So sayeth you. Let me get this straight........I take it on faith while you hold your Bible up to answer all scientific inquiries. Touche on the 'use your head' tip. So, you think the Dinos were cruising around in the Garden of Eden? Must of been cramped in there.
I understand that humans have a feeble concept of linear time to help them survive. Without that, our feeble little brains might snap.....but God has no such problems to contend with.
Yes, there are scientific methods to date objects, artifacts, stars, galaxies. All sorts of pertinent issues that were mysteriously omitted from the Bible. According to your line of thinking the sun is still revolving around the earth since mere mathematical formulas proved this erroneous line of thinking.
Sheesh, it amazes me that this notion of dating in context to the Bible continues in this day and age. It's comical. How many scientists have been deemed heretics for simply stating the truth......truth that conflicts with linear and literal interpretations of the Bible?
Actually, I have the humility and faith to not put God in the same linear box that humans exit in. What is a week to God, Old Friend? What is a day? What is a moment? An eternity? Please check your Bible and get back to me. I'm not asking about human perceptions here.
Yes, there are scientific methods to date objects, artifacts, stars, galaxies.
But you don't understand them. You just accept them because some guy in a white jacket with a lable of "scientist" said so. That makes you a willing ignorant follower.
What part of unverifiable don't you understand. It is not science if it cannot be verified. Sheesh you think yourself smart but you are making a fool of yourself.
But you don't understand them. You just accept them because some guy in a white jacket with a lable of "scientist" said so. That makes you a willing ignorant follower.
What part of unverifiable don't you understand. It is not science if it cannot be verified. Sheesh you think yourself smart but you are making a fool of yourself.
No, dear, it is you who doesn't understand. Let me help you with some basic definitions for science:
1. originally, knowledge. 2. systemized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation. 3. a branch of knowledge, especially one concerned with ESTABLISHING AND SYSTEMIZING facts, principles, and methods 4. The systemized knowledge of nature
SCIENTIFIC: 1. of or dealing with science. 2. Used in or for natural science. 3. based on, or using, the principles and methods of science; systematic and exact. 4. done according to methods gained by training and experience. 5. skill, method, system.
Note that "unverifiable" is nowhere included in basic definitions. To begin with a hypothesis and then create a theory one must begin with what is NOT verified and then provide the body of evidence. For instance, Newton's theory of gravity was not initially VERIFIABLE but later attained this status and, hence, became a LAW. Science is an ever growing BODY OF KNOWLEDGE much of which is not proven VERIFIABLE.......at least not yet.
You do not understand science at even the most elementary level. However, you do claim to be some sort of expert on the Bible. Did you miss this passage? Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Mathew, v, 22. Or this one? A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself. Proverbs, xvii, 12.
There is nothing scientific about the theory of Evolution. Its all made up. Someone imagined it. On the other hand if the Bible is true you would expect to find some archelogical evidence pertaining to certain events found in the Bible. Take the flood for example. If that is true as the Bible says it is. Then you would expect to see some evidence of that event since it was supposed to be global. You would expect to find billions of dead things buried in mud laid down by water all over the earth. That is what you find in the fossil record.
The fossil record supports the creation model. In the fossil record there are no intermediary species as would be required for evolution to be true. As far as their dating method. It is flawed circular reasoning, but you know that. The Bible is true the flood happened. Real scientists usually know this.
Well didn't you just say that since the Bible mentions the flood, it HAS to ALL be true?
I'm just using your own logic here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but by using YOUR logic, since the Epic of Gilgamesh mentions the flood, it ALSO HAS to ALL be true.
Well didn't you just say that since the Bible mentions the flood, it HAS to ALL be true?
I'm just using your own logic here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but by using YOUR logic, since the Epic of Gilgamesh mentions the flood, it ALSO HAS to ALL be true.
There is nothing logical about you. The Bible is Gods word. History books are not. I would type it slower for you but you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.