Handsome Rob

"Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level & beat you with experience"

Cite your proof. If you read it simply as fictional story, it's a fantastically entertaining read.

So then we have to believe that a long time ago, people had a life expectancy of (possibly) billions of years? That single fact, for me, throws the entire argument out of the water. I don't think I have made any definately false statements, but I do think you've made at least one that is incomprehensibly odd, that being the possible age of Adam & Eve being in the billions of years & the fact they may have been superhuman is unimportant. If they existed at all, which I firmly believe is a long shot at best & as likely as Princess Leah & Luke Skywalker.

I think the point I have been trying to make is that Religion, all Religion as based on books. People who believe these religons take the stories in these books and take them as the truth, as absurd as some of them may be. I simply cannot wrap my head around the fact that people can believe these stories to be true & yet dismiss other stories (Let's say, Star Wars) to be fictional. Star Wars is set 'Long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away' Therefore it's unproveable & probably (although not defintely) made up. The Bible was written long ago, in a country far away, buy an unknown person. How is it any more plausible than Star Wars? The physics behind the creation of the Universe is, admittedly, sketchy but it is plausible & large amounts of it are proveable. The entire theory of creationism teeters on the acceptance of the bible as being ultimately true, implausible as it may be.

So, the bible's true apart from the parts that aren't, or are are unexplainable, but let's choose to believe it anyway & build theories that fit, until we decide they don't and change them or are proved wrong so we'll change the parameters of the theory so they fit again?

Now that I can believe

Yeah, but only by a couple of days, if the bible is to be believed. It takes thousands of years for fossilization to occur. According to the bible, the world isn't old enough for fossils to have formed.

I'm sorry but I'm obviously missing something. Can you explain how the quoted passage explains the existence of fossiis?

It's an issue because if the Bible is true, fossils cannot exist.

To fill, nourish or make complete again. Your argument illustrates my point perfectly. You're quoting a book that may not be true, as though it were a factual, historical account.

Mememememememememe!

Not a clue chief. If the Bible's true, why do we have fossils?

Give it chance to warm up chief........

I'm not trying to discount Science in any way, shape or form. I completely believe the Theory of Evolution to be true, because, as you say, it can indeed be measured & observed. I know the expansion rate of the universe can be measured & if a sphere is expanding in every possible direction it can, at a constant rate, as has been proved, then it stands to reason that the expansion must have started at a singular point. My opinion of Creationism Theory is that it is inherently flawed because it based on a book that has absolutely no actual proveability. My point was that the inflamed opinions that I see so frequently are from peple who believe that both of these theories are absolute truths, and that maybe folks ought to think about things with a clear & logical mind before screaming at each other that they MUST be right (Because the Bible or Theoretical Science says so) I highlighted the word 'Theoretical' simply to illustrate the point that whilst Evolution & the Birth of the Universe are both proveable, neither can be experimentally repeated, which in the scientific community is the definition of Science Fact. It can only ever, honestly, be considered Theory because of that one simple reason.

Feeling argumentative today Daniel? Or maybe just inflammatory?

Just bfore this blows up beyond all comprehension (again) I'd just like to point out that Stephen Hawking is a THEORETICAL physicist. He devises possible THEORIES based on what little evidence is available to him. He neither poses nor presents his theories as fact. Can all the creationists please remeber this. He never (& to the best of my knowledge, no other Theoretical Physicist has either) claims any of his ideas to be impirical truths. The argument of creation vs. Big Bang/evolution will never be more than an argument between to theroetical possibilities. One based on Scientific principals that cannot be proven, the other based on a book that could easily be a work of fiction.

Who is she & where do I get one?

This'll make you do something childish in yer under britches then......

While Salma is the almost perfect Woman (Face, figure, lung mittens, attitude, lung mittens, persnality, lung mittens) Ifyou're talking about sexy Mexies, you just cannot ignore the beauty that is Nadine Velazquez. Best reason there is to watch My Name is Earl......

Edited to prevent my own banning.....

If you're going to be mostly going after skwerls, I would definatley go with a .22LR There are so many makes & models available you can outfit yourself for very little outlay. You don't need fancy (or, indeed, any) optics for squirrels. Most of your shots will be well under 20yds so a scope can be more hinderance than help. Bulk Wally World ammo at around $18 for 550 rounds are more than adequate. I personally wouldn't use .22LR on a fox. I think it's just waaay to light. A .22WMR is a great fox/coyote round as long as you understand the limitations (100yds is about out as far as I'd want to get) A .22 mag carries roughly the same energy at 100yds as a .22LR does at the muzzle. Put one through the lungs of a fox or 'yote & it won't go far. I'm not a geat fan of the .17 Many folks see it as the 'magical' do-all small game round, but they're comapratively expensive, are very badly affected by the wind & have a tendency (on occasion) to fragment on impact giving little to no penetration. They're perfect for taking head shots on rabbit sized game & will completely vaporise a squirrel, if body shot so I can't really recommend them for squirrels If I were you, I'd look into picking up a cheap, used .22LR for the tree-rats & a reasonably cheap WMR for the bigger stuff. My personal armory is a Winchester Wildcat in .22LR (Superbly accurate littl bolt-gun) & a Marlin 882 in .22WMR Both cost under $200 (The Wildcat was brand new, the Marlin used) plus te cost of a half-decent scope for the Marlin. Obviously, you're milage may vary

Well a buddy of mine & I have spent the last 3 days scouting out possible fields & onething I can say with a certainty, this is definately a yearto be hunting over Sunflowers if you can. We've seen very few birds over shelled corn & almost none over top-sown wheat (Most of which, I think, was sown a week too early for Doves) Every Sunflower field we've scouted has been covered up with birds. Bark Camp Barrens in Coffee Co. is looking like it'll be the hot ticket. Sunflowers & Millet have the birds going nuts over there. We'll be there at about 7am tomorrow I reckon!

Maybe look into Traditional archery. A recurve or longbow is a great hunting tool. Lightweight & easy to carry & you can certainly be profficient in a year. To be honest, it's a lot more fun that shooting with the wheels on! You don't need half the 'must have' gadgets, just a simple stick & string, a well matched arrow (wood, carbon or alloy, all are good!) & you're good to go! Yes, you're limiting your range to 20yds max (or so) but that's where th adrenaline really kicks in. I don't even begin to get a buzz these days until the animal's within 20yds. Keep it simple & don't believe a thing you see on any of the hunting shows! Two weeks? Really? It ain't that easy! I can take 2 or 3 months to get a bow & arrow combination properly tuned. Learning to shoot & shoot well cannot be learned in 2 months, let a lone a couple of weeks!

Is a 'girl's bike' also called a 'Menstrual cycle'? Sorry.

"If I ever get shot with a .25 & I find out about it, I'll be seriously upset!" "A small caliber pistol is worse than useless for self defense" "Birdshot won't stop an attacker" "Overkill" (What is 'underkill'??)